Subject: agenda items for v6ops in San Francisco

From: Bob Fink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:50:10 -0800

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

v6ops Folk,

Here is a first cut of an agenda for the v6ops meeting in San Francisco.

For now we are only scheduling one 2 1/2 hour session, but can request an 
additional one if warranted.

  3G Analysis draft - Wiljakka, 10-20 mins

  UNMAN analysis draft - Huitema, 10-20 mins

  ISP Scenarios - Mickles, Enterprise Scenarios - 20-30 mins

  Enterprise Scenarios - Pouffary, 20-30 mins

  IPv4 Survey draft restructuring - Nesser or chairs, 10-20 mins

  Mech draft - Nordmark, 5-10 mins

Please send suggestions for additional agenda items to the chairs and/or 
the list. Also, let me know if another presenter that listed will do the 
presenting.

Thanks,

Bob

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:42:51 +0200 (EET)

> the list. Also, let me know if another presenter that listed will do the 

As a general note, I think we should try to discuss "transition
architecture" in a more aggregated fashion: now it has spread all over the
analysis documents (consider e.g. NAT/PT vs dual-stack etc.).  

One way trying to get some coherence here might be to try to have some
discussion (like 10-20 mins) on some specific topics before (or after) the
scenarios.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 13:46:19 -0800

> discussion (like 10-20 mins) on some specific topics before (or after) the

this has some appeal.  also, i think a generic discussion of they types of
security issues raised by transition mechanisms might be worthwhile.  i
suspect that we would benefit from a common and consistent story for both of
these.

randy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:19:06 +0100

> suspect that we would benefit from a common and consistent story for both of

I'd say this argues for a second session. I don't see it fitting into
anything like 20 minutes.

   Brian

---

From: Ronald van der Pol <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:29:15 +0100

> analysis documents (consider e.g. NAT/PT vs dual-stack etc.).  

We have tried to write down the issues involved in translating
between IPv4 and IPv6, see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/\
draft-vanderpol-v6ops-translation-issues-00.txt

Comments are welcome.

	rvdp

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:41:23 -0800

Most of the issues you mention are not exactly properties of NAT
(or a NAT IPv6->IPv4), but properties of the DNS-ALG:
	- breaking DNSsec
	- getting unwanted translated address

I've long argued that if you remove the DNS-ALG piece of the picture,
things become simpler.

I'm planing to write a document before the cut-off date to summarize the
discussion Itojun & I had a little while back to compare a DNS-ALG
solution to a well know prefix one.

	- Alain.

---

From: Ronald van der Pol <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:08:02 +0100

> 	- getting unwanted translated address

We tried to write down _all_ the issues involved with translation,
including NAT, NAT-PT, NAPT-PT, DNS-ALG, etc.

> solution to a well know prefix one.

We intentionally refrained from suggesting solutions. We only wanted to
write down the issues in an objective manner.

Other drafts, like yours, should describe if we want/can solve all the
issues.

	rvdp

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 22:55:12 -0500

Hi Pekka,

>analysis documents (consider e.g. NAT/PT vs dual-stack etc.).

I agree.  Now that we are starting to get somewhat stable analysis
documents, I think it is time to start pulling this together and
looking for commonality.

Ultimately, the transitions mechanisms should reflect a consistent
architecture -- we shouldn't end up with a custom toolkit for
each environment...  But, I think that using the "divide and
conquer" approach has helped us understand the problems that our
architecture needs to address, and that it will continue to do so.

>discussion (like 10-20 mins) on some specific topics before (or after) the

This sounds really good... Did you have one or more specific topics
in mind?

I'd like to see some discussion of transition security, including
your 6to4 security work.

I also think that we might consider two general discussions:

         (1) Translation-related mechanisms, perhaps based on
                 Ron's transition issues draft?
         (2) Tunneling-related mechanisms -- are there common
                 issues in this space?

Or, do folks think that there is a better way to organize this
discussion.

Bob, Itojun and I will discuss the time allotments for the
agenda in more detail and decide whether to request a second
slot ASAP.

Margaret