Subject: [Int-area] Agenda and materials

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:03:56 +0900

Final agenda and all available agenda materials have been posted to  
the Meeting Materials web page.

- Ralph

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:42:52 +0900

I will also post a couple of additional things here. First, resending 
our latest charter proposal. Second, a letter that we have received from 
3GPP around IPv6 in cellular networks and a possible joint interim 
meeting. Third, the response to this letter from Ralph and I.

-------------------------------

Internet Area Working Group (intarea)
---------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Last modified: 2009-10-22

Chairs:
TBD

Internet Area (int) Directors:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>

Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
Subscribe online at: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Description of Working Group:

The Internet Area Working Group (INTAREA WG) acts primarily as a forum 
for  discussing far-ranging topics that affect the entire area. Such 
topics include, for instance, address space issues, basic IP layer 
functionality, and architectural questions. The group also serves as a 
forum to distribute information about ongoing activities in the area, 
create a shared understanding of the challenges and goals for the area, 
and to enable coordination.

The Internet Area receives occasional proposals for the development and 
publication of RFCs that are not in scope of an existing working group 
and do not justify the formation of a new working group. The INTAREA WG 
has a secondary role to serve as the forum for developing such work 
items in the IETF. The working group milestones are updated as needed 
to reflect the current work items and their associated milestones.

New  work must satisfy the following conditions:

 (1) WG consensus on the relevance for the Internet at large.

 (2) WG consensus on the suitability and projected quality of the
      proposed work item.

 (3) A core group of WG participants with sufficient energy and
      expertise to advance the work item according to the proposed
      schedule.

 (4) Commitment from the WG as a whole to provide sufficient
      and timely review of the proposed work item.

 (5) Agreement by the ADs, who, depending on the scope of the proposed
      work item, may decide that an IESG review is needed first.

Milestones:

Dec 2009  Submission of IPID document to the IESG as PS
Mar 2010  Submission of tunneling issues document to the IESG as Info

-----------------------------

For action

Deadline: 2009-12-04

Body:

TSG SA Meeting #45 SP-090671
21 - 24 September 2009,
Seville, Spain

Title: LS on Joint Workshop on IPv6 Migration
Release: Release 10
Work Item: Study on IPv6 Migration

Source: 3GPP SA
To: IETF 3GPP contact
Cc: SA2, CT1, CT3, CT4

Contact Person:
Name: Liu Hong
Tel. Number: +86 13501093376
E-mail Address: [email-masked]

Attachments: None

1. Overall Description:

On behalf of 3GPP, 3GPP SA would like to propose a joint workshop on
IPv6 migration with IETF, sharing the understanding of requirements and
solutions on IPv6 migration. SA2, CT1, CT3 and CT4 are the main related
working groups from 3GPP side. The workshop is proposed to be held on
March 1-2, 2010 in San Francisco, U. S. and hosted by China Mobile.

 From 3GPP viewpoint it was agreed that the workshop outputs are
candidate topics to be consolidated later in 3GPP meetings.

2. Actions:
ACTION to IETF:
3GPP SA kindly asks IETF to provide feedback on this joint activity.

3. Date of Next TSG-SA Meeting:
3GPP SA#46 7 – 10 Dec 2009 Sanya, China

-----------------------------

Date: 2009-10-21
From: IETF Internet Area Directors
To: 3GPP SA ([email-masked])
Cc: SA2, CT1, CT3, CT4
Response Contact: [email-masked]
Technical Contact: [email-masked]
Purpose: For information
Deadline: None

The IETF would like to thank 3GPP for suggesting this joint
workshop. The IETF and 3GPP have a long history in working
together in applying IPv6 to 3GPP networks. In the early
2000s this co-operation lead to joint meetings, the publication
of RFC 3314, 3GPP's IPv6 specifications, and many products
that support these today. The IETF would like to continue
this co-operation.

This co-operation should take many forms. It is important that
any requirements for specific parts of IETF technology be taken
to the relevant working groups. Current IETF work on IPv6
transition is well covered by existing meetings and working
groups. The IETF is responsible for all specification work
both on IPv6 itself and its transition tools, and we would
like to request that if there are specific requirements, those
be brought to the attention of the working groups.

