Skip to main content

Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 Packets
draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-07

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-10-22
07 Francis Dupont Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2012-10-18
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tina Tsou.
2012-10-16
07 Amy Vezza State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2012-10-15
07 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2012-10-15
07 Amy Vezza State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2012-10-15
07 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2012-10-15
07 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2012-10-15
07 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2012-10-15
07 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2012-10-12
07 Ron Bonica State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2012-10-12
07 Ron Bonica Ballot writeup was changed
2012-10-12
07 Xing Li New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-07.txt
2012-10-11
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation
2012-10-11
06 Pete Resnick Ballot comment text updated for Pete Resnick
2012-10-11
06 Ron Bonica Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from Best Current Practice
2012-10-11
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot comment]
I've cleared under the understanding that this will move to PS
2012-10-11
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-10-11
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
I have cleared my DISCUSS based on Ron's promise to add clarifying text on what constitutes a translatable address.
2012-10-11
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Haberman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2012-10-11
06 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
I understand that the third paragraph of section 3.1 states that the
address translation should provide additional information about the
source address, and …
[Ballot comment]
I understand that the third paragraph of section 3.1 states that the
address translation should provide additional information about the
source address, and suggests that a pool of IPv4 addresses could be
used to provide that additional information.  Yet, the mechanism
described in section 5 randomly chooses an IPv4 address from a pool of
IPv4 addresses.  I don't see how the random selection of the IPv4
address provides any information.  I recognize that the IPv6 source
address is carried in the ICMP extension.

If the IPv4 address is chosen at random from a pool of addresses, what
is the advantage over just using, as suggested in section 4, a single
IPv4 address as the source address in all translated ICMP messages?

In the interests of matching what I would think of as the meaning of
the title and the actual mechanism, I would call this mechanism a
"random selection mechanism".  There is no mapping, as I would
understand the word, involved.

If, on the other hand, the pool were composed of IPv4 addresses that
in some way convey topology information to the receiver, and the
IPv4 source address were chosen based on the non-translatable IPv6
address, I would consider this mechanism to be a "mapping".

I support Brian's Discuss about "What constitutes a non-translatable
address?"
2012-10-11
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms
2012-10-11
06 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo
2012-10-10
06 Wesley Eddy [Ballot comment]
It seems like "Updates: 6145" might be considered, and I support Robert's question regarding BCP vs PS in that respect.
2012-10-10
06 Wesley Eddy [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy
2012-10-10
06 Pete Resnick [Ballot comment]
Agree with Robert's DISCUSS.
2012-10-10
06 Pete Resnick [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick
2012-10-10
06 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2012-10-10
06 Martin Stiemerling
[Ballot comment]
A nit:

Section 5., paragraph 1:

>    If a pool of public IPv4 addresses is configured on the translator,
>    it …
[Ballot comment]
A nit:

Section 5., paragraph 1:

>    If a pool of public IPv4 addresses is configured on the translator,
>    it is RECOMMENDED to randomly select the IPv4 source address from the
>    pool.  Random selection reduces the probability that two ICMP
>    messages elicited by the same TRACEROUTE might specify the same
>    source address and, therefore, erroneously present the appearance of
>    a routing loop.  An enhanced traceroute application is RECOMMENDED in
>    order to obtain the IPv6 source addresses which generated the ICMPv6
>    messages.

  What is the RECOMMENDED about the application? Does it say that one
  should use such enhanced application? If yes, I do not see that
  the RECOMMENDED is the right term here, as it is nothing about
  the protocol, but more a recommendation for the user of such a
  traceroute application.
2012-10-10
06 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2012-10-08
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
No objection to the publication of this document, but a few points anyway

1.
OLD:

[RFC6145] section 5.2 of the "IP/ICMP …
[Ballot comment]
No objection to the publication of this document, but a few points anyway

1.
OLD:

[RFC6145] section 5.2 of the "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm"
  document. states that "the IPv6 addresses in the ICMPv6 header may
  not be IPv4-translatable addresses and there will be no corresponding
  IPv4 addresses representing this IPv6 address.

NEW:
[RFC6145] section 5.3 of the "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm"
  document. states that "the IPv6 addresses in the ICMPv6 header may
  not be IPv4-translatable addresses and there will be no corresponding
  IPv4 addresses representing this IPv6 address.


2. "The recommended approach to source selection is to use the a single"

3. From the write-up:

  (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?

  This document is proposed as a Best Current Practice. The argument
  for that status is as follows. The original authors, from CERNET,
  observed an operational problem in their network, which uses a stateful
  IPv4/IPv6 Translator between an IPv4-only domain (CERNET) and an
  IPv6-only domain (CERNET2).

I guess it's a typo: statefull -> stateless

4. 
That's a typical IETF document that contains all the information required, but ONLY contains the minimum piece of information.
Sure if you have all the background (RFC 6145, RFC 6052, ICMP, stateless/statefull, IPv6 & IPv4), this draft is a piece of cake. However, I wonder: are we doing a good service to new comers by reducing the content to the minimum?
No, we're simply adding to the argument that RFCs are a pain to read.
An extra diagram with an example, in the introduction, with the following pieces of information, would have been so much easier:
- IPv6 domain,
- IPv4 domain,
- request goes in one direction (indicate the IP address, before and after the translation),
- ICMPv6 comes in the other direction (indicate the IP address before the translation),
- src IP address as ??? 
- etc...
And also explaining why it's not an issue with statefull (or simply a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145#section-1.3) would be useful information


Regards, Benoit
2012-10-08
06 Benoît Claise Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise
2012-10-08
06 Benoît Claise
[Ballot comment]
No objection to the publication of this document, but a few points anyway

1.
OLD:

[RFC6145] section 5.2 of the "IP/ICMP …
[Ballot comment]
No objection to the publication of this document, but a few points anyway

1.
OLD:

[RFC6145] section 5.2 of the "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm"
  document. states that "the IPv6 addresses in the ICMPv6 header may
  not be IPv4-translatable addresses and there will be no corresponding
  IPv4 addresses representing this IPv6 address.

NEW:
[RFC6145] section 5.3 of the "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm"
  document. states that "the IPv6 addresses in the ICMPv6 header may
  not be IPv4-translatable addresses and there will be no corresponding
  IPv4 addresses representing this IPv6 address.


2. "The recommended approach to source selection is to use the a single"

3. From the write-up:

  (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?

  This document is proposed as a Best Current Practice. The argument
  for that status is as follows. The original authors, from CERNET,
  observed an operational problem in their network, which uses a stateful
  IPv4/IPv6 Translator between an IPv4-only domain (CERNET) and an
  IPv6-only domain (CERNET2).

I guess it's a typo: statefull -> stateless

4. 
That's a typical IETF document that contains all the information required, but ONLY contains the minimum piece of information.
Sure if you have all the background (RFC 6145, RFC 6052, ICMP, stateless/statefull, IPv6 & IPv4), this draft is a piece of cake. However, I wonder: are we doing a good service to new comers by reducing the content to the minimum?
No, we're simply adding to the argument that RFCs are a pain to read.
An extra diagram with an example, in the introduction, with the following pieces of information, would have been so much easier:
- IPv6 domain,
- IPv4 domain,
- request goes in one direction (indicate the IP address, before and after the translation),
- ICMPv6 comes in the other direction (indicate the IP address before the translation),
- src IP address as ??? 
- etc...
And also explaining why it's not an issue with statefull (or simply to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145#section-1.3) would be useful information


Regards, Benoit
2012-10-08
06 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2012-10-08
06 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
Question for the sponsoring AD: Why is the intended status BCP instead of PS? Code would have to be written to implement this, …
[Ballot discuss]
Question for the sponsoring AD: Why is the intended status BCP instead of PS? Code would have to be written to implement this, and it looks like there is the opportunity to learn things that would affect that code going forward. The explanation in the shepherd writeup supports PS more than it supports BCP. Why _shouldn't_ this be PS?
2012-10-08
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Robert Sparks
2012-10-08
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley
2012-10-08
06 Brian Haberman
[Ballot discuss]
What constitutes a non-translatable address?  That term is used multiple times in this specification and in RFC 6145 without any definition.  How does …
[Ballot discuss]
What constitutes a non-translatable address?  That term is used multiple times in this specification and in RFC 6145 without any definition.  How does an IP stack know if the address is translatable?
2012-10-08
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
I am not sure what assistance Henrik gave on this document, but I doubt he needs to be in the Acknowledgements section twice.
2012-10-08
06 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2012-10-08
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel
2012-10-07
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant
2012-10-04
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-10-04
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-10-04
06 Sean Turner
[Ballot comment]
1) s1: r/document. states/document states

2) s2: The nits checker is complaining.  I believe it's because the keywords aren't in quotes.

3) s3.1: …
[Ballot comment]
1) s1: r/document. states/document states

2) s2: The nits checker is complaining.  I believe it's because the keywords aren't in quotes.

3) s3.1: slight rewording:

OLD:

The source address used, should not cause the ICMP packet to be a
candidate for discarding.

NEW:

The source address used, should not cause the ICMP packet to be
discarded.

4) s3.1: I find the the 2nd sentence in s3.1 odd - is 6145 only applicable to private internets?  Isn't not using 1918-addresses really about not using these addresses on the internet as per RF 5735?  Maybe:

OLD:

The possibility of uRPF filters in the
path are a critical consideration [RFC3704] which precludes the use
of private IPv4 address space [RFC1918] in this context.

NEW:

  Private IPv4 address space [RFC1918] SHOULD NOT be used as the
  source addresses because they should not appear on the internet
  [RFC5735].

5) s3.1: I think this is missing a verb

OLD:

Another consideration for source selection is that it be possible for
the IPv4 recipients of the ICMP message to be able to distinguish ...

NEW:

Another consideration for source selection is that it should be possible
for the IPv4 recipients of the ICMP message to be able to distinguish ...

6) s3.2: Once more with feeling ;) it's a BCP after all

OLD:

The recommended approach to source …

NEW:

The RECOMMENDED approach to source …

7) s4: Is the last sentence in s4 needed?  If you're going to do the extension just do it.

