Last Modified: 2004-07-23
The IPv6 Operations Working Group (v6ops) develops guidelines for the operation of a shared IPv4/IPv6 Internet and provides guidance for network operators on how to deploy IPv6 into existing IPv4-only networks, as well as into new network installations.
The v6ops working group will:
1. Solicit input from network operators and users to identify operational or security issues with the IPv4/IPv6 Internet, and determine solutions or workarounds to those issues. This includes identifying standards work that is needed in other IETF WGs or areas and working with those groups/areas to begin appropriate work. These issues will be documented in Informational or BCP RFCs, or in Internet-Drafts.
For example, important pieces of the Internet infrastructure such as DNS, SMTP and SIP have specific operational issues when they operate in a shared IPv4/IPv6 network. The v6ops WG will cooperate with the relevant areas and WGs to document those issues, and find protocol or operational solutions to those problems.
2. Provide feedback to the IPv6 WG regarding portions of the IPv6 specifications that cause, or are likely to cause, operational or security concerns, and work with the IPv6 WG to resolve those concerns. This feedback will be published in Internet-Drafts or RFCs.
3. Publish Informational RFCs that help application developers (within and outside the IETF) understand how to develop IP version-independent applications. Work with the Applications area, and other areas, to ensure that these documents answer the real-world concerns of application developers. This includes helping to identify IPv4 dependencies in existing IETF application protocols and working with other areas and/or groups within the IETF to resolve them.
4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify potential security risks in the operation of shared IPv4/IPv6 networks, and document operational practices to eliminate or mitigate those risks. This work will be done in cooperation with the Security area and other relevant areas or working groups.
5. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, such as ISP Networks (including Core, HFC/Cable, DSL & Dial-up networks), Enterprise Networks, Unmanaged Networks (Home/Small Office), and Cellular Networks.
These documents should serve as useful guides to network operators and users on how to deploy IPv6 within their existing IPv4 networks, as well as in new network installations.
6. Identify open operational or security issues with the deployment scenarios documented in (5) and fully document those open issues in Internet-Drafts or Informational RFCs. Work to find workarounds or solutions to basic, IP-level operational or security issues that can be solved using widely-applicable transition mechanisms, such as dual-stack, tunneling or translation.
If the satisfactory resolution of an operational or security issue requires the standardization of a new, widely-applicable transition mechanism that does not properly fit into any other IETF WG or area, the v6ops WG will standardize a transition mechanism to meet that need.
7. Assume responsibility for advancing the basic IPv6 transition mechanism RFCs along the standards track, if their applicability to common deployment scenarios is demonstrated in (5) above:
Transition Mechanisms (RFC 2893)
SIIT (RFC 2765)
NAT-PT (RFC 2766)
6to4 (RFC 3056 & 3068)
This includes updating these mechanisms, as needed, to resolve problems. In some cases, these mechanisms may be deprecated (i.e. moved to Historic), if they are not found to be applicable to the deployment solutions described in (5) or if serious flaws are encountered that lead us to recommend against their use.
IPv6 operational and deployment issues with specific protocols or technologies (such as Applications, Transport Protocols, Routing Protocols, DNS or Sub-IP Protocols) are the primary responsibility of the groups or areas responsible for those protocols or technologies. However, the v6ops group will provide input to those areas/groups, as needed, and cooperate with those areas/groups in developing and reviewing solutions to IPv6 operational and deployment problems.
