Subject: [homenet] IPv6 Prefix delegation on IETF network, please ?

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 21:52:00 -0800

Thought maybe other folks beside me would chime in maybe help to ask for this for IETF95:

I was trying to play around with Homenet/OpenWrt during the hackathon and could not
nicely build out Homenet connection to the Internet because my internet provider
of choice (IETF ;-) did not offer IPv6 prefix delegation on its network.

I opened a case with the NOC but only got a thank you, can't do this time, case
closed back. Which i perfectly understand.

but if maybe more folks are interested to use/experiement (for whatever reason),
then maybe there would be sufficient motivation to do it next time...

Let me know if there is a better mailing list to ask for this.

Thanks!
    Toerless

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 17:16:28 +0900

Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > I was trying to play around with Homenet/OpenWrt during the hackathon
    > and could not nicely build out Homenet connection to the Internet
    > because my internet provider of choice (IETF ;-) did not offer IPv6
    > prefix delegation on its network.

    > I opened a case with the NOC but only got a thank you, can't do this
    > time, case closed back. Which i perfectly understand.

I think that what we need to do to support this kind of things is to have a
router that can do PD that would be brought, and plugged into a different
ESSID.  Then the time and risk is not borne by the NOC team.

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Markus Stenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:05:32 +0900

> On 2.11.2015, at 14.52, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote:

+1. 

Ideally the delegated prefix should be more than just /64 (e.g. at least /60 and ideally /56).

Cheers,

-Markus

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 19:18:00 +0100

> could not nicely build out Homenet connection to the Internet because my
> internet provider of choice (IETF ;-) did not offer IPv6 prefix
> delegation on its network.

I know that's not what you're asking about, but still...

The Homenet party line, er, consensus, is that we expect the ISP to allow
a delegation of /60 or shorter.  Both the reference implementation and the
HNCP draft are written with this in mind.  Which is fine.

However, a number of ISPs (including the IETF, it seems) do not allow
prefix delegation.  Do we ignore the problem, or do we modify the
implementation (not the draft, mind you, the draft is fine as it is) to
work around the possible failure of prefix delegation?

In other words -- who volunteers to bully Steven into integrating his
implementation of Proxy-ND with hnetd?

-- Juliusz

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 18:45:35 +0900

Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> wrote:
> prefix delegation.

No, that's not correct.
The IETF NOC team wasn't willing to adjust their setup for this event.
That doesn't mean that they won't fix things for a future meeting.

> Do we ignore the problem

It's not a problem.

---

From: Gabriel Kerneis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 11:13:28 +0100

> > However, a number of ISPs (including the IETF, it seems) do not allow

The "including the IETF" aside might not be correct, but the sentence as a
whole is correct.

> It's not a problem.

Having dealt with several (French and British) ISPs providing modems with
crappy firmwares, let me assure you that this is a very real problem.

Gabriel

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 08:16:49 +1100

In message <[email-masked]>,
> crappy firmwares, let me assure you that this is a very real problem.
 
Different problems.

Getting the IETF's DHCPv6 servers and routers configured to serve
and support PD requests is a very different problem to getting CPE
devices to properly support PD.

Getting DHCPv6 servers to respond to PD requests is easy.  Integrating
that with the routers is harder.  This is having the IETF simulate
being a ISP with wired home customers (assuming a wired connection)
compared to being a hotspot provider which it currently is.  If we
want to do it over wireless as well then the IETF needs to simulate
being a WISP.

Now doing a demo network w/o integrating the DHCPv6 servers and the
routers is also possible but requires a different planning.

Providing CTMS and similar is yet again a different problem.  We
have the vendors in the IETF that can supply all the gear with
suitable planning.  They have brought this sort of gear for
Bit-and-Bites in the past.

So what is the scope of the request and what needs to be simulated?

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 22:44:42 +0100

> So what is the scope of the request and what needs to be simulated?

There are two distinct requests here:

 1. have the IETF DHCPv6 servers delegate a /60 (at least) to any client
    that requests it;

 2. have the hnetd software automatically deal with the situation in which
    no DHCPv6 server performs prefix delegation by doing Proxy-ND or
    something equally hackish.

