Markdown Version | Session Recording
Session Date/Time: 08 Nov 2024 13:00
# v6ops
## Summary
The v6ops meeting covered a wide range of IPv6-related topics, including NAT64 deployment, IPv6-only deployment experiences, CLAT recommendations, updates to the IPv6 CE router requirements document, ICMP translation for CLAT, IPv6 address accountability, IPv6 definition, IPv6 network monitoring, and proposals for elevating the status of various IPv6 transition mechanism RFCs.
## Key Discussion Points
* **IETF NAT64 Network:** Warren encouraged attendees to join and use the IETF NAT64 network, reporting any issues encountered.
* **IPv6-Only Deployment:** Experience with IPv6-only deployments at RIPE, Meitonheim, and other networks showed consistent results. Deployments at C Congress (15,000 hackers) and the Super Computing Conference are planned. A UK university is running IPv6 mostly on 5,000 access points.
* **CLAT Recommendations:** Discussion focused on 464XLAT deployment and complexities related to multiple prefixes, source address selection, and fallback mechanisms. The group struggled with how to handle multiple prefixes and Pre64s.
* **CPE Router Requirements (7084bis):** The working group last call for the CPE router draft completed. ULAs have been added to the PD. The draft will go forward to try and incorporate suggestions and revisions from the meeting.
* **ICMP Translation for CLAT:** Discussion on translating ICMP errors in 464XLAT environments using 4884 extensions. The group discussed potential over-specification in the draft and the use of a dummy IPv4 address for untranslatable errors. There was discussion about packet fragmentation as well.
* **IPv6 Address Accountability:** A resurrected draft aims to document ways to achieve address accountability in IPv6, similar to DHCPv4 and MAC address linkages. The group discussed various methods and concerns about scalability and privacy.
* **IPv6 definitions:** Discuss the need for standard IPv6 definitions to aid deployments and vendors. There were concerns about the limitations to future work with strict definitions. It was suggested that the document be a repository of IPv6 terminology, not a document defining it.
* **IPv6 Network Monitoring:** Overview of IPV6 traffic and monitoring challenges. The discussion mentioned N2N quality analysis.
* **RFC Status Elevation:** A proposal to elevate the status of 464XLAT and other relevant RFCs to "Internet Standard." There was debate about whether the existing 6877 accurately reflects current deployments of 464XLAT and related problems. The validity of the current implementation of DNS64 was called into question as well.
## Decisions and Action Items
* **NAT64:** Encourage wider testing and feedback.
* **IPv6-Only Draft:** Continue collecting deployment experiences.
* **CLAT Recommendations:** Revise the draft to address multiple prefixes and source address selection concerns. Take the issues to the list for further discussion. Remove the five-tuple text.
* **CPE Router Requirements:** The 7084bis draft will go forward aiming for the next IETF.
* **ICMP Translation for CLAT:** Simplify the specification and clarify how to handle extension headers.
* **IPv6 Address Accountability:** Further develop the draft, focusing on documenting options and considering the privacy vs. management implications. Talk to people who want accountability.
* **IPv6 Definitions:** Reconsider the scope and goals of the draft and consider taking more of a dictionary approach to terminology rather than trying to codify strict definitions. Collaborate with people familiar with the terminology.
* **RFC Status Elevation:** Further discussion is required to decide if 6877 is the document to move forward or if other documents need to be combined or elevated for 464XLAT.
## Next Steps
* Continue discussion on mailing lists for various drafts.
* Incorporate feedback into draft revisions.
* Present updated drafts at the next IETF meeting.