Subject: ISATAP scenario

From: Christian Schild <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:58:30 +0200

To give some feedback to the discussion about ISATAP:

We try to run/launch IPv6 in a large university network very similar to
the case Tim presented in his drafts. 

Especially we use VLAN .1Q tagging technology to "import" IPv6
capablitity to selected subnets. 

In fact, right now injecting IPv6 and IPv6 routing into the already
existing VLANs is our only available mechanism to introduce IPv6  
due to current hardware and network restrictions. 

Still, there are some very large VLANs with large broadcast areas spread
all over our network and the network operators refuse to activate IPv6
in such VLANs, because of probable complex risks that could interrupt
the current set of services. While this is partly based on fear to
activate IPv6, there are also known real problems that could arise when
running dual stack in the network and effects are highly unpredictable
in large heterogenous subnets.

The point is, we couldn't offer IPv6 in some subnets (these large VLANs
are only one example, outdated hardware may be another). However, there
are single hosts in these subnets that need IPv6 connectivity. 

The solution we offer now is a homegrown tunnel broker based on OpenVPN
which is much more complex and requires much more interaction and
knowledge of the user. Beforehand we planned to use ISATAP for such
single hosts, but as Tim mentioned, unfortunately USAGI dropped ISATAP
and now there is no such support in linux kernels. So we had to drop
that solution as we could no longer offer support for all main operating
systems in our network.

So you might agree, there is a real demand for ISATAP and it's a pity it
should go experimental track now, given the facts, that there is a real
scenario for it, that it is (was) already implemented and that latest
discussion showed it could be a solution in 3gpp scenarios.

Christian

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 10:17:19 -0700

In my opinion, having IPRs on standards is a big issue, and even if this doesn't precludes the WG to consider that as a solution, definitively, doesn't help the implementers, and even more, refrain them from having products in the market that include that solution.

This doesn't mean at all that I'm not against ISATAP or any other mechanism which has IPRs, but is not good, and may become one of the considerations to move forward or not.

Regards,
Jordi

---- Original Message ----
From: "Christian Schild" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 8:58 AM
Subject: ISATAP scenario

> discussion showed it could be a solution in 3gpp scenarios.

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Florent Parent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:34:22 -0700

-- On Tuesday, August 03, 2004 17:58:30 +0200, Christian Schild wrote:

...

> knowledge of the user.

Complexity here is more related to your implementation. I suggest you take 
a look at the TSP broker implementation (client code available on 
www.freenet6.net, multiple platforms supported). From the user point of 
view, this is a service that runs in the backgroud which keeps your IPv6 
connectivity up and running. And you get NAT traversal as a bonus.

My point here is simply that tunnel broker/assisted tunneling solution can 
be as simple to the enduser as other mechanisms.

> Beforehand we planned to use ISATAP for such

This was mentionned during the v6ops meeting:

<http://www.linux-ipv6.org/ml/usagi-announce/msg00102.html>.
"remove ISATAP because it is (1) rather obsolete and (2) of IPR 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/sri-ipr-draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap.txt>."

Fred T. reported that is was put back in USAGI 2.4.

Florent

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:49:19 +0300

Hello everybody,

(chair hat on)
generally on IPRs: Even if a technology has an IPR the IETF may choose 
to standardize it if the IETF IPR process has been followed.
In this particular case, the IPR has been disclosed by the IPR 
holder/applicant. In addtion, the discloser has indicated to give 
royalty free lisence for the IPR they claim to hold.
Hence, I would not get too exited about the IPR in ISATAP.

Cheers,

Jonne.

---

From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:07:22 -0700

Jonne,

I know and I agree with that. Actually in DHC WG we just have a similar discussion on a different IPR claim ;-)

My point is that as I know in our case both Teredo and ISATAP are not part of Kame and Usagi because that. Clearly, this doesn't facilitate the adoption by the market and users.

If KAME and USAGI have a different view on this, and they are going to include them back in the standard distribution, that will be very nice !

Note that I'm not against Teredo neither ISATAP, but I think is important to take this point in consideration (and probably suggest the IPR holders to "act" in consequence !).

Regards,
Jordi

---- Original Message ----
From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
To: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: ISATAP scenario

>> In my opinion, having IPRs on standards is a big issue, and even if this
>> doesn't precludes the WG to consider that as a solution, definitively,
>> doesn't help the implementers, and even more, refrain them from having
>> products in the market that include that solution.   
>> 
>> This doesn't mean at all that I'm not against ISATAP or any other
>> mechanism which has IPRs, but is not good, and may become one of the
>> considerations to move forward or not.  
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
>> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be
>> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
>> of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:17:32 -0700

> Fred T. reported that is was put back in USAGI 2.4.

Not what I said. What I said is that ISATAP was in the final USAGI
stable release for 2.4 - at least the last time I checked. See:

   http://www.linux-ipv6.org/stable-5-ann.html

Fred Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: Christian Schild <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:17:48 +0200

> be as simple to the enduser as other mechanisms.

I partly agree. The OpenVPN solution might be quite similar to yours. 

Still, it is a difference if a user has to install a software, configure
and maybe troubleshoot it, or if he just has to activate a service
(which e.g. is one of the beauties of 6to4 and probably made it a
success story).

> Fred T. reported that is was put back in USAGI 2.4.

Yes.
I am aware of the IPR claims which hindered ISATAP (which in return is
also a pity). 
The point is, due to that regression, ISATAP is not available in current
kernels and couldn't get offered as a standard service, while it was
close to it years ago.

Christian

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:25:12 -0700

> Hence, I would not get too exited about the IPR in ISATAP.

Totally agree. The IPR related to ISATAP is IMHO a bad joke being
played on the community. Not pointing fingers at anyone (in particular
my previous employer) but it's high time for that particular "issue"
to simply move out of the way.

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 21:28:01 +0300 (EEST)

> (which e.g. is one of the beauties of 6to4 and probably made it a

IMHO, the point here is that if we could have an agreed-on
(standardized) mechanism, the vendors could include such software
automatically and enable it as well.  Then it would be dead simple.  
Such an implementation could probably be userspace-only, making it
even easier to implement and deploy. (All the ISATAP implementations
I've seen have required kernel modifications, making the deployment a
bit trickier.)

Why they haven't done so already is (I think) because there are about
5 different solutions, none of them sufficiently widely adopted or
deployed; they want as few mechanisms as possible, ones which also
have the potential to be provided by some ISPs, enterprises, or
whatever.

-- 
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: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:30:32 -0700

I understand that ... Could we do something to help you on this ? May be there is a way to "cancel" (I'm not expert on this, so may be this is not possible) this IPR, so ISATAP can be included in standard distributions, for example ?

Regards,
Jordi

---- Original Message ----
From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: ISATAP scenario

---

From: Christian Schild <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 20:54:35 +0200

> I've seen have required kernel modifications, making the deployment a

Right. And you had to do that, because KAME/USAGI hadn't tried to put it
in linux/*BSD standard tracks because of that apparently unfounded IPR
fears. 

> have the potential to be provided by some ISPs, enterprises, or

Ok, aggressive question then:

Why run down the analysis/requirements/solutions road again, when we
have a running solution at hand that _is_ (was) already present in
vendors software and that probably just needs a little bit more
finetuning?

Christian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 22:18:30 +0300 (EEST)

> vendors software and that probably just needs a little bit more

Just my own opinion.. We need to figure out what makes the most
overall sense, instead of doing local optimizations.

ISATAP can be used to solve certain, specific problems in certain
specific, well-defined (trusted and managed) environments.

However, that is only a subset of a larger problem space .. one, which
we *need* a solution for in any case.

I feel it is better to only have a more generic solution, rather than
a generic solution *and* a specific solution, unless clearly proven
that the generic solution would not be work in the specific
environment.

"Less is more."

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:10:43 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:07:22 -0700, 
>>>>> "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <[email-masked]> said:

> My point is that as I know in our case both Teredo and ISATAP are
> not part of Kame and Usagi because that. Clearly, this doesn't
> facilitate the adoption by the market and users.

> If KAME and USAGI have a different view on this, and they are going
> to include them back in the standard distribution, that will be very
> nice !

(I'm not sure if it is appropriate to talk about IPR policy of a
particular developer in this list, so I'll try to refrain from making
further posts in this thread on this particular point.)

Your understanding (the 1st paragraph cited above) is basically
correct.  Regarding our latest position on the IPR issues, see the
following URL:
  http://www.kame.net/newsletter/20040525/
which mentions ISATAP.

(perhaps the phrase "We want to provide ISATAP as one of transition
mechanisms." might be misleading, by the way.  It should be followed
by something like this "...if the v6ops wg reaches the consensus that
ISATAP is the preferred transition tool (for some scenarios)").

In any event, we won't provide ISATAP again from KAME until we confirm
the IPR policy of ISATAP meets our basic requirement.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 17:57:49 +0300 (EEST)

(co-chair hat on)

> further posts in this thread on this particular point.)
[...]

Agreed -- no need to go into details with particular vendor's choices 
(i.e., if folks want to change these or discuss these decisions, let's 
not do it on this list!)

However, the decisions like these are valid considerations when
obtaining rough consensus on which technologies to adapt.

For example, if it is believed these would affect the deployment in a
significant way, and there are alternatives which would not have the
drawbacks, the WG might find a better consensus on some other
approach.

[...]
> the IPR policy of ISATAP meets our basic requirement.

For what it's worth, it might be possible to find some prior art to
invalidate some claims (speaking in general, not about any technology
in particular).  Whether or not that is sufficient for you (or others
in general) is of course an internal matter.  Also, this is often
difficult as the most difficult IPR (claims) is often still in the
application phase, and no details will be known.

One should just be wary of not having any means to analyze the
applicability of IPR (but that's not WG's business, but WG
participants' -- the IETF takes no stance on this).  Because anyone
can *claim* to have some IPR (even if that's not true, or even if the
IPR is bogus), this could be an effective DoS attack on the vendor(s)
and the standardization process.

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:44:17 -0700

I say again, the IPR related to ISATAP is a bad joke being played
on the community. I have no power that I am aware of to mitigate
the situation, but just to sensitize the list to the fact that
a joke is being played.

Fred Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:10:26 +0900

>>>>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:44:17 -0700, 
>>>>> "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]> said:

> the situation, but just to sensitize the list to the fact that

Sorry, I missed your previous work (while you said "again"), so it
would be nice if you could be more specific on what "a bad joke being
played on the community".  (Honestly) I don't understand what the
"joke" means or what "the community" means.

Thanks,

					JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:12:45 +0300 (EEST)

> "joke" means or what "the community" means.

(co-chair hat on)
Please discuss this off-list, and summarize if it seems really 
necessary.  Thanks!
(hat off)