From hannu.flinck@nsn.com Thu Feb 3 00:32:35 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C70B3A689E for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:32:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.999, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nXy4rZUGY3+e for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:32:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (demumfd001.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578823A6897 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 00:32:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd001.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p138ZtT6017127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:35:55 +0100 Received: from demuexc025.nsn-intra.net (demuexc025.nsn-intra.net [10.159.32.12]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id p138ZkWE007389 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:35:55 +0100 Received: from FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.0.25]) by demuexc025.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 3 Feb 2011 09:35:48 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CBC37D.5B1222F4" Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:35:47 +0200 Message-ID: <26E5D1C5D5365D47B147E5E62FC735850235C7F0@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Questions about draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 Thread-Index: AcvDfVrXBnjzZwcnRtCdtnSKWuoMTg== From: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2011 08:35:48.0726 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BB75160:01CBC37D] Subject: [renum] Questions about draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 08:32:35 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBC37D.5B1222F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Sheng (and others) I read your document and have the following questions. What do you mean by "portion renumbering"? A subset of a subnet renumbered maybe? (And one needs to split the externally announced prefix?) And I am not sure if I understand the NAT issue you are pointing out. Aren't NATs used because one wants to keep the external and internal addresses separate? So are you renumbering the external address of the NAT? That will break the ongoing sessions but is there something else? - Hannu=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CBC37D.5B1222F4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Questions about draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00

Hello Sheng (and others)

I read your document and have the = following questions. What do you mean by "portion = renumbering"? A subset of a subnet renumbered maybe? (And one needs = to split the externally announced prefix?) And I am not sure if I = understand the NAT issue you are pointing out. Aren't NATs used because = one wants to keep the external and internal addresses separate? So are = you renumbering the external address of the NAT? That will break the = ongoing sessions but is there something else?

- Hannu=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01CBC37D.5B1222F4-- From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Fri Feb 4 14:38:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E833A69EE for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:38:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.982 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.982 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.383, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9oNEcIwdZHmk for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301FF3A69DE for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:38:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so949839vxi.31 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:42:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rieIwOcCIIcIHtrLtM/nWzwZg2hB5/yqN+NiMnzbHw0=; b=rX684mdQaKYRN46l36GZZhoN4U+2Z12JkrOoan0NDtbVaDEqh+Efev/Fb3LF17Vl3J 1Fr7AzqCsxH9B4Etwo6GJLvpnyaN4qlJWfCOF/Rn1laREUDhOHzHgaKYmHiWnb4pFzYQ fEbVaA0VwklEVELZ28oFu8Go91mHlpSW+dV7U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=kufNCto+qKgpczNHyhYDvZJczbNrO5ALM2AVrrAjK7x2r5dWo7mWug24TepkP4K3xd K1ke0YlcqUALejmp+QaWhOiHP2BldkqZhCAD7yqApN9w2fPnwkLB6tAnRTbsRQgMQY18 8e275ohQcK8WMsio92SHQFEuauThSuBrrFrXw= Received: by 10.220.190.197 with SMTP id dj5mr1150553vcb.4.1296859328845; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:42:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.190.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ft27sm912645vbb.18.2011.02.04.14.42.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:42:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D4C80BA.5040505@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:42:02 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: renum@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [renum] [Fwd: [OPS-AREA] RENUM BoF] X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:38:44 -0000 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [OPS-AREA] RENUM BoF Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 15:54:08 -0500 From: Ronald Bonica To: ops-area@ietf.org Folks, There will be a renumbering (RENUM) BoF at IETF 80. I am looking for a survivor of a non-trivial renumbering operation to chair the BoF. If you are interested in the job, please send me an email describing: - your IETF experience - your operations experience - your renumbering experience Thanks, Ron _______________________________________________ OPS-AREA mailing list OPS-AREA@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area From jiangsheng@huawei.com Tue Feb 15 01:05:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EED3A6B5B for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:05:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 57zg1oQ6z-Eh for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:05:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899FF3A6AE4 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:05:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGN00CHEIJJF3@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for