ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

2011-08-22 14:45:31
From: SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Reply-to: sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt> (IPv6 Support 
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard

Section 2 of RFC 4084 lists the primary IP service terms:

(a) Web connectivity

(b) Client connectivity only, without a public address

(c) Client only, public address

(d) Firewalled Internet Connectivity

(e) Full Internet Connectivity

And with the proposed update:

(f) Version support.

Does the service include IPv4 support only, both IPv4 and IPv6
support, or IPv6 support only?

I don't think that it makes sense as it stands. If you want to
wordsmith this, you could go with:

(f) IPv4 Internet Connectivity.

This service provides the user IPv4 Internet connectivity, with
one or more static public IPv4 addresses. Dynamic IPv4 addresses
that are long-lived enough to make operating servers practical
without highly dynamic DNS entries are possible, provided that
they are not characterized as "dynamic" to third parties.

________
WEG] I think that you have a point that this update is a little weak in its 
current form. I don't have a problem with some clarifying text, but I think 
that the problem with the above is that you now get into situations where IPv4 
internet connectivity by that definition is no longer possible due to a lack of 
available addresses. In other words, each of the defined items in the existing 
section 2 are applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 separately. So perhaps it needs to 
discuss the fact that there are now multiple permutations of the items in 
section 2, e.g. where the host has IPv6 internet connectivity, but really only 
has client/no public IPv4 connectivity.
Then we're into value-judgment-land regarding whether full IPv6 connectivity 
coupled with NAT for IPv4 is considered "full internet connectivity" or if only 
true dual-stack is acceptable for that definition, etc.

Brian was the one who originally suggested this RFC be added as updated by this 
draft, so I'm keen to hear his opinion as well.


(g) IPv6 Internet Connectivity.

This service provides the user/consumer IPv6 Internet connectivity,
with at least a /60 IPv6 prefix. Dynamic IPv6 addressing that are
long-lived enough to make operating servers practical
without highly dynamic DNS entries are possible, provided that
they are not characterized as "dynamic" to third parties.
_________
WEG] I think that this definition is going to be problematic. There are plenty 
of other documents which already define IPv6 connectivity, and we are unlikely 
to reach consensus on any definition that includes a prefix size, but I'd be 
interested in opinions on the rest of it assuming that the prefix size 
recommendation is dropped.

Thanks
Wes George


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable 
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to 
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the 
contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and 
any printout.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>