headers
Internet | 5 Jun 2003 13:41
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios
	Author(s)	: C. Huitema, R. Austein, S. Satapati, R. van der Pol
	Filename	: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt
	Pages		: 19
	Date		: 2003-6-4
	
In order to evaluate the suitability of IPv6 transition mechanisms,
we need to define the scenarios in which these mechanisms have to be
used. One specific scope is the 'unmanaged network', which typically
corresponds to a home or small office network. The scenarios are
specific to single link subnet, and are defined in terms of IP
connectivity supported by the home gateway and the ISP. We first
examine the generic requirements of four classes of applications:
local, client, peer to peer and server. Then, for each scenario, we
infer transition requirements by analyzing the needs for smooth
migration of applications from IPv4 to IPv6.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt".
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christian Huitema | 5 Jun 2003 23:44
Picon
Favicon

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt

The draft "draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-01.txt" into account the
comments received during the V6OPS WG last call for
draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-00.txt. The authors believe that this
document addresses the last call comments. A list of these comments and
the way they were addressed is available at:

	http://www.huitema.net/ipv6/Unman-Scenarios-Issues.htm

The main changes fall in three categories:

1) Change the topology section to explain exactly why we did not
consider the multiple subnet case (i.e., with today's technology, such
networks are not unmanaged);

2) Change several of the case description scenarios to remove the
more-or-less implicit assumption that there is always a NAT in IPv4
deployments;

3) Fix a number of editorial issues, notably the abstract, the
introduction, the wording of references to DNS issues, and a split of
references between normative and informative.

-- Christian Huitema
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Margaret Wasserman | 6 Jun 2003 16:12
Favicon

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt


Hi All,

Please review the changes to this document, and let us know if all
of your last call issues were adequately resolved.  If there are no
remaining issues, we hope to forward this document to the IESG by
the middle of next week.

Thanks,
Margaret

At 02:44 PM 6/5/2003 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
>The draft "draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-01.txt" into account the
>comments received during the V6OPS WG last call for
>draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-00.txt. The authors believe that this
>document addresses the last call comments. A list of these comments and
>the way they were addressed is available at:
>
>         http://www.huitema.net/ipv6/Unman-Scenarios-Issues.htm
>
>The main changes fall in three categories:
>
>1) Change the topology section to explain exactly why we did not
>consider the multiple subnet case (i.e., with today's technology, such
>networks are not unmanaged);
>
>2) Change several of the case description scenarios to remove the
>more-or-less implicit assumption that there is always a NAT in IPv4
>deployments;
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Fred Templin | 6 Jun 2003 17:44
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt

Margaret,

Not wanting to hold up process, but I'm afraid I do see one item
in the changes that somehow escaped my attention earlier. In the
abstract, the following new text appears:

  "The scenarios are specific to single link subnet"

In this context, the phrase "single link subnet" seems too restrictive
by its inclusion of the word "link". Everywhere else in the document,
we see the phrase expressed as "single subnet", and I do agree with
this usage. Suggest changing the phrase in the abstract to:

  "The scenarios are specific to a single subnet"

While I'm on the subject, there were a few minor editorial comments:

1) In section 5.2.2, first sentence of the second paragraph, the phrase
    "NAT will not be in use" appears twice.

2) Section 5.3, end of second sentence should be: "to hosts.", not
    "the hosts."

3) Section 5.4.2, first sentence of the second paragraph, change:
    "dual stack host" to "dual stack hosts".

Fred
ftemplin@...

Margaret Wasserman wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Bound, Jim | 9 Jun 2003 18:15
Picon
Favicon

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt

All my issues are resolved.  I think it should go to the IESG.  
thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:mrw@...] 
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 10:13 AM
> To: v6ops@...
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-01.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Please review the changes to this document, and let us know 
> if all of your last call issues were adequately resolved.  If 
> there are no remaining issues, we hope to forward this 
> document to the IESG by the middle of next week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Margaret
> 
> 
> At 02:44 PM 6/5/2003 -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
> >The draft "draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-01.txt" into account the 
> >comments received during the V6OPS WG last call for 
> >draft-ietf-v6ops-uman-scenarios-00.txt. The authors believe 
> that this 
> >document addresses the last call comments. A list of these 
> comments and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet | 10 Jun 2003 13:51
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-lee-v6ops-natpt-mobility-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Considerations for Mobility Support in NAT-PT
	Author(s)	: M. Shin, J. Lee
	Filename	: draft-lee-v6ops-natpt-mobility-00.txt
	Pages		: 7
	Date		: 2003-6-9
	
The document specifies considerations for mobility support in NAT-
PT (RFC-2766) [1].

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-v6ops-natpt-mobility-00.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-lee-v6ops-natpt-mobility-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	mailserv@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Internet | 10 Jun 2003 16:07
Picon
Favicon

I-D ACTION:draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title		: Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs
	Author(s)	: C. Huitema
	Filename	: draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt
	Pages		: 58
	Date		: 2003-6-9
	
We propose here a service that enables nodes located behind one or
several IPv4 NATs to obtain IPv6 connectivity by tunneling packets
over UDP; we call this the Teredo service. Running the service
requires the help of 'Teredo servers' and 'Teredo relays'; the
Teredo servers are stateless, and only have to manage a small
fraction of the traffic between Teredo clients; the Teredo relays
act as IPv6 routers between the Teredo service and the 'native' IPv6
Internet.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt

To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to 
ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
EricLKlein | 10 Jun 2003 17:09
Picon

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt

I am not sure that I like the idea that traffic originating as IPv4 TCP
traffic will be transported by UDP across tunnels to obtain IPv6
connectivity.

This requires that the tredo "server" will know to ask for retransmits
should anything fail to reach it's destination.

Sounds a bit iffy to me, especially as people are looking for more quality
of service guarantees and commitments.

Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: <Internet-Drafts@...>
To: <IETF-Announce:>
Cc: <v6ops@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
>
>
> Title : Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs
> Author(s) : C. Huitema
> Filename : draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt
> Pages : 58
> Date : 2003-6-9
>
> We propose here a service that enables nodes located behind one or
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Christian Huitema | 10 Jun 2003 17:50
Picon
Favicon

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt

> I am not sure that I like the idea that traffic originating as IPv4
TCP
> traffic will be transported by UDP across tunnels to obtain IPv6
> connectivity.
> 
> This requires that the tredo "server" will know to ask for retransmits
> should anything fail to reach it's destination.

Did you actually read the draft? The stack would be
(transport)/IPv6/UDP/IPv4, which gives by and large the same kind of
reliability as (transport)/IPv6/IPv4, i.e. the other form of tunneling.
Also, only a small fraction of the packets actually go through the
server.

-- Christian Huitema
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Pekka Savola | 10 Jun 2003 18:52
Picon

RE: I-D ACTION:draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00.txt

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, Christian Huitema wrote:
[...]
> Also, only a small fraction of the packets actually go through the
> server.

One thing to note here: in addition to "Server", the Teredo architecture
also includes "Relay".  And while only a small fraction of packets go
through the server (AFAIR), a large number of them could go through Relay
(which are probably often one and the same).

So, in practical purposes I believe Eric's comment about "server" can be 
generalized to be "server or relay".

In that vein, please remember that people MAY NOT deploy Teredo as some
may envision it, to be used mainly between Teredo hosts only -- but 
between the hosts and *the rest of the IPv6 Internet*.

If you want to deploy IPv6 Internet and IPv6 Teredo Internet separately, 
you're certainly correct: few packets pass through servers/relays.

I do not have that deployment scenario in mind; quite the opposite :-).

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane