Subject: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:44:57 -0800

Hi Brian, Sheng,

I read draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04.  Here's a few 
comments.  Please consider them as editorial or nits.

In Section 2:

   "In determining the urgency of this strategy, it should be noted that
    the central IPv4 registry (IANA) ran out of spare blocks of IPv4
    addresses in February 2011 and the various regional registries are
    expected to exhaust their reserves over the next one to two years."

APNIC and RIPE are in run-out mode.  It's unlikely that two of the 
regional registries will run out in a year or two.

I like the "just in time" advice (Section 3).  Training is 
ineffective if people do not have the means to put what they learned 
immediately into practice.

In Section 8.2:

   "One important recommendation here is that all applications should use
    domain names, which are IP-version-independent, rather than IP
    addresses."

This recommendation could be about content instead of 
applications.  Web pages with content such as
"http\x3a\x2f\x2f131.253.14.66\x2fbvsandbox.aspx" can be avoided.  It 
looks like you have this covered under "possible complexities".

   "A specific issue for HTTP-based services is that IP address-based
    cookie authentication schemes will need to deal with dual-stack
    clients."

I don't see the following being covered in the recommendations.

  Set-Cookie: domain=131.253.14.66; [edited header]

In Section 9:

   'At the time of this writing, this solution seems to be passing out
    of use, being replaced by "DNS blacklisting" of customer sites known
    to have problems with IPv6 connectivity.'

Given the past discussions about "whitelisting" (see RFC 5782) I'll 
highlight this and avoid the rehash.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:49:51 +0000

On 22/11/2012 10:44, SM wrote:
> Hi Brian, Sheng,
> 
> I read draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04.  Here's a few comments.  Please
> consider them as editorial or nits.
> 
> In Section 2:
> 

Fair comment, but what a wasted opportunity if the LA and African regions
continue to install legacy-only IP.

> 
> I like the "just in time" advice (Section 3).  Training is ineffective
> if people do not have the means to put what they learned immediately
> into practice.
> 
> In Section 8.2:
> 
> This recommendation could be about content instead of applications.  Web
> pages with content such as

Aren't content and cookies special cases of applications? It's all
layer 7 fluff as far as layer 3 is concerned :-).

   Brian

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:23:38 -0800

> continue to install legacy-only IP.
I don't think it's fair to characterize the afrinic or lacnic ipv6 
practices as lacking in zeal, they aren't. The fact that there's a 
disequalibrium in run rate means some applications are slightly less 
screwed than others and nothing more.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:44:13 -0800

Hi Brian,
>continue to install legacy-only IP.

Yes, and it would put these regions further back.

>layer 7 fluff as far as layer 3 is concerned :-).

Well, the fluff has to be somewhere. :-)  The short answer to your 
question is yes.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:44:13 -0800

Hi Brian,

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 09:41:49 -0800

Hi Joel,
>screwed than others and nothing more.

I didn't read Brian's comment as being about registry IPv6 
practices.  I would describe it as the urgency of the strategy being 
influenced by content or application service providers still being 
able to get IPv4 address space from their registry.  The wasted 
opportunity would be about continuing with a IPv4-only strategy while 
other parts of the world gain IPv6 experience.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:49:06 +0000

>Well, the fluff has to be somewhere. :-)  The short answer to your

For my understanding, applications are container, which includes content and many operational background components. This recommendation must cover all these components too.

Regards,

Sheng