Request (1) comes from Toerless.  Request (2) comes from me, and, as noted
Gabriel, probably reflects a typically European point of view (since
a number of ISPs provide native-ish IPv6 but don't do PD).  The two
requests are not incompatible.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 09:53:20 +1100

In message <[email-masked]>, Juliusz Chroboczek wri
>  1. have the IETF DHCPv6 servers delegate a /60 (at least) to any client

Sounds like you want the IETF to simulate being a WISP.  I suggest
that you write down the complete plan and submit it to Jim Martin
[email-masked] so the noc team can plan for it.  Jim will let you
know if you need to ask elsewhere.  I can see several ways to do
this each with its own tradeoffs and levels of noc support and
preparation.

e.g.

>From a Linux/BSD box and switch you supply w/ /44 from the noc, a
DHCPv6 server and the DHCPv6 server just updating the routing table
on the host.  The noc just supplies a port for the upstream connection
and the address block.  Through to it being supported on all the
ssids.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:12:30 +0900

Mark Andrews <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > DHCPv6 server and the DHCPv6 server just updating the routing table on
    > the host.  The noc just supplies a port for the upstream connection and
    > the address block.  Through to it being supported on all the ssids.

I was thinking that we would have to ask the NOC for a /44.

But, I'm thinking that actually we can probably just ask the NOC to announce
the address space.  That decouples things much better and lets one set it
all up beforehand, debug it, and potentially take it elsewhere.

We can probably survive with a /48, which would give us 256 "customers"
It might be good to have two topologically "distant" /48s to setup two
ISPs [so that the two sets of addresses are more easily distinguished by
humans].
Probably need a small x86 box plus a 16-24 port switch as we likely don't
want this stuff on the IETF "LAN"

I will volunteer to set something up; it fits into part of my day job as a
matter of fact.  I can't promise to be in Buenos-Ares though.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:23:58 +0900

On 11/3/15 6:45 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> However, a number of ISPs (including the IETF, it seems) do not
>> allow prefix delegation.
> 
> No, that's not correct. The IETF NOC team wasn't willing to adjust
> their setup for this event. That doesn't mean that they won't fix
> things for a future meeting.

we have discussed doing it before, it's mostly a question of having
the right pieces in place and tested before hand. we have enough
moving parts this time with new routers that it's maybe not the best
place to be doing that also.

this network with respect to model/deployment looks more like an
interprise or campus build and less like an ISP, it also has to
contend with (in the case of the hotel net extensions) running on top
of third party gear which it doesn't control.

> It's not a problem.

shouldn't be.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:28:59 +0000

> of third party gear which it doesn't control.

There might be grist for a hackathon in this question.   I suspect that the needed tools are not all present.

--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/[email-masked]

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:34:26 +0000

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 04:42:25 +0000

>     something equally hackish.

Of course, the coolest thing to be able to do would be to have an SSID that is a homenet backbone network, with a single (or multiple) homenet edge routers, and then attach to that using additional homenet routers, which would join that homenet.   This would allow us to see a _lot_ of devices trying to interoperate, and probably show up some issues if there are any.

---

From: Pierre Pfister <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 13:48:43 +0900

> Le 5 nov. 2015 à 13:42, Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> a écrit :
> 

If not the whole IETF network can handle PD (because some routers would not support it), it would be nice to start with a subpart of it (e.g. the terminal room). Even do that on wire would be more interesting than nothing at all.

I also like this idea of setting up a homenet test environment for next time. It could be a nice interop. testing and I would gladly take part in that experiment (If I have the chance to be sent to IETF obviously).

- Pierre

---

From: Jim Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:17:44 +0900

Toerless,
	I think this is definitely something we can look into as a feature for future IETFs. We’ll investigate the infrastructure changes needed and will see when and if we can do it. 

	Thanks for asking!

	- Jim

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 94attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/94attendees

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:46:37 +0100

> Of course, the coolest thing to be able to do would be to have an SSID
> that is a homenet backbone network, with a single (or multiple) homenet
> edge routers, and then attach to that using additional homenet routers,
> which would join that homenet.  This would allow us to see a _lot_ of
> devices trying to interoperate, and probably show up some issues if
> there are any.

Good, healthy fun.  Let's try this for Buenos Aires.

-- Juliusz