V6OPS WG Administravia Note taker: Eric Vyncke Jabber: Mikael Abrahamson Chairs: Lee Howard, Joel Jaggli SomeÊDesignÊChoicesÊforÊIPv6ÊNetworks,ÊP.ÊMatthews,ÊV.ÊKuarsingh draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices After an hibernation period, authors have restarted work on the I-D which is about routing-related IPv6 designs. IGP section was based on production deployments but now it is broader. The address section was re-written to be IPv6 only. Tim Chown: NAT is assumed to be out of scope but NPT is mentioned in the I-D but clearly mentioned as out of scope. Getting PI addresses is always possible but procedures differ among registries. Lorenzo Coliti: agrees with Tim about NPT; difficult to mention ULA without talking NPT Jen Linkova: there is I-D on how to use multi-homing with PA addresses Victor Kuarsingh: personal opinion, PI space not so easy Tim Chown: distinction between multi-homing use case and being independent of your ISP address space Joel Jaggli: this I-D is for people understanding the issues of using PI space and not for general public. Lee Howard: let's have a couple of discussions on tweaks, then go working group last call. UniqueÊIPv6ÊPrefixÊPerÊHost,ÊJ.ÊBrzozowski,ÊG.ÊVanÊDeÊVelde draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-hostÊ Comcast has started deployment this technique (even if getting less IPv6 traffic than expected). Lorenzo Coliti: using global address for NDP can cause some issues with Apple devices, perhaps use a LLA for this traffic? This could increase the IPv6 traffic. David Lamparter: he hopes to deploy the technique at another conference Lee Howard: strong consensus, so, let's go WGLC EnterpriseÊMultihomingÊusingÊProvider-AssignedÊAddressesÊwithoutÊNetworkÊPrefixÊTranslation:ÊRequirementsÊandÊSolution,ÊF.ÊBaker,ÊC.ÊBowers,ÊJ.ÊLinkova draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihomingÊ Most changes are in section 4 (address selection algorithm). To be done: fork another draft for the most common scenario which could be address without source address dependent routing. Philip Matthews: different DNS could indeed behave differently (DNS64, or CDN), so, it is a real problem Lorenzo Coliti: one way to solve the problem is to use PvD with ID David Lampeter: about the new I-D, why another I-D? The common use case can be solved without SADR and could be done within V6OPS. Lee Howard: Sounds like youÕre continuing at Routing WG, but thereÕs enough interest here that we can keep discussing. Local-useÊIPv4/IPv6ÊTranslationÊPrefix,ÊT.ÊAnderson draft-anderson-v6ops-v4v6-xlat-prefix (remote) Now using 64:ff9b:1::/48, proper IANA considerations section, ... Lee Howard: there was a lot of discussion at last meeting: should we allocate a prefix? Lorenzo Coliti: should provide guidances on when to use this prefix. Tore: the prefix should be different from your own address space to make it clear (such as not spoofing infrastructure address). David Schinazi: the new prefix addresses my previous concern David Thaler: the section on checksum neutrality addresses my previous concern Tariq Saraj: if we change the host ID length, can we still do any multicast translation? Tore: no provision for multicast currently (out of scope of the current I-D) Philip Matthews: just scanned the I-D, why the :1 in the /48 while RFC 6052 has a 0:0 in its /96? Tore: no worry, different addresses Erik Kline: this technique looks like allocating ULA... Tore: but it is not subject to different rules in address selection (by hosts) Lee Howard: hum on adoption, which leads to adoption of this I-D by V6OPS. Victor Kuarsingh free mike (bonus session) Do we have interest in series of documents that describes advantages/enhancements made possible by IPv6? Mikael A: should be very useful because IPv6 designs do not need to repeat designs/mistakes of IPv4 Erik Kline: spend a lot of time to repeat that IPv6 is not only 128-bit IPv4 Jen Linkova: nice idea, Victor: could be different documents, different use cases Dan York: really needed, and need to be specific Lorenzo Coliti: now that IPv6 is real, it is time to use IPv6 to do more than IPv4 Tom Howard: good idea, how to handle the issue of extension headers being dropped? Lee: could be for specific/limited use cases Erik Kline: abondance of addresses is a key change Dan York: I would focus on what have we learned on IPv6 Jen Linkova: some ISP do not deploy IPv6 because they either do not know HOW or do not know WHY => good idea Lorenzo Coliti: we could also replace TLS SNI by using one IPv6 address per TLS server Victor Kuarsingh: we need to change how we think with IPv6 Jen Linkova: not everyone concerned/interested is in this room (such that operators) Bob Alderman: hopes that the I-D will be practical for enterprises Lee Howard: Unsure whether it fits the V6OPS charter (as it is not an issue), but, will work with the list and the AD. Joel Jaeggli: Rechartering is easy enough. Lee Howard: We should focus on things that have actually been deployed (even in labs). Not sure whether V6OPS is the right place to publish innovative ideas that are untested.