Download
ietf 54 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
IETF 54 PowerPoint Presentation

IETF 54

134 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

IETF 54

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. IETF 54 IPv6 Working Group IPv6 Node Requirements draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt John Loughney

  2. History • At IETF 53, a design team was put together to work on the basic node requirements. • Interest in requirements for cellular hosts, low-cost nodes, etc.

  3. So Far • -00.txt initial attempt at organizing the work • -01.txt improved the organization & fixed editorial issues.

  4. Future • Initial goal was to get some structure & organization to the document. • Need to sit down with specifications and detail some issues; check for inconsistencies. • Need to gather issues from the WG.

  5. General Comments • Are the basic classifications useful? • Unconditionally Mandatory • Conditionally Mandatory • Unconditionally Optional • What is missing from the draft? • What should be removed from the draft? • What important drafts should be considered? • Should this work be minimum node requirements; general node requirements? Should this be handled in an appendix?

  6. Draft Contents • Sub-IP Layer • IP Layer • Transport and DNS • Transition • Mobility • Security • Router Functionality • Network Management

  7. Sub-IP Layer • Some comments that this may not be too useful, as most of this is optional – especially for legacy layer-2 protocols. • Should one or two ‘main’ specifications be listed? Or is this section unnecessary?

  8. IP Layer • General • Neighbor Discovery • Path MTU Discovery & Packet Size • ICMPv6 • Addressing • Other

  9. IP Layer Issues • Draft analyzes parts of 2461; feedback from WG appreciated. • Text on path MTU needs updating. • 2461 states that in the absence of routers, hosts MUST attempt to use stateful autoconfiguration. DHCP draft states that DHCP is one option for stateful address autoconfiguation. From the current set of specification, it is not clear the level of support that is needed for stateful Address Autoconfiguration. • MLD -There has been some discussion that hosts may not be able to depend on MLD if there is no connection to a router, therefore this may not be mandatory. Further discussion is needed on this.

  10. Transport and DNS • Transport Layer • DNS • What is the level of support for DNS in a node? Is it optional? • Other

  11. Transition • Is interoperability with IPv4 a requirement?

  12. Mobility • What should nodes implement for MIPv6? • All Node Requirements • Validate Home Address Option • Send Binding Errors • Route Optimization • Perform return-routability • Process Binding Updates • Return Binding Acknowledgements • Maintain Binding Caches • Router Requirements • Home Agent Requirements • Mobile Node Requirements

  13. Security • Basic Architecture • Security Protocols • Transforms and Algorithms • Key Management Method

  14. Security Open Issues • Need to track activities in the security area. • Do we need to be concerned with securing Neighbor Discovery? • There are a bunch of open security issues with IPv6, what should we do with them? • Protection against some kinds of DoS attacks. • Protecting ICMP • Key exchange • Anycast security

  15. Router Functionality • How much detail should be devoted for router functionality? • Full details? • Routing protocols?

  16. Network Management • How much support is needed for MIBs? Should all related MIBs listed in the draft be supported, or just the basic ones?

  17. Discussions to Capture (at some point) • Flow Label • DNS discovery • SeND BOF issues • DAD vs DIDD • ANYCAST • MIP stuff

  18. Discussions To Add • “IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture” discussion • Do implementations need to implement support for all scopes? • Link Local • Site Local • Global • Are there any dependencies, etc. to check. • Tease out different requirements for hosts vs. nodes vs. routers in more detail