Skip to main content

IPv4 Routes with an IPv6 Next Hop in the Babel Routing Protocol
draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-08

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2024-01-26
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Martínez Last Call OPSDIR review
2024-01-26
08 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'Overtaken by Events': Cleaning up stale OPSDIR queue
2022-05-05
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2022-05-05
08 Andrew Alston Intended Status changed to Experimental from Proposed Standard
2022-04-06
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48
2022-04-04
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2022-03-14
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2022-03-14
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2022-03-14
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2022-03-02
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2022-03-01
08 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2022-03-01
08 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2022-03-01
08 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2022-03-01
08 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2022-03-01
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2022-03-01
08 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2022-03-01
08 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2022-03-01
08 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2022-03-01
08 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup
2022-02-24
08 (System) Removed all action holders (IESG state changed)
2022-02-24
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-02-24
08 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-08.txt
2022-02-24
08 (System) New version approved
2022-02-24
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek
2022-02-24
08 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2022-02-17
07 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'Overtaken by Events'
2022-02-17
07 Jean Mahoney Assignment of request for Last Call review by GENART to Suhas Nandakumar was marked no-response
2022-02-17
07 (System) Changed action holders to Juliusz Chroboczek (IESG state changed)
2022-02-17
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2022-02-17
07 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well written document.

Other than my discuss, I only have a question:
Section 5 (Backwards Compatibility) says:
"As a result, …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well written document.

Other than my discuss, I only have a question:
Section 5 (Backwards Compatibility) says:
"As a result, incompatible versions will ignore v4-via-v6 routes. "

Is it *always* safe for a babel router to ignore a route? I really haven't thought about it enough (and the fact that it is DV based makes me think that it should be fine) but I'd like some reassurance that it is, especially in the case that a prefix is originated by multiple routers, and one of them gets filtered/ignored.


[ Edit: Changing DISCUSS to NoObj with the understanding that it will be revised to Experimental ]
Original DISCUSS for hysterical raisons, because I want to capture the desire for a future document that fully describes v6-via-v4 next hop :
----
I'd started balloting this as Abstain, but while writing up the ballot I realized that it's important enough that it deserves to be DISCUSSed.

This is clearly clever, but feels to me like it might fall into "Oo, you are so sharp you’ll cut yourself one of these days"[0] territory.

I'm not saying that the "v4-via-v6" is a *bad* idea, but I really don't think that it should be introduced / documented in a Standards Track Babel document - it touches core plumbing, and should be discussed and documented in a V6OPS (or 6MAN) document, and then this document includes it by reference.

If this was only ever going to used in Babel environments I'd be much less concerned, but I suspect (hope?) that future solutions will want to do very similar things, and that it needs to be reviewed with an assumption that it might get widely used. It should documented in a "self contained" manner so it can be cleanly referenced - at the moment, a reference would need to point at bits of Section 1 and 3, and there is some feeling of "this is probably safe, the 192.0.0.8 bit might make operations / debugging a bit harder, but... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

If this has already received significant discussion in V6OPS / similar, or if it is already clearly documented elsewhere[1], I'll clear my DISCUSS and Abstain or support it.

I'm sure that this DISCUSS will be frustrating to the authors/WG - I'm doing so because I'd like to see this technique more able to be used (and make sure that there aren't any sharp pointy bits), not because I think it's a bad idea...


[0]: quote from Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
[1]: I suspect it is already documented somewhere, but the closest I can think is RFC7600 - "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A Stateless Solution (4rd)", an Experimental document which is noticeably different to this. If it *is* already documented somewhere else though, then why is this not just referencing that instead?
----
2022-02-17
07 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] Position for Warren Kumari has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2022-02-17
07 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Changing to No Obj on the understanding that this is going to change to experimental.

---

Hi,

I'm abstaining because whilst I think …
[Ballot comment]
Changing to No Obj on the understanding that this is going to change to experimental.

---

Hi,

I'm abstaining because whilst I think that the solution here is clever, I'm less convinced that it is a good idea, particularly as an IETF standards track document.  In particular, the use of 192.0.0.8 as a source address could easily be quite confusing for end-hosts trying to figure out network issues.  It would be interesting to know whether there are any real or planned deployments of this draft.

Regards,
Rob
2022-02-17
07 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Wilton has been changed to No Objection from Abstain
2022-02-17
07 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
(updated ballot.  Fixed the link)

Thank to you Tero Kivinen for the SECDIR review.

I support Warren Kumari’s DISCUSS.

This helpful explanation ( …
[Ballot comment]
(updated ballot.  Fixed the link)

Thank to you Tero Kivinen for the SECDIR review.

I support Warren Kumari’s DISCUSS.

This helpful explanation (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/mH6Ys5uC_vW1_wJ7F3FpWoOiDJA/) of history notwithstanding, given that this document invalidates a common security assumption about isolated networks and is touching core internet technology, getting field experience and publishing with experimental status seems more appropriate than a proposed standard.
2022-02-17
07 Roman Danyliw Ballot comment text updated for Roman Danyliw
2022-02-16
07 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2022-02-16
07 John Scudder
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this highly readable and useful document.

Regarding the distaste for the dummy 192.0.0.8 address, it seems to me that this is …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for this highly readable and useful document.

Regarding the distaste for the dummy 192.0.0.8 address, it seems to me that this is a case of perfect as the enemy of good. A conflict-averse pragmatist, foreseeing the objection, might simply have left Section 3 out of the document. I don’t think that would have been a better outcome. I note furthermore that the 192.0.0.8 mechanism isn’t even being specified here — it’s specced in RFC 7600, and is just offered as an implementation option here.
2022-02-16
07 John Scudder [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for John Scudder
2022-02-16
07 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot comment]
Thank to you Tero Kivinen for the SECDIR review.

I support Warren Kumari’s DISCUSS.

This helpful explanation (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iesg/aaPn5j9JZxOCautwWwOqRMmPXHc/) of history notwithstanding, …
[Ballot comment]
Thank to you Tero Kivinen for the SECDIR review.

I support Warren Kumari’s DISCUSS.

This helpful explanation (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/iesg/aaPn5j9JZxOCautwWwOqRMmPXHc/) of history notwithstanding, given that this document invalidates a common security assumption about isolated networks and is touching core internet technology, getting field experience and publishing with experimental status seems more appropriate than a proposed standard.
2022-02-16
07 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2022-02-16
07 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2022-02-16
07 Zaheduzzaman Sarker
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Joseph Touch  for his TSVART review. Based on my read of this specification and TSVART …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for working on this specification. Thanks to Joseph Touch  for his TSVART review. Based on my read of this specification and TSVART review, I haven't noticed transport related issues hence balloting No Objection.
2022-02-16
07 Zaheduzzaman Sarker [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Zaheduzzaman Sarker
2022-02-16
07 Éric Vyncke
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The re-use of RFC 7600 (4rd) 192.0.0.8 dummy address is consistent with other practices, …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The re-use of RFC 7600 (4rd) 192.0.0.8 dummy address is consistent with other practices, e.g., the IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses for 6PE.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Special thanks to Donald Eastlake for the shepherd's write-up including the section about the WG consensus around the IPv4 dummy address.

Thanks also to Bernie Volz for the INT directorate review dated 27th of January. Some nits were detected and the author should address them as if they were my own COMMENTs.
See .

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric
## Section 1
Is there a reason why IPv4 link-local addresses, 169.254/16 RFC 3927, are not mentioned in this section ? They could easily be used as next IPv4 hop as the fe80::1234:5678 in the example.

## Section 2.2

"If no IPv6 next hop exists, then the Update MUST be silently ignored.", would this behaviour make operations/debugging more complex ?

## Section 8

Should there be a "contributor" section for Théophile Bastian ?
2022-02-16
07 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2022-02-15
07 Warren Kumari
[Ballot discuss]
I'd started balloting this as Abstain, but while writing up the ballot I realized that it's important enough that it deserves to be …
[Ballot discuss]
I'd started balloting this as Abstain, but while writing up the ballot I realized that it's important enough that it deserves to be DISCUSSed.

This is clearly clever, but feels to me like it might fall into "Oo, you are so sharp you’ll cut yourself one of these days"[0] territory.

I'm not saying that the "v4-via-v6" is a *bad* idea, but I really don't think that it should be introduced / documented in a Standards Track Babel document - it touches core plumbing, and should be discussed and documented in a V6OPS (or 6MAN) document, and then this document includes it by reference.

If this was only ever going to used in Babel environments I'd be much less concerned, but I suspect (hope?) that future solutions will want to do very similar things, and that it needs to be reviewed with an assumption that it might get widely used. It should documented in a "self contained" manner so it can be cleanly referenced - at the moment, a reference would need to point at bits of Section 1 and 3, and there is some feeling of "this is probably safe, the 192.0.0.8 bit might make operations / debugging a bit harder, but... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

If this has already received significant discussion in V6OPS / similar, or if it is already clearly documented elsewhere[1], I'll clear my DISCUSS and Abstain or support it.

I'm sure that this DISCUSS will be frustrating to the authors/WG - I'm doing so because I'd like to see this technique more able to be used (and make sure that there aren't any sharp pointy bits), not because I think it's a bad idea...


[0]: quote from Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
[1]: I suspect it is already documented somewhere, but the closest I can think is RFC7600 - "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A Stateless Solution (4rd)", an Experimental document which is noticeably different to this. If it *is* already documented somewhere else though, then why is this not just referencing that instead?
2022-02-15
07 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well written document.

Other than my discuss, I only have a question:
Section 5 (Backwards Compatibility) says:
"As a result, …
[Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well written document.

Other than my discuss, I only have a question:
Section 5 (Backwards Compatibility) says:
"As a result, incompatible versions will ignore v4-via-v6 routes. "

Is it *always* safe for a babel router to ignore a route? I really haven't thought about it enough (and the fact that it is DV based makes me think that it should be fine) but I'd like some reassurance that it is, especially in the case that a prefix is originated by multiple routers, and one of them gets filtered/ignored.
2022-02-15
07 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2022-02-15
07 Robert Wilton
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

I'm abstaining because whilst I think that the solution here is clever, I'm less convinced that it is a good idea, particularly …
[Ballot comment]
Hi,

I'm abstaining because whilst I think that the solution here is clever, I'm less convinced that it is a good idea, particularly as an IETF standards track document.  In particular, the use of 192.0.0.8 as a source address could easily be quite confusing for end-hosts trying to figure out network issues.  It would be interesting to know whether there are any real or planned deployments of this draft.

Regards,
Rob
2022-02-15
07 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2022-02-14
07 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
Overall this is well written and fun to read -- thanks!

Section 2

                This extension …
[Ballot comment]
Overall this is well written and fun to read -- thanks!

Section 2

                This extension defines a new AE, called v4-via-v6, which
  has the same format as the existing AE for IPv4 addresses.  This new
  AE is only allowed in TLVs that carry network prefixes: TLVs that
  carry a neighbour address use one of the normal encodings for IPv6
  addresses.

(Could neighbor addresses also be IPv4 addresses?)

Section 2.2

  *  the next hop MUST be computed as for an IPv6 route, as described
      in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966]: it is taken from the last preceding
      Next Hop TLV with an AE field equal to 2 or 3; if no such entry
      exists, and if the Update TLV has been sent in a Babel packet
      carried over IPv6, then the next hop is the network-layer source
      address of the packet.

This phrasing implies that the Update TLV carrying a v4-via-v6 entry might
be carried over something other than IPv6, which in turn would require us
to specify some behavior for handling it (specifically, when there is no
preceding Next Hop TLV with AE of 2 or 3).

  As usual, a node MAY ignore the update, e.g., due to filtering
  (Appendix C of [RFC8966]).  If a node cannot install v4-via-v6
  routes, e.g., due to hardware or software limitations, then routes to
  an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next hop MUST NOT be selected, as
  described in Section 3.5.3 of [RFC8966].

I'm not entirely sure what the §3.5.3 reference is intending to point to.
That section does cover route selection in a certain sense, but mostly
discusses feasibility as the selection criterion, not "installability".
So I don't see it as a useful reference for "don't select routes you can't
install", and am not sure that a reference for specifically "route
selection" is needed here.

Section 2.3

  When receiving requests, AEs 1 (IPv4) and 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be
  treated in the same manner: the receiver processes the request as
  described in Section 3.8 of [RFC8966].  If an Update is sent, then it
  MAY be sent with AE 1 or 4, as described in Section 2.1 above,
  irrespective of which AE was used in the request.

(editorial) The referenced §2.1 doesn't use the "AE" phrasing to describe
this scenario, which makes it harder for a reader to cross-reference to
the intended content.

  When receiving a request with AE 0 (wildcard), the receiver SHOULD
  send a full route dump, as described in Section 3.8.1.1 of [RFC8966].
  Any IPv4 routes contained in the route dump MAY use either AE 1
  (IPv4) or AE 4 (v4-via-v6), as described in Section 2.1 above.

The "MAY" here (and above, I suppose) feels a little confusing, as a
literal reading of it gives the sender blanket permission to freely choose
between AE=1 and AE=4, whereas in reality there are some preconditions on
the use of AE=4 (namely, having an IPv6 next hop).  In other words, what's
described in §2.1 is not actually an unqualified "MAY use either", so it's
misleading to summarize it that way.  Would it be better to avoid any
normative keywords here and just say that "the procedures for sending the
Update TLVs comprising the full route dump are described in Section 2.1
above"?

Section 4.1

  A new compression state for AE 4 (v4-via-v6) distinct from that of AE
  1 (IPv4) is introduced, and MUST be used for address compression of
  prefixes tagged with AE 4, as described in Section 4.6.9 of [RFC8966]

The string "compress" does not appear in §4.6.9 of RFC 8966.  Was a
different section intended?

Section 4.2

  As AE 4 (v4-via-v6) is suitable only for network prefixes, IHU
  (Type = 5) and Next-Hop (Type = 7) TLVs MUST NOT be tagged with AE 4.
  Such (incorrect) TLVs MUST be ignored upon reception.

We already imposed this requirement to not send AE=4 in IHU and Next-Hop;
best practice is to use normative keywords exactly once when stating a
given requirement, and refer to that statement of the requirement in
situations where a reminder of the requirement is needed.

Section 4.2.1

  *  Next Hop.  The next hop is determined as described in Section 2.2
      above.

I'd consider emphasizing that the "determined" here applies both when
constructing and receiving the Update.

Section 5

  ignore v4-via-v6 routes.  They will also ignore requests with AE 4,
  which, as stated in Section 2.3, are NOT RECOMMENDED.

In a similar vein as my comment on §4.2, I'd suggest the lowercase "not
recommended" here.
2022-02-14
07 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2022-02-14
07 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2022-02-12
07 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
[Abstract; nit]

* s/annoncing/announcing/

[S1; comment]

* "...enables a mode of operation where..."

  For your consideration: RFC 7404 talks about a mode …
[Ballot comment]
[Abstract; nit]

* s/annoncing/announcing/

[S1; comment]

* "...enables a mode of operation where..."

  For your consideration: RFC 7404 talks about a mode of IPv6 link-local-only
  operation; it might or might not be a useful citation.

[S2.4; nit]

* s/Next Hop and TLV/Next Hop and IHU/

[S3; nit]

* The RFC 7600 reference is not to Section 22 but rather R-22 (Section 4.8).
2022-02-12
07 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2022-02-10
07 Cindy Morgan Placed on agenda for telechat - 2022-02-17
2022-02-10
07 Martin Vigoureux Ballot has been issued
2022-02-10
07 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2022-02-10
07 Martin Vigoureux Created "Approve" ballot
2022-02-10
07 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2022-02-10
07 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was changed
2022-02-09
07 Magnus Westerlund Closed request for Last Call review by TSVART with state 'Withdrawn'
2022-02-08
07 Himanshu Shah Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Himanshu Shah. Sent review to list.
2022-02-08
07 Joseph Touch Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Joseph Touch. Sent review to list.
2022-02-08
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2022-02-07
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2022-02-07
07 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Babel Address Encodings registry on the Babel Routing Protocol registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/babel/

the existing registration for

AE: 4
Name: v4-via-v6

is to have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2022-02-02
07 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch
2022-02-02
07 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Joseph Touch
2022-02-01
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tero Kivinen. Sent review to list.
2022-02-01
07 Colin Perkins Assignment of request for Last Call review by TSVART to Colin Perkins was rejected
2022-01-31
07 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins
2022-01-31
07 Magnus Westerlund Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Colin Perkins
2022-01-28
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen
2022-01-28
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tero Kivinen
2022-01-28
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar
2022-01-28
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suhas Nandakumar
2022-01-28
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Himanshu Shah
2022-01-28
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Himanshu Shah
2022-01-28
07 Luc André Burdet Assignment of request for Last Call review by RTGDIR to Harish Sitaraman was rejected
2022-01-28
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2022-01-28
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Martínez
2022-01-27
07 Bernie Volz Request for Last Call review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Bernie Volz. Sent review to list.
2022-01-27
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Harish Sitaraman
2022-01-27
07 Luc André Burdet Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Harish Sitaraman
2022-01-26
07 Bernie Volz Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Bernie Volz
2022-01-26
07 Bernie Volz Request for Last Call review by INTDIR is assigned to Bernie Volz
2022-01-26
07 Éric Vyncke Requested Last Call review by INTDIR
2022-01-25
07 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2022-01-25
07 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-02-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, d3e3e3@gmail.com, draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2022-02-08):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, d3e3e3@gmail.com, draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop in the Babel routing protocol) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Babel routing protocol WG (babel) to
consider the following document: - 'IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop in the
Babel routing protocol'
  as Proposed Standard

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-02-08. 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 defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that
  allows annoncing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop,
  which makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces
  that have not been assigned an IPv4 address.  This document updates
  RFC 8966.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6/



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




2022-01-25
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2022-01-25
07 Martin Vigoureux Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2022-01-25
07 Martin Vigoureux Last call was requested
2022-01-25
07 Martin Vigoureux Ballot approval text was generated
2022-01-25
07 Martin Vigoureux Ballot writeup was generated
2022-01-25
07 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2022-01-25
07 Martin Vigoureux Last call announcement was generated
2022-01-16
07 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Vigoureux (IESG state changed)
2022-01-16
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2022-01-16
07 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07.txt
2022-01-16
07 (System) New version approved
2022-01-16
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek
2022-01-16
07 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2021-11-05
06 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Vigoureux, Juliusz Chroboczek (IESG state changed)
2021-11-05
06 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2021-11-03
06 (System) Changed action holders to Martin Vigoureux (IESG state changed)
2021-11-03
06 Martin Vigoureux IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2021-07-02
06 Donald Eastlake Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2021-06-18
06 Donald Eastlake
PROTO for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper …
PROTO for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06

(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?

    Proposed Standard as indicated in the title page header. This is
    the appropriate type as this document since it updates Proposed
    Standard RFC 8966.

(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 updats the Babel routing protocol to support
  annoncing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop. This
  makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces that
  have not been assigned an IPv4 address. Since an IPv6 next hop can
  use an IPv6 link-local address that is autonomously configured, the
  use of such routes enables a mode of operation where the network
  core has no statically assigned IP addresses.

Working Group Summary:

  The Babel WG was enthusiastic about this update to the Babel
  protocol. Things were moving along when the group hit the speed
  bump of what IPv4 source address to use when a v4-via-v6 Babel
  router generates a v4 ICMP message. It took a little while to
  resolve that resulting in the current specification whch includes
  use of the IPv4 dummy address if no other source of an IPv4 address
  is available on the router. Based on the mailing list and WG
  meetings, there is strong consensus for the draft.

Document Quality:

  This a reasonably short document of high quality. v4-via-v6 has
  been implemented in babeld but not merged into the mainline source
  yet. It has not yet been implemented in BIRD but the maintainer
  has indicated their intention to do so. (The use of the IPv4 dummy
  address when generating a v4 packt with no v4 addresses configured
  has been submitted for inclusion in the Linux kernel.)

Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
  Area Director: Martin Vigoureux

(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.

    See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5HEAHOesxnerhhq9rZcy92hjfwI/

(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 such review required.

(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 special 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.

  The author has posted an IPR declaration. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/oLJIQejTqRDpJ2zJYGHiPzIZYnc/

(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 disclosure has been filed for this document.
   
(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 a solid strong consensus for this document among tha
  active Babel participants,

(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.

    Things found by the nits checker:
  - Non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses. This is OK, it is a
    reference to the already assigned "dummy" IPv4 address 192.0.0.8.
  - "Obsolete" Informatial reference to RFC 5549. The reference is
    used to show the prior inspiration for the v4-via-v6 idea came
    from this specific RFC; that point would be lost if the reference
    were updated.
  - The nits checker seems to misparse the header and complains about
    the date of the document being in the future but it must be
    checking the expires date.

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

    No such formal review is required for this document.

(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?

    No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967
)?

    There are no downward normative references.

(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?

    This document does not change the status of any other RFC.

(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
8126
).

    IANA Considerations just documents the assignment of the value 4
    for the v4-via-v6 Babel Address Encoding (AE). This value was
    approved by Expert Review and is used in existing implementations.

(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.

  This document does not create any IANA registries.

(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, YANG modules,
etc.

  No such formal reviews required.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  This document contains no YANG.
2021-06-18
06 Donald Eastlake Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux
2021-06-18
06 Donald Eastlake IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2021-06-18
06 Donald Eastlake IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2021-06-18
06 Donald Eastlake IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2021-06-18
06 Donald Eastlake
PROTO for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is
this the proper …
PROTO for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06

(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?

    Proposed Standard as indicated in the title page header. This is
    the appropriate type as this document since it updates Proposed
    Standard RFC 8966.

(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 updats the Babel routing protocol to support
  annoncing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop. This
  makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces that
  have not been assigned an IPv4 address. Since an IPv6 next hop can
  use an IPv6 link-local address that is autonomously configured, the
  use of such routes enables a mode of operation where the network
  core has no statically assigned IP addresses.

Working Group Summary:

  The Babel WG was enthusiastic about this update to the Babel
  protocol. Things were moving along when the group hit the speed
  bump of what IPv4 source address to use when a v4-via-v6 Babel
  router generates a v4 ICMP message. It took a little while to
  resolve that resulting in the current specification whch includes
  use of the IPv4 dummy address if no other source of an IPv4 address
  is available on the router. Based on the mailing list and WG
  meetings, there is strong consensus for the draft.

Document Quality:

  This a reasonably short document of high quality. v4-via-v6 has
  been implemented in babeld but not merged into the mainline source
  yet. It has not yet been implemented in BIRD but the maintainer
  has indicated their intention to do so. (The use of the IPv4 dummy
  address when generating a v4 packt with no v4 addresses configured
  has been submitted for inclusion in the Linux kernel.)

Personnel:

    Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

  Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake
  Area Director: Martin Vigoureux

(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.

    See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5HEAHOesxnerhhq9rZcy92hjfwI/

(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 such review required.

(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 special 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.

  The author has posted an IPR declaration. See
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/oLJIQejTqRDpJ2zJYGHiPzIZYnc/

(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 disclosure has been filed for this document.
   
(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 a solid strong consensus for this document among tha
  active Babel participants,

(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.

    Things found by the nits checker:
  - Non-RFC6890-compliant IPv4 addresses. This is OK, it is a
    reference to the already assigned "dummy" IPv4 address 192.0.0.8.
  - "Obsolete" Informatial reference to RFC 5549. The reference is
    used to show the prior inspiration for the v4-via-v6 idea came
    from this specific RFC; that point would be lost if the reference
    were updated.
  - The nits checker seems to misparse the header and complains about
    the date of the document being in the future but it must be
    checking the expires date.

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

    No such formal review is required for this document.

(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?

    No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967
)?

    There are no downward normative references.

(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?

    This document does not change the status of any other RFC.

(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
8126
).

    IANA Considerations just documents the assignment of the value 4
    for the v4-via-v6 Babel Address Encoding (AE). This value was
    approved by Expert Review and is used in existing implementations.

(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.

  This document does not create any IANA registries.

(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, YANG modules,
etc.

  No such formal reviews required.

(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been
checked with any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings,
what is the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the
YANG module comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture
(NMDA) as specified in RFC8342?

  This document contains no YANG.
2021-06-18
06 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-06.txt
2021-06-18
06 (System) New version approved
2021-06-18
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-06-18
06 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2021-06-09
05 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-05.txt
2021-06-09
05 (System) New version approved
2021-06-09
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-06-09
05 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2021-06-08
04 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-04.txt
2021-06-08
04 (System) New version approved
2021-06-08
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-06-08
04 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2021-06-06
03 Donald Eastlake Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2021-06-06
03 Donald Eastlake IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2021-04-21
03 Donald Eastlake IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2021-04-21
03 Donald Eastlake Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2021-04-21
03 Donald Eastlake Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Experimental
2021-04-21
03 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-03.txt
2021-04-21
03 (System) New version approved
2021-04-21
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-04-21
03 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2021-04-13
02 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-02.txt
2021-04-13
02 (System) New version approved
2021-04-13
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek
2021-04-13
02 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2021-04-09
01 Juliusz Chroboczek New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-01.txt
2021-04-09
01 (System) New version approved
2021-04-09
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek , Theophile Bastian , babel-chairs@ietf.org
2021-04-09
01 Juliusz Chroboczek Uploaded new revision
2021-03-04
00 Donald Eastlake Added to session: IETF-110: babel  Tue-1530
2020-10-20
00 Donald Eastlake Notification list changed to d3e3e3@gmail.com because the document shepherd was set
2020-10-20
00 Donald Eastlake Document shepherd changed to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
2020-10-20
00 Donald Eastlake Intended Status changed to Experimental from None
2020-10-20
00 Donald Eastlake This document now replaces draft-bastian-babel-v4ov6 instead of None
2020-10-20
00 Theophile Bastian New version available: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-00.txt
2020-10-20
00 (System) WG -00 approved
2020-10-20
00 Theophile Bastian Set submitter to "Theophile Bastian ", replaces to draft-bastian-babel-v4ov6 and sent approval email to group chairs: babel-chairs@ietf.org
2020-10-20
00 Theophile Bastian Uploaded new revision