|Done||Publish Cellular Deployment Scenarios as a WG I-D|
|Done||Publish Unmanaged Network Deployment Scenarios as a WG I-D|
|Done||Publish Survey of IPv4 Addresses in IETF Standards as WG I-D|
|Done||Publish Cellular Deployment Solutions as a WG I-D|
|Done||Publish Unmanaged Network Deployment Solutions as a WG I-D|
|Done||Submit Cellular Deployment Scenarios to IESG for Info|
|Done||Submit Unmanaged Network Deployment Scenarios to IESG for Info|
|Done||Publish Enterprise Deployment Scenarios as a WG I-D|
|Done||Submit Survey of IPv4 Addresses in IETF Standards to IESG for Info|
|Done||Publish ISP Deployment & Solutions as a WG I-D|
|Done||Submit Cellular Deployment Solutions to IESG for BCP|
|Done||Submit Transition Mechanisms to IESG for PS|
|Done||Submit IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption to IESG for BCP|
|Done||Submit Dual Stack IPv6 on by Default to IESG for Informational|
|Done||Submit Unmanaged Network Deployment Solutions to IESG for BCP|
|Done||Submit ISP Deployment Scenarios & Solutions to IESG for BCP|
|Done||Submit Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition to IESG for Informational|
|Done||Submit 6to4 Security Analysis to IESG for Informational|
|Done||Submit Enterprise Deployment Scenarios to IESG for Info|
|Done||Submit Renumbering Procedures to IESG for BCP|
|Aug 04||Submit Assisted Tunneling Requirements to IESG for Info|
|Sep 04||Publish Enterprise Deployment Solutions as a WG I-D|
|Dec 04||Submit IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunneling using IPsec to IESG for Info|
|Feb 05||Submit IPv6 Security Overview to IESG for Info|
|Feb 05||Submit Enterprise Deployment Solutions to IESG for BCP|
|RFC3574||I||Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks|
|RFC3750||I||Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios|
|RFC3793||I||Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards|
|RFC3796||I||Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards|
|RFC3795||I||Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards|
|RFC3794||I||Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards|
|RFC3792||I||Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards|
|RFC3791||I||Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards|
|RFC3790||I||Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area Standards|
|RFC3789||I||Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards|
IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) minutes of IETF60 ============================================ Monday, August 2 at 1930-2200 Thursday, August 5 at 0900-1130 CHAIRS: Pekka Savola <email@example.com> Jonne Soininen <firstname.lastname@example.org> The minutes were edited by Pekka Savola notes taken by Juha Wiljakka (both sessions) and Florent Parent (both sessions). Tim Chown provided Jabber transcript. There were over ??? folk in attendance. AGENDA: Monday 2nd Aug, 1930-2200 Introduction and agenda bashing - 5 mins, Chairs/Soininen Document status - 15 mins, Chairs/Savola VLAN Usage for IPv6 Transition - 5 mins, Chown Enterprise solution case study - 20 mins, Chown Assisted Tunneling Requirements - 15 mins, Durand Moving forward with Mechanisms - 45 mins, Chairs/ADs Secure IPv6 Tunneling - 10 mins, Graveman IPv6 Security Overview - 10 mins, Savola Tunnel-endpoint discovery - 10 mins, Palet What to do with NAT-PT applicability statement - 5 mins, Chairs/Savola Thursday 5th Aug 0900-1130 Agenda bashing - 5 mins, Chairs IETF IPR policy recap/discussion - 5 mins, Chairs Summary: IETF takes no stance; read RFC3668 Enterprise analysis, first look - 10 mins, Bound Zero-conf requirements report - 20 mins, Nielsen Assisted tunneling analysis - 20 mins, Durand Transition mechanisms update - 5 mins, Chairs/Savola "Auto-transition" - 10 mins, Palet IPv6 Mobility Scenarios - 10 mins, Williams Distributed v6 security reqs etc. - 10 mins, Palet Advanced L3 IPv6 Exchange Model - 10 mins, Palet MINUTES: Monday, August 2 at 1930-2200 ============================= * Introduction and agenda bashing - 5 mins, Chairs/Soininen * Document status - 15 mins, Chairs/Savola SLIDES: <00_v6ops-agenda.pdf> Pekka presented current document status. Bernard Tuy: What is the status of the ISP scenarios? Pekka: Past the IESG evaluation, waiting to go to RFC editor. * VLAN Usage for IPv6 transition - 5 mins, Chown SLIDES: <01_vlan-usage-01.pdf> Tim Chown presented, and asked whether it is worth documenting, complete enough, or ready for WG adoption. Jonne Soininen: We'll discuss way forward in v6ops later, postponing the issue of WG adoption. Bernard Tuy: Agree that this is worth documenting. Bernand Tuy: Just say a router instead of PC-based router. Fred Templin: How is VLAN tagging done? Tim: Using VLAN framing in the Ethernet frames. Fred Templin: Is it like ISATAP and doesn't go through NATs? Tim: no, it's independent of NATs. Christian Huitema: <made a comment> * Enterprise solution case study: Campus Transition - 20 mins, Chown SLIDES: <02_campus-transition.pdf> Tim Chown presented, and asked whether this was useful, and whether there was potential for WG item. Alain Durand: Thanks for writing the document. NFSv6 is shipping since couple of years. Network discussion in document ok. But application version specifics are not as useful. Christian Huitema: Stick to exact/specific descriptions. Jim Bound: Good job. Should be work on in this WG. Would like to see examples of VLAN in appendix. Alain Durand: This is exactly the kind of doc that the WG needs to do; we should focus on documenting real deployments. Eric ?: In scenario 3, describe difference between IPv6 only deployment and v4/v6 as documented? * Assisted Tunneling Requirements - 15 mins, Durand SLIDES: <03_assisted-tunneling.pdf> Alain Durand presented. (In the context of prefix length for tunnel link) Christian Huitema: Tunnel link is a link. assign /64. Bernard Tuy: Use first /64 from the /48 to assign tunnel Alain Durand: Will change to /64. (In the context of securing the tunnel link) Christian Huitema: Should be a way to provide authenticated and encrypted service, in an interoperable fashion. Pekka Savola: We need to stick to the basics. This is no less secure than configured tunneling. IPv6-in-IPv4 w/ IPsec is described in another document. Eric ?: IPv6 gives many advantages. Need secure mechanism specifically outlined. Agrees with Christian. Pekka Savola: Useful to document. Operationally, many tunnels are not using IPsec. Be realistic. Christian Huitema: Secure VPN. Jonne Soininen: Sometimes you use double layer encryption as well. (In the context of the Requirements word) Thomas Narten: Wording somewhat offensive (IESG of the day). Requirement documents should not have uppercase imperatives. Should be more of a goal. Brian Carpenter: Requirement document has to be a self consistent document; either you must be able to fill all the requirements (in one solution), or the text needs to be more flexible. Removing the uppercase removes that contraint. (In the context of DNS considerations) Christian Huitema: DNS considerations should be removed if we use /64. (General commentary) Karen Nielsen: the document refers to 3GPP analysis, but does 3GPP refer to this? If not, this is incorrect. Thomas Narten: Does 3gpp identify assisted tunneling as required? Pekka Savola: assisted tunneling can be applied to address 3GPP. Christian Huitema: Looks good on whiteboard. Which customer demand drives the each requirements? Pekka Savola: we have too few operators in the IETF.. Christian Huitema: Requirements appear to be based on developing a protocol. Need direct link with ISP/... demand. Alain Durand: requirements not specific enough? Christian: ground goal on specific scenarios/requirements. Xiaobao Chen: What is the justification for requiring assisted tunneling for 3GPP? Jonne Soininen: This doesn't give any requirements for 3GPP networks. Karen Nielsen: (re-stating) I have the problem that this claims to solve issues in 3GPP networks, I understand that it is coming from scenarios, much from ISP, but does it really apply to 3GPP? Thomas Narten: if refering to 3GPP requirements but doesn't apply, remove reference. * Moving forward with Mechanisms - 45 mins, Chairs/ADs SLIDES: <04_v6ops-way-forwardv2.pdf> Jonne Soininen presented, proposing aggressive deadlines, e.g.: Enterprise analysis - first version in 2 weeks - in WG last call by sept 7th Finish assisted tunneling req doc - deadline aug 20 List the zeroconf requirements - dealline: proposal Thursday - requirement by sept 1st Lets keep the new WG items on hold until these are done. Erik Nordmark: IPv4 over IPv6: do we need nore details, how they configured, traffic optimization, etc. Pekka Savola: No requirements for path optimization. Need discovery. Cross domain (ISP). Manually configured tunneling with automatic discovery is sufficient. Alain Durand: IPv4 in IPv6 in assisted tunneling. Also NAT traversal. There was a "or else.." in the slides -- if we don't get this done, then what? Closing the WG? Jonne Soininen: Not closing. If not done in a suitable timeframe, we don't have it; we won't provide a solution to those scenarios. David Kessens: some progress is going on. E.g., Teredo moving to PS. Margaret Wasserman: Credit to current chairs for moving things forward. Holes have been identified. A lot of effort have been made. Hopes that people will see hope on this. You have done good job, guys! Jim Bound: 2 weeks is not realistic, 4 weeks closer to it. Jonne Soininen: We need just the first version, i.e., showing that somebody is willing to make the 1st version in 2 weeks, we need to see commitment. Can be extended, but we need to see commitment. Jim Bound: make it 3 weeks for enterprise analysis. I Will deliver it. If folks want to give input, send TEXT! Jordi Palet: What do you mean with zero-conf tunneling? Jonne Soininen: identified in 3GPP. Doesn't mean something specific. Requirements only. Tim Chown: Have deadlines working both ways: for IESG as well. David Kessens: First slot for IESG is 2 weeks after IETF. Tim Chown: that is same time as deadline: impossible. Thomas Narten: No room for iterations in the current deadlines. Good progess would be to have review every month. Jonne Soininen: First enterprise analysis in 3 weeks, then iterate every month. What is a realistic last call date? Pekka Savola: by the end of September? David Kessens: for next IETF too late. Next IETF should be about discussion of the future of this WG. Jim Bound: Will this wg die? I don't want this work to be killed like Ngtrans. It is time that the drafts are put in public. David Kessens: We are making progress, milestones almost done. There are no rumors, rechartering is normal practice in the IETF. There has been discussion that a wg standardizing tunneling mechs is needed. Jim Bound: doesn't know what assisted tunneling does. Pekka Savola: TSP falls in this category Karen Nielsen: Would like to know which scenario map into assisted tunneling/zero conf/etc.. Christian Huitema: Is ISATAP missing? Jonne Soininen: It is not missing, but it is missing... Jonne's personal opinion is that ISATAP fits in zeroconf. Chair hat on: We have to see requirements before we can say. Fred has sent ISATAP to be published as an Experimental RFC, but thinking that ISATAP fits in zeroconf.. Fred Templin: moved in experimental. But would like to have it on standard track. Christian Huitema: may revise the ISATAP document later. Need to document what is on the market in RFC document. Christian Huitema: I have a lot of sympathy for Jim: we'repending lots of time in analysing/requirements. Jim Bound: Fred should not have to go to experimental for ISATAP Jonne Soininen: he doesn't have to, we're not forcing him. But he has the right to do so. Brian Carpenter: ID-tracker says on ISATAP work: waiting for v6ops scenarios work.. Thomas Narten: Old text, gone to RFC Editor. The ID-tracker needs to be updated. Jonne Soininen: We have a plan, we can move forward quickly. Interested people coming to Jonne so that we have something done by Thursday. * Secure IPv6 Tunneling - 10 mins, Graveman SLIDES: <05_v6ops-secure-tunnels.pdf> Richard Graveman presented. Brian Carpenter: running code in router-router mode using older IPsec specs. The fact that this has been through security review, good to document here. Jim Bound: good document. Worried with the end-to-end problem with transport mode for router-router scenario. Jonne Soininen: not considering it now for WG item, due to the agreed policy. * IPv6 Security Overview - 10 mins, Savola SLIDES: <06_v6ops-sec.pdf> Pekka Savola presented, stating that this is referred to by a couple of documents and we need something like this. He wanted new editors/co-authors for the work, inviting to come and talk to him * Tunnel-endpoint Discovery, 10 mins, Palet SLIDES: <07_v6ops-tun-auto-disc.pdf> Jordi Palet presented. Xiaobao Chen: Applicability in 3GPP? Jordi Palet: There's another doc "auto transition".. Jonne Soininen: Let's discuss that off-line. Tim Chown: How evaluate all these solutions to decide how to pick? Jordi Palet: preparing document on this. * What do we want to do with NAT-PT? (Pekka) SLIDES: <08_v6ops-natpt.pdf> Pekka Savola presented. Bernard Tuy: NAT-PT is just