renum@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:04:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGN00H14IJI4T@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for renum@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:04:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.31) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:03:20 +0800 Received: from SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.87]) by SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.31]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:04:30 +0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:04:29 +0000 From: Jiangsheng X-Originating-IP: [10.110.98.66] To: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , "renum@ietf.org" Message-id: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927EB647@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [renum] Questions about draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 Thread-index: AcvDfVrXBnjzZwcnRtCdtnSKWuoMTgJOxzGwAA21wmA= X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Subject: Re: [renum] Questions about draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 09:05:14 -0000 Hi, Hannu, Sorry for the late reply. We were in the Chinese New Year holidays. Your understanding for portion renumbering is what I meant. One concrete example here: a large site network with a 48/ prefix may assign 52/ prefixes to its subnet. one subnet renumbering is portion renumbering from the whole site perspective. NAT issues are more complicated than your description. Besides renumbering the external address of the NAT, renumbering the internal address of NAT could happen though it may be less possibility. Furthermore, the external address pool on the NAT would need to be reconfigured during the external address renumbering. Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: renum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:renum-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:36 PM > To: renum@ietf.org > Subject: [renum] Questions about > draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 > > Hello Sheng (and others) > > I read your document and have the following questions. What do you > mean by "portion renumbering"? A subset of a subnet renumbered maybe? > (And one needs to split the externally announced prefix?) And I am not > sure if I understand the NAT issue you are pointing out. Aren't NATs > used because one wants to keep the external and internal addresses > separate? > So are you renumbering the external address of the NAT? That will > break the ongoing sessions but is there something else? > > - Hannu > > From jiangsheng@huawei.com Mon Feb 14 22:15:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C339B3A6AA6 for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:15:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NcpBuJubmAXf for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B364C3A6A8B for ; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 22:15:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGN00JK4AO89E@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for renum@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:14:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LGN006A3AO598@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for renum@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:14:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.31) by szxeml201-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:14:26 +0800 Received: from SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.87]) by SZXEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.31]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:14:28 +0800 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:14:27 +0000 From: Jiangsheng In-reply-to: <26E5D1C5D5365D47B147E5E62FC735850235C7F0@FIESEXC035.nsn-intra.net> X-Originating-IP: [10.110.98.66] To: "Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo)" , "renum@ietf.org" Message-id: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B927EB08E@SZXEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: zh-CN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: [renum] Questions about draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 Thread-index: AcvDfVrXBnjzZwcnRtCdtnSKWuoMTgJOxzGw X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:51:03 -0800 Subject: Re: [renum] Questions about draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:46:26 -0000 Hi, Hannu, Sorry for the late reply. We were in the Chinese New Year holidays. Your understanding for portion renumbering is what I meant. One concrete example here: a large site network with a 48/ prefix may assign 52/ prefixes to its subnet. one subnet renumbering is portion renumbering from the whole site perspective. NAT issues are more complicated than your description. Besides renumbering the external address of the NAT, renumbering the internal address of NAT could happen though it may be less possibility. Furthermore, the external address pool on the NAT would need to be reconfigured during the external address renumbering. Regards, Sheng > -----Original Message----- > From: renum-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:renum-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:36 PM > To: renum@ietf.org > Subject: [renum] Questions about > draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00 > > Hello Sheng (and others) > > I read your document and have the following questions. What > do you mean by "portion renumbering"? A subset of a subnet > renumbered maybe? (And one needs to split the externally > announced prefix?) And I am not sure if I understand the NAT > issue you are pointing out. Aren't NATs used because one > wants to keep the external and internal addresses separate? > So are you renumbering the external address of the NAT? That > will break the ongoing sessions but is there something else? > > - Hannu > > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sat Feb 19 13:31:52 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA6B3A6D4F for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:31:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.471 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJXJ6pZ0u+5S for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com [209.85.218.