Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 00:52, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote: To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice) is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch. Does that make more sense? As the author, if it helps I plan to make the following change to Section 5.5 following the conclusion of IETF Last Call. I ran this by a few folks already and it seems broadly acceptable (have not heard from Lorenzo yet though). Jason *CURRENT 5.5: * 5.5. Turning Off DNS Resolver Whitelisting Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally consider it to be a temporary measure. It is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice, though the extent of IPv6 deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment, and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all clearly factors. However, implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are no longer any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of hosts will inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them or as some hosts are incapable of being upgraded. *PROPOSED 5.5 (NEW TEXT IN ALL CAPS):* 5.5. Turning Off DNS Resolver Whitelisting Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally consider it to be a temporary measure. It is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice, though the extent of IPv6 deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment, and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all clearly factors. However, *SOME IMPLEMENTERS HAVE ANNOUNCED THAT THEY PLAN TO PERMANENTLY TURN OFF WHITELISTING BEGINNING ON WORLD IPV6 DAY IN JUNE 2012 [REFERENCE]. IN ANY CASE*, implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are no longer any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of hosts will inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them or as some hosts are incapable of being upgraded. eom I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The high-service-level domains that prompted this draft to be written, and all the implementers I'm currently aware of, are decommissioning the practice. So the paragraph that states, It is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice is still incorrect. Can you just remove the paragraph and start the section with Many implementers have announced that they plan to permanently turn off whitelisting beginning on... ? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On 2/21/12 2:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.commailto:lore...@google.com wrote: I think the suggested change does not go far enough. The high-service-level domains that prompted this draft to be written, and all the implementers I'm currently aware of, are decommissioning the practice. So the paragraph that states, It is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice is still incorrect. Can you just remove the paragraph and start the section with Many implementers have announced that they plan to permanently turn off whitelisting beginning on... ? I've changed it around to the following: Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally consider it to be a temporary measure. Many implementers have announced that they plan to permanently turn off DNS Resolver Whitelisting beginning on the date of the World IPv6 Launch, on June 6, 2012 xref target='World IPv6 Launch'/. For any implementers that do not turn off DNS Resolver Whitelisting at that time, it may be unclear how each and every one will judge when the network conditions to have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting. That being said, it is clear that the extent of IPv6 deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment, and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all important factors. Any such implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are no longer any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of hosts will inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them or as some hosts are incapable of being upgraded. Thanks for your input, Jason ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice) is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch. Does that make more sense? As the author, if it helps I plan to make the following change to Section 5.5 following the conclusion of IETF Last Call. I ran this by a few folks already and it seems broadly acceptable (have not heard from Lorenzo yet though). Jason CURRENT 5.5: 5.5. Turning Off DNS Resolver Whitelisting Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally consider it to be a temporary measure. It is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice, though the extent of IPv6 deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment, and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all clearly factors. However, implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are no longer any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of hosts will inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them or as some hosts are incapable of being upgraded. PROPOSED 5.5 (NEW TEXT IN ALL CAPS): 5.5. Turning Off DNS Resolver Whitelisting Domains that choose to implement DNS Resolver Whitelisting generally consider it to be a temporary measure. It is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice, though the extent of IPv6 deployment to end users in networks, the state of IPv6-related impairment, and the maturity of IPv6 operations are all clearly factors. However, SOME IMPLEMENTERS HAVE ANNOUNCED THAT THEY PLAN TO PERMANENTLY TURN OFF WHITELISTING BEGINNING ON WORLD IPV6 DAY IN JUNE 2012 [REFERENCE]. IN ANY CASE, implementers may wish to take into consideration that, as a practical matter, it will be impossible to get to a point where there are no longer any IPv6-related impairments; some reasonably small number of hosts will inevitably be left behind as end users elect not to upgrade them or as some hosts are incapable