Problem Statement for Renumbering IPv6 Hosts with Static Addresses in Enterprise Networks
draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-03
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2013-02-27
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2013-02-26
|
03 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from REF |
2013-01-04
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2013-01-02
|
03 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2013-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2013-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2013-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2013-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2013-01-02
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-12-25
|
03 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-12-24
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] Thanks for clarifying section 2.3 in response to my comments. I hope to see more of this discussion continue in the other documents … [Ballot comment] Thanks for clarifying section 2.3 in response to my comments. I hope to see more of this discussion continue in the other documents this group is working on. |
2012-12-24
|
03 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pete Resnick has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-12-23
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-03.txt |
2012-12-20
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2012-12-13
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-12-13
|
02 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] I'm entering Abstain for this document, because I think it has many flaws, some important and some less important, but still may be … [Ballot comment] I'm entering Abstain for this document, because I think it has many flaws, some important and some less important, but still may be useful. Here are some of the problems I see in the document. DNS, mDNS and SLP are mentioned in the context of name resolution. Is SLP deployed widely enough to warrant mention? What about LLMNR and uPNP? I don't understand why ULAs are identified as somehow affecting the use or impact of static addresses. DHCPv6 PD should be mentioned in the context of prefix assignment. Is it really still common practice that " printers in particular are manually assigned a fixed address (typically an [RFC1918] address) and that users are told to manually configure printer access using that fixed address"? In section 2.3, addresses assigned through DHCPv6 are considered problematic because the address might expire, but later DHCPv6 is suggested as a way of assigning addresses to solve renumbering of static addresses. I don't understand the first sentence of 2.4. Isn't the requirement for a static address based on the need to maintain transport sessions over VM movement (which isn't really how I understand the first sentence). In section 2.5, if asset management is based on MAC addresses, why are static IP addresses an issue? I don't understand the connection between "If [...] a particular host is found to be generating some form of unwanted traffic, it is urgent to be able to track back from its IP address to its physical location" and renumbering of static addressing. How does "using addresses under an enterprise's ULA prefix for software licensing" solve the renumbering problem? There may be a clue in section 2.7, where addresses assigned from ULAs are suggested as the solution for renumbering network elements. Perhaps the bit I'm missing is that addressing from ULAs avoids forced renumbering when the organization prefix changes due to external causes? In section 2.7, this claim may be true: In any case, when network elements are renumbered, existing user sessions may not survive, because of temporary "destination unreachable" conditions being treated as fatal errors. This aspect needs further investigation. but what is its connection to renumbering static addresses? Section 2.8 makes a valid point about the relationship between static addresses and asset management, but goes into solution space when it talks about DHCPv6 for configuring static addresses. I don't understand the first paragraph of section 3. From section 3: 4. If external prefix renumbering is required, the RFC 4192 procedure is followed. What about renumbering required by strictly internal topology changes in the network? I.e., I think "external" can be dropped. |
2012-12-13
|
02 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-12-12
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-12-12
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-12-12
|
02 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-12-12
|
02 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-12-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. I have a concern that the security considerations may need more work. For … [Ballot comment] I have no objection to the publication of this document. I have a concern that the security considerations may need more work. For example, ACLs seem to rely on well-known IP addresses. Those addresses are often manually configured and the synchronisation during renumbering is surely a vulnerability. I am sure there are plenty of other issues that should be considered. === I also have some petty nits that you might want to address to improve the document. --- I would like it if for clarity the document title could reflect the limitation of this document to entreprise networks. --- ULA is used without expansion --- Section 2.7 It is quite common practice that some such addresses will have no corresponding DNS entry. Jane Austen and I would like to know whether you mean "quite" in the correct English sense as "completely", or in the modern sense of "relatively" or "somewhat". Actually, I suggest you delete the word. --- Section 3 The hanging rhetorical question in the first paragraph is disconcerting. Is this a question that someone doing renumbering should consider, or is it targeted at the reader of the document? Is the word "Alternatively" really appropriate since it suggests that the choice is between telling the NEs and NMS, and not disrupting the network. --- Section 3 therefore this situation should be avoided except for very small networks I presume you do not mean the situation of renumbering such networks! But how do we avoid the situation of networks that are numbered in the way you describe? For most existing networks, the only way to avoid the situation is to renumber! So I assume that you are giving advice to people deploying new equipment and networks - please make this clear. |
2012-12-12
|
02 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-12-12
|
02 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-12-12
|
02 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot discuss] Section 2.3: I think this really needs to be expanded significantly. First of all, it is not larger sites that are the only … [Ballot discuss] Section 2.3: I think this really needs to be expanded significantly. First of all, it is not larger sites that are the only problem in this case. Any site that wishes to have devices on its network that can be connected to from outside (whether we want to call those "servers" or "peers") has to deal with this. And TTL is not the only problem with dynamic DNS. Rather, it's also a huge failure of deployment: The tools are simply not available to configure a DNS server from the get-go to allow dynamic DNS updates out of the box for any device that wishes to employ it, and domain registrars do not have dynamic DNS updates as a standard piece of technology for their registrants. Putting the burden on a common database with DHCP is a poor way to think about this problem. I fear that description of the problem in this section will cause the gap analysis to go looking for huge site-wide solutions instead of allowing for the possibility that this is a deployment and/or operational problem with dynamic DNS instead of a problem with the lack of combined DHCP/DNS databases. I think this section is presuming a solution space and hasn't fully explored the problem space. |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot discuss] I fully support the publication of this document, but I do have one issue that I would like to discuss... 1. I don't … [Ballot discuss] I fully support the publication of this document, but I do have one issue that I would like to discuss... 1. I don't see how static addresses affect VMs as described in section 2.4. In my understanding, when a VM migrates, it will lose transport protocol state regardless of what type of IP address is used (i.e., static or dynamic). The general issue of having a VM-based service losing connectivity due to an address change is fine, but I don't understand the rest of the section. |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot comment] 1. In the introduction, shouldn't the list of reasons to use static addresses include their use within ACLs and other security mechanisms based … [Ballot comment] 1. In the introduction, shouldn't the list of reasons to use static addresses include their use within ACLs and other security mechanisms based on IP addresses? If so, a corresponding subsection in section 2 would be warranted. |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there … IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. |
2012-12-11
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-12-10
|
02 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-12-10
|
02 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-12-10
|
02 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-12-10
|
02 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-12-07
|
02 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2012-12-07
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-12-13 |
2012-12-07
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Ballot has been issued |
2012-12-07
|
02 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-12-07
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-11-29
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-11-29
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-11-29
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ondřej Surý |
2012-11-29
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ondřej Surý |
2012-11-28
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Problem Statement for Renumbering IPv6 Hosts … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Problem Statement for Renumbering IPv6 Hosts with Static Addresses) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Site Renumbering WG (6renum) to consider the following document: - 'Problem Statement for Renumbering IPv6 Hosts with Static Addresses' as 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 2012-12-12. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses the problems of updating the IPv6 addresses of hosts in enterprise networks that for operational reasons require static addresses. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2012-11-28
|
02 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2012-11-28
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Last call was requested |
2012-11-28
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-11-28
|
02 | Ron Bonica | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2012-11-28
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-11-28
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-11-24
|
02 | Ron Bonica | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-11-16
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-16
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-11-13
|
02 | Ron Bonica | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-11-02
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational, as stated in the header, because it presents (as the title says), a problem statement. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: This document analyses the problems of updating the IPv6 addresses of hosts in enterprise networks that for operational reasons require static addresses. Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Very little controversy. There was discussion about whether it should have been included in the document draft-6renum-enterprise-scenarios, but the authors, chairs, and AD decided it should stand alone. Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? RJ Atkinson did an especially thorough review during WGLC. Personnel: Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Shepherd: Lee Howard. AD: Ron Bonica (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I provided significant suggestions to earlier versions, and have reread the current version. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? No IPR. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus throughout the WG. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. N/A. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? All normative references are published RFCs. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. N/A, document is Informational. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. N/A (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. No IANA considerations. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. N/A |
2012-11-02
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'Lee Howard (lee.howard@twcable.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-11-02
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2012-11-02
|
02 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-11-02
|
02 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-carpenter-6renum-static-problem |
2012-11-02
|
02 | Tim Chown | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2012-10-28
|
02 | Tim Chown | IETF state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2012-09-30
|
02 | Tim Chown | Text has passed WGLC. Chair (Lee) has written shepherd document. Requesting publication as Informational RFC. |
2012-09-30
|
02 | Tim Chown | WGLC passed, no outstanding issues. Write-up has been drafted. |
2012-09-30
|
02 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-02.txt |
2012-08-30
|
01 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-01.txt |
2012-07-30
|
00 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-00.txt |