Subject: [OPSAWG] I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:46:37 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs
	Author(s)       : Victor Kuarsingh
                          John Cianfarani
	Filename        : draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2013-02-18

Abstract:
   This document specifies a framework to integrate a Network Address
   Translation layer into an operator's network to function as a Carrier
   Grade NAT (also known as CGN or Large Scale NAT).  The CGN
   infrastructure will often form a NAT444 environment as the subscriber
   home network will likely also maintain a subscriber side NAT
   function.  Exhaustion of the IPv4 address pool is a major driver
   compelling some operators to implement CGN.  Although operators may
   wish to deploy IPv6 to strategically overcome IPv4 exhaustion, near
   term needs may not be satisfied with an IPv6 deployment alone.  This
   document provides a practical integration model which allows the CGN
   platform to be integrated into the network meeting the connectivity
   needs of the subscriber while being mindful of not disrupting
   existing services and meeting the technical challenges that CGN
   brings.  The model included in this document utilizes BGP/MPLS IP
   VPNs which allow for virtual routing separation helping ease the CGNs
   impact on the network.  This document does not intend to defend the
   merits of CGN.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-02

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Owen DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:07:03 -0800

I have some concerns about this draft…

1. While the author explains that DHCP-PD and 6rd lack this capability,
	he does not justify that the capability is needed or explain why
	it is needed. I would like to see a better explanation of the
	use case for this feature.

2.  Section 6 claims there are no additional considerations. I don't agree.

	I see no reason this new ICMP type could not be used by attackers
	to gain information about the internal topology of dynamically
	assigned networks. Since many of these are likely to include poorly
	administered gateways in the residential, SOHO, and SMB realms,
	I believe this consideration should be covered in the draft.

	This additional disclosure risk is not covered in RFC4443 (ICMP6)

Owen

On Feb 18, 2013, at 12:46 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

---

From: Victor Kuarsingh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:46:05 -0500

Owen,

Can I get some pointers to where your comments on the first point are
targeted? (I see reference to DHCP-PD and 6RD).

As for Section 6, there point was related to IANA special considerations.

Trying to make sure I understand the feedback.

Thanks,

Victor K

On 2013-02-18 4:07 PM, "Owen DeLong" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I have some concerns about this draftŠ
>

---

From: Owen DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 14:51:37 -0800

Apologies for my earlier mispost. This was actually targeted at the Shishio
draft, not the LSN draft. My concerns are about the IPv6 delegated prefix
verification tool. Thanks to Mister Kauringh for calling my attention to the
error.

Owen