It sounds as if somebody should be planning a SeND bake-off
as a first step to understanding deployability and
interoperability. Or maybe that has already happened?
I do share Thomas' doubts about whether this is ready for
a SHOULD though. I'm assuming that this won't be the
last update of Node Requirements, in any case, so maybe
SeND could be a MAY, with a note that it is a candidate
for SHOULD at a later date?
Brian
On 2009-07-24 03:18, Ana Kukec wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There are SeND implementations for Junos, Cisco IOS, and there is
> DoCoMo's implementation for Linux and FreeBSD.
>
> Apart from the open source SeND implementation for Linux that Sheng have
> mentioned, i am also working on the open source SeND implementation for
> all *BSDs and Mac that will be finished by the end of September - the
> implementation of both the basic SeND spec and the ongoing CSI WG work
> (developed within the FreeBSD community and sponsored by Google).
>
> Regards,
> Ana
>
>>> From: Thomas Narten <nar...@us.ibm.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:00:12 -0400
>>> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: <john.lough...@nokia.com>, <juli...@qualcomm.com>,
>>> <ipv6@ietf.org>, Hesham
>>> Soliman <hes...@elevatemobile.com>
>>> Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Issue 13 - CGA/SeND support
>>>
>>>
>>>> What information do we have from the real world about deployability?
>>>> It would be foolish to mandate something that doesn't work well.
>>>>
>>> I think these are key questions we need to think hard about.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, SEND has not been implemented in any real
>>> product or major distribution. (It would be good to find out what
>>> implementations have been done and where they have been used.)
>>>
>>> More importantly, I don't believe we have any significant operational
>>> experience with the technology. We don't know if the current specs are
>>> sufficient to implement and operate SEND on real networks.
>>>
>>> Finally, SEND is new technology, in that there is no IPv4
>>> counterpart. So it isn't just an IPv6 version of something that we
>>> know works fine in IPv4. So again, we should be cautious in how
>>> strongly we recommend its usage. The fact that IPv4 does not have a
>>> SEND equivalent suggests that SEND is not critical technology that
>>> needs to be widely implemented in order for IPv6 to be useful.
>>>
>>> There is also a Cga & Send maIntenance (csi) WG that is working on
>>> some SEND extensions, including developing X.509 certificate
>>> management tools that presumably will help in making SEND more
>>> deployable operationally.
>>>
>>> This all leads me to conclude that the node requirements doc should
>>> not make SEND even a SHOULD. Ideally, somewhere between a MAY and
>>> SHOULD. I'd love to see SEND implemented and deployed (so we can
>>> figure out how well it works and fix any shortcomings), but I think it
>>> is premature to recommend its implementation an all nodes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
