Subject: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:04:34 +0100

Hi,

please find attached the preliminay agenda for the BOF.

Regards, marcelo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARA BOF
MONDAY, March 23, 2009
0900-1130 Morning Session I
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presentation 1: BOF Introduction
15 minutes - chairs

-- Blue sheets, Jabber scribe, minute takers
-- BOF goals (e.g. non-working group forming)
-- IETF division of labor (BEHAVE, Softwares, SHARA BOF)
-- IPv4 exhaustion and its implications
-- Classes of proposals:  CGN, SHARA
-- Axes for discussion
       -- Impact on classes of applications
       -- Security effects
       -- Scalability
       -- Operations & Management issues

Presentation 2: Issues with address sharing approaches
15 min - Mat Ford.
draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-00

Presentation 3:  SHARA scenarios
10 minutes - Marcelo
based on draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-00

- Presentation 3: A + P
20 minutes - Randy et al.
draft-ymbk-aplusp-02

- Presentation 5:  Implications of SHARA on Operations & Mgmt
15 min - Alain

- Presentation 6: Benefits of NAT avoidance
10 min - Teemu

- Presentation 7:  What are we missing?
10 minutes - Geoff

- Discussion
55 minutes - All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:04:09 +0100

Dear all,

I don't understand the rationale behind this agenda. We have submitted several drafts which cover various areas of the shared IP addresses. We are surprisingly not been associated neither solicited to present during this BoF. 

We have submitted two solution drafts (architecture and IPv6 one), two on configuration protocols and another one listing issues to be handled by IP shared addresses based solutions.

Is there any reason why we are not invited in any presentation?

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de marcelo bagnulo braun
Envoyé : mardi 10 mars 2009 12:05
À : [email-masked]; Bernard Aboba; 'Magnus Westerlund'
Objet : [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF

Hi,

Regards, marcelo

- Presentation 3: A + P

- Presentation 6: Benefits of NAT avoidance 10 min - Teemu

- Discussion
55 minutes - All
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
shara mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:32:48 -0700

> I don't understand the rationale behind this agenda. We have submitted
> several drafts which cover various areas of the shared IP
> addresses. We are surprisingly not been associated neither solicited
> to present during this BoF.

i can not speak to slots for your drafts.  this is all being done behind
closed doors by very important people <ahem>

but i was hoping that you, as in mpls, would work on the joint preso
with the usual suspects.

randy

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:41:15 +0100

Thanks Randy,

Yes sure, as I will attend the SF meeting, I will be very pleased to participate in the joint A+P presentation.
Since it seems to be the only open space (at least for the moment!)

Pierre 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Randy Bush
Envoyé : mardi 10 mars 2009 13:33
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed RD-CORE-CAE
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF

randy

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:53:10 +0100

Everyone,

I don't know exactly what happened here, the chairs and I have been late
at getting a draft agenda together. We are sorry for that. Please note,
the agenda is still a draft agenda and open for discussion. The chairs
and I are taking feedback on the agenda.

We are clearly missing some related drafts on certain agenda items. We
also have had discussion of joint presentations, apparently the
communication to all parties haven't happened. For example the solutions
agenda item is intended to include the proposed solutions from all that
we know of including Mr Boucadair and co-authors work.

I would however note that having a draft in a space does not necessarily
grant the rights to be on the agenda. The presentation and discussion
needs to have a purpose within the scope of the BOF. To me solution
overview and issues around the solution space do belong on the agenda.
However in the interest of time management the chairs and I do want
joint presentations when possible. The chairs will follow up on this.

I have had a particular vision for this BOF. One that makes it fit into
the ongoing work in Softwires and Behave WG. Splitting people into yet
another WG seem to me be only diluting the pool of people working on
these problems and increasing the overhead to get work done. Thus this
BOF is not WG forming, instead it is run to determine if we should go
ahead and charter the work in already existing WGs. To determine that we
need to have a discussion about the issue intended to be solved and if
there is consensus for the proposed solution space with its trade-offs.

I am sorry that I have been bad at communicating this openly.

Regards

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:37:32 +0100

Dear Magnus, all,

Thank your for these clarifications. 