8) s5: Need some motherhood an apple pie about picking a random number.  Add a pointer to RFC 4086.
2012-10-04
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2012-10-04
06 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2012-10-04
06 Ron Bonica Ballot has been issued
2012-10-04
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2012-10-04
06 Ron Bonica Created "Approve" ballot
2012-09-27
06 Francis Dupont Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Francis Dupont.
2012-09-25
06 Ron Bonica State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2012-09-25
06 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2012-09-22
06 Ron Bonica Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-10-11
2012-09-18
06 Pearl Liang
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-06, which is
currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there …
IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-06, which is
currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are no
IANA Actions that need completion.
2012-09-14
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-09-14
06 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francis Dupont
2012-09-14
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2012-09-14
06 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tina Tsou
2012-09-11
06 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 Packets) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 Packets'
  as Best Current Practice

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-09-25. 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


  A stateless IPv4/IPv6 translator may receive ICMPv6 packets
  containing non IPv4-translatable addresses as the source.  These
  packets should be passed across the translator as ICMP packets
  directed to the IPv4 destination.  This document presents
  recommendations for source address translation in ICMPv6 headers to
  handle such cases.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address/ballot/


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


2012-09-11
06 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2012-09-11
06 Ron Bonica Last call was requested
2012-09-11
06 Ron Bonica Ballot approval text was generated
2012-09-11
06 Ron Bonica State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2012-09-11
06 Ron Bonica Last call announcement was generated
2012-09-11
06 Ron Bonica Last call announcement was generated
2012-09-10
06 Xing Li New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-06.txt
2012-09-06
05 Xing Li New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-05.txt
2012-09-05
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2012-09-05
04 Xing Li New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-04.txt
2012-08-21
03 Ron Bonica State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation
2012-07-12
03 Ron Bonica State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2012-07-12
03 Ron Bonica Ballot writeup was changed
2012-07-12
03 Ron Bonica Ballot writeup was generated
2012-07-11
03 Cindy Morgan
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

This document is proposed as a Best Current Practice. The argument for that status is as follows. The original authors, from CERNET, observed an operational problem in their network, which uses a stateful IPv4/IPv6 Translator between an IPv4-only domain (CERNET) and an IPv6-only domain (CERNET2). They considered several options, discussed two options in the working group, and ultimately came to a two-fold recommendation. This recommendation is found in sections 4 and 5 of the document, and has working group consensus as stated. The solution meets an operational need and mitigates user confusion issues in such an environment, has been tested, and provably works.

(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

  A stateless IPv4/IPv6 translator may receive ICMPv6 packets
  containing non IPv4-translatable addresses as the source that should
  be passed across the translator as an ICMP packet directed to the
  IPv4-translatable destination.  This document presents
  recommendations for source address translation and original source
  address transport in ICMPv6 headers for such cases.

Working Group Summary

The working group process was pretty straightforward. The authors brought an initial proposal, which was not accepted, and working group discussion resulted in the document's recommendation. To the shepherd's knowledge, there is no dissent regarding the final recommendation.

Document Quality

There are existing implementations of the procedure and protocol in question. It has been tested in CERNET/CERNET2.

Personnel

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

The Document Shepherd is Fred Baker. The Responsible AD is Ron Bonica.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The shepherd read the initial document, followed the working group discussion and spoke with the authors privately, and read the ultimate outcome. While the RFC Editor will likely make minor adjustments regarding english prose (the original authors are not native speakers of English), the document is clear and understandable.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No. The acknowledgements section notes a number of people who have commented or contributed text.

(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.

This is not, in my view, required. The document contains no formal language, and beyond using the ICMP extension documented in RFC 5837 imposes no protocol specifics.

(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.

The shepherd is comfortable with the document, and working group discussion has not surfaced remaining issues.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

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

Not to my knowledge.

(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?

As noted in the acknowledgements, working group discussion was robust and broad. I would describe this as having broad consensus.

(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.

The idnits tool reports:

  == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if
    it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with
    a matching beginning. Boilerplate error?
    (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the
    ID-Checklist requires).
   
The document contains:

2.  Notational Conventions
  The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
  SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
  document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

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

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

The references are all normative, and are listed as such.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

There are no such references.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

The references are all BCPs or Proposed or Draft Standards. There are no downward references as a BCP.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

This document uses other RFCs, but does not updated them.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document doesn't depend on IANA registries or create new ones.

(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.

N/A

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

N/A
2012-07-11
03 Cindy Morgan Note added 'Fred Baker (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.'
2012-07-11
03 Cindy Morgan Intended Status changed to Best Current Practice
2012-07-11
03 Cindy Morgan IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2012-07-11
03 (System) Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address
2012-07-11
03 Fred Baker IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2012-07-11
03 Fred Baker Forwarded to AD 11 July 2012
2012-07-11
03 Fred Baker Changed shepherd to Fred Baker
2012-07-10
03 Xing Li New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-03.txt
2012-07-03
02 Xing Li New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-02.txt
2012-02-24
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-01.txt
2011-11-14
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-00.txt