of being upgraded. eom ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On 2/9/12 01:25 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote: Ops is not marketing. And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that produces ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not be high on my list. This is not about marketing. Sorry for being so droll, I found it hard to restrain myself. If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point but disagree. I think you're missing my point. It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest was added later.) Whitelisting is a practice relevant to a few large websites (since nobody else is using it). It so happens that the websites that employ this practice are going to stop using it, all together. Given the cost and implications, I'd say practice is unlikely to be resurrected. I do not belive that the selective (inclusive) return of A or A + records on the basis of source address is likely to end on a particular day. It may well for you and some others, which is fine, or you may find it necessary again, or it may become a list of exclusions rather than inclusions. I belive you're on record indicating as much. In any event others may find it necessary. So, you decide to tell the whole story, and talk about whitelisting *and* World IPv6 Launch. Or you can decide that whitelisting will soon be irrelevant, and not talk about either whitelisting or World IPv6 Launch. But you can't talk about whitelisting without talking about World IPv6 Launch, because if you do, your document is missing the key piece how do you remove the whitelist, and that's a disservice to its readers. To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice) is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch. Invidual service operators like you and I are likely to make decisions on the basis of our instrumentation, we may well alter their behavior on a uni or multilateral basis, and some of us may do so for world ipv6 launch. ipv4/v6 Transition is not something with a flag day however, and I do not believe that the concerns embedded in the draft will be fundamentally altered on 6/6/12. Does that make more sense? yes, that doesn't imply that we're in concert however. Cheers, Lorenzo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 00:36, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: Ops is not marketing. And if I were looking for a marketing venue, a standards body that produces ASCII text documents read by a handful of engineers would not be high on my list. This is not about marketing. If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point but disagree. I think you're missing my point. It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest was added later.) Whitelisting is a practice relevant to a few large websites (since nobody else is using it). It so happens that the websites that employ this practice are going to stop using it, all together. Given the cost and implications, I'd say practice is unlikely to be resurrected. So, you decide to tell the whole story, and talk about whitelisting *and* World IPv6 Launch. Or you can decide that whitelisting will soon be irrelevant, and not talk about either whitelisting or World IPv6 Launch. But you can't talk about whitelisting without talking about World IPv6 Launch, because if you do, your document is missing the key piece how do you remove the whitelist, and that's a disservice to its readers. To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice) is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch. Does that make more sense? Cheers, Lorenzo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: snip It seems to me that approximately 30% of the non-biolerplate text in this draft discusses DNS whitelisting. (And in fact, in its original form the draft entirely on DNS whitelisting - hence the filename. The rest was added later.) Whitelisting is a practice relevant to a few large websites (since nobody else is using it). It so happens that the websites that employ this practice are going to stop using it, all together. Given the cost and implications, I'd say practice is unlikely to be resurrected. So, you decide to tell the whole story, and talk about whitelisting *and* World IPv6 Launch. Or you can decide that whitelisting will soon be irrelevant, and not talk about either whitelisting or World IPv6 Launch. But you can't talk about whitelisting without talking about World IPv6 Launch, because if you do, your document is missing the key piece how do you remove the whitelist, and that's a disservice to its readers. To be more specific, at least section 5.5 (it is unclear how implementers will judge when the network conditions will have changed sufficiently to justify turning off DNS Resolver Whitelisting and/or what the process and timing will be for discontinuing this practice) is now incorrect. It *is* clear, and it's what those implementers are doing as part of World IPv6 Launch. Does that make more sense? Or, the way I read you, you tell us that this entire document isn't relevant anymore. It cover something called whitelisting that were in use for a short periode of time for reason no one in a few year can understand as relevant? -- Roger Jorgensen | rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On 2/9/2012 10:02 AM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: Or, the way I read you, you tell us that this entire document isn't relevant anymore. It cover something called whitelisting that were in use for a short periode of time for reason no one in a few year can understand as relevant? +1 -- It's always a long day; 86400 doesn't fit into a short. Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On 2/8/12 05:54 , Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com mailto:f...@cisco.com wrote: The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their discuss ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call. I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all? Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection. The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a key piece of the puzzle. We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone. Ops is not marketing. If you're saying some flag day makes the contents of the document no longer operationally relevant after a given date, I'll take the point but disagree. The document in it's present form has a wider audience than the operators at 5 of the ton 10 websites. Cheers, Lorenzo ___ v6ops mailing list v6...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
What specifically would you like changed in the draft? Can you suggest text? On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their discuss ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call. I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all? Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection. The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a key piece of the puzzle. We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone. Cheers, Lorenzo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their discuss ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call. I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all? Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection. The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a key piece of the puzzle. We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone. Cheers, Lorenzo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
In message cakd1yr2xgkeek7sarjmzsbdjps0u5ftozo0qa5ma4fda+sb...@mail.gmail.com, Lorenzo Colitti writes: On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their discuss ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call. I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all? Ok, let me see if I can rephrase Erik's objection. The draft needs to take World IPv6 Launch into account, because it's a key piece of the puzzle. We can't publish an RFC on how to transition content to IPv6 if the RFC ignores the event when 5 of the top 10 websites in the world (and probably many more) will permanently enable IPv6 for everyone. Cheers, Lorenzo World IPv6 day just means Google is at 5.5 now and will go to 5.6/5.7. It really does not change anything. The decision to whitelist is a subjective one, not a objective one. Similarly the decision to stop whitelisting is also a subjective one. While I, and I suspect most of the list, think that whitelisting should no longer be needed that isn't our call to make. All we can do is encourage people to not whitelist by running dual stack services without using whitelisting. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On 4 February 2012 01:35, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote: World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet. With respect... The document was originally discussed in v6ops, and you chose to not comment. It went through last call there in January 2011 and was sent to the IESG. IESG review took until April, and an updated draft was posted at the end of May 2011. At IETF 81 (Quebec City) we were able to have you, the author, and some others discuss it. The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their discuss ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call. I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all? With humblest apologies... Having spent time rereading, I think W6L is clearly an implementation of sections 4.5 and 5.7, or 4.4 and 5.6, depending on the implementer. Additionally, in retrospect, there's probably no great reason to add a reference to a future event. It seems to me that the most meaningful technical observation that can actually be offered would be its scheduled calendar date. There's no excuse for my failing to reread afresh before commenting. Again, my apologies, -Erik ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet. On 2 February 2012 00:09, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document: - 'Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6' draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications-08.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes considerations for the transition of end user content on the Internet to IPv6. While this is tailored to address end user content, which is typically web-based, many aspects of this document may be more broadly applicable to the transition to IPv6 of other applications and services. This document explores the challenges involved in the transition to IPv6, potential migration tactics, possible migration phases, and other considerations. The audience for this document is the Internet community generally, particularly IPv6 implementers. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ v6ops mailing list v6...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
I think that although the draft mainly discusses -whitelisting, it can be more specific in section 2 on issues impacting content delivery over ipv6. Perhaps the biggest challenge in the IPv4-to-IPv6 transition is that the two protocols are not compatible; that is, IPv4-only systems cannot talk directly to IPv6-only systems. This means no one can turn off IPv4 support until every last device they want to reach has acquired IPv6 connectivity. Unfortunately, many existing devices — including PCs running older OSes, as well as older cable and DSL modems, wireless routers, and other business and consumer electronic devices—have either limited or no IPv6 support. In other words, companies will have to support both protocols for years to come, in a long and bumpy transition period. During that time, there will effectively be two Internets, an IPv4 one and an IPv6 one, loosely bound together into a hybrid Internet by various transition technologies. Challenges of reaching IPv6 users from IPv4 sites Many types of Web applications rely on an end-to-end connection, where each device, household, or entity is associated with a single IP address. CGN breaks this assumption — as it creates a situation where hundreds or thousands of end users — related only by their network provider — share the same IP address, and each user’s IP address may change with every new connection. Thus, CGN cripples functions like geo-location — using the user’s IP address to determine their location, in order to personalize content or to enforce licensing restrictions, for example, and abuse mitigation — IP blacklisting or whitelisting, in order to block spammers, trolls, or other abusive users. CGN breaks assumptions that many of today’s Web applications rely on. In particular it affects applications, such as peer-to-peer and VoIP, which rely in some way on a unique end user IP address. Troubleshooting the issues is extremely complex and costly, as it can’t be done without the NAT operator’s help. In order to reach IPv4 sites, IPv6 end users need to go through a NAT64 gateway. Because there may be only one or two such gateways within a network, communications may be forced through long, indirect paths. In addition, these gateways quickly become congestion points within the network, as well as easily targeted points of failure, further affecting the performance and reliability. Challenges of reaching IPv6 users from IPv6 sites Because the IPv6 Internet is still sparsely connected, native IPv6 communications may require longer, less direct routes than their IPv4 counterparts, resulting in slower performance and higher packet loss. This is particularly troublesome for high throughput or low latency applications such as online gaming or streaming media. In addition, a significant portion of the IPv6 Internet currently relies on tunneling traffic over IPv4, creating additional performance degradation. So I think that content providers and application providers are no longer pondering when to enable delivery over IPv6 but are focused on how to manage this transition in a manner that is cost-effective and efficient in the short term but takes into account long-term needs and opportunities. Sent from my iPad On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:05 PM, Erik Kline e...@google.commailto:e...@google.com wrote: World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet. On 2 February 2012 00:09, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.orgmailto:iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document: - 'Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6' draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications-08.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.orgmailto:ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.orgmailto:i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes considerations for the transition of end user content on the Internet to IPv6. While this is tailored to address end user content, which is typically web-based, many aspects of this document may be more broadly applicable to the transition to IPv6 of other applications and services. This document explores the challenges involved in the transition to IPv6, potential migration tactics, possible migration phases, and other considerations. The audience for this document is the Internet community generally, particularly IPv6 implementers. The file can be obtained via
Re: [v6ops] Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-aaaa-whitelisting-implications-08.txt (Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6) to Informational RFC
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:57 PM, Erik Kline wrote: World IPv6 Launch changes the relevance of this document greatly, I think. Since this would be published after the announcement of World IPv6 Launch, I think the document should be updated to discuss its own applicability in a post- World IPv6 Launch Internet. With respect... The document was originally discussed in v6ops, and you chose to not comment. It went through last call there in January 2011 and was sent to the IESG. IESG review took until April, and an updated draft was posted at the end of May 2011. At IETF 81 (Quebec City) we were able to have you, the author, and some others discuss it. The IESG again decided it needed a revised draft, and that draft - in large part, a rewrite - arrived in October. v6ops had a second WGLC, in which you again declined to comment, although you may have seen Lorenzo's comments, which were picked up in a November version of the draft. Ralph and Jari finally cleared their discuss ballots a couple of weeks ago, and we are having a second IETF last call. I'd like to understand your objective here. I know that you don't care for the draft, and at least at one point took it as a somewhat-personal attack. Is your objective to prevent the draft's publication entirely, or do you think that there is value in publishing it given a productive response to this comment? At what point are you willing to either participate in the public dialog or choose to not comment at all? On 2 February 2012 00:09, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to consider the following document: - 'Considerations for Transitioning Content to IPv6' draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications-08.txt as an Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes considerations for the transition of end user content on the Internet to IPv6. While this is tailored to address end user content, which is typically web-based, many aspects of this document may be more broadly applicable to the transition to IPv6 of other applications and services. This document explores the challenges involved in the transition to IPv6, potential migration tactics, possible migration phases, and other considerations. The audience for this document is the Internet community generally, particularly IPv6 implementers. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6--whitelisting-implications/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ v6ops mailing list v6...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