another kind of NAT, should drop NAT-PT. Christian Huitema: if we do nothing, NAT-PT will endup being in RFP and implementors will be required to implement. Remi Depre(?): Depre: NAT-PT essential piece when no IPv4 address available (Lot's of people in the room): NO!!! Remi Depre(?): ok, I have things to learn :). Tony Hain: v6-only app <-> v4-only app needs a translation yes. This can be at different level. NAT-PT not necessarly the solution. We need a crisp doc that says that IPv6 deployment does not require NAT-PT. Alain Durand: Change status of NAT-PT (PS) to something else. Pekka Savola: maybe -- but we'd still to document it. Xiaobao Chen: NAT-PT would save payload size compared to tunneling. Tony Hain: Amount of battery costs you more than the overhead.. Brian Carpenter: Need to find volunteer to document why we reclassify NAT-PT. Bernard Tuy: What About SIIT? Pekka Savola: already covered in the document. Pekka Savola: there seems to be significant interest to work on this. Come see the chairs after the meeting. Thursday, August 5 at 0900-1130 =============================== * Introduction / Agenda Bashing SLIDES: <10_v6ops-agenda2.pdf> * IETF IPR policy recap (Chairs/Pekka) The subject had come up on the list, so Pekka Savola just reminded of the policy; up to WG participants to make decision on what to do. * Enterprise analysis (Jim Bound) SLIDES: <11_ent_scen.pdf> Pekka Savola: personal observations: always when I see huge matrix, I get concerned...but it is good that you can pick the most relevant, real scenarios. This looks promising. Alain Durand: Are you going to focus on L3 or Applications in enterprise? Jim Bound: 00 draft more focused on L3, some apps. Alain Durand: L3 easy to fix. app issues more difficult Jim Bound: don't agree, L3 more important. Alain Durand: final document should have L7 considerations (apps) Jim Bound: sure. Don't feel that should handle all possible DNS config, for example. Done elsewhere. Jonne Soininen: let's take this off-list. Fred Templin: I offered text on the mailing list. why not there? Jim Bound: not seen text. will look Pekka Savola: What is "some form of translation", does it include proxying? Jim Bound: Yes. Tim Chown: Campus draft looking at apps/L7. can be used in scenario. * Goals of Zero-conf tunneling (Karen Neilsen) SLIDES: <12_zeroconfig-reqs.pdf> Karen Nielsen presented. Alain Durand: How many IPv6 addresses are you considering, what if there are devices behind the terminal? Karen Nielsen: at least one address.. Alain Durand: Sounds nice, but a little bit restrictive. Fred Templin: OK with the goals. But non-goals not appropriate for this document. Limits future growth. Pekka Savola: how will nodes behind the tunnel get IPv6? Karen Nielsen: one tunnel is setup, can do some mechanism Pekka Savola: not sure of answer. Laptop behind the UE? Jonne Soininen: use the same way as with IPv4, i.e. not using a shared PDP context, but using 2 PDP contexts: one for the UE and one for the laptop (PPP PDP context). Tim Chown: Compare the differences of assisted tunneling vs zero-conf. Karen Nielsen: non-goal is to differentiate with assisted tunneling Fred Templin: (Disagrees) David Kessens: happy with current draft. not trying to solve everything Alain Durand: a lot of common stuff with assisted tunneling. Does it make sense to explore 2 parallel? From vendor perspective, just one would be good. David Kessens: too early to answer this question. Jordi Palet: trying to keep as simple as possible; /64 must not add extra complexity compared to /128. No configuration. Jim Bound: Response to Alain. Assisted tunneling is nothing more than an informational document. Asking for more wasted time. Jordi Palet: We only have an RFC on a generic idea, but not a complete protocol description, so no interoperability among implementations. Alain Durand: Assisted tunneling will answer some of your questions * Assisted tunneling SLIDES: <13_asst-tun-analysis.pdf> Alain Durand presented, reminding that tunnel broker implementations are not interoperable since no formal *protocol* definition. (On the context of ISATAP) Fred Templin: could also use out of band for prefix delegation. Alain Durand: breaks the security model, all routers would have to be in PRL. Fred Templin: let's go off-line on this. (On the context of L2TP + IPsec) Dave Thaler: IPsec could be added to all the scenarios, and it would make it more challenging to deploy. David Kessens: Every slides show "pass most requirements". not useful. Alain Durand: sorry for being unclear. That means they pass all the requirements *except* endpoint discovery, but no mechanism passes this. Bob Hinden: TCP tunneling has serious issues w/ packet loss. Jim Bound: Good to define a setup protocol. How do you discover where the tunnel. Would be valuable part of this work. Jonne Soininen: after the exact reqs, need a doc mapping the solutions. * Moving forward (as needed) (No presentation.) David Kessens: work was done quickly. Keep pace. Jonne Soininen: thanked for these productive 2 days, hopefully people will also work hard after IETF60. * Final trans-mech-bis issue SLIDES: <14_transmech.pdf> Pekka Savola presented. There were no comments from participants. * "Auto-transition": picking the right mechanism - 10 mins, Palet SLIDES: <15_auto-trans.pdf> Jordi Palet presented, and at the end also noted that this is being implemented. Dave Thaler: 1) you may need to use longest match for tie-breaker for preference of mechanisms; 2) dynamic updates based on performance is a bad idea -- May fall into synchronization, everyone switch, congestion, fallback, congestion, etc. Jordi Palet: The performance estimates could be enabled by the user, not automatically. Pekka Savola: IETF rejected PBN some years ago. Are ISP still using this? Jordi Palet: agrees, should be host centric, but need to get input from the network. Pekka Savola: Just to be clear, no objection to getting input from the network, just that PBNs are not the way to do so. Alain Durand: Network debugging. Applicability important. * IPv6 Mobility Scenarios/Requirements update, 10 mins, Williams SLIDES: <16_mipv6-trans.pdf> Carl Williams presented. Karen Nielsen: any new requirement for MIP movement detection. Which requirements are used for movement detection? Henrik Levkowetz: movement detection is orthogonal to this. Part of this is describe in MIP documents, but a lot is not. That is where DNA work comes in. Jim Bound: Don't care about mip4. Should not tie to 3gpp, as MIPv6 will be used by all kinds of devices. Should focus on mip6. Carl Williams: Agree. Need to do some analysis on current transition scenarios. George Tsirtsis: MIP4 is deployed today. Used. Would like to do mip6. What are we going to do? deploy both mip4 and mip6? Jim Bound: MIPv4 is only done inside the enterprises or inside the sites, not globally. Henrik Levkowetz: Comment coming from wrong direction. If you have existing mip4, not talking about getting new addresses, but adding IPv6 within mip4 network. George Tsirtsis: Similar to IPv4 private network. We have mechanisms to transition to Ipv6. Same is required for MIP4 networks. Jonne Soininen: let's continue off-list. * Distributed v6 security requirements/problem statement - 10 mins, Palet SLIDES: <17_distributed.pdf> Jordi Palet presented. Mr. X (?): You have a solution. You decided on host based solution. This work should not be happening here. Pekka Savola: Agreed, this is not a place for developing a security solution. Mr. X: This looks like a product, not requirements. Jordi Palet: read the draft. Not sure if this work should be continued here but I'm also sure this is an operational issue, so v6ops. Anyway I also asked from inputs to SAAG and other previous attempts for this kind of work, and nothing until now, no any single reply. ?: Good paper presented at Nanog. Jordi: already working on implementation. * Status update of quarantine security model SLIDES: <18_quarantine.pdf> Satoshi Kondo presented. There were no comments. * Advanced L3 IPv6 Exchange Model - 10 mins, Morelli SLIDES: <19_l3-ix.pdf> Mario Morelli Presented. Bernard Tuy: Why would an IX provide IPv6 addresses to customers? Mario Morelli: On our model, we provide addresses. Bernard Tuy: in real world, this is not so. Kurt Lindqvist: Don't think this model will work. This makes IX as ISP. Simon Leinen: Find it confusing this is called an IX. Mario Morelli: agree, need to find another name. * Any other Business? Tim Chown: wg on other lists are doing assited tunneling stuff. EX: nemo are defining their own tunneling method. David Kessens: Reason why need to define requirement precisely because this need is in WG in INT area. * NON official part of the meeting The WG meeting was closed, but because the room was empty, Alain Durand and Fred Templin took the chance and presented.