Hi Shane,
Many thanks for advertising the new WG to these lists.
The charter was refined further since the one below, the final one being listed here:
We would welcome any contributions to the renum mail list, see:
Currently I am one chair for the WG, another is being sought. I'm very happy to take any comments or inputs directly if people have views but do not wish to join the mail list.
There should be a 6renum WG slot in Quebec at IETF81. I hope to attend RIPE63, so perhaps we can also have a slot for this in the IPv6 WG session there.
Many thanks,
Tim
On 21 Jun 2011, at 10:58, Shane Kerr wrote:
All,
There is some idea to work on the renumbering problem in IPv6.
This is certainly of interest to IPv6 folks, but I am including the
address policy folks as this may ultimately have impact there.
Cheers,
--
Shane
Date: 2 June 2011 18:54:54 GMT+01:00
Subject: WG Review: IPv6 Site Renumbering (6renum)
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Operations and
Management Area. The IESG has not made any determination as yet. The
following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational
purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list
(iesg@ietf.org) by Thursday, June 9, 2011
IPv6 Site Renumbering (6renum)
-------------------------------
Last Modified: 2011-06-02
Current Status: Proposed Working Group
Chairs: TBD
Area Director: Ron Bonica
Mailing list
Address: renum@ietf.org
To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/renum/
Description of Working Group
-----------
As outlined in RFC 5887, renumbering, especially for medium to large
sites and networks, is currently viewed as an expensive, painful, and
error-prone process, avoided by network managers as much as possible.
As IPv6 adoption begins to gather momentum, those managers may turn to
PI addressing for IPv6 to attempt to minimise the need for future
renumbering. However, such an approach would create very serious BGP4
scaling problems if used by millions of end sites; it is thus desirable
to develop tools, techniques and practices that may make renumbering a
simpler process, to reduce demand for IPv6 PI space. In addition, as
RFC 5887 describes, there are other triggers that mean some cases of
renumbering are unavoidable, so it should be considered a given that
a site may need partial or complete renumbering at some stage.
Strategically it is thus important to implement and deploy techniques
that facilitate simpler IPv6 site renumbering, so that as IPv6 becomes
universally deployed, renumbering can be viewed as a more routine event.
This includes consideration of how the initial assignment and subsequent
management of address information is performed, as this will affect
future renumbering operations.
For renumbering to become more routine, a systematic address management
approach will be essential. A large site with a short prefix will be
divided into subnets with longer prefixes. In this scenario, renumbering
or partial renumbering can be complicated. Aggregation, synchronisation,
coordination, etc., need to be carefully managed, and the use of
manually inserted address literals minimised. In unmanaged scenarios,
consideration may need to be made for 'flag day' renumbering (in
contrast to the procedure described in RFC4192).
The task of the 6RENUM working group is to document existing renumbering
practices for managed (enterprise) and unmanaged (SOHO) networks, to
identify specific renumbering problems in the context of site-wide
renumbering, and to then recharter with a view to develop point
solutions and system solutions to address those problems or to stimulate
such development in other working groups if appropriate. The principal
target will be solutions for IPv6.
RFC 4192, RFC 5887, and draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline are
starting points for this work.
Goals/deliverables
------------------
The goals of the 6RENUM working group are:
1. To undertake scenario descriptions, including documentation of
current capability inventories and existing BCPs for managed
(enterprise) and unmanaged (SOHO) networks. These texts should
contribute towards the gap analysis and provide an agreed basis for
subsequent WG rechartering towards development of solutions
(potentially in other WGs) and improved practices. Operator input
will be of particularly high value for this stage.
2. To examine fully automatic, self-organising networks (manet/autoconf)
as a possible third scenario.
3. To perform a gap analysis for renumbering practices, drawing on RFCs
4192 and 5887, to identify generic issues for network design, network
management, and renumbering operations. The scenario texts will
contribute to the analysis.
4. To document existing IP address management models and practices with
a view to proposing (at a high level) an appropriate model to allow
simplification of any partial or full site renumbering process
(this would likely be applicable to managed rather than unmanaged
scenarios).
The general methodology for the WG will be to first build managed and
unmanaged baseline scenario descriptions, while in parallel undertaking
an initial gap analysis from existing work in (at least) RFC4192 and
RFC5877. As the scenario texts harden, their contributions will be
incorporated into the gap analysis, which can be published once the
scenarios are completed.
The following topics are out of scope for the working group:
1. Renumbering avoidance; this can perhaps be considered by appropriate
IRTF groups. As documented in RFC5887, renumbering cannot be
completely avoided. The WG is limited to dealing with how to renumber
when it is unavoidable.
2. IPv4 renumbering. While many sites are likely to run dual-stack,
IPv6 is the future and, especially given concerns over extensive use
of IPv6 PI, the most appropriate place to focus effort.
3. ISP renumbering; this is potentially the most complex renumbering
case. More benefit can be achieved by focusing effort on site
renumbering. The site analysis should include the ISP's role in its
own renumbering event.
A recharter of the WG will be possible once the gap analysis and
scenario descriptions are completed, and the IP address management
('numbering tool') review and (high level) proposal have been published.
The rechartering will identify more specific work items within the
6RENUM WG or appropriate protocol WGs.
Milestones
----------
Aug 2011 managed (enterprise) scenario draft ready for WG adoption
(partly based on draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline)
Aug 2011 unmanaged (SOHO) scenario draft ready for WG adoption
Oct 2011 gap analysis document ready for WG adoption (already some
considerations in RFC5887 and
draft-jiang-ipv6-site-renum-guideline)
Oct 2011 management model draft ready for WG adoption
Jan 2012 managed (enterprise) scenario draft ready for WGLC
Jan 2012 unmanaged (SOHO) scenario draft ready for WGLC
Feb 2012 management model ready for WGLC
Mar 2012 gap analysis document ready for WGLC
Apr 2012 recharter WG towards solution space
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce