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08 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request closed, assignment withdrawn: Carlos Martínez Last Call OPSDIR review |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 |