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775D23A6CF6 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:31:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by yie19 with SMTP id 19so2267197yie.31 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:32:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jX7H9E7Ui0o0VHHT+R9cLo8fP5DJFRy04RpzHXomwQQ=; b=AKBZRCvZlCVVj7ksfw5b5C3SJxC4YOtj9ebO0Fqm9N7soqu62geMFTHy29wJI1tpQx I/mpu1+QlpTpulycNum9tcqypIJvWMvilQpYmn08+Bw3CwqUMEWkXByldtgTBGfTg4/w +/og3UyHZ/PR0i5wr53SW5vyR6leYjh4dLs04= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=t3ZiOFNQuwdOQ6Twa6lXaGxACczxD9jSVg/dgmNPCXwrWMcYwJxpLphGMDmVIkns+B COdDSOoJzdTZwooJYDHUlPAI2Zp51YOEXQm0tgz867i9btGeSm4v2a0kkZfqOcEV28h3 KL+ezL4wNYVaYM2FeSXnOyDjBVFbn+I/zRVBw= Received: by 10.150.144.17 with SMTP id r17mr2906559ybd.343.1298151146441; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:32:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.190.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 8sm2245055yhl.44.2011.02.19.13.32.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:32:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6036DF.7010205@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:32:15 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: renum@ietf.org, draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline@tools.ietf.org References: <20110126084501.12010.42624.idtracker@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20110126084501.12010.42624.idtracker@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [renum] I-D Action:draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00.txt X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:31:52 -0000 Hi, I've finally had time to read through this draft. I think it's a good basis for the BOF discussion so I only have a couple of comments for now: RFC 4192 is listed as a reference, but there is no discussion in the text. I think it would be useful to discuss which aspects of the procedure in 4192 need extra work. You don't mention draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout. Although it expired several years ago, I think it is still a valuable source. (I think there was also a 6net report on site renumbering, too.) Typos in the Acknowledgements - my name is misspelled slightly, and who is Fred Bark? Regards Brian On 2011-01-26 21:45, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : IPv6 Site Renumbering Guidelines and Further Works > Author(s) : S. Jiang, B. Liu > Filename : draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2011-01-26 > > This document analyzes the existing issues for IPv6 site renumbering. > It also analyzes the possible directions to solve these issues and > gives recommendations. This document only takes the perspective of > network and network protocols. Renumbering in IPv4 networks, in the > dual-stack network or in the IPv4/IPv6 transition networks are out of > scope. > > This document only takes the perspective of network and network > protocols. According to the different stages, these issues are > described in three categories: considerations during network design, > considerations for routine network management, and considerations > during renumbering operation. Recommended solutions or strategies are > also described. Issues that still remain unsolvable are listed as the > fourth category. > > Although we list a few non-network issues in this document, we > consider them as issues that ISPs or network providers cannot affect. > So, these issues are considered to be unsolvable and not explore > further in these document, though they may be solved by OS > implementations or application implementations. > > We summary the requests that need to extend current protocols as > further works at the end of this document. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline-00.txt From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Sat Feb 19 13:36:49 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BC43A6C9C for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:36:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CTaXucwkMTXu for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:36:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2BA3A6C75 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:36:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by gxk5 with SMTP id 5so256016gxk.31 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:37:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wRFCUpxqahkeTTZW3TStr7AMC72kcEmYmie1+RtmW70=; b=bnw2LthQXs91fv+/SbxHzcTZvt4Nm3kncRCutd/tOP1NtFnUA8ZZHnC3thc0EPUD+9 ALe6to6o88DJH6fXGMrtxlxIiyxlHR52umMZAaJugPWGlLVOS8TX2hlPxPQ+ZJPihpCL PtT8abzq7MDHqPwLU3mdOhKJEi770kU/88wRE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=CRGf413x4QvI4ArgbTLEmdh23f9FoZQsp0xzF6LqGlSdKFKNLFhCQ9Puvy6Np9fVHW tYzWLfLpy1lPC5em5Oy7AnJlow1NwcMwPYddBcIBmhUwfZhiJCcGL8itRGQZuYOZVZVv C4sCbcKpPgnbR+mV9+7eqjS0eToHrRLBt2mn4= Received: by 10.151.142.6 with SMTP id u6mr3007350ybn.46.1298151442340; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.190.33]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v6sm1297310ybk.8.2011.02.19.13.37.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:37:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D603810.3060003@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 10:37:20 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: renum@ietf.org, draft-boot-brdp-framework@tools.ietf.org References: <20110131123001.9503.36699.idtracker@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20110131123001.9503.36699.idtracker@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [renum] I-D Action:draft-boot-brdp-framework-00.txt X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:36:49 -0000 Hi, I had a quick look at this interesting proposal. As far as the RENUM BOF goes, I think it is just a point of information as we really don't expect to discuss solutions in Prague. But it's a very interesting approach to the problem. A couple of general questions: How does this relate to the techniques in draft-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66? Will it work OK with NPTv6 (draft-mrw-nat66, which is not about NAT66)? Is there any prototype code? Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-02-01 01:30, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : BRDP Framework > Author(s) : T. Boot, A. Holtzer > Filename : draft-boot-brdp-framework-00.txt > Pages : 24 > Date : 2011-01-31 > > This document describes the Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP) > framework. This framework enables multi-homing for small to medium > sites, using Provider Aggregatable IPv6 addresses. It describes a > mechanism for automated IP address configuration and renumbering, a > mechanism for optimized source address selection and a new paradigm > for packet forwarding. The BRDP framework prevents ingress filtering > problems with multi-homed sites and supports load-balancing for > multi-path transport protocols. This work also prevents routing > scalability problems in the provider network and Internet Default > Free Zone because small to medium multi-homed size sites would not > need to request Provider Independent address blocks. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boot-brdp-framework-00.txt From teco@inf-net.nl Mon Feb 21 04:30:08 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: renum@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED453A70EE for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:30:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mtucx7XomjMz for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:30:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ey0-f182.google.com (mail-ey0-f182.google.com [209.85.215.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98F13A70EA for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:30:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by eyg7 with SMTP id 7so566670eyg.27 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:30:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.14.22.80 with SMTP id s56mr1490349ees.6.1298291447774; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:30:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.4.187] ([188.205.88.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t50sm4861201eeh.0.2011.02.21.04.30.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Feb 2011 04:30:46 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Teco Boot In-Reply-To: <4D603810.3060003@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 13:30:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8B648CB6-A134-47F1-85E2-838D1B79DD1E@inf-net.nl> References: <20110131123001.9503.36699.idtracker@localhost> <4D603810.3060003@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: renum@ietf.org, draft-boot-brdp-framework@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [renum] I-D Action:draft-boot-brdp-framework-00.txt X-BeenThere: renum@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "Renumbering discussion mailing list." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:30:08 -0000 Hi Brian, Op 19 feb 2011, om 22:37 heeft Brian E Carpenter het volgende = geschreven: > Hi, >=20 > I had a quick look at this interesting proposal. As far as the RENUM > BOF goes, I think it is just a point of information as we really don't > expect to discuss solutions in Prague. But it's a very interesting > approach to the problem. A couple of general questions: >=20 > How does this relate to the techniques in = draft-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66? This work also includes scenarios and problem statement. It is highly = related. BRDP is defined for multi-hop edge networks, particularly = MANETs. So the scenario's do differ somewhat. Source address selection and next-hop selection is addressed by BRDP. I = assume DNS server selection is addressed by MIF. I think requirements for policy enforcement can be implemented in the = BRDP Framework. I'll wait on what Fred Baker brings in.=20 On solutions, IMHO BRDP differs from other proposals. It suggests a = cooperation between hosts and routers. Hosts may select any address it = has configured, routers direct sent packets to gateways that corresponds = to the source address. Routers provide hints for address and next-hop = selection. This enables powerful tools like MPTCP, for all scenario's in = draft-v6ops-multihoming-without-nat66. Maybe add the BRDP approach in this document? [Fred has also ideas, with similar approach. Not written down yet. = Correct?] > Will it work OK with NPTv6 (draft-mrw-nat66, which is not about = NAT66)? It is OK when Border Routers uses NPTv6. BRDP suggests a prefix per border router. This brings MPTCP, guidance = for DNS server selection etc. But needs modified routers, and = evolutionary updated hosts for full functionality. NPTv6 is based on GSE, so same family as ILNP. I'll include NPTv6 in a = next version. > Is there any prototype code? In simulation.=20 Intentions to have running code, for the MANET case. Thanks, Teco =20 >=20 > Regards > Brian Carpenter >=20 > On 2011-02-01 01:30, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>=20 >> Title : BRDP Framework >> Author(s) : T. Boot, A. Holtzer >> Filename : draft-boot-brdp-framework-00.txt >> Pages : 24 >> Date : 2011-01-31 >>=20 >> This document describes the Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP) >> framework. This framework enables multi-homing for small to medium >> sites, using Provider Aggregatable IPv6 addresses. It describes a >> mechanism for automated IP address configuration and renumbering, a >> mechanism for optimized source address selection and a new paradigm >> for packet forwarding. The BRDP framework prevents ingress filtering >> problems with multi-homed sites and supports load-balancing for >> multi-path transport protocols. This work also prevents routing >> scalability problems in the provider network and Internet Default >> Free Zone because small to medium multi-homed size sites would not >> need to request Provider Independent address blocks. >>=20 >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-boot-brdp-framework-00.txt > _______________________________________________ > renum mailing list > renum@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum