[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
my notes from today's v6ops session
V6ops meeting minutes
***************************
1) Unmanaged networks (Christian Huitema)
- privacy analysis - privacy addressing issues for various environment; BCP document needed
- better NAT-PT needed
- reserved prefix in IPv6?
- mapping of IPv4 to IPv6 by V6-only host
- v6-only to v4 netwoks?
- Comments:
- keep things simple so that operators can deploy easily
- Teredo too complex
- micro-optimizaions needed
- too complex for corporate LAN mgr.
- can tunnel broker be used to cross the NAT?
2) ISP - Cleve Mickles:
- multi-homng; address management
- overlap with enterprise/managed space?
- new name: home networking to broadband ether
- public wireless LAN
- infrastructure svcs
- Itojun comment:
- multihoming is issue for enterprise
- assigned addresses?
3) Enterprise/managed - Yanick Pouffary:
- new mailing list
- solutions will be part of a seperate document
- network connected to an Internet provider?
- Comment:
- draft needs more text to define scope
- business requirements may drive IPv6 decision
- S/W transition points
- DNS routing
- address plan
- network mgmt
- IPv6 address scoping
- Comments:
- one enterprise (at least) has deplloyed v6 - real deployment carries more weight
- doesn't like he idea of using vendors' input (wants input from someone like GM)
- doesn't like the term IPv6 NAT
5) V6ops-3GPP - Jonne S.
- V6ops 3GPP design team
- scenarios doc WG item
- seems stable
- analysis doc - editorial changes
- static vs. dynamic tunneling
- NAT-PT vs. NAT-64
- Scenarios:
- dual-stack IMS scenario
- Jonne: IPv6-only IMSs
- Analysis: need to mention dual-stack CSCF in 4.2
- WG last call for scenarios
- WG draft for analysis - accept as WG item?
- NAT-PT issues:
- NAT-PT needed for IPv6-only nodes
- Should only be used in stub networks?
- numerous comments on whether a NAT-PT solution can be made
to work at all. This is a matter of possible concern for the
IPv6-only terminal
6) RFC 2893(bis)
- dynamic tunnel interface MTU
- 1380 bytes proposed for MTU when tunnel not dynamically config'd
(DF bit not set)
- (1380 = VPN MTU - 20 for IP)
- reassembly buffers NOT 64K; 4400 is Erik's pick for now
- ingress filtering?
7) 6to4 Security Considerations (Pekka Savola)
- spec is very terse
- automatic tunneling mechanisms used in same box
- relay spoofing; anyone can spoof 2001::/16 addr's
pretending to come from relay
- relays use RFC 3068 as their source address
8) Harald Alvestrand
- v6ops group closing - what to do with NGTRANS drafts?
- ask for experimental status?
- go to ADs and ask for stds track?
- aspects of transition were mis-managed
- "circuit switching in an alternate reality"?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com