But at the same time, a separate workshop makes it
easier to talk about the application of IPv6 in the 3GPP
network context, understand the 3GPP requirements better,
and to have more time to think about the best way to satisfy
these requirements. It is important to prepare such meetings
well, however, and there is plenty of time for these preparations
in this case. We would like to work together with the 3GPP
on defining the goals, inputs, and expected results for the
meeting. For instance, we expect that it would be important
to understand what, if anything, is wrong in the current
specifications and what types of scenarios and needs
the 3GPP operators have.

>From the IETF perspective we see such a workshop as a joint
interim meeting. The normal IETF process is that the results of
such meetings be taken to the relevant mailing list(s) and
working group(s) as input or new work is proposed. In other
words, interim meetings do not have formal decision power.
Scheduling an interim meeting also requires prior notification
so that the participants can provide feedback about the
suggested meeting. We will open this discussion on the IETF
as soon as we have a description and goals for the meeting.

Best regards,

Jari Arkko and Ralph Droms

IETF Internet Area Directors

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:34:14 +1300

Hi Jari,

> March 1-2, 2010 in San Francisco, U. S. and hosted by China Mobile.

This seems rather inconvenient (too long before the IETF for travel
optimisation, but too close to the IETF for an interim meeting; it will
run right into the I-D cutoff dates).

It also clashes with APRICOT in Kuala Lumpur.

> We will open this discussion on the IETF

Well said.

    Brian

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:45:19 +0100

Dear all,

the dates are of course always a compromise. Both IETF and 3GPP meeting weeks are so busy that this kind of workshop is not possible during the meeting week, so either right before or right after seem the only options.

The scope of the ongoing 3GPP study item on IPv6 migration scenarios is restricted to one document, creation of new technical report 3GPP TR 23.975 "IPv6 Migration Guidelines".

By the time of the meeting 3GPP SA2 should have their TR already completed, so the workshop could do a gap analysis between these foreseen deployment scenarios and IETF protocol support to determine whether any normative specification work is needed.

BR,
Hannu Hietalahti
3GPP TSG CT Chairman
tel: +358 40 5021724

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Brian E Carpenter
>Sent: 09 November, 2009 06:34
>To: Jari Arkko
>Cc: Internet Area
>Subject: [Int-area] 3GPP workshop proposal
>
>Hi Jari,
>
>_______________________________________________
>Int-area mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
>

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:17:56 +0900

> It also clashes with APRICOT in Kuala Lumpur.

and the RSA security conference also in San Francisco.

Bob

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:07:26 +0200

As background information, here's a summary report from a workshop that 
was held on cellular networks and IPv6 on the week before the IETF:

Jari

-----------------------

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On November 5-6 a workshop was held in Shanghai to discuss the use of 
IPv6 in cellular networks. The workshop was hosted by China Mobile, 
chaired by Hui Deng (China Mobile), Jonne Soininen (NSN), and Jari Arkko 
(Ericsson) and there were around 70 participants. Most of the 
participants were from the network equipment vendor and cellular 
operator communities. The workshop was also expected to provide 
background information relating to the 3GPP study item regarding IPv6 
transition and an upcoming joint meeting between IETF and 3GPP.

The workshop included demonstrations, presentations of product readiness 
from vendors, discussions of requirements and deployment scenarios, and 
presentations of IPv6 transition tools. The participants learned a lot 
about the problems, needs and opportunities involving IPv4-IPv6 
co-existence and IPv6 transition.

The baseline IPv6 support model for 3GPP cellular networks -- dual stack 
-- is clear in current specifications, widely supported in products, and 
to a large extent ready to be just used. Recently added support for IPv6 
in major content provider networks (e.g., Google over IPv6) makes it 
possible to leverage IPv6 to offload IPv4 communications and NATs -- 
today. This was even demonstrated during the workshop using commercial 
networks and devices. There is wide agreement that the standard dual 
stack model is the first necessary step in IPv6 adoption in cellular 
networks, though certainly not the last step.

Some of the basic scenarios that were discussed in the workshop were: 
(1) Employing IPv6 in the transport network underneath, i.e., for 
signaling and tunneling. This use of IPv6 is independent of what IP 
version actual user traffic employs. (2) Employing IPv6 for operator 
services. In operator services there is more freedom to employ 
particular technical solutions (such as IPv6), as there is no 
requirement for, e.g., web sites on the other side of the Internet to 
use exactly the same solutions. However, roaming of such services may 
require additional work. (3) Employ dual stack IPv6 to off-load some 
IPv4 traffic to IPv6 where supported by content providers. Some 
additional scenarios that may require further work included (1) 
Broadband cellular connections can be used as an alternative to, e.g., 
DSL lines. In some cases there is a need to share such a connection 
among multiple computers. In IPv4 this functionality is achieved via a 
NAT, but current 3GPP specifications lack an alternative solution for 
IPv6-based devices. (2) Connecting IPv6-only networks to both IPv4 and 
IPv6 Internet. (3) Connecting IPv4-only devices to IPv6 servers. (4) 
Moving NAT functionality from multiple GGSNs to a centralized gateway. 
(5) Enabling IPv4-only applications to exist in IPv6-only cellular networks.

The workshop discussed a number of IPv6 transition tools that either 
already exist or are under development (dual stack, 6to4, 6rd, dual 
stack lite, gateway initiated dual stack lite and other tunneling tools, 
nat64, ivi, pnat and other translation tools). It is important to 
understand how each tool fits a specific network scenario. Dual stack 
continues to be main recommended IETF deployment tool for networks 
transitioning to IPv6, even if there are many situations where 
additional tools are needed. Ongoing work in the IETF BEHAVE and 
SOFTWIRE working groups develops these tools, and feedback regarding the 
toolset should be taken there. It was also noted that after extensive 
analysis, the IETF chose to employ tunneling for for IPvX to IPvX 
communications over IPvY networks, instead of using double translation. 
Translation based mechanisms are used for IPvX to IPvY communications. 
This is reflected in the charters and working group outputs of BEHAVE 
and SOFTWIRE. The analysis conclusions are not universally shared, 
however, and there are proposals for new mechanisms that fall outside 
the currently recommended IETF model (e.g., proposals involving double 
translation).

NEXT STEPS

The workshop also identified missing pieces and further actions. The 
following next steps were identified:

1. Work on the actual transition mechanisms is an IETF activity, and the 
IETF is happy to receive input regarding the industry needs for IPv6 
transition. The IETF meeting on the following week was an opportunity to 
voice the participants' technical input on existing transition tools and 
possible additional requirements.

2. IPv6 should be turned on in the participants' networks in order to 
start the necessary learning of the operational issues and to generate 
actual IPv6 traffic. The workshop demos showed that this can be done 
today -- though perhaps done best in a step-wise manner to avoid 
surprises. It is very important that the experiences from the deployment 
effort are shared within the cellular operator community. We'd like to 
hear more success stories and share experiences. We'd like to hear more 
about actual progress and less about things that might be done far in 
the future.

3. Additional focus is needed for generating actual IPv6 traffic towards 
the Internet. While the internal link layer, tunneling, and translation 
operations within the cellular networks are important, at the end of the 
day the most important issue is whether the entire system -- including, 
for instance, content providers and other Internet infrastructure works 
together to actually make use of these facilities.

4. Further input on operator requirements from a larger number of mobile 
operators is necessary. The work on scenarios in 3GPP study item needs 
to continue. It is important to understand the priority of the different 
scenarios; it does not make sense to create technical solutions for all 
possible situations, it is more important to focus on the most important 
ones. It is also important think about the deployment process a set of 
steps. There is no one end goal -- but there steps you need to take to 
move to the right direction.

5. The chairs of the workshop will provide a summary of discussions. 
Slides presented in the workshop will be made available (where the 
organizers have been given a permission to do so, which we expect to be 
the case for most of the material).

6. A mailing list will be created for the workshop participants and 
other interested parties to continue discussion.

7. China Mobile announced that they are sponsoring the 2010 March 
official 3GPP-IETF official IPv6 workshop. Discussions about the content 
and goals of this joint workshop will be discussed further in the IETF 
and 3GPP.

SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS

In "IPv6 deployment scenarios in cellular networks", Jari Arkko (Area 
Director at the IETF, Ericsson) described the current state and 
remaining work in IPv6 deployment in cellular networks. The tools to use 
IPv6 exist today in most cellular networks, and the primary obstacles 
ahead of deployment are turning the IPv6 support on in the networks and 
finding traffic that can employ IPv6. Given Google over IPv6 and other 
tools from major content providers, during 2009 it has become possible 
to move significant fraction of Internet traffic to IPv6 simply by 
enabling IPv6 in the network. Jari also discussed the primary deployment 
scenarios that he sees in the short, term, namely making the underlying 
transport network IPv6-only, IPv4-offload via dual stack, and operator 
services via IPv6.

In "IPv6 migration study item in 3GPP", Lianyuan Li (China Mobile) 
provided an overview of the current state of the 3GPP architecture work 
and most relevant interfaces where IP is used. On the second half of the 
presentation he covered scenarios for IPv6 migration that have been 
identified so far by 3GPP.

In "IPv6 migration scenarios for Orange", Julien Bournelle (Orange) 
covered two scenarios for IPv6 deployment. The first one involves an 
IPv4-only host that needs to contact IPv6 services. The second one 
involves a dual stack host which has only IPv6 connectivity, but needs 
to connect to IPv4 services as well.

In "IPv6 transition work at the IETF", Ralph Droms (Area Director at the 
IETF, Cisco) discussed past and current IETF work around IPv6 
transition. The primary recommend tools for IPv6 deployment have not 
changed even if a number of new tools have been developed. Dual stack is 
the most well-understood way to deploy IPv6 today. New tools under 
development in the SOFTWIRE WG include dual stack lite and 6rd. The 
first of these tools covers scenarios where a service provider employs 
an IPv6-only core network while still having to provide customers legacy 
IPv4 service. The second tools covers scenarios where a service provider 
wants to provide IPv6 service without deploying IPv6 in its core network.

In "IPv6 support in today's cellular network equipment" Fredrik Garneij 
(Ericsson) demonstrated that IPv6 is reality already today in the 
cellular networks and Dual-Stack can be turned on already today by 
flipping a switch. IPv6 dual-stack demo while roaming on a regular 
commercial cellular network in China with dual stack, existing cellular 
standards, off the shelf devices (Dell laptop with dell branded Ericsson 
MBM), commercial home operator service in Sweden, and Google over IPv6.

In "IPv6 deployment in operator's network" (Dean Cheng, Huawei) argued 
that every provider has different situation and may need different 
tools. He discussed tools that may address two distinct scenarios. The 
first scenario relates to providing IPv6-only service in the network but 
still allowing access to the IPv4 Internet. The second scenario relates 
to the use of carrier-grade NAT device for IPv4 while offering early 
adopters tunnel-based IPv6 service.

In "IPv6 support in 3GPP networks", Basavaraj Patil and Sherry Shen 
(Nokia & NSN) explained the current level of IPv6 support in their 
products at a detailed level. Most of the new terminal platforms support 
IPv6 in dual stack mode. They are considering the possible inclusion of 
additional tools based on market demand.

In "China Mobile IPv6 scenarios and PNAT solution", Hui Deng (China 
Mobile) explained a proposed new transition tool, PNAT, and discussed 
the gap analysis regarding existing tools. The primary goal is to 
support hosts that have IPv4-only applications, i.e., that do not employ 
IP-version agnostic APIs. The focus is on hosts that can be upgraded to 
support new functionality below the applications, however.

In "China Mobile IPv6 scenarios and PNAT solution", Hui Deng (China 
Mobile) explained a proposed new transition tool, PNAT, and discussed 
the gap analysis regarding existing tools. The primary goal is to employ 
IPv6-only networks while still supporting IPv4-only applications and 
host-to-host direct communication. Some existing applications cannot 
work in IPv6 environments if they do not employ IP-version agnostic 
APIs. PNAT is compatible with NAT64 but moves a little further to 
support IPv4 applications. However, the focus is on hosts that can be 
upgraded to support new functionality below the application layer.

In "The view from IPv6 Operations WG", Fred Baker (IETF V6OPS WG chair, 
Cisco) talked about the goals of IPv6 transition work as it had been 
analyzed by the IETF. He pointed out that it is most important to get 
IPv6 turned on for networks, and that attempting to optimize the 
behavior for remaining IPv4-only device is less important and can be 
harmful for the overall goal. Fred also explained the analysis work that 
the IETF had performed on different types of solutions involving IPvX 
nodes reaching IPvX nodes through a network of IPvY. From the point of 
view of enabling connectivity, reliability, and ability to diagnose 
problems the IETF has made a decision that designs based on two 
translation steps are inferior compared to designs based on tunneling. 
There are no plans to provide any transition tools involving two 
translation steps. Translation based designs are important for reaching 
IPvX from IPvY, however, and are worked in the BEHAVE WG. Tunneling 
based designs are worked on SOFTWIRE WG. Some workshop participants 
challenged the need to restrict designs to one-step only translation.

