Transcript PPT Version

NDProxy Status Update
draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01.txt
Dave Thaler
Mohit Talwar
Chirayu Patel (new co-author)
IETF 58
1
Scope is Two Scenarios
local
hosts
local
hosts
A
Wireless
link
Ethernet
A
Ethernet
Access
Point
Router
rest of network
rest of network
PPP
link
when A can not obtain a delegated prefix
GOAL: remove incentive to NAT in IPv6
IETF 58
2
Technical Issues List
http://www.icir.org/dthaler/NDProxyIssues.htm
# Description
Submitter
1 Missing details on STP over non-802 media Erik Nordmark
2 Make STP optional
Pekka Savola
3 Add requirements
Chirayu Patel
4 Don’t require an IP address
Chirayu Patel
5 Don’t modify Override bit
Dave Thaler
6 Flood unicast packets if no cache entry
Chirayu Patel
7 Supporting segments with differing MTUs
Chirayu Patel
8 Make Informational not Standards Track
Brian Carpenter
9 Structure of neighbor cache
Chirayu Patel
Key: Done in -01, Proposed reject, Needs more input
(apologies to the color-blind)
IETF 58
3
Items done in draft -01
• 1. Missing details on STP over non-802 media
– Specify sent in IPv6 header to a well-known link-scoped multicast
address (requires address and NextHeader value)
• 2. Make STP optional
– Done, including text as to when it’s useful and when it’s not
• 3. Add requirements
– “Allow dynamic addition/removal of a proxy without adversely disrupting
the network.”
– “The proxy behavior should not break any existing classic bridges in use
on a network segment.”
• 5. Don’t modify Override bit
– Slows down convergence, and not needed if loop-free
– Removed text about modifying it
• 7. Supporting segments with differing MTUs (scenario 2)
– Added text about checking/adding MTU option in RA
IETF 58
4
8. Make Informational not Stds Trck
• Summary of issue raised:
– ARP proxies are a “kludge”
– May be hard to publish a watertight spec
– But definitely a market for these devices
• Proposed resolution: Accept
• May require a charter update if WG adopts this
document to fulfill the goal:
– Jul 03 Submit Proxy RA to IESG for Proposed
Standard.
IETF 58
5
Other issues
4. Don’t require an IP address
– Proposal: Reject (assume NDproxy is IPv6 Node)
9. Don’t require a full neighbor cache
implementation
– Proposal: Reject (assume NDproxy is IPv6 Node)
6. Flood unicast packets if no cache entry
– Proposal: Discuss
• Next steps: WG doc?
IETF 58
6