IETF 113

Last week I attended the IETF 113 meeting in Vienna. I primarily went there to reconnect in person with some old IPv6 fellows, but also to see what’s going on in the IPv6 standardization space which I hadn’t been following closely in recent times.
In this post I’ll shortly summarize some contributions presented in the main v6-related working groups (wg), that are v6ops and 6man.

v6ops

Video recording of the full session here.
Individual comments here.

IPv6 Deployment Status
Current draft here.
Slides from wg session here.
This is the abstract of the draft:

I for one am not sure if this draft/effort is really needed in 2022. There are many reasons why the global IPv6 deployment is not happening at the speed/scale that IPv6 proponents have been hoping for, and those reasons might be very diverse in nature on the one hand, and might not need another discussion/documentation on the other hand.

NAT64/DNS64 detection via SRV Records
Current draft here.
Slides from wg session here.

NAT64 currently gains ground & is actively discussed in many environments, but a number of operational aspects like the placement of the NAT64 function within the network, or which prefixes to use have to be considered. This is why I think this is an important draft. Martin presented existing methods (for one specific aspect ;-), why those might be insufficient, the goals of their suggested approach, and the layout of the planned SRV records. Also proof-of-concept code is now available.

Scalability of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
Current draft here.
Slides from wg session here.

Again I think this is a relevant effort as, evidently, scalability considerations play a huge role once a transition technology gets deployed, but there’s not much existing work available (not in the methodology space, and not when it comes to real-life metrics & measurements). Their work/this draft might hence provide

  • some indication re: what’s realistic.
  • types of measurements to request from vendors.

Neighbor Discovery Protocol Deployment Guidelines
Current draft here.
Slides from wg session here.

Here I’m not certain if the IPv6 world needs this type of guidance/documentation, as the respective issues have already been extensively discussed for the last ten years, and several architectural or implementation-level approaches how to deal with ND (security) shortcomings have been developed (e.g. see ‘client isolation’ section in this post).

Requirements to Multi-domain IPv6-only Network
Current draft here.
Slides from wg session here.

This draft discusses some scenarios in multi-operator settings using v6-only, which I hadn’t thought about earlier. Interesting work to be followed.

Just Another Measurement of Extension header Survivability (JAMES)
Current draft here.
Slides from the wg session here.

Éric Vyncke supervises these measurements performed by Raphaël Léas and Justin Iurman from the University of Liège. This was also presented at the IEPG meeting covered by Geoff Huston in this blogpost. Important effort in general, and I always welcome IPv6 research work performed together with academia. Some may say the results are not too surprising 😉 – here’s a tweet with some data, and Geoff commented as follows:

6man

Video recording of the full session here.
Individual comments here.

IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing Procedures
Current draft here.
Slides from wg session here.

Taking the results from the last presentation in v6ops into account (see above), there might be a bit of irony here, but I found especially the discussion after the presentation quite enlightening.

Source Address Selection for foreign ULAs
Slides from wg session here.

In this one Ted Lemon spoke about an interesting scenario in a home network with multiple routers and multiple ULA prefixes, where certain destination hosts are not reachable from specific (source) hosts, due to a combination of factors (routers themselves ignoring RAs and hence not learning prefixes originated from other routers’ RAs & the way how source address selection works as of RFC 6724). This talk triggered a long & interesting discussion. Some people stated that a misconfiguration must be present in the scenario (I don’t think there is, and I know a bit about the background of the talk/scenario), others stated that the C[P]E router ‘violated RFCs’ (namely RFC 7084 Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) which I think is a ridiculous stance. Still overall very good discussion which was helpful for identifying approaches how to deal with such situations.


I hope to be able to meet some of you, dear readers, at the upcoming RIPE meeting in Berlin. I even consider reviving the tradition of an ‘IPv6 Practitioners Dinner’ – let me know if you want to join.

Published by Enno

Old-school networking guy with a certain focus on network security. This blog is a private blog and it contains private musings, even though I have a day job around the Internet Protocol. I leave it to the valued reader to guess which version of it ;-). Some tweets on related topics at https://twitter.com/enno_insinuator.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: