Subject: [shara] aplusp BOF

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:29:27 -0400

(intarea, tsvwg and iesg BCC'ed)

The IESG has approved the aplusp BOF for IETF 76.  The BOF will be
used to discuss A+P addressing and forwarding as it applies to
dual-stack lite [draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-01].

The BOF announcement at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart has been updated
and a draft aplusp WG charter is available at
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/aplusp-charter.txt

The BOF chairs are TBD.  BOF discussion, including planning and
updates, will take place on the [email-masked] mailing list.

- Ralph Droms
   Internet AD

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 08:07:45 +0900

> dual-stack lite [draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-01].

excuse?  folk such as the wireless gang have a very different need for
it, and an architecturally different spin.  some are using ipv4 over
ipv4 tunneling.  some are using very different signaling mechanisms.
etc.

currently, ds-lite has been restricted to one view of provisioning.
this is a pretty restricted view.

randy

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:35:50 +0200

Ralph,

I fully support Randy's view.

Having as A+P *on dual-stack lite* as "main objective" of an aplusp  
WG would be much too restrictive.

Having it as a "minimum objective" would be OK though, because of  
recent progress made on this particular A+P application.

The WG SHOULD be the place to determine which other architectures and  
signaling alternatives address new operational requirements, and  
therefore justify quick progress.

In particular, while dual-stack lite is for IPv6-only ISPs, some ISPs  
will rather deploy IPv6 AND private IPv4 addressing on their  
infrastructures. They should also be able to take advantage of A+P.  
(These advantages are good to have: simple server reachability when  
communicating with IPv4-only remote hosts; restored end-to-end  
transparency for hosts that support A+P.)

Similarly ISPs that only have private IPv4 routing so far, across  
which they can quickly deploy native IPv6 with 6rd, should also be  
able to take advantage of A+P. For this, IPv4 in IPv4 tunneling  
mentioned by Randy does make sense.

Regards,
RD

There are other approaches
Le 3 oct. 09 à 01:07, Randy Bush a écrit :

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

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 01:07:24 -0400

But generalizations of A+P were argued against in the shara BOF.  A+P  
represents a truly significant change to the IPv4 addressing  
architecture that makes fundamental changes to the behavior of IP and  
applications built on IP when implemented in a host.  By constraining  
the problem space to the scenario with well-defined endpoints and a  
well-defined forwarding mechanism, the BOF will have an opportunity to  
focus on a case where it can be found to be useful.

- Ralph

On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:35 AM 10/8/09, Rémi Després wrote:

> The WG SHOULD be the place to determine which other architectures  
> and signaling alternatives address new operational requirements, and  
> In particular, while dual-stack lite is for IPv6-only ISPs, some  
> ISPs will rather deploy IPv6 AND private IPv4 addressing on their

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 08:40:53 +0200

Ralph,

The DS-Lite essentially is encapsulation+CGN. The most commonly discussed encapsulation method is IPv4-over-IPv6. However, L2TP, PPP, GTP, etc "point-to-point" connections are also possible in addition to plain IPv6. This is mentioned in DS-Lite dradt as well. I believe these other encapsulation means are in the scope of the BOF? 

Best regards,

Teemu
________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Ralph Droms [[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:07 AM
To: Rémi Després
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [shara] aplusp BOF

- Ralph

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:53:36 +0200

Hi Ralph,

There must be a misunderstanding here, I do not remember any arguments made against IPv4 address sharing during the shara BOF. The shara BOF was a non-wg forming BOF, and with the many presentations we had, we simply ran out of time and the BOF ended without conclusions.

When we first discussed this concept with Jari (way before the shara bof), he requested us to come up with practical solutions which would demonstrate that this concept is viable outside a lab environment. We believe we did that in the presentation during the shara bof. 

We even had presentation about this concept in behave, again meetings before the shara bof, and I do not remember any strong objections. There were people spotting issues here and there, but we addressed those in the shara bof. All this happened before anyone thought about using it with DS-Lite too. 

- Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Ralph Droms
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:07 PM
To: Rémi Després
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [shara] aplusp BOF

But generalizations of A+P were argued against in the shara BOF.  A+P represents a truly significant change to the IPv4 addressing architecture that makes fundamental changes to the behavior of IP and applications built on IP when implemented in a host.  By constraining the problem space to the scenario with well-defined endpoints and a well-defined forwarding mechanism, the BOF will have an opportunity to focus on a case where it can be found to be useful.

- Ralph

On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:35 AM 10/8/09, Rémi Després wrote:

> Having as A+P *on dual-stack lite* as "main objective" of an aplusp WG 
> would be much too restrictive.
>
>> excuse?  folk such as the wireless gang have a very different need 
>> for it, and an architecturally different spin.  some are using ipv4 
>> over

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:17:06 -0700

> he requested us to come up with practical solutions which would
> demonstrate that this concept is viable outside a lab environment. We
> believe we did that in the presentation during the shara bof.

to hell with ppt, there is running code

randy

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:36:47 -0400

The aplusp BOF is scheduled for Wed, Nov 10, 1300-1500.

Please forward requests for a presentation slot to me so I can start  
assembling an agenda.

- Ralph

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:53:41 +0100

Hi all,

The current aplusp charter proposed by Ralph says: "The aplusp working group will evaluate the requirements of IPv4 address sharing in the context of dual-stack lite".

"in the context of dual-stack lite" is surely something that must be clarified.

>From my understanding it means three points:

1) A PRR (Port Range Router) function is located on a device where there is also a DS-lite CGN fucntion implemented (this is compulsary). 
This co-location is what I call a SHared Ip Processor (SHIP) in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework-02 
The PRR function consists in:
a) for outgoing packets, do nothing
b) for incoming packets, from the destination port value find the CPE tunnel endpoint (the IPv6 address)

2) The packets that are PRR-processed use the same encapsulation than the packets that are DS-lite-processed, that is, in the form of: IPv4-into-whatever-into-IPv6-into-whatever.

3) For the CPEs that are federated under a PRR/DS-lite device, I see three possibilities:
-DS-lite only CPE: no NAT, IPv4 in IPv6 encapsulation of some sort
-PR only CPE: NAT, IPv4 in IPv6 encapsulation of some sort
-DS-lite and PR CPE: NAT used only for PR-processed packets, no NAT for DS-lite-processed packets, IPv4 in IPv6 encapsulation of some sort

What do you think? Do you all share this understanding of Ralph's proposal?

Regards,

Pierre

-----Message d'origine-----
De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de [email-masked]
Envoyé : vendredi 9 octobre 2009 08:41
À : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]
Objet : Re: [shara] aplusp BOF

Ralph,

Best regards,

Teemu

- Ralph

On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:35 AM 10/8/09, Rémi Després wrote:

>> for

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:33:49 +0900

the restriction to dual stack lite is broken, flat and simply.  look at
the nokia application, for example.

so clarifying the restriction is a silly waste of effort.

randy