Network Working Group S. Asadullah Internet-Draft A. Ahmed Expires: December 3, 2005 C. Popoviciu Cisco Systems P. Savola CSC/FUNET J. Palet Consulintel June 2005 ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 3, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Abstract This document provides detailed description of IPv6 deployment and integration methods and scenarios in today's Service Provider (SP) Broadband (BB) networks in coexistence with deployed IPv4 services. Cable/HFC, BB Ethernet, xDSL and WLAN are the main BB technologies that are currently deployed, and discussed in this document. The emerging Broadband Power Line Communications (PLC/BPL) access technology is also discussed for completeness. In this document we will discuss main components of IPv6 BB networks and their differences from IPv4 BB networks and how IPv6 is deployed and integrated in each of these BB technologies using tunneling mechanisms and native IPv6. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 Common Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. IPv6 Based BB Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Scope of the Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Core/Backbone Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1 Layer 2 Access Provider Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.2 Layer 3 Access Provider Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Tunneling Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1 Access over Tunnels - Customers with Public IPv4 Address . 9 5.2 Access over Tunnels - Customers with Private IPv4 Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.3 Transition a Portion of the IPv4 Infrastructure . . . . . 10 6. Broadband Cable Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.1 Broadband Cable Network Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6.2 Deploying IPv6 in Cable Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6.2.1 Deploying IPv6 in a Bridged CMTS Network . . . . . . . 13 6.2.2 Deploying IPv6 in a Routed CMTS Network . . . . . . . 16 6.2.3 IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.2.4 IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.2.5 IPv6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.2.6 IPv6 Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 7. Broadband DSL Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.1 DSL Network Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 7.2 Deploying IPv6 in IPv4 DSL Networks . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7.2.1 Point-to-Point Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 7.2.2 PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model . . . . . . . . 33 7.2.3 L2TPv2 Access Aggregation (LAA) Model . . . . . . . . 36 7.2.4 Hybrid Model for IPv4 and IPv6 Service . . . . . . . . 39 7.3 IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7.3.1 ASM Based Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 7.3.2 SSM Based Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 7.4 IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 7.5 IPv6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7.6 IPv6 Network management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 8. Broadband Ethernet Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8.1 Ethernet Access Network Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8.2 Deploying IPv6 in IPv4 Broadband Ethernet Networks . . . . 46 8.2.1 Point-to-Point Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8.2.2 PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model . . . . . . . . 48 8.2.3 L2TPv2 Access Aggregation (LAA) Model . . . . . . . . 51 8.2.4 Hybrid Model for IPv4 and IPv6 Service . . . . . . . . 52 8.3 IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8.4 IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.5 IPv6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.6 IPv6 Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 9. Wireless LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 9.1 WLAN Deployment Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 9.1.1 Layer 2 NAP with Layer 3 termination at NSP Edge Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9.1.2 Layer 3 aware NAP with Layer 3 termination at Access Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 9.1.3 PPP Based Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 9.2 IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 9.3 IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 9.4 IPv6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 9.5 IPv6 Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 10. Broadband Power Line Communications (PLC) . . . . . . . . . 70 10.1 PLC/BPL Access Network Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 10.2 Deploying IPv6 in IPv4 PLC/BPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 10.2.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes . . . . . . . . 71 10.2.2 Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10.2.3 Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 10.3 IPv6 Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.4 IPv6 QoS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.5 IPv6 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 10.6 IPv6 Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 11. Gap Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 14. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 15.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 15.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 81 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 1. Introduction With the exponential growth of the Internet and increasing number of end users, SPs are looking for new ways to evolve their current network architecture to meet the needs of Internet ready appliances, new applications and services. IPv6 is designed to enable SPs to meet these challenges and provide new services to their customers. As the number of devices per BB user increase exponentially worldwide, Cable, DSL, Ethernet to the Home, Wireless, PLC/BPL and other always-on access technologies can benefit from the huge address range [8] of IPv6. Other benefits of IPv6 include the capability to enhance end-to-end security, mobile communications, and ease system management burdens. Some examples include peer-to-peer communication without NAT traversal problems, being able to access securely devices at home from work, enhanced IP Mobility [23] and so on. Therefore SPs are aggressively evaluating the capabilities of IPv6 to meet these needs. Some countries have taken a lead role in this race and moved from testing and evaluation to real deployments of IPv6 in the BB arena. Japan is a prime example along with other countries that are looking at moving towards large scale production deployments of IPv6. The SPs are deploying tunneling mechanisms to transport IPv6 over their existing IPv4 networks as a start as well as deploying native IPv6 where possible. Deployment of tunneling solutions is simpler, easier and more economical to start the IPv6 services, as they require minimal investments and network infrastructure changes in current SP model. Depending on customer needs and requirements a native IPv6 deployment option might be more scalable and provide required service performance. 1.1 Common Terminology CPE: Customer Premise Equipment GWR: Gateway Router ISP: Internet Service Provider NAP: Network Access Provider NSP: Network Service Provider SP: Service Provider Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 2. IPv6 Based BB Services At this point IPv6 based services are seen as a differentiator that enables SPs to take advantage of the large IPv6 address space to the extent that subscribers get up to fixed /48 prefixes versus the single, temporary IPv4 addresses. Such resources allow the SPs to better position themselves against the competition. The IPv6 deployments can be seen as a driver for lower service support costs by eliminating NAT with its negative impact on applications and its complex behavior. Another reason of IPv6 being popular in some countries might be the government driven financial incentives and favorable legislation towards the ISPs who are deploying IPv6. NTT East, Japan started a commercial dual-stack (devices capable of forwarding IPv4 and IPv6 packets) IPv6 unicast service option early this year for its ADSL and FTTH subscribers, under the name of FLETS.Net [25]. For these users the IPv6 addresses are dedicated (/64 per user) and are used when needed. However, this IPv6 service is available only to the NTT-East ADSL and FTTH subscribers who are part of FLETS.NET network and at this point does not provide connectivity to the IPv6 Internet. Some ISPs that are currently providing IPv4 based Multicast and VoIP services are evaluating IPv6 to improve and expand their service. The Multicast services consist of video and audio streaming of several programs (streams). The content provider delivers these streams to BB subscribers. One of today's challenges is the fact that when done through IPv4, there is generally a single device directly attached to the CPE that receives the Multicast stream. By moving to IPv6, ISP should be capable to provide multiple streams to multiple devices on the customer site. For instance in Japan, Cable TV and dish services are not very popular, the users expect content mostly through the broadcasted, free programs (traditional TV). In case of BB users however, they can get additional content through their SP, which can be delivered at a reasonable priced for 20 Mbps or 10/100 Mbps of bandwidth. Users sign up with a content provider that is multicasting several channels of video and audio. A subscriber would join the multicast group of interest (after authentication) and will start receiving the stream(s). An example of a video stream could be Disney movies and an example of an audio stream could be Karaoke (part of same *,G group). Similar to Cable TV, where customers sign up and pay for single programs or packages of programs. SPs are also offering IPv6 services over wireless links using 802.11 compliant WiFi Hot Spots. This enables users to take notebook PCs and PDAs (Windows 2003 supports IPv6 capable Internet Explorer and Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Media Player 9) along with them and connect to the Internet from various locations without the restriction of staying indoors. 3. Scope of the Document This document presents the options available in deploying IPv6 services in the access portion of a BB Service Provider network namely Cable/HFC, BB Ethernet, xDSL, WLAN and PLC/BPL. This document briefly discusses the other elements of a provider network as well. It provides different viable IPv6 deployment and integration techniques and models for each of the above mentioned BB technologies individually. The example list is not exhaustive but it tries to be representative. This document analyzes, how all the important parts of current IPv4 based Cable/HFC, BB Ethernet, xDSL, WLAN and PLC/BPL networks will behave when IPv6 is integrated and deployed. The following important pieces are discussed: A. Available tunneling options B. Devices that would require to be upgraded to support IPv6 C. Available IPv6 address assignment techniques and their use D. Possible IPv6 Routing options and their use E. IPv6 unicast and multicast packet transmission F. Required IPv6 QoS parameters G. Required IPv6 Security parameters H. Required IPv6 Network Management parameters It is important to note that the addressing rules provided throughout this document represent an example that follows the current assignment policies and recommendations of the registries. They can be however adapted to the network and business model needs of the ISPs. The scope of the document is to advise on the ways of upgrading an existing infrastructure to support IPv6 services. The recommendation to upgrade a device to dual-stack does not stop an SP from adding a new device to its network to perform the necessary IPv6 functions discussed. The costs involved could be offset by lower impact on the Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 existing IPv4 services. 4. Core/Backbone Network This section intends to briefly discuss some important elements of a provider network tied to the deployment of IPv6. A more detailed description of the core network is provided in other documents [24]. There are two networks identified in the Broadband deployments: A. Access Provider Network: This network provides the broadband access and aggregates the subscribers. The subscriber traffic is handed over to the Service Provider at Layer 2 or 3. B. Service Provider Network: This network provides Intranet and Internet IP connectivity for the subscribers. The Service Provider network structure beyond the Edge routers that interface with the Access provider is beyond the scope of this document. 4.1 Layer 2 Access Provider Network The Access Provider can deploy a Layer 2 network and perform no routing of the subscriber traffic to the SP. The devices that support each specific access technology are aggregated into a highly redundant, resilient and scalable layer two core. The network core can involve various technologies such as Ethernet, ATM etc. The Service Provider Edge Router connects to the Access Provider core. In this type of a network the impact of deploying IPv6 is minimal. The network is transparent to the Layer 3 protocol. The only possible changes would come with the intent of filtering and monitoring IPv6 traffic based on layer 2 information such as IPv6 Ether Type Protocol ID (0x86DD) or IPv6 multicast specific MAC addresses (3333.xxxx.xxxx). 4.2 Layer 3 Access Provider Network The Access Provider can choose to terminate the Layer 2 domain and route the IP traffic to the Service Provider network. Access Routers are used to aggregate the subscriber traffic and route it over a Layer 3 core to the SP Edge Routers. In this case the impact of the IPv6 deployment is significant. The case studies in this document only present the significant network elements of such a network: Customer Premise Equipment, Access Router and Edge Router. In real networks the link between the Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Access Router and the Edge Router involves other routers that are part of the aggregation and the core layer of the Access Provider network. The Access Provider can forward the IPv6 traffic through its layer 3 core in three possible ways: A. IPv6 Tunneling: As a temporary solution, the Access Providers can choose to use a tunneling mechanism to forward the subscriber IPv6 traffic to the Service Provider Edge Router. This approach has the least impact on the Access Provider network however, as the number of users increase and the amount of IPv6 traffic grows, the ISP will have to evolve to one of the scenarios listed below. B. Native IPv6 Deployment: The Access Provider routers are upgraded to support IPv6 and can become dual-stack. In a dual-stack network an IPv6 IGP such as OSPFv3 or IS-IS is enabled. [24] discusses the IGP selection options with their benefits and drawbacks. C. MPLS 6PE Deployment [26]: If the Access Provider is running MPLS in its IPv4 core it could use 6PE to forward IPv6 traffic over it. In this case only a subset of routers close to the edge of the network need to be IPv6 aware. With this approach BGP becomes important in order to support 6PE. The 6PE approach has the advantage of having minimal impact on the Access Provider network. Fewer devices need to be upgraded and configured while the MPLS core continues to switch the traffic un- aware of the fact that it transports both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. 6PE should be leveraged only if MPLS is already deployed in the network. At the time of writing this document, a major disadvantage of the 6PE solution is the fact that it does not support multicast IPv6 traffic. The native approach has the advantage of supporting IPv6 multicast traffic but it may imply a significant impact on the IPv4 operational network from software, configuration and possibly hardware upgrade perspective. More detailed Core Network deployment recommendations are discussed in other documents [24]. The handling of IPv6 traffic in the Core of the Access Provider Network will not be discussed for the remainder of this document. 5. Tunneling Overview Service Providers might not be able to deploy native IPv6 today due to the cost associated with HW and SW upgrades, the infrastructure changes needed to their current network and the current demand for Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 the service. For these reasons, some SPs might choose tunneling based transition mechanisms to start an IPv6 service offering and move to native IPv6 deployment at a later time. Several tunneling mechanisms were developed specifically to transport IPv6 over existing IPv4 infrastructures. Several of them have been standardized and their use depends on the existing SP IPv4 network and the structure of the IPv6 service. The requirements for the most appropriate mechanisms are described in [35] with more updates to follow. Deploying IPv6 using tunneling techniques can imply as little changes to the network as upgrading SW on tunnel end points (TEP). A Service Provider could use tunneling to deploy IPv6 in the following scenarios: 5.1 Access over Tunnels - Customers with Public IPv4 Address If the customer is a residential user, it can initiate the tunnel directly from the IPv6 capable host to a tunnel termination router located in the NAP or ISP network. The tunnel type used should be decided by the SP but it should take into consideration its availability on commonly used software running on the host machine. Out of the many tunneling mechanisms developed [2], [3], [4], [27], [30], [5] some are more popular than the others. If the end customer has a GWR installed, then it could be used to originate the tunnel and thus offer native IPv6 access to multiple hosts on the customer network. In this case the GWR would need to be upgraded to dual-stack in order to support IPv6. The GWR can be owned by the customer or by the SP 5.2 Access over Tunnels - Customers with Private IPv4 Address If the end customer receives a private IPv4 address and needs to initiate a tunnel through NAT, techniques like 6to4 may not work since they rely on public IPv4 address. In this case, unless the existing GWRs support protocol-41-forwarding [29], the end user might have to use tunnels that can operate through NATs (such as Teredo tunnel [30]). Most GWRs support protocol-41-forwarding which means that hosts can initiate the tunnels in which case the GWR is not affected by the IPv6 service. The customer has the option to initiate the tunnel from the device (GWR) that performs the NAT functionality, similar to the GWR scenario discussed in section 5.1. This will imply HW replacement or SW upgrade and a native IPv6 environment behind the GWR. It is important to note that the customers of a Service Provider can choose to establish tunnels to publicly available and free tunnel Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 services. Even though the quality of such services might not be high, they provide free IPv6 access. In designing their IPv6 services, the SPs should take into considerations such options available to their potential customers. The IPv6 deployment should support services (like multicast, VoIPv6 etc) and a level of quality that would make the access through the SP worthwhile to potential subscribers. It is also worth observing that initiating an IPv6 tunnel over IPv4 through already established IPv4 IPSec sessions would provide a certain level of security to the IPv6 traffic. 5.3 Transition a Portion of the IPv4 Infrastructure Tunnels can be used to transport the IPv6 traffic across a defined segment of the network. As an example, the customer might connect natively to the Network Access Provider and a tunnel is used to transit the traffic over IPv4 to the ISP. In this case the tunnel choice depends on its capabilities (for example, whether it supports multicast or not), routing protocols used (there are several types that can transport layer 2 messages such as GRE, L2TPv3 or Pseudowire), manage-ability and scalability (dynamic versus static tunnels). This scenario implies that the access portion of the network has been upgraded to support dual stack so the savings provided by tunneling in this scenario are very small compared with the previous two scenarios. Depending on the number of sites requiring the service and considering the expenses required to manage the tunnels (some tunnels are static while others are dynamic [28]) in this case, the SPs might find the native approach worth the additional investments. In all the scenarios listed above the tunnel selection process should consider the IPv6 multicast forwarding capabilities if such service is planned. As an example, 6to4 tunnels do not support IPv6 multicast traffic. The operation, capabilities and deployment of various tunnel types has been discussed extensively in the documents referenced earlier as well as in [30], [6]. Details of a tunnel based deployment are offered in the next section of this document (section 6). In the case of Cable Access where the current DOCSIS specifications do not provide support for native IPv6 access. Although sections 7, 8, 9 and 10 focus on a native IPv6 deployments over DSL, FTTH, Wireless and PLC/BPL because this approach is fully supported today, tunnel based solutions are also possible in these cases based on the guidelines of this section and some of the recommendations provided in section 6. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 6. Broadband Cable Networks This section describes the infrastructure that exists today in cable networks providing BB services to the home. It also describes IPv6 deployment options in these cable networks. DOCSIS standardizes and documents the operation of data over Cable Networks. The current version of DOCSIS has limitations that do not allow for a smooth implementation of native IPv6 transport. Some of these limitations are discussed in this section. For this reason, the IPv6 deployment scenarios discussed in this section for the existent Cable Networks are tunnel based. The tunneling examples presented here could also be applied to the other BB technologies described in sections 7, 8, 9 and 10. 6.1 Broadband Cable Network Elements Broadband cable networks are capable of transporting IP traffic to/ from users to provide high speed Internet access and VOIP services. The mechanism of transporting IP traffic over cable networks is outlined in the DOCSIS specification [33]. Here are some of the key elements of a Cable network: Cable (HFC) Plant: Hybrid Fiber Coaxial plant, used as the underlying transport CMTS: Cable Modem Termination System (can be a Layer 2 bridging or Layer 3 routing CMTS) GWR: Residential Gateway Router (provides Layer 3 services to hosts) Host: PC, notebook etc. which is connected to the CM or GWR CM: Cable Modem ER: Edge Router MSO: Multiple Service Operator Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS): The standards defining how data should be carried over cable networks. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Figure 6.1 illustrates the key elements of a Cable Network |--- ACCESS ---||------ HFC ------||----- Aggregation / Core -----| +-----+ +------+ |Host |--| GWR | +-----+ +--+---+ | _ _ _ _ _ _ +------+ | | | CM |---| | +------+ | | | HFC | +------+ +--------+ | | | | | Edge | +-----+ +------+ | Network |---| CMTS |---| |=>ISP |Host |--| CM |---| | | | | Router | Network +-----+ +--+---+ | | +------+ +--------+ |_ _ _ _ _ _| +------+ | +-----+ | GWR/ | | |Host |--| CM |---------+ +-----+ | | +------+ Figure 6.1 6.2 Deploying IPv6 in Cable Networks One of the motivators for an MSO to deploy IPv6 over their Cable Network is to ease management burdens. IPv6 can be enabled on the CM, CMTS and ER for management purposes. Currently portions of the cable infrastructure use [1] IPv4 addresses; however, there are a finite number of those. Thus, IPv6 could have utility in the cable space implemented on the management plane initially and later on focused on the data plane for end user services. For more details on using IPv6 for management in Cable Networks please refer to section 6.6.1. There are two different deployment modes in current cable networks: a bridged CMTS environment and a routed CMTS environment. IPv6 can be deployed in both of these environments. 1. Bridged CMTS Network In this scenario, both the CM and CMTS bridge all data traffic. Traffic to/from host devices is forwarded through the cable network to the ER. The ER then routes traffic through the ISP network to the Internet. The CM and CMTS support a certain degree of Layer 3 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 functionality for management purposes. 2. Routed CMTS Network In a routed network, the CMTS forwards IP traffic to/from hosts based on Layer 3 information using the IP source/destination address. The CM acts as a Layer-2 bridge for forwarding data traffic and supports some Layer 3 functionality for management purposes. Some of the factors that hinder deployment of native IPv6 in current routed and bridged cable networks include: A. Problems with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) on CM and CMTS. These devices rely on IGMP join messages to track membership of hosts that are part of a particular IP Multicast group. In order to support ND the CM and CMTS will need to support IGMPv3/MLDv2 or v1 snooping. B. Classification of IPv6 traffic in the upstream and downstream direction. The CM and CMTS will need to support classification of IPv6 packets in order to give them the appropriate priority and QoS. Without proper classification all IPv6 traffic will need to be sent best effort (BE) which can cause problems when deploying services like VOIP and IP Multicast video. C. Changes need to be made to the DOCSIS specification to include support for IPv6 on the CM and CMTS. This is imperative for deploying native IPv6 over cable networks. Due to the above mentioned limitations in deployed cable networks, the only available option to cable operators is to use tunneling techniques in order to transport IPv6 traffic over their current IPv4 infrastructure. The following sections will cover these deployment scenarios in more detail. 6.2.1 Deploying IPv6 in a Bridged CMTS Network In IPv4 the CM and CMTS act as Layer 2 bridges and forward all data traffic to/from the hosts and the ER. The hosts use the ER as their Layer 3 next hop. If there is a GWR behind the CM it can act as a next hop for all hosts and forward data traffic to/from the ER. When deploying IPv6 in this environment, the CM and CMTS will continue to be bridging devices in order to keep the transition smooth and reduce operational complexity. The CM and CMTS will need to bridge IPv6 unicast and multicast packets to/from the ER and the hosts. If there is a GWR connected to the CM, it will need to forward IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic to/from the ER. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 IPv6 can be deployed in a bridged CMTS network either natively or via tunneling. This section discusses the native deployment model. The tunneling model is similar to ones described in sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2. Figure 6.2.1 illustrate the IPv6 deployment scenario +-----+ +-----+ |Host |--| GWR | +-----+ +--+--+ | _ _ _ _ _ _ | +------+ | | +--| CM |---| | +------+ | | | HFC | +------+ +--------+ | | | | | Edge | +-----+ +------+ | Network |---| CMTS |--| |=>ISP |Host |--| CM |---| | | | | Router |Network +-----+ +------+ | | +------+ +--------+ |_ _ _ _ _ _| |-------------||---------------------------------||---------------| L3 Routed L2 Bridged L3 Routed Figure 6.2.1 6.2.1.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the CM and the CMTS bridge all data traffic so they will need to support bridging of native IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, GWR and ER. 6.2.1.2 Addressing The proposed architecture for IPv6 deployment includes two components that must be provisioned: the CM and the host. Additionally if there is a GWR connected to the CM, it will also need to be provisioned. The host or the GWR use the ER as their Layer 3 next hop. 6.2.1.2.1 IP Addressing for CM The CM will be provisioned in the same way as in currently deployed cable networks, using an IPv4 address on the cable interface connected to the MSO network for management functions. During the initialization phase, it will obtain its IPv4 address using DHCPv4, and download a DOCSIS configuration file identified by the DHCPv4 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 server. 6.2.1.2.2 IP Addressing for Hosts If there is no GWR connected to the CM, the host behind the CM will get a /64 prefix assigned to it via stateless auto-configuration or DHCPv6. If using stateless auto-configuration, the host listens for routing advertisements (RA) from the ER. The RAs contain the /64 prefix assigned to the segment. Upon receipt of an RA, the host constructs its IPv6 address by combining the prefix in the RA (/64) and a unique identifier (e.g., its modified EUI-64 format interface ID). If DHCPv6 is used to obtain an IPv6 address, it will work in much the same way as DHCPv4 works today. The DHCPv6 messages exchanged between the host and the DHCPv6 server are bridged by the CM and the CMTS. 6.2.1.2.3 IP Addressing for GWR The GWR can use stateless auto-configuration (RA) to obtain an address for its upstream interface, the link between itself and the ER. This step is followed by a request via DHCP-PD (Prefix Delegation) for a prefix shorter than /64, typically /48 [7], which in turn is divided into /64s and assigned to its downstream interfaces connecting to the hosts. 6.2.1.3 Data Forwarding The CM and CMTS must be able to bridge native IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic. The CMTS must provide IP connectivity between hosts attached to CMs and must do so in a way that meets the expectation of Ethernet attached customer equipment. In order to do that, the CM and CMTS must forward Neighbor Discovery (ND) packets between ER and the hosts attached to the CM. Communication between hosts behind different CMs is always forwarded through the CMTS. IPv6 communication between the different sites relies on multicast IPv6 ND [17] frames being forwarded correctly by the CM and the CMTS. As with the CM, a bridged CMTS that selectively forwards multicast datagrams on the basis of MLD will potentially break IPv6 ND. In order to support IPv6 multicast applications across DOCSIS cable networks, the CM and bridging CMTS need to support IGMPv3/MLDv2 or v1 snooping. MLD is almost identical to IGMP in IPv4, only the name and numbers are changed. MLDv2 is identical to IGMPv3 and also supports Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 ASM (Any Source Multicast) and SSM (Single Source Multicast) service models. Implementation work on CM/CMTS should be minimal because the only significant difference between IPv4 IGMPv3 and IPv6 MLDv2 is the longer addresses in the protocol. 6.2.1.4 Routing The hosts install a default route that points to the ER or the GWR. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. If there is a GWR present it will also use static default route to the ER. The ER runs an IGP such as OSPFv3 or IS-IS. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the ER. For this reason the static routes must also be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the ER. 6.2.2 Deploying IPv6 in a Routed CMTS Network In an IPv4 routed CMTS network the CM still acts as a Layer-2 device and bridges all data traffic between its Ethernet interface and cable interface connected to the cable operator network. The CMTS acts as a Layer 3 router and may also include the ER functionality. The hosts and the GWR use the CMTS as their Layer 3 next hop. When deploying IPv6 in a routed CMTS network, the CM still acts as a Layer-2 device and will need to bridge IPv6 unicast as well as multicast traffic. The CMTS/ER will need to either tunnel IPv6 traffic or natively support IPv6. The host and GWR will use the CMTS/ER as their Layer 3 next hop. There could be five possible deployment scenarios for IPv6 in a routed CMTS network: 1. IPv4 Cable (HFC) Network In this scenario the cable network, including the CM and CMTS remain IPv4 devices. The host and ER are upgraded to dual-stack. This is the easiest way for a Cable Operator to provide IPv6 service as no changes are made to the cable network. 2. IPv4 Cable (HFC) Network, GWR at Customer Site In this case the cable network, including the CM and CMTS remain IPv4 devices. The host, GWR and ER are upgraded to dual-stack. This scenario is also easy to deploy since the cable operator just needs to add GWR at the customer site. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 3. Dual-stacked Cable (HFC) Network, CM and CMTS Support IPv6 In this scenario the CMTS is upgraded to dual-stack to support IPv4 and IPv6. Since the CMTS supports IPv6 it can acts as an ER as well. The CM will act as a Layer-2 bridge but will need to bridge IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic. This scenario is not easy to deploy since it requires changes to the DOCSIS specification. The CM and CMTS may require HW and SW upgrades to support IPv6. 4. Dual-stacked Cable (HFC) Network, Standalone GWR and CMTS Support IPv6 In this scenario there is a standalone GWR connected to the CM. Since the IPv6 functionality exists on the GWR the CM does not need to be dual-stack. The CMTS is upgraded to dual-stack and it can incorporate the ER functionality. This scenario may also require HW and SW changes on the GWR and CMTS. 5. Dual-stacked Cable (HFC) Network, Embedded GWR/CM and CMTS Support IPv6 In this scenario the CM and GWR functionality exists on a single device which needs to be upgraded to dual-stack. The CMTS will also need to be upgraded to a dual-stack device. This scenario is also difficult to deploy in existent cable network since it requires changes on the Embedded GWR/CM and the CMTS. The DOCSIS specification will also need to be modified to allow native IPv6 support on the Embedded GWR/CM. 6.2.2.1 IPv4 Cable Network, Host and ER Upgraded to Dual-Stack This is one of the most cost effective ways for a Cable Operator to offer IPv6 services to its customers. Since the cable network remains IPv4 there is relatively minimal cost involved in turning up IPv6 service. All IPv6 traffic is exchanged between the hosts and the ER. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Figure 6.2.2.1 illustrates this deployment scenario +-----------+ +------+ +--------+ +-----+ +-------+ | Cable | | | | Edge | |Host |--| CM |----| (HFC) |---| CMTS |---| |=>ISP +-----+ +-------+ | Network | | | | Router |Network +-----------+ +------+ +--------+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ()_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _() IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel |---------||---------------------------------------||------------| IPv4/v6 IPv4 only IPv4/v6 Figure 6.2.2.1 6.2.2.1.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the CM and the CMTS will only need to support IPv4 so no changes need to be made to them or the cable network. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host and ER. 6.2.2.1.2 Addressing The only device that needs to be assigned an IPv6 address at customer site is the host. Host address assignment can be done in multiple ways. Depending on the tunneling mechanism used it could be automatic or might require manual configuration. The host still receives an IPv4 address using DHCPv4, which works the same way in currently deployed cable networks. In order to get IPv6 connectivity, host devices will also need an IPv6 address and a means to communicate with the ER. 6.2.2.1.3 Data Forwarding All IPv6 traffic will be sent to/from the ER and the host device. In order to transport IPv6 packets over the cable operator IPv4 network, the host and the ER will need to use one of the available IPv6 in IPv4 tunneling mechanisms. The host will use its IPv4 address to source the tunnel to the ER. All IPv6 traffic will be forwarded to the ER, encapsulated in IPv4 packets. The intermediate IPv4 nodes will forward this traffic as regular IPv4 packets. The ER will need to terminate the tunnel and/or provide other IPv6 services. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 6.2.2.1.4 Routing Routing configuration on the host will vary depending on the tunneling technique used, in some cases a default or static route might be needed to forward traffic to the next hop. The ER runs an IGP such as OSPFv3 or ISIS. 6.2.2.2 IPv4 Cable Network, Host, GWR and ER Upgraded to Dual-Stack The cable operator can provide IPv6 services to its customers, in this scenario, by adding a GWR behind the CM. Since the GWR will facilitate all IPv6 traffic to/from the host and the ER, the cable network including the CM and CMTS do not need to support IPv6 and can remain as IPv4 devices. Figure 6.2.2.2 illustrates this deployment scenario +-----+ |Host | +--+--+ | +-----------+ +------+ +--------+ +---+---+ +-------+ | Cable | | | | Edge | | GWR |--| CM |----| (HFC) |---| CMTS |---| |=>ISP +-------+ +-------+ | Network | | | | Router |Network +-----------+ +------+ +--------+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ()_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _() IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel |---------||--------------------------------------||-------------| IPv4/v6 IPv4 only IPv4/v6 Figure 6.2.2.2 6.2.2.2.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the CM and the CMTS will only need to support IPv4 so no changes need to be made to them or the cable network. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, GWR and ER. 6.2.2.2.2 Addressing The only devices that needs to be assigned an IPv6 address at customer site are the host and GWR. IPv6 address assignment can be Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 done statically at the GWR downstream interface. The GWR will send out RA messages on its downstream interface which will be used by the hosts to auto-configure themselves with an IPv6 address. The GWR can also configure its upstream interface using RA messages from the ER and use DHCP-PD for requesting a /48 [7] prefix from the ER. This /48 prefix will be used to configure /64s on hosts connected to the GWR downstream interfaces. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. The GWR still receives a global IPv4 address on its upstream interface using DHCPv4, which works the same way in currently deployed cable networks. In order to get IPv6 connectivity to the Internet the GWR will need to communicate with the ER. 6.2.2.2.3 Data Forwarding All IPv6 traffic will be sent to/from the ER and the GWR, which will forward IPv6 traffic to/from the host. In order to transport IPv6 packets over the cable operator IPv4 network, the GWR and the ER will need to use one of the available IPv6 in IPv4 tunneling mechanisms. All IPv6 traffic will need to go through the tunnel, once it comes up. The GWR will use its IPv4 address to source the tunnel to the ER. The tunnel endpoint will be the IPv4 address of the ER. All IPv6 traffic will be forwarded to the ER, encapsulated in IPv4 packets. The intermediate IPv4 nodes will forward this traffic as regular IPv4 packets. In case of 6to4 tunneling, the ER will need to support 6to4 relay functionality in order to provide IPv6 Internet connectivity to the GWR and hence the hosts connected to the GWR. 6.2.2.2.4 Routing Depending on the tunneling technique used there might some configuration needed on the GWR and the ER. If the ER is also providing a 6to4 relay service then a default route will need to be added to the GWR pointing to the ER, for all non-6to4 traffic. If using manual tunneling, the GWR and ER can use static routing or they can also configure RIPng. The RIPng updates can be transported over a manual tunnel, which does not work when using 6to4 tunneling. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Customer routes can be carried to the ER using RIPng updates. The ER can advertise these routes in its IGP. Prefix summarization should be done at the ER. If DHCP-PD is used for address assignment a static route is automatically installed on the CMTS/ER for each delegated /48 prefix. The static routes need to be redistributed into the IGP at the CMTS/ER, so there is no need for a routing protocol between the CMTS/ER and the GWR. The ER runs an IGP such as OSPFv3 or ISIS. 6.2.2.3 Dual-stacked Cable (HFC) Network, CM and CMTS Support IPv6 In this scenario the Cable Operator can offer native IPv6 services to its customers since the cable network including the CMTS supports IPv6. The ER functionality can be included in the CMTS or it can exist on a separate router connected to the CMTS upstream interface. The CM will need to bridge IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic. Figure 6.2.2.3 illustrates this deployment scenario +-----------+ +-------------+ +-----+ +-------+ | Cable | | CMTS / Edge | |Host |--| CM |----| (HFC) |---| |=>ISP +-----+ +-------+ | Network | | Router | Network +-----------+ +-------------+ |-------||---------------------------||---------------| IPv4/v6 IPv4/v6 IPv4/v6 Figure 6.2.2.3 6.2.2.3.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes Since the CM still acts as a Layer-2 bridge, it does not need to be dual-stack. The CM will need to support bridging of IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic and IGMPv3/MLDv2 or v1 snooping which requires changes in the DOCSIS specification. In this scenario the following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host and CMTS/ER. 6.2.2.3.2 Addressing In today's cable networks the CM receives a private IPv4 address using DHCPv4 for management purposes. In an IPv6 environment, the CM will continue to use an IPv4 address for management purposes. The Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 21] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 cable operator can also choose to assign an IPv6 address to the CM for management, but the CM will have to be upgraded to support this functionality. IPv6 address assignment for the CM and host can be done via DHCP or stateless auto-configuration. If the CM uses an IPv4 address for management, it will use DHCPv4 for its address assignment and the CMTS will need to act as a DHCPv4 relay agent. If the CM uses an IPv6 address for management, it can use DHCPv6 with the CMTS acting as a DHCPv6 relay agent or the CMTS can be statically configured with a /64 prefix and it can send out RA messages out the cable interface. The CMs connected to the cable interface can use the RA messages to auto-configure themselves with an IPv6 address. All CMs connected to the cable interface will be in the same subnet. The hosts can receive their IPv6 address via DHCPv6 or stateless auto-configuration. With DHCPv6, the CMTS may need to act as a DHCPv6 relay agent and forward DHCP messages between the hosts and the DHCP server. With stateless auto-configuration, the CMTS will be configured with multiple /64 prefixes and send out RA messages to the hosts. If the CMTS is not also acting as an ER, the RA messages will come from the ER connected to the CMTS upstream interface. The CMTS will need to forward the RA messages downstream or act as an ND proxy. 6.2.2.3.3 Data Forwarding All IPv6 traffic will be sent to/from the CMTS and hosts. Data forwarding will work the same way it works in currently deployed cable networks. The CMTS will forward IPv6 traffic to/from hosts based on the IP source/destination address. 6.2.2.3.4 Routing No routing protocols are needed between the CMTS and the host since the CM and host are directly connected to the CMTS cable interface. Since the CMTS supports IPv6, hosts will use the CMTS as their Layer 3 next hop. If the CMTS is also acting as an ER, it runs an IGP such as OSPFv3 or ISIS. 6.2.2.4 Dual-Stacked Cable (HFC) Network, Standalone GWR and CMTS Support IPv6 In this case the cable operator can offer IPv6 services to its customers by adding a GWR between the CM and the host. The GWR will facilitate IPv6 communication between the host and the CMTS/ER. The Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 CMTS will be upgraded to dual-stack to support IPv6 and can acts as an ER as well. The CM will act as a bridge for forwarding data traffic and does not need to support IPv6. This scenario is similar to the case described in section 6.2.2.2. The only difference in this case is the ER functionality exists on the CMTS instead of a separate router in the cable operator network. Figure 6.2.2.4 illustrates this deployment scenario +-----------+ +-----------+ +------+ +-------+ +-------+ | Cable | |CMTS / Edge| | Host |--| GWR |--| CM |---| (HFC) |---| |=>ISP +------+ +-------+ +-------+ | Network | | Router |Network +-----------+ +-----------+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ()_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _() IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel |-----------------||-----------------------------||--------------| IPv4/v6 IPv4 IPv4/v6 Figure 6.2.2.4 6.2.2.4.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes Since the CM still acts as a Layer-2 bridge, it does not need to be dual-stack nor does it need to support IPv6. In this scenario the following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, GWR and CMTS/ER. 6.2.2.4.2 Addressing The CM will still receive a private IPv4 address using DHCPv4 which works the same way in existent cable networks. The CMTS will act as DHCPv4 relay agent. The address assignment for the host and GWR happens in a similar manner as described in section 6.2.2.2.2. 6.2.2.4.3 Data Forwarding Data forwarding between the host and CMTS/ER is facilitated by the GWR and happens in a similar manner as described in section 6.2.2.2.3. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 23] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 6.2.2.4.4 Routing In this case routing is very similar to the case described in section 6.2.2.2.4. Since the CMTS now incorporates the ER functionality, it will need to run an IGP such as OSPFv3 or ISIS. 6.2.2.5 Dual-Stacked Cable (HFC) Network, Embedded GWR/CM and CMTS Support IPv6 In this scenario the Cable Operator can offer native IPv6 services to its customers since the cable network including the CM/Embedded GWR and CMTS support IPv6. The ER functionality can be included in the CMTS or it can exist on a separate router connected to the CMTS upstream interface. The CM/Embedded GWR acts as a Layer 3 device. Figure 6.2.2.5 illustrates this deployment scenario +-----------+ +-------------+ +-----+ +-----------+ | Cable | | CMTS / Edge | |Host |---| CM / GWR |---| (HFC) |---| |=>ISP +-----+ +-----------+ | Network | | Router |Network +-----------+ +-------------+ |---------------------------------------------------------| IPv4/v6 Figure 6.2.2.5 6.2.2.5.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes Since the CM/GWR acts as a Layer 3 device, IPv6 can be deployed end- to-end. In this scenario the following devices have to be upgraded to dual-stack: Host, CM/GWR and CMTS/ER. 6.2.2.5.2 Addressing Since the CM/GWR is dual-stack, it can receive an IPv4 or IPv6 address using DHCP for management purposes. As the GWR functionality is Embedded in the CM, it will need an IPv6 address for forwarding data traffic. IPv6 address assignment for the CM/GWR and host can be done via DHCPv6 or DHCP-PD. If using DHCPv6 the CMTS will need to act as DHCPv6 relay agent. The host and CM/GWR will receive IPv6 addresses from pools of /64 prefixes configured on the DHCPv6 server. The CMTS will need to glean pertinent information from the DHCP Offer messages, sent from Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 the DHCP server to the DHCP clients (host and CM/GWR), much like it does today in DHCPv4. All CM/GWR connected to the same cable interface on the CMTS belong to same management /64 prefix. The hosts connected to the same cable interface on the CMTS may belong to different /64 customer prefixes as the CMTS may have multiple /64 prefixes configured under its cable interfaces. It is also possible to use DHCP-PD for IPv6 address assignment. In this case the CM/GWR will use stateless auto-configuration to assign an IPv6 address to its upstream interface using the /64 prefix sent by the CMTS/ER in RA message. Once the CM/GWR assigns an IPv6 address to its upstream interface it will request a /48 [7] prefix from the CMTS/ER and chop this /48 prefix into /64s for assigning IPv6 addresses to hosts. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. 6.2.2.5.3 Data Forwarding The host will use the CM/GWR as the Layer 3 next hop. The CM/GWR will forward all IPv6 traffic to/from the CMTS/ER and hosts. The CMTS/ER will forward IPv6 traffic to/from hosts based on the IP source/destination address. 6.2.2.5.4 Routing The CM/GWR can use a static default route pointing to the CMTS/ER or it can run a routing protocol such as RIPng or OSPFv3 between itself and the CMTS. Customer routes from behind the CM/GWR can be carried to the CMTS using routing updates. If DHCP-PD is used for address assignment a static route is automatically installed on the CMTS/ER for each delegated /48 prefix. The static routes need to be redistributed into the IGP at the CMTS/ER so there is no need for a routing protocol between the CMTS/ER and the GWR. If the CMTS is also acting as an ER, it runs an IGP such as OSPFv3 or ISIS. 6.2.3 IPv6 Multicast In order to support IPv6 multicast applications across DOCSIS cable Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 networks, the CM and bridging CMTS will need to support IGMPv3/MLDv2 or v1 snooping. MLD is almost identical to IGMP in IPv4, only the name and numbers are changed. MLDv2 is almost identical to IGMPv3 and also supports ASM (Any Source Multicast) and SSM (Single Source Multicast) service models. SSM is more suited for deployments where the SP intends to provide paid content to the users (Video or Audio). This type of services are expected to be of primary interest. Moreover, the simplicity of the SSM model often times override the scalability issues that would be resolved in an ASM model. ASM is however an option that is discussed in section 7.3.1. The Layer 3 CM, GWR and Layer 3 routed CMTS/ER will need to be enabled with PIM-SSM, which requires the definition and support for IGMPv3/MLDv1 or v2 snooping, in order to track join/leave messages from the hosts. Another option would be for the Layer 3 CM or GWR to support MLD proxy routing. The Layer 3 next hop for the hosts needs to support MLD. Please refer to section 7.3 for more IPv6 multicast details. 6.2.4 IPv6 QoS IPv6 will not change or add any queuing/scheduling functionality already existing in DOCSIS specifications. But the QoS mechanisms on the CMTS and CM would need to be IPv6 capable. This includes support for IPv6 classifiers, so that data traffic to/from host devices can be classified appropriately into different service flows and be assigned appropriate priority. Appropriate classification criteria would need to be implemented for unicast and multicast traffic. In order to classify IPv6 traffic the following classifiers would need to be modified in the DOCSIS specification to support the 128- bit IPv6 address: A. IP source address B. IP source mask C. IP destination address D. IP destination mask E. IP traffic class (DSCP) The following classifiers would be new for IPv6: A. IP version Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 26] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 B. Flow label (optional) Traffic classification and marking should be done at the CM for upstream traffic and the CMTS/ER for downstream traffic in order to support the various types of services: data, voice, video. The same IPv4 QoS concepts and methodologies should be applied for IPv6 as well. It is important to note that when traffic is encrypted end-to-end, the traversed network devices will not have access to many of the packet fields used for classification purposes. In these cases routers will most likely place the packets in the default classes. The QoS design should take into consideration this scenario and try to use mainly IP header fields for classification purposes. 6.2.5 IPv6 Security Considerations Security in a DOCSIS cable network is provided using Baseline Privacy Plus (BPI+). The only part that is dependent on IP addresses is encrypted multicast. Semantically, multicast encryption would work the same way in an IPv6 environment as in the IPv4 network. However, appropriate enhancements will be needed in the DOCSIS specification to support encrypted IPv6 multicast. The other aspect of security enhancement is mandated IPSec support in IPv6. The IPv6 specifications mandate implementation of IPSec, but they do not mandate its use. The IPv4 specifications do not mandate IPSec. IPSec is the same for both IPv4 and IPv6, but it still requires a key distribution mechanism. Cable operators may consider deploying it end-to-end on IPv6 as there is not an intermediate device(i.e. NAT). There are limited changes that have to be done for hosts in order to enhance security. The Privacy extensions [13] for auto-configuration should be used by the hosts. IPv6 firewall functions could be enabled, if available on the host or GWR. The ISP provides security against attacks that come form its own subscribers but it could also implement security services that protect its subscribers from attacks sourced from the outside of its network. Such services do not apply at the access level of the network discussed here. The CMTS/ER should protect the ISP network and the other subscribers against attacks by one of its own customers. For this reason Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF) [22] and ACLs should be used on all interfaces facing subscribers. Filtering should be implemented with regard for the operational requirements of IPv6 [Security Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 27] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 considerations for IPv6]. The CMTS/ER should protect its processing resources against floods of valid customer control traffic such as: Router and Neighbor Solicitations, MLD Requests. All other security features used with the IPv4 service should be similarly applied to IPv6 as well. 6.2.6 IPv6 Network Management IPv6 can have many applications in Cable Networks. MSOs can initially implement IPv6 on the control plane and use it to manage the thousands of devices connected to the CMTS. This would be a good way to introduce IPv6 in a Cable Network. Later on the MSO can extend IPv6 to the data plane and use it to carry customer as well as management traffic. 6.2.6.1 Using IPv6 for Management in Cable Networks IPv6 can be enabled in a Cable Network for management of devices like CM, CMTS and ER. With the roll out of advanced services like VoIP and Video-over-IP, MSOs are looking for ways to manage the large number of devices connected to the CMTS. In IPv4, an RFC1918 address is assigned to these devices like CM for management purposes. Since there is a finite number of RFC1918 addresses available, it is becoming difficult for MSOs to manage these devices. By using IPv6 for management purposes, MSOs can scale their network management systems to meet their needs. The CMTS/ER can be configured with a /64 management prefix which is shared among all CMs connected to the CMTS cable interface. Addressing for the CMs can be done via stateless auto-configuration. Once the CMs receive the /64 prefix from the CMTS/ER via RA they can configure themselves with an IPv6 address. If there are devices behind the CM which need to be managed by the MSO, another /64 prefix can be defined on the CMTS/ER. These devices can also use stateless auto-configuration to assign themselves an IPv6 address. Traffic sourced from or destined to the management prefix should not cross the MSO's network boundaries. In this scenario IPv6 will only be used for managing these devices on the Cable Network, all data traffic will still be forwarded by the CM and CMTS/ER using IPv4. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 28] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 6.2.6.2 Updates to MIBs/Standards to support IPv6 The current DOCSIS, PacketCable, and CableHome MIBs are already designed to support IPv6 objects. In this case, IPv6 will neither add, nor change any of the functionality of these MIBs. An object to identify the IP version, InetAddressType has been added to all the appropriate SNMP objects related to IP address. There are some exceptions, the following MIBs might need to add IPv6 support: On the CMTS A. DOCS-QOS-MIB B. DOCS-SUBMGT-MIB (Subscriber Management Interface Specification ANNEX B) On the CM A. DOCS-QOS-MIB B. DOCS-CABLE-DEVICE-MIB (or [19]) 7. Broadband DSL Networks This section describes the IPv6 deployment options in today's High Speed DSL Networks. 7.1 DSL Network Elements Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) broadband services provide users with IP connectivity over the existing twisted-pair telephone lines called the local-loop. A wide range of bandwidth offerings are available depending on the quality of the line and the distance between the Customer Premise Equipment and the DSLAM. The following network elements are typical of a DSL network [ISP Transition Scenarios]: DSL Modem: It can be a stand alone device, it can be incorporated in the host, it can incorporate router functionalities and also have the capabilities to act as a CPE router. Customer Premise Router: It is used to provide Layer 3 services for customer premise networks. It is usually used to provide firewalling functions and segment broadcast domains for a Small business. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 29] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 DSL Access Multiplexer (DSLAM): It terminates multiple twisted pair telephone lines and provides aggregation to BRAS. Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS): It aggregates or terminates multiple PVC corresponding to the subscriber DSL circuits. Edge Router (ER): It provides the Layer 3 interface to the ISP network. Figure 7.1 depicts all the network elements mentioned Customer Premise | Network Access Provider | Network Service Provider CP NAP NSP +-----+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ |Hosts|--|Router| +--+ BRAS +---+ Edge | ISP +-----+ +--+---+ | | | | Router +==> Network | | +------+ +--------+ +--+---+ | | DSL +-+ | |Modem | | | +------+ | +-----+ | +--+ | | +------+ |DSLAM+--+ +-----+ | DSL | +--+ | |Hosts|--+Modem +-+ +-----+ +-----+ +--+---+ Figure 7.1 7.2 Deploying IPv6 in IPv4 DSL Networks There are three main design approaches to providing IPv4 connectivity over a DSL infrastructure: 1. Point-to-Point Model: Each subscriber connects to the DSLAM over a twisted pair and is provided with a unique PVC that links it to the service provider. The PVCs can be terminated at the BRAS or at the Edge Router. This type of design is not very scalable if the PVCs are not terminated as close as possible to the DSLAM (at the BRAS). In this case a large number of layer two circuits has to be maintained over a significant portion of the network. The layer two domains can be terminated at the ER in three ways: A. In a common bridge group with a virtual interface that routes it out. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 30] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 B. Enable a Routed Bridged Encapsulation feature, all users could be part of the same subnet. This is the most common deployment type of IPv4 over DSL but it might not be the best choice in IPv6 where address availability is not an issue. C. Terminate the PVC at Layer 3, each PVC has its own prefix. This is the approach that seems more suitable for IPv6 and presented in 7.2.1 In none of these cases the CPE (DSL Modem) has to be upgraded. 2. PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model: PPP sessions are opened between each subscriber and the BRAS. The BRAS terminates the PPP sessions and provides Layer 3 connectivity between the subscriber and the ISP. This model is presented in section 7.2.2. 3. L2TP Access Aggregation (LAA) Model: PPP sessions are opened between each subscriber and the ISP Edge Router. The BRAS tunnels the subscriber PPP sessions to the ISP by encapsulating them into L2TPv2 tunnels. This model is presented in section 7.2.3. In aggregation models the BRAS terminates the subscriber PVCs and aggregates their connections before providing access to the ISP. In order to maintain the deployment concepts and business models proven and used with existent revenue generating IPv4 services, the IPv6 deployment will match the IPv4 one. This approach is presented in sections 7.2.1-3 that describe current IPv4 over DSL broadband access deployments. Under certain circumstances where new service types or service needs justify it, IPv4 and IPv6 network logical architectures could be different as described in section 7.2.4. 7.2.1 Point-to-Point Model In this scenario the Ethernet frames from the Host or the Customer Premise Router are bridged over the PVC assigned to the subscriber. Figure 7.2.1 describes the protocol architecture of this model Customer Premise NAP NSP |-------------------------| |---------------| |------------------| +-----+ +-------+ +-----+ +--------+ +----------+ |Hosts|--+Router +--+ DSL +--+ DSLAM +--------+ Edge | ISP +-----+ +-------+ |Modem| +--------+ | Router +=>Network +-----+ +----------+ |----------------------------| ATM Figure 7.2.1 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 31] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 7.2.1.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the DSL modem and the entire NAP is Layer 3 unaware, so no changes are needed to support IPv6. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, Customer Router (if present) and Edge Router. 7.2.1.2 Addressing The Hosts or the Customer Routers have the Edge Router as their Layer 3 next hop. If there is no Customer Router all the hosts on the subscriber site belong to the same /64 subnet that is statically configured on the Edge Router for that subscriber PVC. The hosts can use stateless auto-configuration or stateful DHCPv6 based configuration to acquire an address via the Edge Router. However, as manual configuration for each customer is a provisioning challenge, implementations are encouraged to develop mechanism(s) which automatically map the PVC (or some other customer-specific information) to an IPv6 subnet prefix, and advertise the customer- specific prefix to all the customers with minimal configuration. If a Customer Router is present: A. It is statically configured with an address on the /64 subnet between itself and the Edge Router, and with /64 prefixes on the interfaces connecting the hosts on the customer site. This is not a desired provisioning method being expensive and difficult to manage. B. It can use its link-local address to communicate with the ER. It can also dynamically acquire through stateless auto-configuration the prefix for the link between itself and the ER. The later option allows it to contact a remote DHCPv6 server if needed. This step is followed by a request via DHCP-PD for a prefix shorter than /64 that in turn is divided in /64s and assigned to its downstream interfaces. The Edge Router has a /64 prefix configured for each subscriber VLAN. Each VLAN should be enabled to relay DHCPv6 requests from the subscribers to DHCPv6 servers in the ISP network. The VLANs providing access for subscribers that use DHCP-PD as well, have to be enabled to support the feature. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 32] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. The prefixes used for subscriber links and the ones delegated via DHCP-PD should be planned in a manner that allows as much summarization as possible at the Edge Router. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful DHCPv6 [10] and stateless DHCPv6 [9]. 7.2.1.3 Routing The CPE devices are configured with a default route that points to the Edge router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. The Edge Router runs the IPv6 IGP used in the NSP: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the Edge Router. For this reason the static routes must also be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router. 7.2.2 PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model The PTA architecture relies on PPP-based protocols (PPPoA [15] and PPPoE [14]). The PPP sessions are initiated by Customer Premise Equipment and are terminated at the BRAS. The BRAS authorizes the session, authenticates the subscriber, and provides an IP address on behalf of the ISP. The BRAS then does Layer 3 routing of the subscriber traffic to the NSP Edge Router. This model is often used when the NSP is also the NAP. There are two types of PPP encapsulations that can be leveraged with this model: Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 33] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 A. Connection using PPPoA Customer Premise NAP NSP |--------------------| |----------------------| |----------------| +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----------+ | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----------+ |Hosts|--+Router +------+ DSLAM +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>Core +-----------+ |--------------------------| PPP Figure 7.2.2.1 The PPP sessions are initiated by the Customer Premise Equipment. The BRAS authenticates the subscriber against a local or a remote database. Once the session is established, the BRAS provides an address and maybe a DNS server to the user, information acquired from the subscriber profile or from a DHCP server. This solution scales better then the Point-to-Point but since there is only one PPP session per ATM PVC the subscriber can choose a single ISP service at a time. B. Connection using PPPoE Customer Premise NAP NSP |--------------------------| |-------------------| |---------------| +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----------+ | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----------+ |Hosts|--+Router +-----------+ DSLAM +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | C +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>O | | R +-----------+ E |--------------------------------| PPP Figure 7.2.2.2 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 34] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 The operation of PPPoE is similar to PPPoA with the exception that with PPPoE multiple sessions can be supported over the same PVC thus allowing the subscriber to connect to multiple services at the same time. The hosts can initiate the PPPoE sessions as well. It is important to remember that the PPPoE encapsulation reduces the IP MTU available for the customer traffic due to additional headers. The network design and operation of the PTA model is the same regardless of the PPP encapsulation type used. 7.2.2.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the BRAS is Layer 3 aware and it has to be upgraded to support IPv6. Since the BRAS terminates the PPP sessions it has to support the implementation of these PPP protocols with IPv6. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, Customer Router (if present), BRAS and Edge Router. 7.2.2.2 Addressing The BRAS terminates the PPP sessions and provides the subscriber with an IPv6 address from the defined pool for that profile. The subscriber profile for authorization and authentication can be located on the BRAS or on a AAA server. The Hosts or the Customer Routers have the BRAS as their Layer 3 next hop. The PPP session can be initiated by a host or by a Customer Router. In the latter case, once the session is established with the BRAS and an address is negotiated for the uplink to the BRAS, DHCP-PD can be used to acquire prefixes for the Customer Router other interfaces. The BRAS has to be enabled to support DHCP-PD and to relay the DHCPv6 requests of the hosts on the subscriber sites. The BRAS has a /64 prefixes configured on the link to the Edge router. The Edge router links are also configured with /64 prefixes to provide connectivity to the rest of the ISP network. The prefixes used for subscriber and the ones delegated via DHCP-PD should be planned in a manner that allows maximum summarization at the BRAS. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. 7.2.2.3 Routing The CPE devices are configured with a default route that points to Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 35] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 the BRAS router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. The BRAS runs an IGP to the Edge Router: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. Since the addresses assigned to the PPP sessions are represented as connected host routes, connected prefixes have to be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the Edge Router. For this reason the static routes must also be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the BRAS. The Edge Router is running the IGP used in the ISP network: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. A separation between the routing domains of the ISP and the Access Provider is recommended if they are managed independently. Controlled redistribution will be needed between the Access Provider IGP and the ISP IGP. 7.2.3 L2TPv2 Access Aggregation (LAA) Model In the LAA model the BRAS forwards the CPE initiated session to the ISP over an L2TPv2 tunnel established between the BRAS and the Edge Router. In this case the authentication, authorization and subscriber configuration are performed by the ISP itself. There are two types of PPP encapsulations that can be leveraged with this model: A. Connection via PPPoA Customer Premise NAP NSP |--------------------| |----------------------| |----------------| +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----+-----+ |Hosts|--+Router +------+ DSLAM +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>Core +-----------+ |----------------------------------------| PPP |------------| L2TPv2 Figure 7.2.3.1 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 36] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 B. Connection via PPPoE Customer Premise NAP NSP |--------------------------| |--------------------| |---------------| +-----------+ | AAA | +------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +----+------+ |Hosts|--+Router +-----------+ DSLAM +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | C +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>O | | R +-----------+ E |-----------------------------------------------| PPP |--------------| L2TPv2 Figure 7.2.3.2 The network design and operation of the PTA model is the same regardless of the PPP encapsulation type used. 7.2.3.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the BRAS is forwarding the PPP sessions initiated by the subscriber over the L2TPv2 tunnel established to the LNS, the aggregation point in the ISP network. The L2TPv2 tunnel between the LAC and LNS could run over IPv6 or IPv4. These capabilities have to be supported on the BRAS. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, Customer Router and Edge Router. If the tunnel is set up over IPv6 then the BRAS must be upgraded to dual stack. 7.2.3.2 Addressing The Edge router terminates the PPP sessions and provides the subscriber with an IPv6 address from the defined pool for that profile. The subscriber profile for authorization and authentication can be located on the Edge Router or on a AAA server. The Hosts or the Customer Routers have the Edge Router as their Layer 3 next hop. The PPP session can be initiated by a host or by a Customer Router. In the latter case, once the session is established with the Edge Router, DHCP-PD can be used to acquire prefixes for the Customer Router interfaces. The Edge Router has to be enabled to support DHCP-PD and to relay the DHCPv6 requests generated by the hosts on the subscriber sites. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 37] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 The BRAS has a /64 prefix configured on the link to the Edge router. The Edge router links are also configured with /64 prefixes to provide connectivity to the rest of the ISP network. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. It is important to note here a significant difference between this deployment for IPv6 versus IPv4. In the case of IPv4 the customer router or CPE can end up on any Edge Router (acting as LNS) where the assumption is that there are at least two of them for redundancy purposes. Once authenticated, the customer will be given an address from the IP pool of the ER (LNS) it connected to. This allows the ERs (LNSs) to aggregate the addresses handed out to the customers. In the case of IPv6, an important constraint that likely will be enforced is that the customer should keep its own address regardless of the ER (LNS) it connects to. This could significantly reduce the prefix aggregation capabilities of the ER (LNS). This is different than the current IPv4 deployment where addressing is dynamic in nature and the same user can get different addresses depending on the LNS it ends up connecting to. One possible solution is to ensure that a given BRAS will always connect to the same ER (LNS) unless that LNS is down. This means that customers from a given prefix range will always be connected to the same ER (primary if up or secondary if not). Each ER (LNS) can carry summary statements in their routing protocol configuration for the prefixes they are the primary ER (LNS) as well as for the ones for which they are the secondary. This way the prefixes will be summarized any time they become "active" on the ER (LNS). 7.2.3.3 Routing The CPE devices are configured with a default route that points to the Edge router that terminates the PPP sessions. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which have generally limited resources. The BRAS runs an IPv6 IGP to the Edge Router: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. Different processes should be used if the NAP and the NSP are managed by different organizations. In this case, controlled redistribution should be enabled between the two domains. The Edge Router is running the IPv6 IGP used in the ISP network: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 38] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 7.2.4 Hybrid Model for IPv4 and IPv6 Service It was recommended throughout this section that the IPv6 service implementation should map the existent IPv4 one. This approach simplifies manageability and minimizes training needed for personnel operating the network. In certain circumstances such mapping is not feasible. This typically becomes the case when a Service Provider plans to expand its service offering with the new IPv6 deployed infrastructure. If this new service is not well supported in a network design such as the one used for IPv4 then a different design might be used for IPv6. An example of such circumstances is that of a provider using an LAA design for its IPv4 services. In this case all the PPP sessions are bundled and tunneled across the entire NAP infrastructure which is made of multiple BRAS routers, aggregation routers etc. The end point of these tunnels is the ISP Edge Router. If the provider decides to offer multicast services over such a design, it will face the problem of NAP resources being over utilized. The multicast traffic can be replicated only at the end of the tunnels by the Edge router and the copies for all the subscribers are carried over the entire NAP. A Modified Point-to-Point (as described in 7.2.4.2) or PTA model are more suitable to support multicast services because the packet replication can be done closer to the destination at the BRAS. Such topology saves NAP resources. In this sense IPv6 deployment can be viewed as an opportunity to build an infrastructure that might better support the expansion of services. In this case, an SP using the LAA design for its IPv4 services might choose a modified Point-to-Point or PTA design for IPv6. 7.2.4.1 IPv4 in LAA Model and IPv6 in PTA Model The coexistence of the two PPP based models, PTA and LAA, is relatively straight forward. The PPP sessions are terminated on different network devices for the IPv4 and IPv6 services. The PPP sessions for the existent IPv4 service deployed in an LAA model are terminated on the Edge Router. The PPP sessions for the new IPv6 service deployed in a PTA model are terminated on the BRAS. The logical design for IPv6 and IPv4 in this hybrid model is presented in Figure 7.2.4.1. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 39] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 IPv6 |--------------------------| PPP +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----+-----+ |Hosts|--+Router +------+ DSLAM +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>Core +-----------+ IPv4 |----------------------------------------| PPP |------------| L2TPv2 Figure 7.2.4.1 7.2.4.2 IPv4 in LAA Model and IPv6 in Modified Point-to-Point Model In this particular scenario the Point-to-Point model used for the IPv6 service is a modified version of the model described in section 7.2.1. For the IPv4 service in LAA model, the VLANs are terminated on the BRAS and PPP sessions are terminated on the Edge Router (LNS). For IPv6 service in Point-to-Point model, the VLANs are terminated at the Edge Router as described in section 7.2.1. In this hybrid model, the Point-to-Point link could be terminated on the BRAS, a NAP owned device. The IPv6 traffic is then routed through the NAP network to the NSP. In order to have this hybrid model, the BRAS has to be upgraded to a dual-stack router. The functionalities of the Edge Router as described in section 7.2.1 are now implemented on the BRAS. The other aspect of this deployment model is the fact that the BRAS has to be capable of distinguishing between the IPv4 PPP traffic that has to be bridged across the L2TPv2 tunnel and the IPv6 packets that have to be routed to the NSP. The IPv6 Routing and Bridging Encapsulation (RBE) has to be enabled on all interfaces with VLANs supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 services in this hybrid design. The logical design for IPv6 and IPv4 in this hybrid model is presented in Figure 7.2.4.2. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 40] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 IPv6 |----------------| ATM +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----+-----+ |Hosts|--+Router +------+ DSLAM +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>Core +-----------+ IPv4 |----------------------------------------| PPP |------------| L2TPv2 Figure 7.2.4.2 7.3 IPv6 Multicast The deployment of IPv6 multicast services relies on MLD, identical to IGMP in IPv4 and on PIM for routing. ASM (Any Source Multicast) and SSM (Single Source Multicast) service models operate almost the same as in IPv4. Both have the same benefits and disadvantages as in IPv4. Nevertheless, the larger address space and the scoped address architecture provide major benefits for multicast IPv6. Through RFC3306 the large address space provides the means to assign global multicast group addresses to organizations or users that were assigned unicast prefixes. It is a significant improvement with respect to the IPv4 GLOP mechanism [18]. This facilitates the deployment of multicast services. The discussion of this section applies to all the multicast sections in the document. 7.3.1 ASM Based Deployments Any Source Multicast (ASM) is useful for Service Providers that intend to support the forwarding of multicast traffic of their customers. It is based on the PIM-SM protocol and it is more complex to manage because of the use of Rendezvous Points (RPs). With IPv6, static RP and BSR [34] can be used for RP-to-group mapping similar to IPv4. Additionally, the larger IPv6 address space allows for building up of group addresses that incorporate the address of the RP. This RP-to-group mapping mechanism is called Embedded RP and is specific to IPv6. In inter-domain deployments, Multicast Source Discovery Protocol Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 41] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 (MSDP) [21] is an important element of IPv4 PIM-SM deployments. MSDP is meant to be a solution for the exchange of source registration information between RPs in different domains. This solution was intended to be temporary. This is one of the reasons why it was decided not to implement MSDP in IPv6 [32]. For multicast reachability across domains, Embedded RP can be used. As Embedded RP provides roughly the same capabilities as MSDP, but in a slightly different way, the best management practices for ASM multicast with embedded RP still remain to be developed. 7.3.2 SSM Based Deployments Based on PIM-SSM, the Source Specific Multicast deployments do not need an RP and the related protocols (such as BSR or MSDP) but rely on the listeners to know the source of the multicast traffic they plan to receive. The lack of RP makes SSM not only simpler to operate but also robust, it is not impacted by RP failures or inter domain constraints. It is also has a higher level of security (No RP to be targeted by attacks). For more discussions on the topic of IPv6 multicast see [32]. The typical multicast services offered for residential and very small businesses is video/audio streaming where the subscriber joins a multicast group and receives the content. This type of service model is well supported through PIM-SSM which is very simple and easy to manage. PIM-SSM has to be enabled throughout the SP network. MLDv2 is required for PIM-SSM support. Vendors can choose to implement features that allow routers to map MLDv1 group joins to predefined sources. Subscribers might use a set-top box that is responsible for the control piece of the multicast service (does group joins/leaves). The subscriber hosts can also join desired multicast groups as long as they are enabled to support MLDv1 or MLDv2. If a customer premise router is used then it has to be enabled to support MLDv1 and MLDv2 in order to process the requests of the hosts. It has to be enabled to support PIM-SSM in order to send PIM joins/leaves up to its Layer 3 next hop whether it is the BRAS or the Edge router. When enabling this functionality on a customer premise router, its limited resources should be taken into consideration. Another option would be for the customer premise router to support MLD proxy routing. The router that is the Layer 3 next hop for the subscriber (BRAS in the PTA model or the Edge router in the LAA and Point-to-Point model) has to be enabled to support MLDv1 and MLDv2 in order to process the requests coming from subscribers without customer premise routers. It has to be enabled for PIM-SSM in order to receive joins/leaves Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 42] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 from customer routers and send joins/leaves to the next hop towards the multicast source (Edge router or the NSP core). MLD authentication, authorization and accounting is usually configured on the edge router in order to enable the ISP to do control the subscriber access of the service and do billing for the content provided. Alternative mechanisms that would support these functions should be investigated further. 7.4 IPv6 QoS The QoS configuration is particularly relevant on the router that represents the Layer 3 next hop for the subscriber (BRAS in the PTA model or the Edge router in the LAA and Point-to-Point model) in order to manage resources shared amongst multiple subscribers possibly with various service level agreements. In the DSL infrastructure it is expected that there is already a level of traffic policing and shaping implemented for IPv4 connectivity. This is implemented throughout the NAP and it is beyond the scope of this document. On the BRAS or the Edge Router the subscriber facing interfaces have to be configure to police the inbound customer traffic and shape the traffic outbound to the customer based on the SLAs. Traffic classification and marking should also be done on the router closest (at Layer 3) to the subscriber in order to support the various types of customer traffic: data, voice, video and to optimally use the infrastructure resources. Each provider (NAP, NSP) could implement their own QoS policies and services so reclassification and marking might be performed at the boundary between the NAP and the NSP in order to make sure the traffic is properly handled by the ISP. The same IPv4 QoS concepts and methodologies should be applied with IPv6 as well. It is important to note that when traffic is encrypted end-to-end, the traversed network devices will not have access to many of the packet fields used for classification purposes. In these cases routers will most likely place the packets in the default classes. The QoS design should take into consideration this scenario and try to use mainly IP header fields for classification purposes. 7.5 IPv6 Security Considerations There are limited changes that have to be done for CPEs in order to enhance security. The Privacy extensions for auto-configuration [13] should be used by the hosts. ISPs can track the prefixes it assigns to subscribers relatively easily. If however the ISPs are required Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 43] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 by regulations to track their users at /128 address level, the Privacy Extensions can be implemented only in parallel with network management tools that could provide traceability of the hosts. IPv6 firewall functions should be enabled on the hosts or customer premise router if present. The ISP provides security against attacks that come form its own subscribers but it could also implement security services that protect its subscribers from attacks sourced from the outside of its network. Such services do not apply at the access level of the network discussed here. The device that is the Layer 3 next hop for the subscribers (BRAS or Edge router) should protect the network and the other subscribers against attacks by one of the provider customers. For this reason uRPF and ACLs should be used on all interfaces facing subscribers. Filtering should be implemented with regard for the operational requirements of IPv6 [36]. Authentication and authorization should be used wherever possible. The BRAS and the Edge Router should protect their processing resources against floods of valid customer control traffic such as: Router and Neighbor Solicitations, MLD Requests. Rate limiting should be implemented on all subscriber facing interfaces. The emphasis should be placed on multicast type traffic as it is most often used by the IPv6 control plane. All other security features used with the IPv4 service should be similarly applied to IPv6 as well. 7.6 IPv6 Network management The necessary instrumentation (such as MIBs, NetFlow Records etc) should be available for IPv6. Usually, NSPs manage the edge routers by SNMP. The SNMP transport can be done over IPv4 if all managed devices have connectivity over both IPv4 and IPv6. This would imply the smallest changes to the existent network management practices and processes. Transport over IPv6 could also be implemented and it might become necessary if IPv6 only islands are present in the network. The management stations are located on the core network. Network Management Applications should handle IPv6 in a similar fashion to IPv4, however, they should also support features specific to IPv6 (such as Neighbor monitoring). In some cases service providers manage equipment located on customers LANs. The management of equipment at customers' LANs is out of scope of this memo. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 44] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 8. Broadband Ethernet Networks This section describes the IPv6 deployment options in currently deployed Broadband Ethernet Access Networks. 8.1 Ethernet Access Network Elements In environments that support the infrastructure deploying RJ-45 or fiber (Fiber to the Home (FTTH) service) to subscribers, 10/100 Mbps Ethernet broadband services can be provided. Such services are generally available in metropolitan areas, in multi tenant buildings where an Ethernet infrastructure can be deployed in a cost effective manner. In such environments Metro-Ethernet services can be used to provide aggregation and uplink to a Service Provider. The following network elements are typical of an Ethernet network: Access Switch: It is used as a Layer 2 access device for subscribers. Customer Premise Router: It is used to provide Layer 3 services for customer premise networks. Aggregation Ethernet Switches: Aggregates multiple subscribers. Broadband Remote Access Server (BRAS) Edge Router (ER) Figure 8.1 depicts all the network elements mentioned. Customer Premise | Network Access Provider | Network Service Provider CP NAP NSP +-----+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ |Hosts|--|Router| +-+ BRAS +--+ Edge | ISP +-----+ +--+---+ | | | | Router +===> Network | | +------+ +--------+ +--+----+ | |Access +-+ | |Switch | | | +-------+ | +------+ | +--+Agg E | | +-------+ |Switch+-+ +-----+ |Access | +--+ | |Hosts|--+Switch +-+ +------+ +-----+ +-------+ Figure 8.1 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 45] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 The logical topology and design of Broadband Ethernet Networks is very similar to DSL Broadband Networks discussed in section 7. It is worth noting that the general operation, concepts and recommendations described in this section apply similarly to a HomePNA based network environment. In such an environment some of the network elements might be differently named. 8.2 Deploying IPv6 in IPv4 Broadband Ethernet Networks There are three main design approaches to providing IPv4 connectivity over an Ethernet infrastructure: A. Point-to-Point Model: Each subscriber connects to the network Access switch over RJ-45 or fiber links. Each subscriber is assigned a unique VLAN on the access switch. The VLAN can be terminated at the BRAS or at the Edge Router. The VLANs are 802.1q trunked to the Layer 3 device (BRAS or Edge Router). This model is presented in section 8.2.1. B. PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model: PPP sessions are opened between each subscriber and the BRAS. The BRAS terminates the PPP sessions and provides Layer 3 connectivity between the subscriber and the ISP. This model is presented in section 8.2.2. C. L2TPv2 Access Aggregation (LAA) Model: PPP sessions are opened between each subscriber and the ISP termination devices. The BRAS tunnels the subscriber PPP sessions to the ISP by encapsulating them into L2TPv2 tunnels. This model is presented in section 8.2.3. In aggregation models the BRAS terminates the subscriber VLANs and aggregates their connections before providing access to the ISP. In order to maintain the deployment concepts and business models proven and used with existent revenue generating IPv4 services, the IPv6 deployment will match the IPv4 one. This approach is presented in sections 8.2.1-3 that describe currently deployed IPv4 over Ethernet broadband access deployments. Under certain circumstances where new service types or service needs justify it, IPv4 and IPv6 network architectures could be different as described in section 8.2.4. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 46] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 8.2.1 Point-to-Point Model In this scenario the Ethernet frames from the Host or the Customer Premise Router are bridged over the VLAN assigned to the subscriber. Figure 8.2.1 describes the protocol architecture of this model. | Customer Premise | | NAP | NSP | +-----+ +------+ +------+ +--------+ +----------+ |Hosts|--+Router+--+Access+--+ Switch +--------+ Edge | ISP +-----+ +------+ |Switch| +--------+ 802.1q | Router +=>Network +------+ +----------+ |----------------------------| Ethernet/VLANs Figure 8.2.1 8.2.1.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the Access Switch on the customer site and the entire NAP is Layer 3 unaware so no changes are needed to support IPv6. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, Customer Router and Edge Router. The Access switches might need upgrades to support certain IPv6 related features such as MLD Snooping. 8.2.1.2 Addressing The Hosts or the Customer Routers have the Edge Router as their Layer 3 next hop. If there is no Customer Router all the hosts on the subscriber site belong to the same /64 subnet that is statically configured on the Edge Router for that subscriber VLAN. The hosts can use stateless auto-configuration or stateful DHCPv6 based configuration to acquire an address via the Edge Router. However, as manual configuration for each customer is a provisioning challenge, implementations are encouraged to develop mechanism(s) which automatically map the VLAN (or some other customer-specific information) to an IPv6 subnet prefix, and advertise the customer- specific prefix to all the customers with minimal configuration. If a Customer Router is present: A. It is statically configured with an address on the /64 subnet Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 47] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 between itself and the Edge Router, and with /64 prefixes on the interfaces connecting the hosts on the customer site. This is not a desired provisioning method being expensive and difficult to manage. B. It can use its link-local address to communicate with the ER. It can also dynamically acquire through stateless auto-configuration the address for the link between itself and the ER. This step is followed by a request via DHCP-PD for a prefix shorter than /64 that in turn is divided in /64s and assigned to its interfaces connecting the hosts on the customer site. The Edge Router has a /64 prefix configured for each subscriber VLAN. Each VLAN should be enabled to relay DHCPv6 requests from the subscribers to DHCPv6 servers in the ISP network. The VLANs providing access for subscribers that use DHCP-PD as well, have to be enabled to support the feature. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. The prefixes used for subscriber links and the ones delegated via DHCP-PD should be planned in a manner that allows as much summarization as possible at the Edge Router. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. 8.2.1.3 Routing The CPE devices are configured with a default route that points to the Edge router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. The Edge Router runs the IPv6 IGP used in the NSP: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the Edge Router. For this reason the static routes must also be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router. 8.2.2 PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model The PTA architecture relies on PPP-based protocols (PPPoE). The PPP Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 48] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 sessions are initiated by Customer Premise Equipment and it is terminated at the BRAS. The BRAS authorizes the session, authenticates the subscriber, and provides an IP address on behalf of the ISP. The BRAS then does Layer 3 routing of the subscriber traffic to the NSP Edge Router. This model is often used when the NSP is also the NAP. The PPPoE logical diagram in an Ethernet Broadband Network is shown in Fig 8.2.2.1. | Customer Premise | | NAP | | NSP | +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----------+ +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----------+ |Hosts|-+Router +-+A Switch+-+ Switch +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | C +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>O |---------------- PPP ----------------| | | R +-----------+ E Figure 8.2.2.1 The PPP sessions are initiated by the Customer Premise Equipment (Host or Router). The BRAS authenticates the subscriber against a local or a remote database. Once the session is established, the BRAS provides an address and maybe a DNS server to the user, information acquired from the subscriber profile or from a DHCP server. This model allows for multiple PPPoE sessions to be supported over the same VLAN thus allowing the subscriber to connect to multiple services at the same time. The hosts can initiate the PPPoE sessions as well. It is important to remember that the PPPoE encapsulation reduces the IP MTU available for the customer traffic. 8.2.2.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the BRAS is Layer 3 aware and it has to be upgraded to support IPv6. Since the BRAS terminates the PPP sessions it has to support PPPoE with IPv6. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, Customer Router (if present), BRAS and Edge Router. 8.2.2.2 Addressing The BRAS terminates the PPP sessions and provides the subscriber with an IPv6 address from the defined pool for that profile. The subscriber profile for authorization and authentication can be Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 49] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 located on the BRAS or on a AAA server. The Hosts or the Customer Routers have the BRAS as their Layer 3 next hop. The PPP session can be initiated by a host or by a Customer Router. In the latter case, once the session is established with the BRAS, DHCP-PD can be used to acquire prefixes for the Customer Router interfaces. The BRAS has to be enabled to support DHCP-PD and to relay the DHCPv6 requests of the hosts on the subscriber sites. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. The BRAS has a /64 prefix configured on the link facing the Edge router. The Edge router links are also configured with /64 prefixes to provide connectivity to the rest of the ISP network. The prefixes used for subscriber and the ones delegated via DHCP-PD should be planned in a manner that allows maximum summarization at the BRAS. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. 8.2.2.3 Routing The CPE devices are configured with a default route that points to the BRAS router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. The BRAS runs an IGP to the Edge Router: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. Since the addresses assigned to the PPP sessions are represented as connected host routes, connected prefixes have to be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the BRAS. For this reason the static routes must also be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the BRAS. The Edge Router is running the IGP used in the ISP network: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. A separation between the routing domains of the ISP and the Access Provider is recommended if they are managed independently. Controlled redistribution will be needed between the Access Provider IGP and the ISP IGP. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 50] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 8.2.3 L2TPv2 Access Aggregation (LAA) Model In the LAA model the BRAS forwards the CPE initiated session to the ISP over an L2TPv2 tunnel established between the BRAS and the Edge Router. In this case the authentication, authorization and subscriber configuration are performed by the ISP itself. | Customer Premise | | NAP | | NSP | +-----------+ | AAA | +------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----------+ |Hosts|-+Router +-+A Switch+-+ Switch +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | C +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>O | | R +-----------+ E |-----------------------------------------------| PPP |--------------| L2TPv2 Figure 8.2.3.1 8.2.3.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario the BRAS is Layer 3 aware and it has to be upgraded to support IPv6. The PPP sessions initiated by the subscriber are forwarded over the L2TPv2 tunnel to the aggregation point in the ISP network. The BRAS (LAC) can aggregate IPv6 PPP sessions and tunnel them to the LNS using L2TPv2. The L2TPv2 tunnel between the LAC and LNS could run over IPv6 or IPv4. These capabilities have to be supported on the BRAS. The following devices have to be upgraded to dual stack: Host, Customer Router (if present), BRAS and Edge Router. 8.2.3.2 Addressing The Edge router terminates the PPP sessions and provides the subscriber with an IPv6 address from the defined pool for that profile. The subscriber profile for authorization and authentication can be located on the Edge Router or on a AAA server. The Hosts or the Customer Routers have the Edge Router as their Layer 3 next hop. The PPP session can be initiated by a host or by a Customer Router. In the latter case, once the session is established with the Edge Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 51] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Router and an IPv6 address is assigned to the Customer Router by the Edge router, DHCP-PD can be used to acquire prefixes for the Customer Router other interfaces. The Edge Router has to be enabled to support DHCP-PD and to relay the DHCPv6 requests of the hosts on the subscriber sites. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. The BRAS has a /64 prefix configured on the link to the Edge router. The Edge router links are also configured with /64 prefixes to provide connectivity to the rest of the ISP network. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. The address assignment and prefix summarization issues discussed in section 7.2.3.2 are relevant in the same way for this media access type as well. 8.2.3.3 Routing The CPE devices are configured with a default route that points to the Edge router that terminates the PPP sessions. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which have limited resources. The BRAS runs an IPv6 IGP to the Edge Router: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. Different processes should be used if the NAP and the NSP are managed by different organizations. In this case controlled redistribution should be enabled between the two domains. The Edge Router is running the IPv6 IGP used in the ISP network: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. 8.2.4 Hybrid Model for IPv4 and IPv6 Service It was recommended throughout this section that the IPv6 service implementation should map the existent IPv4 one. This approach simplifies manageability and minimizes training needed for personnel operating the network. In certain circumstances such mapping is not feasible. This typically becomes the case when a Service Provider plans to expand its service offering with the new IPv6 deployed infrastructure. If this new service is not well supported in a network design such as the one used for IPv4 then a different design Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 52] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 might be used for IPv6. An example of such circumstances is that of a provider using an LAA design for its IPv4 services. In this case all the PPP sessions are bundled and tunneled across the entire NAP infrastructure which is made of multiple BRAS routers, aggregation routers etc. The end point of these tunnels is the ISP Edge Router. If the SP decides to offer multicast services over such a design, it will face the problem of NAP resources being over utilized. The multicast traffic can be replicated only at the end of the tunnels by the Edge router and the copies for all the subscribers are carried over the entire NAP. A Modified Point-to-Point (see section 8.2.4.2) or a PTA model is more suitable to support multicast services because the packet replication can be done closer to the destination at the BRAS. Such topology saves NAP resources. In this sense IPv6 deployments can be viewed as an opportunity to build an infrastructure that can better support the expansion of services. In this case, an SP using the LAA design for its IPv4 services might choose a modified Point-to-Point or PTA design for IPv6. 8.2.4.1 IPv4 in LAA Model and IPv6 in PTA Model The coexistence of the two PPP based models, PTA and LAA, is relatively straight forward. It is a straight forward overlap of the two deployment models. The PPP sessions are terminated on different network devices for the IPv4 and IPv6 services. The PPP sessions for the existent IPv4 service deployed in an LAA model are terminated on the Edge Router. The PPP sessions for the new IPv6 service deployed in a PTA model are terminated on the BRAS. The logical design for IPv6 and IPv4 in this hybrid model is presented in Figure 8.2.4.1. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 53] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 IPv6 |--------------------------| PPP +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----+-----+ |Hosts|--+Router +------+ Switch +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>Core +-----------+ IPv4 |----------------------------------------| PPP |------------| L2TPv2 Figure 8.2.4.1 8.2.4.2 IPv4 in LAA Model and IPv6 in Modified Point-to-Point Model The coexistence of the modified Point-to-Point and the LAA models implies a few specific changes. For the IPv4 service in LAA model, the VLANs are terminated on the BRAS and PPP sessions are terminated on the Edge Router (LNS). For IPv6 service in Point-to-Point model, the VLANs are terminated at the Edge Router as described in section 7.2.1. In this hybrid model, the Point-to-Point link could be terminated on the BRAS, a NAP owned device. The IPv6 traffic is then routed through the NAP network to the NSP. In order to have this hybrid model, the BRAS has to be upgraded to a dual-stack router. The functionalities of the Edge Router as described in section 7.2.1 are now implemented on the BRAS. The logical design for IPv6 and IPv4 in this hybrid model is in Figure 8.2.4.2. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 54] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 IPv6 |----------------| Ethernet +-----------+ | AAA | +-------+ Radius | | | TACACS | | +-----+-----+ | | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----+-----+ +-----+-----+ |Hosts|--+Router +------+ Switch +-+ BRAS +-+ Edge | +-----+ +-------+ +--------+ +----------+ | Router +=>Core +-----------+ IPv4 |----------------------------------------| PPP |------------| L2TPv2 Figure 8.2.4.2 8.3 IPv6 Multicast The typical multicast services offered for residential and very small businesses is video/audio streaming where the subscriber joins a multicast group and receives the content. This type of service model is well supported through PIM-SSM which is very simple and easy to manage. PIM-SSM has to be enabled throughout the ISP network. MLDv2 is required for PIM-SSM support. Vendors can choose to implement features that allow routers to map MLDv1 group joins to predefined sources. Subscribers might use a set-top box that is responsible for the control piece of the multicast service (does group joins/leaves). The subscriber hosts can also join desired multicast groups as long as they are enabled to support MLDv1 or MLDv2. If a customer premise router is used then it has to be enabled to support MLDv1 and MLDv2 in order to process the requests of the hosts. It has to be enabled to support PIM-SSM in order to send PIM joins/leaves up to its Layer 3 next hop whether it is the BRAS or the Edge router. When enabling this functionality on a customer premise router, its limited resources should be taken into consideration. Another option would be for the customer premise router to support MLD proxy routing. MLD snooping or similar layer two multicast related protocols could be enabled on the NAP switches. The router that is the Layer 3 next hop for the subscriber (BRAS in the PTA model or the Edge router in the LAA and Point-to-Point model) has to be enabled to support MLDv1 and MLDv2 in order to process the requests coming from subscribers without customer premise routers. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 55] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 It has to be enabled for PIM-SSM in order to receive joins/leaves from customer routers and send joins/leaves to the next hop towards the multicast source (Edge router or the NSP core). MLD authentication, authorization and accounting is usually configured on the edge router in order to enable the ISP to do control the subscriber access of the service and do billing for the content provided. Alternative mechanisms that would support these functions should be investigated further. Please refer to section 7.3 for more IPv6 multicast details. 8.4 IPv6 QoS The QoS configuration is particularly relevant on the router that represents the Layer 3 next hop for the subscriber (BRAS in the PTA model or the Edge router in the LAA and Point-to-Point model) in order to manage resources shared amongst multiple subscribers possibly with various service level agreements. On the BRAS or the Edge Router the subscriber facing interfaces have to be configured to police the inbound customer traffic and shape the traffic outbound to the customer based on the SLAs. Traffic classification and marking should also be done on the router closest (at Layer 3) to the subscriber in order to support the various types of customer traffic: data, voice, video and to optimally use the network resources. This infrastructure offers a very good opportunity to leverage the QoS capabilities of Layer two devices. DiffServ based QoS used for IPv4 should be expanded to IPv6. Each provider (NAP, NSP) could implement their own QoS policies and services so reclassification and marking might be performed at the boundary between the NAP and the NSP in order to make sure the traffic is properly handled by the ISP. The same IPv4 QoS concepts and methodologies should be applied for the IPv6 as well. It is important to note that when traffic is encrypted end-to-end, the traversed network devices will not have access to many of the packet fields used for classification purposes. In these cases routers will most likely place the packets in the default classes. The QoS design should take into consideration this scenario and try to use mainly IP header fields for classification purposes. 8.5 IPv6 Security Considerations There are limited changes that have to be done for CPEs in order to enhance security. The Privacy extensions [13] for auto-configuration should be used by the hosts with the same considerations for host Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 56] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 traceability as discussed in section 7.5. IPv6 firewall functions should be enabled on the hosts or customer premise router if present. The ISP provides security against attacks that come form its own subscribers but it could also implement security services that protect its subscribers from attacks sourced from the outside of its network. Such services do not apply at the access level of the network discussed here. If any layer two filters for Ethertypes are in place, the NAP must permit the IPv6 Ethertype (0X86DD). The device that is the Layer 3 next hop for the subscribers (BRAS Edge router) should protect the network and the other subscribers against attacks by one of the provider customers. For this reason uRPF and ACLs should be used on all interfaces facing subscribers. Filtering should be implemented with regard for the operational requirements of IPv6 [36]. Authentication and authorization should be used wherever possible. The BRAS and the Edge Router should protect their processing resources against floods of valid customer control traffic such as: Router and Neighbor Solicitations, MLD Requests. Rate limiting should be implemented on all subscriber facing interfaces. The emphasis should be placed on multicast type traffic as it is most often used by the IPv6 control plane. All other security features used with the IPv4 service should be similarly applied to IPv6 as well. 8.6 IPv6 Network Management The necessary instrumentation (such as MIBs, NetFlow Records etc) should be available for IPv6. Usually, NSPs manage the edge routers by SNMP. The SNMP transport can be done over IPv4 if all managed devices have connectivity over both IPv4 and IPv6. This would imply the smallest changes to the existent network management practices and processes. Transport over IPv6 could also be implemented and it might become necessary if IPv6 only islands are present in the network. The management stations are located on the core network. Network Management Applications should handle IPv6 in a similar fashion to IPv4 however they should also support features specific to IPv6 such as Neighbor monitoring. In some cases service providers manage equipment located on customers LANs. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 57] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 9. Wireless LAN This section provides detailed description of IPv6 deployment and integration methods in currently deployed wireless LAN (WLAN) infrastructure. 9.1 WLAN Deployment Scenarios WLAN enables subscribers to connect to the Internet from various locations without the restriction of staying indoors. WLAN is standardized by IEEE 802.11a/b/g. Consideration should be also given to IEEE 802.16 WiMAX for similar deployment approaches. IEEE 802.11 offers maximum transmission speed from 1 or 2 Mbps, IEEE 802.11b offers 11 Mbps and IEEE 802.11a/g offer up to 54 Mbps. Figure 9.1 describes the current WLAN architecture. Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider Premise | | +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ |WLAN | ---- | | |Access Router/| |Underlying| |Edge | |Host/ |-(WLAN)--|AP|-|Layer 2 Switch|-|Technology|-|Router|=>SP |Router| ---- | | | | | | | |Network +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ | +------+ |AAA | |Server| +------+ Figure 9.1 The host should have a wireless network interface card (NIC) in order to connect to a WLAN network. WLAN is a flat broadcast network and works in a similar fashion as Ethernet. When hosts initiate a connection, it is authenticated by the AAA server located at the SP network. All the authentication parameters (username, password and etc.) are forwarded by the Access Point (AP) to the AAA server. The AAA server authenticates the host, once successfully authenticated the host can send data packets. The AP is located near the host and acts as a bridge. The AP forwards all the packets coming to/from host to the Edge Router. The underlying connection between the AP and Edge Router could be based on any access layer technology such as HFC/Cable, FTTH, xDSL or etc. WLANs are based in limited areas known as WiFi Hot Spots. While users are present in the area covered by the WLAN range, they can be connected to the Internet given they have a wireless NIC and required Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 58] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 configuration settings in their devices (notebook PCs, PDA or etc.). Once the user initiates the connection the IP address is assigned by the SP using DHCPv4. In most of the cases SP assigns limited number of public IP addresses to the its customer. When the user disconnects the connection and moves to a new WiFi hot spot, the above mentioned process of authentication, address assignment and accessing the Internet is repeated. There are IPv4 deployments where customers can use WLAN routers to connect over wireless to their service provider. These deployment types do not fit in the typical Hot Spot concept but they rather serve fixed customers. For this reason this section discusses the WLAN router options as well. In this case, the ISP provides a public IP address and the WLAN Router assigns private addresses [1] to all WLAN users. The WLAN Router provides NAT functionality while WLAN users access the Internet. While deploying IPv6 in the above mentioned WLAN architecture, there are three possible scenarios as discussed below. A. Layer 2 NAP with Layer 3 termination at NSP Edge Router B. Layer 3 aware NAP with Layer 3 termination at Access Router C. PPP Based Model 9.1.1 Layer 2 NAP with Layer 3 termination at NSP Edge Router When a Layer 2 switch is present between AP and Edge Router, the AP and Layer 2 switch continues to work as a bridge, forwarding IPv4 and IPv6 packets from WLAN Host/Router to Edge Router and vice versa. When initiating the connection, the WLAN host is authenticated by the AAA server located at the SP network. All the parameters related to authentication (username, password and etc.) are forwarded by the AP to the AAA server. The AAA server authenticates the WLAN Hosts and once authenticated and associated successfully with WLAN AP, IPv6 address will be acquired by the WLAN Host. Note the initiation and authentication process is same as used in IPv4. Figure 9.1.1 describes the WLAN architecture when Layer 2 Switch is located between AP and Edge Router. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 59] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider Premise | | +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ |WLAN | ---- | | | | |Underlying| |Edge | |Host/ |-(WLAN)--|AP|-|Layer 2 Switch|-|Technology|-|Router|=>SP |Router| ---- | | | | | | | |Network +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ | +------+ |AAA | |Server| +------+ Figure 9.1.1 9.1.1.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes IPv6 will be deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following devices to dual-stack: WLAN Host, WLAN Router (if present) and Edge Router. 9.1.1.2 Addressing When customer WLAN Router is not present, the WLAN Host has two possible options to get an IPv6 address via the Edge Router. A. The WLAN host can get the IPv6 address from Edge router using stateless auto-configuration [11]. All hosts on the WLAN belong to the same /64 subnet that is statically configured on the Edge Router. The IPv6 WLAN Host may use stateless DHCPv6 for obtaining other information of interest such as DNS and etc. B. IPv6 WLAN host can use DHCPv6 [10] to get a IPv6 address from the DHCPv6 server. In this case the DHCPv6 server would be located in the SP core network and Edge Router would simply act as a DHCP Relay Agent. This option is similar to what we do today in case of DHCPv4. It is important to note that host implementation of stateful auto- configuration is rather limited at this time and this should be considered if choosing this address assignment option. When a customer WLAN Router is present, the WLAN Host has two possible options as well for acquiring IPv6 address. A. The WLAN Router may be assigned a prefix between /48 and /64 [7] depending on the SP policy and customer requirements. If the WLAN Router has multiple networks connected to its interfaces, the network administrator will have to configure the /64 prefixes to the WLAN Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 60] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Router interfaces connecting the WLAN Hosts on the customer site. The WLAN Hosts connected to these interfaces can automatically configure themselves using stateless auto-configuration with /64 prefix. B. The WLAN Router can use its link-local address to communicate with the ER. It can also dynamically acquire through stateless auto- configuration the address for the link between itself and the ER. This step is followed by a request via DHCP-PD for a prefix shorter than /64 that in turn is divided in /64s and assigned to its interfaces connecting the hosts on the customer site. In this option, the WLAN Router would act as a requesting router and Edge Router would act as delegating router. Once prefix is received by the WLAN Router, it assigns /64 prefixes to each of its interfaces connecting the WLAN Hosts on the customer site. The WLAN Hosts connected to these interfaces can automatically configure themselves using stateless auto-configuration with /64 prefix. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the ER. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. Usually it is easier for the SPs to stay with the DHCP PD and stateless auto-configuration model and point the clients to a central server for DNS/domain information, proxy configurations and etc. Using this model the SP could change prefixes on the fly and the WLAN Router would simply pull the newest prefix based on the valid/ preferred lifetime. The prefixes used for subscriber links and the ones delegated via DHCP-PD should be planned in a manner that allows maximum summarization as possible at the Edge Router. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. 9.1.1.3 Routing The WLAN Host/Router are configured with a default route that points to the Edge router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the SP network such as OSPFv3 or IS-IS for IPv6. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 61] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router. When DHCP-PD is used, the IGP has to redistribute the static routes installed during the process of prefix delegation. 9.1.2 Layer 3 aware NAP with Layer 3 termination at Access Router When an Access Router is present between AP and Edge Router, the AP continues to work as a bridge, bridging IPv4 and IPv6 packets from WLAN Host/Router to Access Router and vice versa. The Access Router could be part of SP network or owned by a separate Access Provider. When WLAN Host initiates the connection, the AAA authentication and association process with WLAN AP will be similar as explained in section 9.1.1. Figure 9.1.2 describes the WLAN architecture when Access Router is located between AP and Edge Router. Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider Premise | | +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ |WLAN | ---- | | | | |Underlying| |Edge | |Host/ |-(WLAN)--|AP|-|Access Router |-|Technology|-|Router|=>SP |Router| ---- | | | | | | | |Network +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ | +------+ |AAA | |Server| +------+ Figure 9.1.2 9.1.2.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes IPv6 is deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following devices to dual-stack: WLAN Host, WLAN Router (if present), Access Router and Edge Router. 9.1.2.2 Addressing There are three possible options in this scenario for IPv6 address assignment: A. The Edge Router interface facing towards the Access Router is statically configured with /64 prefix. The Access Router receives/ configures an /64 prefix on its interface facing towards Edge Router Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 62] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 through stateless auto-configuration. The network administrator will have to configure the /64 prefixes to the Access Router interface facing towards the customer premise. The WLAN Host/Router connected to this interface can automatically configure themselves using stateless auto-configuration with /64 prefix. B. This option uses DHCPv6 [10] for IPv6 prefix assignments to the WLAN Host/Router. There is no use of DHCP PD or stateless auto- configuration in this option. The DHCPv6 server can be located on the Access Router, on the Edge Router or somewhere in the SP network. In this case depending on where the DHCPv6 server is located, Access Router or the Edge Router would relay the DHCPv6 requests. C. It can use its link-local address to communicate with the ER. It can also dynamically acquire through stateless auto-configuration the address for the link between itself and the ER. This step is followed by a request via DHCP-PD for a prefix shorter than /64 that in turn is divided in /64s and assigned to its interfaces connecting the hosts on the customer site. In this option, the Access Router would act as a requesting router and Edge Router would act as delegating router. Once prefix is received by the Access Router, it assigns /64 prefixes to each of its interfaces connecting the WLAN Host/Router on customer site. The WLAN Host/Router connected to these interfaces can automatically configure themselves using stateless auto-configuration with /64 prefix. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router. If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work is being done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. It is easier for the SPs to stay with the DHCP PD and stateless auto- configuration model and point the clients to a central server for DNS/domain information, proxy configurations and others. Using this model the provider could change prefixes on the fly and the Access Router would simply pull the newest prefix based on the valid/ preferred lifetime. As mentioned before the prefixes used for subscriber links and the ones delegated via DHCP-PD should be planned in a manner that allows maximum summarization possible at the Edge Router. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 63] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 9.1.2.3 Routing The WLAN Host/Router are configured with a default route that points to the Access Router. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. If the Access Router is owned by an Access Provider, then the Access Router can have a default route, pointing towards the SP Edge Router. The Edge Router runs the IGP used in the SP network such as OSPFv3 or IS-IS for IPv6. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the Edge Router. For this reason the static routes must be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the Edge Router. If the Access Router is owned by the SP, then Access Router will also run IPv6 IGP and will be part of SP IPv6 routing domain (OSPFv3 or IS-IS). The connected prefixes have to be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the Access Router. For this reason the static routes must be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the Access Router. 9.1.3 PPP Based Model PPP TERMINATED AGGREGATION (PTA) and L2TPv2 ACCESS AGGREGATION (LAA) models as discussed in sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 respectively can also be deployed in IPv6 WLAN environment. 9.1.3.1 PTA Model in IPv6 WLAN Environment While deploying the PTA model in IPv6 WLAN environment the Access Router is Layer 3 aware and it has to be upgraded to support IPv6. Since the Access Router terminates the PPP sessions initiated by WLAN Host/Router, it has to support PPPoE with IPv6. Figure 9.1.3.1 describes the PTA Model in IPv6 WLAN environment. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 64] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider Premise | | +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ |WLAN | ---- | | | | |Underlying| |Edge | |Host/ |-(WLAN)--|AP|-|Access Router |-|Technology|-|Router|=>SP |Router| ---- | | | | | | | |Network +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ | |---------------------------| +------+ PPP |AAA | |Server| +------+ Figure 9.1.3.1 9.1.3.1.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes IPv6 is deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following devices to dual-stack: WLAN Host, WLAN Router (if present), Access Router and Edge Router. 9.1.3.1.2 Addressing The addressing techniques described in section 7.2.2.2 applies to IPv6 WLAN PTA scenario as well. 9.1.3.1.3 Routing The routing techniques described in section 7.2.2.3 applies to IPv6 WLAN PTA scenario as well. 9.1.3.2 LAA Model in IPv6 WLAN Environment While deploying the LAA model in IPv6 WLAN environment the Access Router is Layer 3 aware and it has to be upgraded to support IPv6. The PPP sessions initiated by WLAN Host/Router are forwarded over the L2TPv2 tunnel to the aggregation point in the SP network. The Access Router must have the capability to support L2TPv2 for IPv6. Figure 9.1.3.2 describes the LAA Model in IPv6 WLAN environment Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 65] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Customer | Access Provider | Service Provider Premise | | +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ |WLAN | ---- | | | | |Underlying| |Edge | |Host/ |-(WLAN)--|AP|-|Access Router |-|Technology|-|Router|=>SP |Router| ---- | | | | | | | |Network +------+ +--+ +--------------+ +----------+ +------+ | |-------------------------------------------------- | PPP | |--------------------- | L2TPv2 | +------+ |AAA | |Server| +------+ Figure 9.1.3.2 9.1.3.2.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes IPv6 is deployed in this scenario by upgrading the following devices to dual-stack: WLAN Host, WLAN Router (if present), Access Router and Edge Router. 9.1.3.2.2 Addressing The addressing techniques described in section 7.2.3.2 applies to IPv6 WLAN LAA scenario as well. 9.1.3.2.3 Routing The routing techniques described in section 7.2.3.3 applies to IPv6 WLAN LAA scenario as well. 9.2 IPv6 Multicast The typical multicast services offered are video/audio streaming where the IPv6 WLAN Host joins a multicast group and receives the content. This type of service model is well supported through PIM- SSM which is enabled throughout the SP network. MLDv2 is required for PIM-SSM support. Vendors can choose to implement features that allow routers to map MLDv1 group joins to predefined sources. It is important to note that in the shared wireless environments multicast can have a significant bandwidth impact. For this reason the bandwidth allocated to multicast traffic should be limited and Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 66] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 fixed based on the overall capacity of the wireless specification used 802.11a, 802.11b or 802.11g. The IPv6 WLAN Hosts can also join desired multicast groups as long as they are enabled to support MLDv1 or MLDv2. If a WLAN/Access Routers are used then they have to be enabled to support MLDv1 and MLDv2 in order to process the requests of the IPv6 WLAN Hosts. The WLAN/ Access Router should also needs to be enabled to support PIM-SSM in order to send PIM joins up to the Edge Router. When enabling this functionality on a WLAN/Access Router, its limited resources should be taken into consideration. Another option would be for the WLAN/ Access Router to support MLD proxy routing. The Edge Router has to be enabled to support MLDv1 and MLDv2 in order to process the requests coming from IPv6 WLAN Host or WLAN/Access Router (if present). The Edge Router has also needs to be enabled for PIM-SSM in order to receive joins from IPv6 WLAN Hosts or WLAN/ Access Router (if present) and send joins towards the SP core. MLD authentication, authorization and accounting is usually configured on the Edge Router in order to enable the SP to do billing for the content services provided. Further investigation should be made in finding alternative mechanisms that would support these functions. Concerns have been raised in the past related to running IPv6 multicast over WLAN links. Potentially these are same kind of issues when running any Layer 3 protocol over a WLAN link that has a high loss-to-signal ratio, where certain frames that are multicast based are dropped when settings are not adjusted properly. For instance this behavior is similar to IGMP host membership report, when done on a WLAN link with high loss-to-signal ratio and high interference. This problem is inherited to WLAN that can impact both IPv4 and IPv6 multicast packets and not specific to IPv6 multicast. While deploying WLAN (IPv4 or IPv6), one should adjust their broadcast/multicast settings if they are in danger of dropping application dependent frames. These problems are usually caused when AP are placed too far apart (not following the distance limitations), high interference and etc. These issues may impact a real multicast application such as streaming video or basic operation of IPv6 if the frames were dropped. Basic IPv6 communications uses functions such as Duplicate Address Detection (DAD), Router and Neighbor Solicitations (RS, NS), Router and Neighbor Advertisement (RA, NA) and etc. which could be impacted by the above mentioned issues as these frames are Layer 2 Ethernet multicast frames. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 67] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Please refer to section 7.3 for more IPv6 multicast details. 9.3 IPv6 QoS Today, QoS is done outside of the WiFi domain but it is nevertheless important to the overall deployment. The QoS configuration is particularly relevant on the Edge Router in order to manage resources shared amongst multiple subscribers possibly with various service level agreements (SLA). Although, the WLAN Host/Router and Access Router could also be configured for QoS. This includes support for appropriate classification criteria which would need to be implemented for IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic. On the Edge Router the subscriber facing interfaces have to be configured to police the inbound customer traffic and shape the traffic outbound to the customer, based on the SLA. Traffic classification and marking should also be done on the Edge router in order to support the various types of customer traffic: data, voice, video. The same IPv4 QoS concepts and methodologies should be applied for the IPv6 as well. It is important to note that when traffic is encrypted end-to-end, the traversed network devices will not have access to many of the packet fields used for classification purposes. In these cases routers will most likely place the packets in the default classes. The QoS design should take into consideration this scenario and try to use mainly IP header fields for classification purposes. 9.4 IPv6 Security Considerations There are limited changes that have to be done for WLAN Host/Router in order to enhance security. The Privacy extensions [13] for auto- configuration should be used by the hosts with the same consideration for host traceability as described in section 7.5. IPv6 firewall functions should be enabled on the WLAN Host/Router if present. The ISP provides security against attacks that come form its own subscribers but it could also implement security services that protect its subscribers from attacks sourced from the outside of its network. Such services do not apply at the access level of the network discussed here. If the host authentication at hot spots is done using web based authentication system then the level of security would depend on the particular implementation. User credential should never be sent as clear text via HTTP. Secure HTTP (HTTPS) should be used between the web browser and authentication server. The authentication server Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 68] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 could use RADIUS and LDAP services at the back end. Authentication is an important aspect of securing WLAN networks prior to implementing Layer 3 security policies. This would help for example avoid threats to the ND or stateless auto-configuration processes. 802.1x provides the means to secure the network access however, the many types of EAP (PEAP, EAP-TLS, EAP-TTLS, EAP-FAST, LEAP) and the capabilities of the hosts to support some of the features might make it difficult to implement a comprehensive and consistent policy. If any layer two filters for Ethertypes are in place, the NAP must permit the IPv6 Ethertype (0X86DD). The device that is the Layer 3 next hop for the subscribers (Access or Edge Router) should protect the network and the other subscribers against attacks by one of the provider customers. For this reason uRPF and ACLs should be used on all interfaces facing subscribers. Filtering should be implemented with regard for the operational requirements of IPv6 [Security considerations for IPv6]. Authentication and authorization should be used wherever possible. The Access and the Edge Router should protect their processing resources against floods of valid customer control traffic such as: RS, NS, MLD Requests. Rate limiting should be implemented on all subscriber facing interfaces. The emphasis should be placed on multicast type traffic as it is most often used by the IPv6 control plane. 9.5 IPv6 Network Management The necessary instrumentation (such as MIBs, NetFlow Records, etc) should be available for IPv6. Usually, NSPs manage the edge routers by SNMP. The SNMP transport can be done over IPv4 if all managed devices have connectivity over both IPv4 and IPv6. This would imply the smallest changes to the existent network management practices and processes. Transport over IPv6 could also be implemented and it might become necessary if IPv6 only islands are present in the network. The management stations are located on the core network. Network Management Applications should handle IPv6 in a similar fashion to IPv4 however they should also support features specific to IPv6 (such as Neighbor monitoring). In some cases service providers manage equipment located on customers LANs. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 69] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 10. Broadband Power Line Communications (PLC) This section describes the IPv6 deployment in Power Line Communications (PLC) Access Networks. There may be other choices, but it seems that this is the best model to follow. Lessons learnt from Cable, Ethernet and even WLAN access networks may be applicable also. Power Line Communications are also often called Broadband Power Line (BPL) and some times even Power Line Telecommunications (PLT). PLC/BPL can be used for providing, with today's technology, up to 200Mbps (total, upstream+downstream) by means of the power grid. The coverage is often the last half mile (typical distance from the Medium-to-Low Voltage transformer to the customer premise meter), and of course, as an in-home network (which is out of the scope of this document). The bandwidth in a given PLC/BPL segment is shared among all the customers connected to that segment (often the customers connected to the same medium-to-low voltage transformer). The number of customers can vary depending on different factors, such as distances and even countries (from a few customers, just 5-6, up to 100-150). PLC/BPL could also be used in the Medium Voltage network (often configured as Metropolitan Area Networks), but this is also out of the scope of this document, as it will be part of the core network, not the access one. 10.1 PLC/BPL Access Network Elements This section describes the different elements commonly used in PLC/ BPL access networks. Head End (HE): Router that connects the PLC/BPL access network (the power grid), located at the medium-to-low voltage transformer, to the core network. The HE PLC/BPL interface appears to each customer as a single virtual interface, all of them sharing the same physical media. Repeater (RPT): A device which may be required in some circumstances to improve the signal on the PLC/BPL. This may be the case if there are many customers in the same segment or building. It is often a bridge, but it could be also a router if for example there is a lot of peer-to-peer traffic in a building and due to the master-slave nature of the PLC/BPL technology, is required to improve the performance within that segment. For simplicity, in this document, it will be considered that the RPT is always a transparent layer 2 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 70] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 bridge, so it may be present or not (from the layer 3 point of view). Customer Premise Equipment (CPE): Modem (internal to the host), modem/bridge (BCPE), router (RCPE) or any combination among those (i.e. modem+bridge/router), located at the customer premise. Edge Router (ER) Figure 10.1 depicts all the network elements indicated above Customer Premise | Network Access Provider | Network Service Provider CP NAP NSP +-----+ +------+ +-----+ +------+ +--------+ |Hosts|--| RCPE |--| RPT |--------+ Head +---+ Edge | ISP +-----+ +------+ +-----+ | End | | Router +=>Network +--+---+ +--------+ +-----+ +------+ +-----+ | |Hosts|--| BCPE |--| RPT |-----------+ +-----+ +------+ +-----+ Figure 10.1 The logical topology and design of PLC/BPL is very similar to Ethernet Broadband Networks as discussed in Section 8. IP connectivity is typically provided in a Point-to-Point model as described in section 8.2.1 10.2 Deploying IPv6 in IPv4 PLC/BPL The most simplistic and efficient model, considering the nature of the PLC/BPL networks, is to see the network as a point-to-point one to each customer. Even if several customers share the same physical media, the traffic is not visible among them because each one uses different channels, which are in addition encrypted by means of 3DES. In order to maintain the deployment concepts and business models proven and used with existing revenue generating IPv4 services, the IPv6 deployment will match the IPv4 one. Under certain circumstances where new service types or service needs justify it, IPv4 and IPv6 network architectures could be different. Both approaches are very similar to those already described for the Ethernet case. 10.2.1 IPv6 Related Infrastructure Changes In this scenario only the RPT is layer 3 unaware, but the other devices have to be upgraded to dual stack Hosts, RCPE, Head End, and Edge Router. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 71] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 10.2.2 Addressing The Hosts or the RCPEs have the HE as their Layer 3 next hop. If there is no RCPE, but instead a BCPE all the hosts on the subscriber site belong to the same /64 subnet that is statically configured on the HE. The hosts can use stateless auto-configuration or stateful DHCPv6 based configuration to acquire an address via the HE. If a RCPE is present: A. It is statically configured with an address on the /64 subnet between itself and the HE, and with /64 prefixes on the interfaces connecting the hosts on the customer site. This is not a desired provisioning method being expensive and difficult to manage. B. It can use its link-local address to communicate with the HE. It can also dynamically acquire through stateless auto-configuration the address for the link between itself and the HE. This step is followed by a request via DHCP-PD for a prefix shorter than /64 (typically /48 [7]) that in turn is divided in /64s and assigned to its interfaces connecting the hosts on the customer site. This should be the preferred provisioning method, being cheaper and easier to manage. The Edge Router needs to have a prefix considering that each customer in general will receive a /48 prefix, and that each HE will accommodate customers. Consequently each HE will require n x /48 prefixes. It could be possible to use a kind of Hierarchical Prefix Delegation to automatically provision the required prefixes and fully auto- configure the HEs, and consequently reduce the network setup, operation and maintenance cost. The prefixes used for subscriber links and the ones delegated via DHCP-PD should be planned in a manner that allows as much summarization as possible at the Edge Router. Other information of interest to the host, such as DNS, is provided through stateful [10] and stateless [9] DHCPv6. 10.2.3 Routing If no routers are used on the customer premise, the HE can simply be configured with a default route that points to the Edge Router. If a router is used on the customer premise (RCPE) then the HE could also Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 72] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 run an IGP to the ER such as OSPFv3, IS-IS or even RIPng. The connected prefixes should be redistributed. If DHCP-PD is used, with every delegated prefix a static route is installed by the HE. For this reason the static routes must also be redistributed. Prefix summarization should be done at the HE. The RCPE requires only a default route pointing to the HE. No routing protocols are needed on these devices which generally have limited resources. The Edge Router runs the IPv6 IGP used in the NSP: OSPFv3 or IS-IS. The connected prefixes have to be redistributed as well as any RP other than the ones used on the ER that might be used between the HE and the ER. 10.3 IPv6 Multicast The considerations regarding IPv6 Multicast for Ethernet are also applicable here, in general, but assuming the nature of PLC/BPL being a shared media. If a lot of Multicast is expected, it may be worth considering using RPT which are layer 3 aware. In that case, one extra layer of Hierarchical DHCP-PD could be considered, in order to facilitate the deployment, operation and maintenance of the network. 10.4 IPv6 QoS The considerations introduced for QoS in Ethernet are also applicable here. PLC/BPL networks support QoS, which basically are no different whether the transport is IPv4 or IPv6. It is necessary to understand that the specific network characteristics, such as the variability that may be introduced by electrical noise, towards which the PLC/BPL network will automatically self-adapt. 10.5 IPv6 Security Considerations There are no differences in terms of security considerations if compared with the Ethernet case. 10.6 IPv6 Network Management Conceptually network management in PLC Networks should be similar to Broadband Ethernet Networks as described in section 8.6. Although there could be a need to develop some PLC specific MIBs. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 73] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 11. Gap Analysis Several aspects of deploying IPv6 over SP Broadband networks were highlighted in this document, aspects that require additional work in order to facilitate native deployments as summarized below: A. As mentioned in section 6, changes will need to be made to the DOCSIS specification in order for SPs to deploy native IPv6 over cable networks. The CM and CMTS will both need to support IPv6 natively in order to forward IPv6 unicast and multicast traffic. This is required for IPv6 Neighbor Discovery to work over DOCSIS cable networks. Additional classifiers need to be added to the DOCSIS specification in order to classify IPv6 traffic at the CM and CMTS in order to provide QoS. These issues are addressed in a recent proposal made to Cable Labs for DOCSIS 3.0 [31]. B. Currently the DHCP-PD functionality cannot be implemented if the DHCP-PD server is not the Edge Router (CPE's layer 3 next hop). If the DHCP-PD messages are relayed, the Edge Router does not have a mechanism to learn the assigned prefixes and thus install the proper routes to make that prefix reachable. Work needs to be done to address this issue, one idea being to provide the Edge Router with a snooping mechanism. The uplink to the ISP network is configured with a /64 prefix as well. C. Section 7 stated that current RBE based IPv4 deployment might not be the best approach for IPv6 where the addressing space available gives the SP the opportunity to separate the users on different subnets. The differences between IPv4 RBE and IPv6 RBE were highlighted in section 7. If however, support and reason is found for a deployment similar to IPv4 RBE, then the environment becomes NBMA and the new feature should observe RFC2491 recommendations. D. Section 7 discussed the constraints imposed on a LAA based IPv6 deployment by the fact that it is expected that the subscribers keep their assigned prefix regardless of LNS. A deployment approach was proposed that would maintain the addressing schemes contiguous and offers prefix summarization opportunities. The topic could be further investigated for other solutions or improvements. E. Sections 7 and 8 pointed out the limitations (previously documented in [32]) in deploying inter-domain ASM however, SSM based services seem more likely at this time. For such SSM based services of content delivery (video or Audio), mechanisms are needed to facilitate the billing and management of listeners. The currently available feature of MLD AAA is suggested however, other methods or mechanisms might be developed and proposed. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 74] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 F. In relation to section 9, concerns have been raised related to running IPv6 multicast over WLAN links. Potentially these are same kind of issues when running any Layer 3 protocol over a WLAN link that has a high loss-to-signal ratio, certain frames that are multicast based are dropped when settings are not adjusted properly. For instance this behavior is similar to IGMP host membership report, when done on a WLAN link with high loss-to-signal ratio and high interference. This problem is inherited to WLAN that can impact both IPv4 and IPv6 multicast packets and not specific to IPv6 multicast. G. The Privacy Extensions were mentioned as a popular means to provide some form of host security. ISPs can track relatively easily the prefixes assigned to subscribers. If however the ISPs are required by regulations to track their users at host address level, the Privacy Extensions [13] can be implemented only in parallel with network management tools that could provide traceability of the hosts. Mechanisms should be defined to implement this aspect of user management. H. Tunnels are an effective way to avoid deployment dependencies on the IPv6 support on platforms that are out of the SP control (GWRs or CPEs) or over technologies that did not standardize the IPv6 support yet (cable). They can be used in the following ways: i. Tunnels directly to the CPE or GWR with public or private IPv4 addresses. ii. Tunnels directly to hosts with public or private IPv4 addresses. Recommendations on the exact tunneling mechanisms that can/should be used for last mile access need to be investigated further and should be covered in a future IETF draft. I. Through its larger address space, IPv6 allows SPs to assign fixed, globally routable prefixes to the links connecting each subscriber. This approach changes the provisioning methodologies that were used for IPv4. Static configuration of the IPv6 addresses for all these links on the Edge Routers or Access Routers might not be a scalable option. New provisioning mechanisms or features might need to be developed in order to deal with this issue, such as automatic mapping of VLAN IDs/PVCs (or other customer-specific information) to IPv6 prefixes. J. New deployment models are emerging for the Layer 2 portion of the NAP where individual VLANs are not dedicated to each subscriber. This approach allows Layer 2 switches to aggregate more then 4096 users. MAC Forced Forwarding [MFF] is an example of such an implementation where a broadcast domain is turned into a NBMA like Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 75] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 environment by forwarding the frames based on both Source and Destination MAC addresses. Since these models are being adopted by the field, the implications of deploying IPv6 in such environments need to be further investigated. K. The deployment of IPv6 in continuously evolving access service models raises some issues that may need further investigation. Examples of such topics are [37]: i. Network Service Selection & Authentication(NSSA) mechanisms working in association with stateless auto-configuration. As an example, NSSA relevant information such as ISP preference, passwords or profile ID can be sent by hosts with the RS. ii. Adding additional information in Router Advertisements to help access nodes with prefix selection in multi-ISP/multi-homed environment. The outcome of solutions to some of these topics ranges from making a media access capable of supporting native IPv6 (cable) to improving operational aspects of native IPv6 deployments. 12. IANA Considerations This document requests no action by IANA. 13. Security Considerations Please refer to the individual "IPv6 Security Considerations" technology sections for details. 14. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Brian Carpenter, Patrick Grossetete, Toerless Eckert, Madhu Sudan, Shannon McFarland and Benoit Lourdelet, Fred Baker for their valuable comments. The authors would like to acknowledge the structure and information guidance provided by the work of Mickels et al on Transition Scenarios for ISP Networks. 15. References 15.1 Normative References [1] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. [2] Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I., and D. Lento, "IPv6 Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 76] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Tunnel Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001. [3] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. [4] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998. [5] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999. [6] Huitema, C., Austein, R., Satapati, S., and R. van der Pol, "Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks", RFC 3904, September 2004. [7] IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to Sites", RFC 3177, September 2001. [8] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. [9] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. [10] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [11] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. [12] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003. [13] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001. [14] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999. [15] Gross, G., Kaycee, M., Lin, A., Malis, A., and J. Stephens, "PPP Over AAL5", RFC 2364, July 1998. [16] Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472, December 1998. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 77] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 [17] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. [18] Meyer, D. and P. Lothberg, "GLOP Addressing in 233/8", RFC 2770, February 2000. [19] St. Johns, M., "DOCSIS Cable Device MIB Cable Device Management Information Base for DOCSIS compliant Cable Modems and Cable Modem Termination Systems", RFC 2669, August 1999. [20] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, December 2003. [21] Fenner, B. and D. Meyer, "Multicast Source Discovery Protocol (MSDP)", RFC 3618, October 2003. [22] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004. [23] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. [24] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P. Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005. 15.2 Informative References [25] Shirasaki, Y., Miyakawa, S., and A. Takenouchi, "A Model of IPv6/IPv4 Dual Stack Internet Access Service(draft-shirasaki-dualstack-service-04.txt)", April 2004. [26] De Clercq, J., Ooms, D., Prevost, S., and F. Le Faucheur, "Connecting IPv6 Islands across IPv4 Clouds with BGP(draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-04.txt)", October 2004. [27] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., Talwar, M., and D. Thaler, "Intra- Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)(draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-12.txt)", January 2003. [28] Palet, J., Diaz, M., and P. Savola, "Analysis of IPv6 Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms(draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-03.txt)", January 2005. [29] Palet, J., Olvera, C., and D. Fernandez, "Forwarding Protocol 41 in NAT Boxes(draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03.txt)", Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 78] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 October 2003. [30] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers(draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06.txt)", September 2004. [31] Cisco, Systems., "DOCSIS 3.0 Proposal", April 2005. [32] Savola, P., "IPv6 Multicast Deployment Issues(draft-mboned-ipv6-multicast-issues.txt)", April 2004. [33] Cable, Labs., "Radio Frequency Interface Specification SP- RFIv2.0-I02-020617", June 2002. [34] Bhaskar, N., Gall, A., and S. Venaas, "Bootstrap Router (BSR) Mechanism for PIM(draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-04.txt)", January 2005. [35] Palet, J., Nielsent, K., Parent, F., Durand, A., Suryanarayanan, R., and P. Savola, "Goals for Tunneling Configuration(draft-palet-v6tc-goals-tunneling-00.txt)", August 2005. [36] Convery, S. and D. Miller, "IPv6 and IPv4 Threat Comparison and Best-Practice Evaluation", March 2004. [37] Wen, H., Zhu, X., Jiang, Y., and R. Yan, "The deployment of IPv6 stateless auto-configuration in access network", June 2005. Authors' Addresses Salman Asadullah Cisco Systems 170 West Tasman Drive San Jose, CA 95134 USA Phone: 408 526 8982 Email: sasad@cisco.com Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 79] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Adeel Ahmed Cisco Systems 2200 East President George Bush Turnpike Richardson, TX 75082 USA Phone: 469 255 4122 Email: adahmed@cisco.com Ciprian Popoviciu Cisco Systems 7025-6 Kit Creek Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA Phone: 919 392 3723 Email: cpopovic@cisco.com Pekka Savola CSC - Scientific Computing Ltd. Espoo Finland Email: psavola@funet.fi Jordi Palet Martinez Consulintel San Jose Artesano, 1 Alcobendas, Madrid E-28108 Spain Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 80] Internet-Draft ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in BB June 2005 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Asadullah, et al. Expires December 3, 2005 [Page 81]