Subject: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 12:11:29 -0400

Folks,

Thanks for introducing this document! 

I would like to bring the authors' attention to the following documents that are working in OPSEC:

- draft-behringer-lla-only
- draft-baker-opsec-passive-ip-address

To some extent, draft-grow and draft-behringer are debating with one another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it is not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are being considered in different WGs. 

For the purpose of discussing these three documents, I think that a little cross-posting is acceptable.

--------------------------
Ron Bonica
vcard:       www.bonica.org/ron/ronbonica.vcf

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:05:05 +0100

On 17/05/2012 17:11, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> To some extent, draft-grow and draft-behringer are debating with one
> another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it is
> not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are being
> considered in different WGs.

yes, certainly draft-behringer and draft-grow are discussing a
substantially similar issue - namely using non-routable interface addresses
in the core.  tbh, it's not really possible to manage a network without
traceroute and remote interface ping.

Wes George posted a more complete response here:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg02191.html

I agree fully with his analysis on all points.

Nick

---

From: Anthony Kirkham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 20:38:21 +1000

If we come back to the original intent of this draft. The private-ip 
draft was fundamentally intended to provide some useful information on a 
topic, which had not previously been documented. And in my experience, 
there was a lot of confusion in relation to the subject across many 
ISPs. It was certainly not designed to make recommendations as to best 
practice (even though I have my own views on that). I have worded the 
document to avoid any suggestion of good or bad practice, just 
documenting the effects.

I would not like to see it delayed by getting caught up in these 
discussions. It should certainly not prevent any of these other 
discussions going forward.

That's my 0.02c, and again thanks for all the feedback and discussion.
Tony K

On 18/05/12 2:11 AM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> GROW mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
>
>

--

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:23:46 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Bonica" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 5:11 PM

I think it a bigger shame that draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores is
not in the RFC Editor queue awaiting publication!

It is a natural companion to RFC6598 and could have, should have, been
in the queue at the same time.  This I-D was relevant when it was first
written 2 years ago, and I see its relevance decreasing with time, as
people stumble over the mistakes that this I-D could have prevented.  It
has taken those 2 years to get this I-D IETF-ready, little has changed
in the content in that time, and it is time we got it out of the door.

Of course there is scope for improvement, there always is, but that is
an argument for never publishing anything.  If the authors of the other
I-Ds want to build on it, then of course they can produce a bis that
covers more, but let's publish what we have got.

Tom Petch

---

From: Robert Raszuk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:00:07 +0200

Extremely well said Tom !

Rgs,
R.

> From: "Ronald Bonica"<[email-masked]>
> To:<[email-masked]>;<[email-masked]>

---

From: Ronald Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:07:08 -0400

Tom,

AFAIKS, the WGLC that Chris suggested in the email below can proceed:

- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg02263.html

The updates that Chris requested seem to be addressed in the two versions that have been posted since then. Chris, do you agree?

                                               Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:24 AM
> To: Ronald Bonica; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-private-ip-sp-cores
> 
> another. While draft-baker is not directly involved in the debate, it
> is not uninvolved, either. It is a shame that the three documents are
> being considered in different WGs.
> 
> people stumble over the mistakes that this I-D could have prevented.
> It has taken those 2 years to get this I-D IETF-ready, little has
> changed in the content in that time, and it is time we got it out of
> the door.
>