In "DS-Lite: Implementation experience and views", Basavaraj Patil 
(Nokia) explained what experiences the Nokia and NSN team had gotten 
from an implementation of dual stack lite on top of Maemo Linux and N810.

In "Mobility considerations for transition technologies", Sri Gundave 
(Cisco) provided a technical comparison of different transition 
techniques. The main conclusion was that no silver bullet exists but 
there are differences in which scenarios different tools cover.

In "DSMIP6 as a transition solution", Basavaraj Patil (Nokia) explained 
how dual stack Mobile IP (DSMIP) can work as a transition tool. DSMIP is 
a part of existing specifications for 3GPP Release 8 mobility support. 
No support is required from the access network to use DSMIP.

In "NAT64 and Implementation", Simon Perreault (Viagenie) explained his 
experiences about implementing NAT64, one of the solutions developed in 
the BEHAVE WG at the IETF.

In "IPv4 to IPv6 transition approaches", Hu Jun (Alcatel-Lucent) covered 
various requirements for transition to IPv6. It was suggested that 
known, well understood and widely available tools such as dual stack and 
plain old IPv4 NATs are preferable to new tools such as address family 
translation (NAT64, for instance).

In "The service delivery aspects of IPv6 migration and E.164 
convergence", Alan Lloyd (Wwite) noted that operations and management 
can be a significant aspect of the IPv6 transition. IP addresses are now 
used as a part of the service offering (setting policies, charging, etc) 
and many backend systems may need to take into account the use of IPv6 
addresses. He provided practical guidance on how the transition should 
be performed in order to avoid unexpected effects in services or 
infrastructure components such as DNS and DHCP servers.

In "IPv6 Support on Qualcomm Platforms" Julien Laganier (Qualcomm) 
information about IPv6 support in Qualcomm products was provided. As 
with other vendors, the basic functionality is support for the existing 
3GPP and IETF specifications, i.e., dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 operation.

In "IPv6 Transition In Cellular Networks", Christian Vogt (Ericsson) 
presented ongoing work regarding the requirements and barriers of IPv6 
deployment in mobile operators networks.

In "IPv6 in Mobile Networks" Rajeev Koodli (Starent Networks) 
illustrated different IPv6 transition points and the constraints imposed 
by mobility, such as roaming and handover to 3G. The presentation also 
discussed the applicability of IPv6-IPv4 transition mechanisms, as well 
as IPv6 support in Starent mobility gateways.

The workshop also hosted a vendor panel discussion between Fred Baker 
(Cisco), Parviz Yegani (Juniper Networks), Fredrik Garneij (Ericsson), 
Basavaraj Patil (Nokia), Tony Xia (Huawei), Zaifeng Zong (ZTE), Rajeev 
Koodli (Starent), and Julien Laganier (Qualcomm). The main focus of the 
questions from the audience was operational advice on moving to IPv6. 
The panelists emphasized the need to make a step-wise approach. For 
instance, it is necessary to operate both IPv4 and IPv6 in parallel, and 
to move small parts of networks (e.g., one APN) at a time to IPv6.

The workshop included three demonstrations: current IPv6 support 
(Fredrik Garneij), PNAT (Hui Deng), and DS-Lite (Basavaraj Patil). The 
current IPv6 support demonstration showed how existing cellular networks 
already support IPv6 and how traffic to global content providers can 
already be moved to IPv6 today. DS-Lite demonstration showed an existing 
devices that can operate in IPv6-only networks while supporting both 
IPv4 and IPv6 Internet connectivity. PNAT demonstration showed that with 
just a small implementation effort, the use of NAT64, and an additional 
module installation on a host support for IPv4-only application can be 
added to IPv6-only networks.

---

From: "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:21:52 +0100

Thanks for the summary. Where can we find the presentation material
posted?

Thanks,
Woj.

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jari Arkko
> Sent: 18 November 2009 09:07
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Hui Deng
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] 3GPP workshop proposal
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:37:02 +0200

Wojciech,

> Where can we find the presentation material
> posted?
>   

We are working on it. Stay tuned. Same for the mailing list that we 
intend to set up.

Jari

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:55:28 +0200

Presentation materials from the workshop are now available at 
http://ipv6ws.arkko.com/ (still missing one presentation but I'm working 
on it). We also have a mailing list set up for further discussions at 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/3gv6

Jari