Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day
draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
05 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Thomas Narten |
2005-03-30
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2005-03-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2005-03-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2005-03-28
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2005-03-25
|
05 | David Kessens | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by David Kessens |
2005-03-18
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-05.txt |
2005-02-09
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-04.txt |
2005-01-18
|
05 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Thomas Narten has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Thomas Narten |
2004-11-23
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-03.txt |
2004-11-19
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2004-11-19
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-02.txt |
2004-07-23
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2004-07-22
|
05 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot comment] > Network element: Any network device, such as a router, switch or > firewall Might be good to state here … [Ballot comment] > Network element: Any network device, such as a router, switch or > firewall Might be good to state here that "hosts" are specifically excluded, at least, that is my conclusion based on the following: > IPv6 addresses assigned to interfaces on network elements: These > addresses are typically assigned manually, as part of configuring > network elements. not sure I agree with "typically", if it applies to hosts as well. Host addresses are typically managed using, e.g., DHCP. Section 1.3 is organized a but funny. Is the formatting right? E.g., should some of this stuff be clearly itemized to show what belongs to what? E.g.,: > Routing information propagated by network elements Seems like maybe this is a subsection heading, or the start of an itemized list? > o The DHCP Reconfigure message can be sent from the server to the > hosts to cause the hosts to contact the server. immediately Extra/missing text? > The new prefix is added to the routing infrastructure, firewall > filters, ingress/egress filters and other forwarding and filtering > functions. The new link prefixes may be advertised by the network > elements, but the router advertisements should not cause hosts to Maybe reword above (to make more clear talking about route injection) to something like: Routes for the new link prefixes may be injected by routing protocols into the routing subsystem, but ... > configurations that depend on it.If any configuration has been insert space > During this phase the registries are informed that the old prefix is > no longer in use, and addresses within that prefix are removed from A > records associated with name servers and the corresponding name > server configurations. Who are "registries", and indeed, is that the right word to use here (e.g., for end sites, who get addresses from ISPs) > The difficult operational issues in Section 2.3, Section 2.6, and > Section 2.7 are in dealing with the configurations of routers and > hosts which are not under the control of the network administrator or > are manually configured. Examples of such devices include voice over > IP (VoIP) telephones with static configuration of boot or name > servers, dedicated devices used in manufacturing that are configured > with the IP addresses for specific services, the boot servers of > routers and switches, etc. mention unique local addresses here? Can they play a role? |
2004-07-22
|
05 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot discuss] This document doesn't mention Unique Local Addresses. It probably should, since for configuration (e.g., bootstrapping) using such addresses may reduce the pain of … [Ballot discuss] This document doesn't mention Unique Local Addresses. It probably should, since for configuration (e.g., bootstrapping) using such addresses may reduce the pain of renumbering. I don't think a lot of text is required, but a paragraph mentioning their existance and how they might help seems appropriate. Security Considerations seems weak. The first few paragraph seem to have nothing to do with security. Second, this docuemnt recommends using DNS names rather than hard-coded IP addresses in order to simplify renumbering. But some folk use addresses because they are more secure than relying on an (unsecured) DNS lookup. This issue should be dicussed in this section. |
2004-07-22
|
05 | Thomas Narten | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Thomas Narten by Thomas Narten |
2004-07-22
|
05 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2004-07-22
|
05 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot comment] In section 2.3, are these two sentences talking about the same thing? The new link prefixes may be advertised by the network … [Ballot comment] In section 2.3, are these two sentences talking about the same thing? The new link prefixes may be advertised by the network elements, but the router advertisements should not cause hosts to perform SLAC on the new link prefixes; in particular the "autonomous address-configuration" flag [RFC2461] should not be set in the advertisements for the new link prefixes. Network elements may have IPv6 addresses from the new link prefixes assigned to interfaces, taking care that this assignment does not interfere with the use of IPv6 addresses from the old prefix and does not cause the new link prefix to be advertised to hosts. The first sentence seems to say that it's ok for a network element to advertise the link prefix as long as it doesn't set the aa flag; the second seems to prohibit any advertising of the link prefix. In section 3.2: To better support renumbering, network elements can: o provide uniform support for renumbering in all user interface and configuration mechanisms, such as replacement of one prefix with another through a single command How does "replacement of one prefix with another" support make-before-break? Shouldn't this be "add an additional prefix with all the same configurations as the existing prefix"? |
2004-07-22
|
05 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2004-07-21
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2004-07-21
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot comment] Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART |
2004-07-21
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Harald Alvestrand has been changed to Undefined from No Objection by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-07-21
|
05 | Harald Alvestrand | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Harald Alvestrand by Harald Alvestrand |
2004-07-20
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] I went back and forth on this being a discuss, and decided that since this is informational, it should not be. But I … [Ballot comment] I went back and forth on this being a discuss, and decided that since this is informational, it should not be. But I think section 3.1 is very weak compared to the extensive work that has been done in v6ops on application protocols. Here's the current text: Application designers frequently take short-cuts to save memory or increase responsiveness, and a common short-cut is to use static configuration of IP addresses rather than DNS translation to obtain the same. The downside of such behavior should be apparent; such a poorly designed application cannot even add or replace a server easily, much less change servers or reorganize its address space. The short-cut ultimately becomes expensive to maintain and hard to change or replace. As a result, in view of the possibility that a network may need to be renumbered in the future, any application: o should obtain addresses of other systems or services from the DNS, rather then having those addresses manually configured, o must obtain a new translation if a new session is opened with the same service after the lifetime of the DNS RR expires, o when addresses are configured rather than translated, should provide a convenient programmatic method to reconfigure the addresses that can be executed using a script or its equivalent. Application designers, equipment vendors, and the Open Source community should take note. There is an opportunity to serve their customers well in this area, and network operators should take note to either develop or purchase appropriate tools. There are lots of cases when these choices are not nearly the capricious or short-sighted decisions that this document makes them out to be. For one example familiar to this set of authors, look at how people configure BGP sessions, and tell them they should use DNS lookup of the peer address to handle possible renumbering of the peer's network. Sure, it's possible, but lots of people make other choices for pretty good reasons. Making these statements about why the decisions are made don't really help anyone figure out what to do about it, at least in my opinion. I would personally suggest that they replace the entire section with the short phrase from the definition section: Finding everything that must be updated and automating the process may require significant effort. This process must be tailored to the needs of each network. As what is there isn't really advice to those engaged in renumbering, but advice to a different population. |
2004-07-20
|
05 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2004-07-19
|
05 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot comment] 2.2.2: There's a dangling word at the end of th section. Mention ACLs in firewalls? Mention use of honeypot-like machines to catch residual … [Ballot comment] 2.2.2: There's a dangling word at the end of th section. Mention ACLs in firewalls? Mention use of honeypot-like machines to catch residual uses of the old prefix after renumbering is putatively completed? |
2004-07-19
|
05 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot comment] 2.2.2: There's a dangling word at the end of th section. Mention ACLs in firewalls? Mention use of honeypot-like machines to catch residual … [Ballot comment] 2.2.2: There's a dangling word at the end of th section. Mention ACLs in firewalls? Mention use of honeypot-like machines to catch residual uses of the old prefix after renumbering is putatively completed. |
2004-07-19
|
05 | Steven Bellovin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Steve Bellovin by Steve Bellovin |
2004-07-16
|
05 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2004-07-15
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot comment] First line of abstract needs to be changed to make it understandable english. |
2004-07-15
|
05 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for David Kessens |
2004-07-15
|
05 | David Kessens | Ballot has been issued by David Kessens |
2004-07-15
|
05 | David Kessens | Created "Approve" ballot |
2004-07-15
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2004-07-15
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2004-07-15
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2004-07-15
|
05 | David Kessens | [Note]: 'Note: red team' added by David Kessens |
2004-07-15
|
05 | David Kessens | Draft Added by David Kessens in state IESG Evaluation |
2004-07-09
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-01.txt |
2004-02-10
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure-00.txt |