IETF 118

6MAN Working Group

Wednesday, 8 November 2023, 14:30-16:30 UTC+1

Working Group Chairs: Bob Hinden, Ole Troan, and Jen Linkova

Minute taker: Tim Winters


Working Group Drafts

Active Individual Drafts

Introduction, Agenda Review, and Document Status

Chairs will send a list of expired working group drafts that can
potentially be marked as dead (one is from 2007!)

Jan confirms the authors will send an update for SLAAC flash renumbering
draft shortly.

Working Group Drafts

IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing Procedures, draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing , Gorry Fairhurst, Bob Hinden, 15 min.

Talk not given, currently no open issues.

Limits on Sending and Processing IPv6 Extension Headers, draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits , Tom Herbert, 10 min.

Tim Chown is concerned about 64 boundary for the header may be to small
and constraining.

Tom indicates that setting limit would be helpful for sending traffic
over the Internet.

Tim Chown suggests maybe setting a minimum, and worries about existing
headers going over the 64 bit boundary.

Tim Winters comments that we haven't seen the issue in Routers in stand
alone testing, it suggest this may need to be a have a v6ops draft since
the issue is in policy or other network border boxes.

Jen (no hats) echo's Tim Winter's comments. Concerned that it's a policy
issue and not an individual argument.

Chairs recently sent a followup chair review to the authors.

Document is in working group last call (slide is incorrect).

Plan is for Tom to publish new draft responding to chairs reviews, then
get two people to do detailed reviews.

IPv6 Query for Enabled In-situ OAM Capabilities, draft-ietf-6man-icmpv6-ioam-conf-state, Xiao Min, 10 min

Erik Kline (no hats) ask if they are size limitations on the size of the

Xiao says yes minimum MTU.

Polling to see how many people have read it. 4 people out of 100. Chairs
encourage more engagement on list for this document.

Preference for IPv6 ULAs over IPv4 addresses in RFC6724, draft-ietf-6man-rfc6724-update , Tim Chown, 25 min.

Jen would like more clarity on the preference is for ULA to ULA, and not
changing GUA to ULA.

Tim agrees in general.

Tim Winters mentions requiring 5.5 was very difficult when testing 3484.

Ted Lemon thinks this needs to be MUST. So this gets fixed.

Lorenzo is wondering if implmentations think that rule 5.5 is too hard
to implement they won't therefore you might lose the ULA update.

Nick Buraglio suggest that having this requirement is helpful for
actually using that.

Erik Kline asked about testing.

Nick Buraglio said he did some initially on Linux.

Jan Zorz suggests this would be helpful for deployment.

Chairs took poll regarding SHOULD or MUST requirement in draft. 35
indicated support for MUST. Appears to have strong support in the room.

Authors plan to regroup and come back to working group.

Active Individual Drafts

Martin wonders why not using the global flags.

Lorenzo is concerned about competing RAs changing the value.

Martin discussed looking at the using the L flag.

Chairs asked how many people read the draft
15 - no, 7 - yes

Long disussiong on Should or Must requirement. Comment made that
probably should be MUST, otherwise won’t be test becasue it won't be

Some implementation testing has been done.

Chairs asked about adopting this draft. Good support in the room. Chairs
will confirm this on the mailing list.

NPTv6: Reclassification to Standards Track, draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis , Margaret Cullen, 10 min.

Juliusz Chroboczek is happy that this written down, but is worried
removing the experimental classification will tell people to implement

Margaret says the document has several paragraphs suggesting other
solutions available to implementing it.

Lorenzo doesn't see value in republishing this draft. There is nothing
to do.

Margaret thanks him for the feedback.

Éric Vyncke (AD) asks for a implementation Section to this document be
added for advancement. He isn't opposed to this moving forward.

David Lamparter is worried about this changing how government programs
requirements changing based on this requirement.

Nick responds with that is usually not taken into account.

Some amount of pushback to publish as Standard track document.

Chairs took an adoption poll:
Chairs note there is a moderate amount of no adoption in the room. 2/3
yes, 1/3 no.

Take to the mailing list.

Infight Removal of IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Routing Headers, draft-herbert-eh-inflight-removal , Tom Herbert, 10 min.

Nicola Rustignoli is wondering about Routing Header being different.

Taking the list due to time constraints.

Basic Support for IPv6 Networks Operating over 5G Vehicle-to-Everything Communications, draft-jeong-6man-ipv6-over-5g-v2x , Jaehoon Paul Jeong, 10 min.

No comments on presentation.