This shortage issue is a hot plate, we all need to handle correctly. As a Service provider, we would like to have means and solutions ready to face the shortage. We would like to avoid introducing nodes and solutions which would delay the migration to IPv6. An effort is required to standardize the port-range based solutions. That's why we have been carrying out this effort at the IETF.

Concretely, in addition to the proposed joined solution presentation, we would like to present:

- Needs and Open Issues (draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework) which lists a set of issues to be handled in the context of shared IP addresses (hopefully in cooperation with Mat Ford's proposal).

- Configuration and provisioning solutions (draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-01 and draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option)
 
To this end, we think the time slot dedicated to the solutions should be expanded.

Cheers,

Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Magnus Westerlund [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mardi 10 mars 2009 14:53
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed RD-CORE-CAE
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF

Everyone,

I don't know exactly what happened here, the chairs and I have been late at getting a draft agenda together. We are sorry for that. Please note, the agenda is still a draft agenda and open for discussion. The chairs and I are taking feedback on the agenda.

We are clearly missing some related drafts on certain agenda items. We also have had discussion of joint presentations, apparently the communication to all parties haven't happened. For example the solutions agenda item is intended to include the proposed solutions from all that we know of including Mr Boucadair and co-authors work.

I would however note that having a draft in a space does not necessarily grant the rights to be on the agenda. The presentation and discussion needs to have a purpose within the scope of the BOF. To me solution overview and issues around the solution space do belong on the agenda.
However in the interest of time management the chairs and I do want joint presentations when possible. The chairs will follow up on this.

I have had a particular vision for this BOF. One that makes it fit into the ongoing work in Softwires and Behave WG. Splitting people into yet another WG seem to me be only diluting the pool of people working on these problems and increasing the overhead to get work done. Thus this BOF is not WG forming, instead it is run to determine if we should go ahead and charter the work in already existing WGs. To determine that we need to have a discussion about the issue intended to be solved and if there is consensus for the proposed solution space with its trade-offs.

Regards

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:40:57 +0100

Hi Mohamed,

First, as i have noted earlier, this is a preliminary agenda, so there 
are some things missing and can certainly be changed.

The goal of the proposed agenda was to try to cover the different 
aspects that needed to be discussed to understand the problem. Probably 
we missed some aspects.

Could you point out what would be a topic that you think should be 
discussed in this space that is not included in the proposed agenda?

Regards, marcelo

About your draft and the agenda

---

From: Matthew Ford <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:56:06 +0000

Mohamed,

> - Needs and Open Issues (draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework) which lists a set of issues to be handled in the context of shared IP addresses (hopefully in cooperation with Mat Ford's propos…

I'm more than happy to include the issues identified in 
draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework in the presentation I'm 
giving. I'll drop you a note off-list to see if we can't find a mutually 
convenient time to meet to discuss this live prior to the BoF.

Mat

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:59:26 +0100

Thanks Mat.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Matthew Ford [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Envoyé : mardi 10 mars 2009 16:56
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed RD-CORE-CAE
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF

Mohamed,

> - Needs and Open Issues (draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework) which lists a set of issues to be handled in the context of shared IP addresses (hopefully in cooperation with Mat Ford's propos…

I'm more than happy to include the issues identified in draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework in the presentation I'm giving. I'll drop you a note off-list to see if we can't find a mutually convenient time to meet to discuss this live prior to the BoF.

Mat

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:02:31 +0100

> - Needs and Open Issues (draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework) which lists a set of issues to be handled in the context of shared IP addresses (hopefully in cooperation with Mat Ford's propos…
ok, i understand you are coordinating with Mat already about this

> - Configuration and provisioning solutions (draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-01 and draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option)
So, i would like to understand a bit more how are we going to manage the 
exploration of the solutions space.
I understand that there will be a joint presentation, including the 
different proponents of solutions, including  Randy,  you guys,  Remi 
Despres, Teemu and Gabor, where you are going to present a high level 
description of the solution space.
Now, i am not sure if we should go into the details of the solutions. I 
mean, discussing how the PPP is extended or how the dhcp port range 
option should looki, doesn't seem to me to be the right level of 
disucssion for the bof. Probably we want to stay on a higher level of 
detail and discuss the overall solution. Maybe some other people can 
comment on what they think we should spend the time of the bof.

