<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!-- This is built from a template for a generic Internet Draft. Suggestions for
     improvement welcome - write to Brian Carpenter, brian.e.carpenter @ gmail.com -->

<!-- This can be converted using the Web service at http://xml.resource.org/experimental.html
     (which supports the latest, sometimes undocumented and under-tested, features.) -->

<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [

<!-- You need one entry like the following for each RFC referenced -->

<!ENTITY RFC2629 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC5887 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5887.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC4192 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4192.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC2407 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2407.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC3007 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3007.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC3315 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3315.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC3633 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3633.xml'>
<!ENTITY RFC2894 PUBLIC ''
  'http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2894.xml'>




<!-- You need one entry like the following for each I-D referenced -->

<!ENTITY DRAFT-renent SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise.xml">
<!ENTITY DRAFT-rengap SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis.xml">
<!ENTITY DRAFT-static SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem.xml">
<!ENTITY DRAFT-oss SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering.xml">
<!ENTITY DRAFT-dhcslaac SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml3/reference.I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching.xml">



]>


<?rfc toc="yes"?>            <!-- You want a table of contents -->
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>        <!-- Use symbolic labels for references -->
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>       <!-- This sorts the references -->
<?rfc iprnotified="no" ?>    <!-- Change to "yes" if someone has disclosed IPR for the draft -->
<?rfc compact="yes"?>


<!-- This defines the specific filename and version number of your draft (and inserts the appropriate IETF boilerplate -->
<rfc ipr="trust200902" docName="draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00" category="info" >


<front>
<title abbrev="Next steps for 6renum">Next Steps for Renumbering IPv6 Sites</title>


<author initials="B. E." surname="Carpenter" fullname="Brian Carpenter">
    <organization abbrev="Univ. of Auckland"></organization>
    <address>
      <postal>
        <street>Department of Computer Science</street>
        <street>University of Auckland</street>
        <street>PB 92019</street>
        <city>Auckland</city>
        <region></region>
        <code>1142</code>
        <country>New Zealand</country>
      </postal>
      
      <email>brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</email>
    </address>
</author>

   <author fullname="Sheng Jiang" initials="S." surname="Jiang">
      <organization>Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Q14, Huawei Campus</street>
          <street>No.156 Beiqing Road</street>
          <city>Hai-Dian District, Beijing</city>
          <code>100095</code>
          <country>P.R. China</country>
        </postal>
        <email>jiangsheng@huawei.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>

 <date day="9" month="November" year="2012" />

<area>Operations and Management</area>
<workgroup>6RENUM</workgroup>

 


<abstract>

<t>This document summarises for the record the next steps proposed following the completion
of chartered work in the 6RENUM WG. It is not expected to become an RFC. 
</t>
    
</abstract>
</front>

<middle>
<section anchor="intro" title="Introduction">

<t>The IPv6 Site Renumbering (6RENUM) working group completed its chartered set of documents by November 2012.
The present document summarises for the record the next steps proposed and discussed in the final WG meeting.
It is posted as a draft for convenience but is not expected to become an RFC. </t>

<t>The next steps are divided into two categories, after analysis of the gap analysis documents in particular
<xref target="I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis"/>, <xref target="I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem"/>. Firstly,
there are items that have been identified as needed for site renumbering but are either not widely implemented
or not widely used. These items need to be documented in the form of advice to the community, but do not
appear to require specification work in the IETF. Secondly, there are items that may be useful for site
renumbering, and which need specification work of some kind. The two following sections address these two 
areas. </t>
</section>

<section title="Advice to the community">
<t>The following items could form part of one or more informational (or possibly BCP) documents.</t>

<t><list style="numbers">
 <t>The long-standing advice that names, rather than numeric addresses, should be used whenever possible
    is reiterated. In general that means DNS names, but in some circumstances it might mean some other form
    of parametric name. A specific case is that IPsec security associations should use names, as allowed
    since <xref target="RFC2407"/>, whenever possible. </t>
 <t>Some form of name-based service discovery should be used wherever possible, rather than configuring service addresses.
    This could be DNS-based, mDNS-based or even SLP. </t>
 <t>Addresses used for internal traffic could be stabilised by deploying a ULA prefix (as well as a globally routed prefix). </t>
 <t>Sites should use some sort of configuration management tool. This could be described as an IP address management (IPAM)
    tool, an asset management tool, or more generally as an operational support system (OSS). Its role is to populate DNS,
    reverse DNS, DHCPv6, and router configurations. The tool should use DNS names or parametric names in configuration files.
    See <xref target="I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering"/>. </t>
 <t>Include servers in DHCPv6 to avoid manual configuration. </t>
 <t>Use Secure Dynamic DNS Update <xref target="RFC3007"/> where appropriate (requires key management in the management tool).</t>
 <t>Plan a renumbering procedure as part of the IPv6 network design. Handy references include 
    <xref target="RFC4192"/>, <xref target="RFC5887"/>,
    <xref target="I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise"/>, <xref target="I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis"/>, <xref target="I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem"/>. </t>
 <t>Avoid software license systems that rely on IP addresses.</t>
</list></t>

<t>Finally, it is noted that the management tool mentioned above might be able to take advantage
of certain features that are defined but apparently not widely used. In particular, these are
DHCPv6 RECONFIGURE/RENEW <xref target="RFC3315"/>, DHCPv6-PD <xref target="RFC3633"/> and
ICMPv6 router renumbering <xref target="RFC2894"/>. There is an open question whether the latter is in fact usable. </t>
</section>

<section title="IETF work items">
<t>These are the items identified in the 6RENUM gap analysis that appear to need work in the appropriate IETF WGs. </t>

<t><list style="numbers">
 <t>Reconcile use of DHCPv6 and RA in an enterprise network. 
 <list style="symbols">
  <t>The DHCPv6 and ND state machines inside a host influence each other.</t>
  <t>What should a DHCPv6-configured host do when it receives RA messages containing a new prefix? 
  Current implementations just configure the new prefix. Is this OK? </t>
  <t>What should a SLAAC-configured host do when it receives RA messages with "M" set? </t>
  <t>See analysis in <xref target="I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching"/>. </t>
 </list></t>

 <t>Bulk DHVPv6 RECONFIGURE mechanism. </t>

 <t>Clarify how a MIPv6 host rebinds with its home agent if the latter is renumbered while mobile is disconnected. </t>

 <t>Review ICMPv6 router renumbering <xref target="RFC2894"/> to see if it needs updating and if it is viable as a solution. </t>
</list></t>
</section>

<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">

<t>This document defines no protocol, so does not introduce any new security exposures. </t>

   
</section> <!-- security -->


<section anchor="iana" title="IANA Considerations">
   <t>This document requests no action by IANA. </t>
</section> <!-- iana -->

<section anchor="ack" title="Acknowledgements">

<t>This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool
<xref target="RFC2629"/>.</t>


<t>Brian Carpenter was a visitor at the Computer Laboratory, Cambridge University during this work. </t>


</section> <!-- ack -->


<section anchor ="changes" title="Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]">


<t>draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00: original version, 2012-11-09.</t>


</section> <!-- changes -->

</middle>

<back>


<references title="Informative References">

&RFC2407;
&RFC2629;
&RFC4192;
&RFC3007;
&RFC5887;
&RFC3315;
&RFC3633;
&RFC2894;

&DRAFT-renent;
&DRAFT-rengap;
&DRAFT-static;
&DRAFT-oss;
&DRAFT-dhcslaac;
  
</references>




</back>
</rfc>

