Re: Last Call: <draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-03.txt> (IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Transition Space) to Informational RFC

I read the document again today for the first time in a while and went
through the more recent threads on the ietf list.

I have 2 main comments.

First, where did the /10 figure come from? Why not a /16? Some
justification is needed for a particular figure.

Second, this will break stuff, and even though the document talks
about it some, we are dreaming IMO if we think talking about the
problems (and encouraging implementations to fix things) will have any
impact. At least not in the next few years. The problem will happen
with stuff deployed today, or already in the pipeline for
deployment. So, this will cause things to break. I don't feel good
about that, even if one accepts the argument that neither approach is
painless and we're gonna have breakage anyway. E.g., breaking 6to4
seems like a bad thing to do for IPv6.

E.g.,:

   ingress links.  DNS queries for Shared CGN Space addresses MUST NOT
   be forwarded to the global DNS infrastructure.  This is done to avoid
   having to set up something similar to AS112.net for RFC 1918 private
   address space that a host has incorrectly sent for a DNS reverse-
   mapping queries on the public Internet [RFC6304].

This is totally unenforceable. We will be forced to deal with
this. Existing software that is massively deployed will do
this. Saying MUST NOT here is kind of like some IETF document saying
you MUST NOT use NAT.

Call for Participation: Using IP Overlays to provide L2 Virtualization

A new mailing list has been set up to explore possible IETF work in
the area of providing L2 network virtualization service over an L3
(IP) overlay network.

As background, there are a number of drafts that relate to this area,
including:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahalingam-dutt-dcops-vxlan-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sridharan-virtualization-nvgre-00
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-dcops-l3-vmmobility-00

I've put together a first-cut at a problem statement that focuses on
the issues and potential work areas, without getting into solution
specifics.  See:

    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-nvo3-overlay-problem-statement-00.txt

There have also been some related vendor announcements and
presentations as well (these are ones I happen to know of, there are
surely others). For example:

     http://blogs.cisco.com/datacenter/introducing-vxlan/

     http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps9441/ps9902/white_paper_c11-685115.html

     http://blogs.vmware.com/console/2011/08/towards-virtualized-networking-for-the-cloud.html

     http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/BUILD/BUILD2011/SAC-442T

The list is called nvo3, for "Network Virtualization Over L3", aka

Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-03.txt>

Hi, unlike the recent "IPv6 <del>spam</del><ins>update</ins>" Last Call this
draft makes sense.  Admittedly I didn't get the "Martians" joke, but I guess
it is related to "bogons" (the latter is clear and also explained).

In essence the draft repeats what BCP 153 (RFC 5735) already said, should it
be added to BCP 153?  Should there be a caveat that "hardwired" 240.0.0.0/4
filters could be a bad idea for one or more "future use" scenarios?

-Frank

Subject: Another reason not to return

Maastricht Bans Cannabis Coffee-Shop Tourists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15134669

A ban on some foreign tourists has come into force in the 
cannabis-selling coffee shops of the Dutch border city of Maastricht.

City authorities say the influx of tourists buying soft drugs is 
threatening public order and causing major traffic problems.

Coffee shop owners say the ban won't work and will hit the local 
economy.

However, the ban does not apply to visitors from Germany and Belgium 
who are the majority of foreign customers.

[snip]

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole <at> cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-03.txt> (Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s) to BCP

At 12:30 28-09-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
>(grow) to consider the following document:
>- 'Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s'
>   <draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-03.txt> as a BCP
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-12. Exceptionally, comments may be

If there are down-refs in this draft, this Last Call will be invalided*.

After reading this draft, I conclude that there are no longer any 
unallocated IPv4 /8.  Shouldn't that mention IANA free pool?

In Section 3.1:

   "Network administrators who implemented filters for unallocated IPv4
    /8s did so in the knowledge that those /8s were not a legitimate
    source of traffic on the Internet and that there was a small number
    of bogon filters to implement."

These network administrators made the incorrect assumption that such 
filters do not require any maintenance.

   "Network operators SHOULD remove both ingress and egress packet
    filters as well as BGP prefix filters for previously
    unallocated IPv4 /8s."

Some network operators might find the use of the key word offensive. 

Subject: Re: Another reason not to return

Hej Ole,

You wrote:

 > Maastricht Bans Cannabis Coffee-Shop Tourists
 >
 > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15134669
 >
 > A ban on some foreign tourists has come into force in the
 > cannabis-selling coffee shops of the Dutch border city of Maastricht.

Do you mean that the majority of IETF is cannabis user?

In that case the IETF should cancel the Taipe meeting because cannabis
is a schedule 2 narcotic in the ROC, and possession can result
in up to 3 years imprisonment.

BR, Huub.

Subject: Re: Another reason not to return

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, Huub van Helvoort wrote:

> Hej Ole,
> 
> Do you mean that the majority of IETF is cannabis user?
> 
> In that case the IETF should cancel the Taipe meeting because 
> cannabis is a schedule 2 narcotic in the ROC, and possession can 
> result in up to 3 years imprisonment.
> 
> BR, Huub.
> 

Well, no, obviously not (there is a smiley), but your note is another 
good reminder to "check local laws and regulations."

Of more pressing interest to IETFers (while I have your attention) 
might be that the host pages have recently been updated to include
cellphone and cell data information, see:

http://ietf82.tw/info.html

... and note that http://g.co/maps/8bbd lists a number of points of 
interest including hotels, metro stations and shops of various kinds.

Ole

Subject: Re: Re: Another reason not to return

On Oct 2, 2011, at 9:07 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
> 
>> Hej Ole,
>> 
>> Do you mean that the majority of IETF is cannabis user?
>> 
>> In that case the IETF should cancel the Taipe meeting because 
>> cannabis is a schedule 2 narcotic in the ROC, and possession can 
>> result in up to 3 years imprisonment.
>> 
>> BR, Huub.
>> 
> 
> Well, no, obviously not (there is a smiley),

I dunno... Some of the working groups I have sat in on would make me wonder...

:-P

W

> but your note is another 
> good reminder to "check local laws and regulations."
> 
> Of more pressing interest to IETFers (while I have your attention) 
> might be that the host pages have recently been updated to include

RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: GenART LC review of draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3462bis-01

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf