Routing for IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Packets
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-14

[Ballot comment]
I'm probably missing something here, but the document doesn't mention the possibility of an MTU issue when a maximally large IPv4 packet is translated into an IPv6 packet: the larger IPv6 header would bump the packet over the MTU size.  Has this been addressed, and I just missed it?

[Ballot discuss]
The document writeup says:

(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

Aside from the simple fact that the shepherd didn't fully answer the question, I'd really like to understand why this is not a standards track document. Please explain.

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this work, and thanks to Ben Campbell for the Gen-ART review.

> AFXLBR (Address Family Translation Border Router) is defined in this document.

Nice acronym! Are there any pronunciation guidelines? :-)

[Ballot comment]
Thank you for this work, and thanks to Ben Campbell for the Gen-ART review.

> AFXLBR (Address Family Translation Border Router) is defined in this document.

Are there any pronunciation guidelines? :-)

[Ballot comment]


- Maintaining a separate routing table for IPv4-embedded IPv6 routes
  optimizes IPv4 packets forwarding.
Can you expand on why?

-

  In an IPv6 network, in order to maintain a separate IPv6 routing
  table that contains routes for IPv4-embedded IPv6 destinations only,
  OSPFv3 needs to use the mechanism defined either in [RFC5838] or in
  [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3] with the required configuration, as
  described in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4, respectively.

It looks to me that [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3] should be normative, like RFC 5838
See another sentence:

    and
    if the default OSPFv3 instance is used instead, configuration is
    accomplished according to [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3], as described in
    Section 3.4.

However, [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3] last updated is 2007
Is there an issue with this draft?

-
  It is assumed that the IPv6 network that is inter-connected with IPv4
  networks in this document is under one administration and as such, an
  OSPFv3 instance ID (IID) is allocated locally and used for OSPFv3
  operation dedicated to unicast IPv4-embedded IPv6 routing in an IPv6
  network.  This IID is configured on OSPFv3 router interfaces that
  participate in the IPv4-embedded IPv6 topology.

Instance ID is per interface, if I'm not mistaken.
So which interface have this interface ID configured: IPv4 facing and/or IPv6 facing?

-
4. IP Packets Translation


  When transporting IPv4 packets across an IPv6 network with the
  mechanism described above

There are 2 mechanisms: 3.3 and 3.4
So I guess:
  When transporting IPv4 packets across an IPv6 network with one of the two
  mechanisms described above (section 3.3 and 3.4)



-
OLD
1.  On an AFXLBR, if an IPv4 packet that is received on an interface
      connecting to an IPv4 client network with a destination IPv4
      address belonging to another IPv4 client network, the header of
      the packet is translated to the corresponding IPv6 header as
      described in Section 4, and the packet is then forwarded to the
      destination AFXLBR that advertised the IPv4-embedded IPv6 address
      into the IPv6 network.

NEW
1.  On an AFXLBR, if an IPv4 packet that is received on an interface
      connecting to an IPv4 segregated client network with a destination IPv4
      address belonging to another IPv4 client network, the header of
      the packet is translated to the corresponding IPv6 header as
      described in Section 4, and the packet is then forwarded to the
      destination AFXLBR that advertised the IPv4-embedded IPv6 address
      into the IPv6 network.

[Ballot comment]

1.1, pedantic nit: OPEX might not be understood by some
readers

1.2, slightly less pedantic nit: "The P routers" isn't a
common term. While it is defined in 5565 it might be no harm
to also say here you mean the internal routers. (I had to go
look.)

11, 3rd para, is that "must" meant as a 2119 MUST? It looks
like it ought be.

11, 4th para, s/currently//

11, why no mention of RFC 6506? Seems like its as relevant as
IPsec maybe.

[Ballot comment]
I have only a couple of non-blocking editorial comments:

I honestly had a hard time parsing the abstract.  May I suggest replacing the abstract with what is basically the first paragraph of the Introduction?:

OLD
  This document describes routing packets destined to IPv4-embedded
  IPv6 addresses across an IPv6 core using OSPFv3 with a separate
  routing table.

NEW
  This document describes a routing scenario where IPv4 packets are
  transported over an IPv6 network, based on RFCs 6145 and 6052,
  along with a separate OSPFv3 routing table for IPv4-embedded IPv6
  routes in the IPv6 network.

END

-- Section 1.1 --

  This document focuses on an engineering
  technique which aims to separate the routing table dedicated to
  IPv4-embedded IPv6 destinations from native IPv6 ones.

The "from native IPv6 ones" lacks a reasonable antecedent.  I think you mean this, yes?:

NEW
  This document specifies an engineering
  technique that separates the routing table dedicated to
  IPv4-embedded IPv6 destinations from the routing table used
  for native IPv6 destinations.
END

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-07, which
is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA
Actions that need completion.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets'
  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 2013-03-29. 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 describes routing packets destined to IPv4-embedded
  IPv6 addresses across an IPv6 core using OSPFv3 with a separate
  routing table.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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

(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 draft describes how to use mechanisms OSPF multi-instances as
    described in RFC 5838 to support RFC 6052 IPv4/IPv6 translation
    mechanisms.

    Working Group Summary

    Although presented at multiple IETFs, the draft did not generate
    a lot of comments. At one point, it included changes to the OSPFv3
    protocol due to the suggestion that the IPv4 domains could be
    abstracted as OSPFv3 areas. This was discarded due to the
    complexity and the fact that it was above and beyond the RFC 5838
    mechanisms.

    Document Quality

    The document has gone through several WG review cycles and
    revisions. Comments were received from some WG members as well
    as the chair of the BEHAVE WG. To the best of my knowledge, there
    are no implementations.

    We also WG last called the draft in the BEHAVE WG and received
    some comments from Brian Carpenter relative to positioning the draft
    with other IPv4<->IPv6 transition mechanisms. The latest version of
    the draft clarifies this.

    Personnel     

    Acee Lindem is the document shepherd and Stewart Bryant is the
    responsible AD.

(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.

    The document was presented in Bejing and went through several WG
    reviews.


(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 interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

  None.

(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.

  Yes. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.   

    No.

(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  There is no opposition to the draft. Those who understand
  the IPv4/IPv6 transition use cases, feel this is a viable
  application of the OSPFv3 multi-instance mechanisms.

(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.

  All applicable idnits errors and warnings have been resolved.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable.

(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?

    No.

(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.

    No.

(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 interested community considers it unnecessary.

    No.

(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).

    This document doesn't require any IANA actions. A companion draft
    changes the IANA allocations ranges for OSPFv3 Instance IDs.

(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.

    None. 


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

    Not Applicable.