So, my take is that with a high level presentation of the solution space 
wihtout getting into the details of the ppp options and dhcp options 
should be enough for the bof (of course, if the work is charterted, the 
particualr disucssion on the solution is relevant, but i am not sure 
that is the case for the bof)

Regards, marcelo

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:28:27 +0100

>From the proposed preliminary agenda:

-- Axes for discussion

I think what Med was asking for is yet another ramification of the solution space, namely the port randomness preservation. One could argue that it fits into the 'security effects' mentioned above, but it is not limited to.

What I think is missing from the agenda is the SHARA applicability to the scenarios described in http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boucadair-port-range-01.txt and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-aplusp-03.txt

- gabor

  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
  >ext marcelo bagnulo braun
  >Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:03 PM
  >To: [email-masked]
  >Cc: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/MtView); [email-masked];
  >[email-masked]
  >Subject: Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF
  >
  >
  >> This shortage issue is a hot plate, we all need to handle correctly. As
  >a Service provider, we would like to have means and solutions ready to
  >face the shortage. We would like to avoid introducing nodes and solutions
  >which would delay the migration to IPv6. An effort is required to
  >standardize the port-range based solutions. That's why we have been
  >carrying out this effort at the IETF.
  >>
  >>
  >> - Needs and Open Issues (draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework)
  >which lists a set of issues to be handled in the context of shared IP
  >addresses (hopefully in cooperation with Mat Ford's proposal).
  >>
  >>
  >> - Configuration and provisioning solutions (draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-
  >01 and draft-boucadair-pppext-portrange-option)
  >>
  >>
  >> I don't know exactly what happened here, the chairs and I have been
  >late at getting a draft agenda together. We are sorry for that. Please
  >note, the agenda is still a draft agenda and open for discussion. The
  >chairs and I are taking feedback on the agenda.
  >>
  >> I would however note that having a draft in a space does not
  >necessarily grant the rights to be on the agenda. The presentation and
  >discussion needs to have a purpose within the scope of the BOF. To me
  >solution overview and issues around the solution space do belong on the
  >agenda.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:41:51 -0700

> I think what Med was asking for is yet another ramification of the
> solution space, namely the port randomness preservation.

i fear that this is a rock and a hard place.  if you steal ports, you
will have a smaller pool of ports from which to pick pseudo-randomly.
even i can figure that out. :)

has anyone really explored dave ward's suggestion to look at stealing
from ip id?  i will admit not having done so.

randy

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:51:02 +0100

Yes, right, the purpose is not to fully present a dhcp or ppp solution but just not to forget to mention somewhere:
-The issue of port range configuration
-The security issue 

Pierre 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de [email-masked]
Envoyé : mercredi 11 mars 2009 01:28
À : [email-masked]; BOUCADAIR Mohamed RD-CORE-CAE
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [shara] Preliminary agenda for SHARA BOF

-- Axes for discussion

- gabor

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:52:22 +0100

Randy,

If you allocate the ports by cryptographically random means as described in draft-draft-bajko-pripaddrassign, it does not matter if a host is allocated just two ports - the attacker cannot possibly guess what the other allocated port is by just knowing the other port in use. 

I have verified the crypto pseudo-code described in the draft with quick implementation. In my test modified DHCP server sends the parameters (128-bit key and others) to a modified DHCP client, which from those parameters calculates the ports it is allowed to use and sends 5 TCP SYNs to show it calculated them correctly.

Best regards,

	Teemu

>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Randy Bush
>Sent: 11 March, 2009 02:42
>To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/MtView)
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>i fear that this is a rock and a hard place.  if you steal 
>ports, you will have a smaller pool of ports from which to 
>pick pseudo-randomly.
>has anyone really explored dave ward's suggestion to look at 
>stealing from ip id?  i will admit not having done so.
>
>randy

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:12:12 -0700

> If you allocate the ports by cryptographically random means as
> described in draft-draft-bajko-pripaddrassign, it does not matter if a
> host is allocated just two ports - the attacker cannot possibly guess
> what the other allocated port is by just knowing the other port in
> use.

aha!  now i understand the non-contiguous hack.

randy