v6ops V. Kuarsingh, Ed. Internet-Draft Rogers Communications Intended status: Informational L. Howard Expires: May 30, 2012 Time Warner Cable November 27, 2011 Wireline Incremental IPv6 draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6-00 Abstract Operators worldwide are in various stages of preparing for, or deploying IPv6 into their networks. The operators often face challenges related to both IPv6 introduction along with a growing risk of IPv4 run out within their organizations. The overall problem for many operators will be to meet the simultaneous needs of IPv6 connectivity and continue support for IPv4 connectivity for legacy devices and systems with a depleting supply of IPv4 addresses. The overall transition will take most networks from an IPv4-Only environment to a dual stack network environment and potentially an IPv6-Only operating mode. This document helps provide a framework for Wireline providers who may be faced with many of these challenges as they consider what IPv6 transition technologies to use, how to use the selected technologies and when to use them. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on May 30, 2012. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Operator Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. IPv4 Resource Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. IPv6 Introduction and Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.4. Service Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5. Sub-Optimal Operation of Transition Technologies . . . . . 7 4. IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.1. Automatic Tunnelling using 6to4 and Teredo . . . . . . . . 8 4.2. Carrier Grade NAT (NAT444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.3. 6RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.4. Native Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.5. DS-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.6. NAT64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IPv6 Transition Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1. Phase 0 - Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1.1. Phase 0 - Foundation: Training . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5.1.2. Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1.3. Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security . . 12 5.1.4. Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture . . . . 12 5.1.5. Phase 0- Foundation: Tools and Management . . . . . . 13 5.2. Phase 1 - Tunnelled IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.1. 6RD Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5.3. Phase 2: Native Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5.3.1. Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations . . . . . 16 5.4. Intermediate Phase for CGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.4.1. CGN Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.5. Phase 3 - Tunnelled IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 5.5.1. DS-Lite Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 20 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 1. Introduction This draft sets out to help wireline operators in planning their IPv6 deployments, while ensuring continued support for IPv6-incapable consumer devices and applications. We will identify which technologies can be used incrementally to transition from IPv4-only to an efficient IPv6/IPv4 dual stack environment. Some plans may also include IPv6-Only end state targets, but there is not clear consensus on how long IPv4 support is required, and IPv6-Only generally means withdrawing IPv4 mechanisms. Although no single plan will work for for all operators, options listed herein provide a baseline which can be included in many plans. This draft is intended for wireline environments including Cable, DSL and/or Fibre as the access method to the end consumer. This draft also attempts to follow the methodologies set out in [I-D.ietf-v6ops- v4v6tran-framework] to identify how the technologies can be used individually and in combination. This document also attempts to follow the principles laid out in [RFC6180] which provides guidance on using IPv6 transition mechanisms. This document will show how well defined technologies such as 6RD [RFC5969], DS-Lite [RFC6333] and Carrier Grade NAT (NAT44 without tunnelling as distinct from DS- Lite) used with native dual stack to deliver effective IPv4 and IPv6 services in an evolving wireline network. 2. Operator Assumptions For the purposes of this document, assume: - The operator is considering deploying IPv6 - The operator has a legacy IPv4 customer base which will continue to exist - The operator will want to minimize the level of disruption to the existing and new customers by minimizing number of technologies and functions that are needed to mediate any given set of customer flows (overall preference for Native IP flows) - The operator is able to run Dual Stack on their own core network and to transition their own services to support IPv6 Based on these assumptions, an operator will want to use technologies which minimize the number of flows being tunnelled, translated or intercepted at any given time. Technology selections would be made to manage the non dominant flows and allow Native IP routing (IPv4 and/or IPv6) for the dominant traffic. This allows the operator to Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 minimize the cost of IPv6 transition technologies by containing the scale required by the relevant systems. 3. Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach When faced with the challenges described in the Introduction, operators may need to consider a phased approach when adding IPv6 to an existing IPv4 service. A phased approach addresses many challenges: - IPv4 exhaustion may occur long before most traffic is able to delivered over IPv6 - IPv6 will pose operational challenges, since much of the software, and in some cases the hardware to run it at scale, will be new. Further, the operational processes will be relatively new - Connectivity modes will move from single stack to dual stack in the Home Changing functional behaviours in the home network add complexity to user support These challenges will likely occur over time which means the operator's plans need to address the every changing requirements of the network and customer demand. The following few sections highlight some of the key reasons why a phased approach to IPv6 transition may be warranted and desired. Although phases will be presented in this document, not all operators may need to enable each desecrate phase. It is possible that characteristics in individual networks may allow certain operators to skip various phases. 3.1. Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4 Over the next few years, both IPv4 and IPv6 will play a role in the Internet experience. Many customers use older operating systems and hardware which support IPv4-Only. Internet customers don't buy IPv4 or IPv6 connections, they buy Internet connections, which demands the need to support both IPv4 and IPv6 for as long at the customer's home network demands such support. The Internet is made of of many interconnecting systems, networks, hardware, software and content sources - all of which will move to IPv6 at different rates. The Operator's mandate during this time of transition will be to support connectivity to both IPv6 and IPv4 through various technological means. The operator may be able to leverage one or the other protocol to help bridge connectivity, but Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 the home network will demand both IPv4 and IPv6 for some time. 3.2. IPv4 Resource Challenges Since connectivity to IPv4-Only endpoints and/or content will remain common, IPv4 resource challenges are of key concern to operators. The lack of new IPv4 addressees for additional endpoints means that growth in demand of IPv4 connections in some networks will be based on address sharing. Networks are growing at different rates based on emerging markets and/or proliferation of Internet based services and endpoints: growth on the Internet will continue. IPv4 address constraints will likely affect many if not most operators at some point. IPv4 exhaustion is a primary consideration for technologies which rely on IPv4 to supply IPv6 services, such as 6RD. Also, if Native Dual Stack is considered by the operator, challenges on the IPv4 path is also of concern. Some operators may be able to reclaim some IPv4 addresses through efficiency in the network and replacement of globally-unique IPv4 assignments with private addresses [RFC1918]. These measures are tactical and do not support a longer term strategic option. The lack of new IPv4 addresses will therefore force operators to support some form of IPv4 address sharing and may impact technological options for transition once the operator runs out of new IPv4 addresses for assignment. 3.3. IPv6 Introduction and Maturity The introduction of IPv6 will require the operationalization of IPv6. The IPv4 environment we have today was built over many years and matured by experience. Although many of these experiences are transferable from IPv4 to IPv6, new experience specific to IPv6 will be needed. Engineering and Operational staff will need to develop experience with IPv6. Inexperience may lead to instability, and Operators should consider this when selecting technologies for early transition. Operators may not want to subject their mature IPv4 service to a "new IPv6" path initially while it may be going through growing pains. DS-Lite is one such technology, which requires IPv6 to support IPv4. Further, some of these technologies are new and require refinement within running code and support. Deployment experience may be needed to expose bugs and stabilize software in production environments. Many supporting systems are also under development and have newly developed IPv6 functionality including vendor implementations of Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 DHCPv6, Management Tools, Monitoring Systems, Diagnostic systems, along with other systems. Although the base technological capabilities exist to enable and run IPv6 in most environments, it may not be as robust as IPv4, and until such time as each key technical member of an operator's organization can identify IPv6, understand its relevance to the IP Service offering, how it operates and how to troubleshoot it - it's still maturing. 3.4. Service Management Services are managed within most networks and are often based on the gleaning and monitoring of IPv4 addresses. Operators will need to address such management tools, troubleshooting methods and storage facilities (such as databases) to deal with not just a new address type containing 128-bits, but often both IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time. Examination of address type, and recording CIDR blocks instead of single addresses, may require additional development. With any Dual Stack service - whether Native, 6RD based, DS-Lite based or otherwise - two address families need to be managed simultaneously to help provide for the full Internet experience. In the early transition phases, it's quite likely that many systems will be missed and that IPv6 services will go un-monitored and impairments undetected. These issues may be of consideration when selecting technologies which require IPv6 as the base protocol to delivery IPv4. Instability on the IPv6 service in such case would impact IPv4 services. 3.5. Sub-Optimal Operation of Transition Technologies When considering native dual-stack versus a transition technology, note that native paths are well understood and networks are optimized to send traffic efficiently. Transition technologies may alter the normal path of traffic. Tunnel servers or translation relays may not be located on the shortest path, may increase latency, and may add a single point of failure. To minimize risk, an operator should use transition technologies for the lesser-used address family. During earlier phases of transition, IPv6 traffic volumes may be lower, so tunnelling of IPv6 traffic may be reasonable. Over time, these traffic volumes will increase, raising the benefits of native delivery of this traffic. Then, as IPv4 content diminishes, translation and tunnelling of IPv4 may be acceptable. Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 When IPv6 tunnelling is used, an operator may not want to enable IPv6 for their services, especially high traffic services. Likewise, when CGN is deployed, the operation may wish to promote IPv6 access. 4. IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis Operators should understand the main transition technologies for IPv6 deployment and IPv4 runout. This draft provides a brief description of some of the mainstream options. This analysis is focused on the applicability of technologies to deliver residential services and less focused on commercial access or infrastructure support. The technologies in focus for this document are targeted on those commercially available and in deployment. 4.1. Automatic Tunnelling using 6to4 and Teredo Even when operators may not be actively deploying IPv6, automatic mechanisms exist on customer operating systems and hardware . Such technologies include 6to4 [RFC3056] which is most commonly used with anycast relays [RFC3068]. Teredo [RFC4380] is also used widely by many Internet hosts. Documents such as [RFC6343] have been written to help operators understand observed problems and provide guidelines on how to manage such protocols. An Operator may want to provide local relays for 6to4 and/or Teredo to help improve the protocol's performance for ambient traffic utilizing these IPv6 connectivity methods. Experiences such as those described in [I-D.jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6- experiences] show that local relays have proved beneficial to 6to4 protocol performance. Operators should also be aware of breakage cases for 6to4 if non- RFC1918 address are used for CGN zones. Many off the shelf CPEs and operating systems may turn on 6to4 without a valid return path to the originating (local) host. This particular use is likely to occur if any space other than [RFC1918] is used, including Shared CGN Space[I- D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] or space registered to another organization (squatted space). The operator can use 6to4-PMT [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] or attempt to block 6to4 operation entirely by blocking 2002::/16 at its edges. 4.2. Carrier Grade NAT (NAT444) Carrier Grade NAT (GGN), specifically as deployed in a NAT444 scenario [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements], may prove beneficial for those operators who offer Dual Stack services to customer endpoints Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 once they exhaust their pools of IPv4 addresses. CGNs, and address sharing overall, are known to cause certain challenges for the IPv4 service [RFC6269], but will often be necessary for a time. In a network where IPv4 address availability is low, CGN may provide continued access to IPv4 endpoints. Other technologies (4rd, IVI) may also be used in place of the NAT444 model with CGN. Some of the advantages of using CGN include the similarities in provisioning and activation of IPv4 hosts within a network and operational procedures in managing such hosts or CPEs (i.e. DHCPv6, DNSv4, TFTP, TR-069 etc). When considered in the overall IPv6 transition, CGN may play a vital role in the delivery of Internet services. 4.3. 6RD 6RD [RFC5969] does provide a quick and effective way to deliver IPv6 services to customers who do not yet support Native. 6RD provides tunnelled connectivity for IPv6 over the existing IPv4 path. As the access edge is upgraded and customer premise equipment is replaced, 6RD can be superseded by Native IPv6 access. 6RD can be delivered along with CGN, but then no traffic would be native; all traffic would be intermediated. 6RD may also be advantageous during the early transition while IPv6 traffic volumes are low. During this period, the operator can gain experience with IPv6 on the core and improve their peering framework to match those of the IPv4 service. 6RD scales easily by adding relays. As IPv6 traffic volume grows, the operator can gradually replace 6RD with native IPv6. 6RD client support is required, but most currently deployed CPEs do not have 6RD client functionality built into them and may not be upgradable. 6RD deployments would most likely require the replacement of the home CPE. An advantage of this technology over DS-Lite is that the WAN side interface does not need to implement IPv6 to function correctly which may make it easier to deploy to field hardware which is restricted in memory footprint, processing power and storage space. 6RD will also require parameter configuration which can be powered by the operator through DHCPv4, manually provisioned on the CPE or automatically through some other means. Manual provisioning would likely limit deployment scale. 4.4. Native Dual Stack Native Dual Stack is often referred to as the "Gold Standard" of IPv6 and IPv4 delivery. It is a method of service delivery which is Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 already used in many existing IPv6 deployments. Native Dual Stack does however require that Native IPv6 be delivered to the customer premise. This technology option is desirable in many cases and can be used immediately if the access network and customer premise equipment supports Native IPv6 to the operator's access network. An operator who runs out of IPv4 addresses to assign to customers will not be able to provide Native Dual Stack. For a sub-set of the IPv6 Native Customers, operators may include IPv4 through a CGN. Delivering Native Dual Stack would require the operator's core and access network support IPv6. Additionally, other systems like DHCPv6, DNS, and diagnostic/management facilities need to be upgraded to support IPv6. The upgrade of such systems may often not be trivial. 4.5. DS-Lite Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite, [RFC6333]) provides IPv4 services to customer networks which are only addressed with IPv6. DS-Lite provides tunnelled connectivity for IPv4 over an IPv6 path between the customer's network device and a provider managed gateway (AFTR). DS-Lite can only be used where there is native IPv6 connectivity between the AFTR and the customer premise endpoint. This may mean that the technology's use may not be viable during early transition. The operator may also not want to subject the customers' IPv4 connection to the IPv6 path. The provider may also want to make sure that most of their internal services, and external content is available over IPv6 before deploying DS-Lite. This would lower the overall load on the AFTR devices helping reduce. By sharing IPv4 addresses among multiple endpoints, like a CGN, DS- Lite can facilitate continued growth of IPv4 services even at runout. There are some functional considerations [draft-donley-nat444-impacts]. Similar to 6RD, DS-Lite requires client support on the CPE to function. Client functionality is likely to be more prevalent in the future as IPv6 capable (WAN side) CPEs begin to penetrate the market. This includes both retail and operator provided gateways. 4.6. NAT64 NAT64 [RFC6146] provides the ability to connect IPv6-Only connected clients and hosts to IPv4 Servers (or other like hosts). NAT64 requires that the host and home network supports IPv6-Only modes of operation. This type of environment is not considered typical in Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 most traditional Wireline connections. In the future, NAT64 may become more viable for Wireline providers as home networking environments support IPv6-Only. In the meantime, DS- Lite provides in-home IPv4 services over an IPv6-Only network (WAN). 5. IPv6 Transition Phases The Phases described in this document are not provided as a rigid set of steps, but are considered a guideline which should be analyzed by an operator planning their IPv6 transition. Operators may choose to skip steps based on technological capabilities within their specific networks. The phases are based on an expectation that IPv6 traffic volume will initially be low, and operator staff will gain experience with IPv6 over time. As volume of IPv6 increases, IPv4 traffic volume will correspondingly decrease, until IPv6 is predominant. For each phase, the predominant address family should be native, while mediation (tunnelling or translation) may be acceptable for the smaller traffic volume. Additional guidance and information on utilizing IPv6 transition mechanisms can be found in [RFC6180]. Also, guidance on incremental CGN for IPv6 transition can also be found in [RFC6264]. 5.1. Phase 0 - Foundation 5.1.1. Phase 0 - Foundation: Training Training is one of the most important steps in preparing an organization to support IPv6. Most people have little experience with IPv6, and many do not even have a solid grounding in IPv4. Since there are likely to be challenges with implementing IPv6 - due to immature code on hardware, and the evolution of many applications and systems to support IPv6 - organizations must train their staff on IPv6. Training should also be provided within reasonable timelines from actual IPv6 deployment. This means the operator needs to plan in advance as they train the various parts of their organization. New Technology and Engineering staff often receive little training because of their depth of knowledge, but must at least be provided opportunities to read documentation, architectural white papers, and RFCs. Operations staff who support the network and other systems need to be trained closer to the deployment timeframes, so they immediately use their new-found knowledge before forgetting. Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 Customer support staff would require much more basic, but large scale training as many organizations have massive call centres to support the customer base. 5.1.2. Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing The network infrastructure will need to be in place to support IPv6. This includes the routed infrastructure along with addressing principles, routing principles, peering policy and related network functions. Since IPv6 is quite different from IPv4 in number of ways including the number of addresses which are made available, careful attention to a scalable and manageable architecture needs to be made. Also, given that home networks environments will no longer receive a token single address as is common in IPv4, operators will need to understand the impacts of delegating larges sums of addresses (prefixes) to consumer endpoints. Delegating prefixes can be of specific importance in access network environments where downstream customers often move between access nodes, raising the concern of frequent renumbering and/or managing movement of routed prefixes within the network (common in cable based networks). 5.1.3. Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security Many, but not all, security policies will map easily from IPv4 to IPv6. Some new policies may be required for issues specific to IPv6 operation. This document does not highlight these specific issues, but raises the awareness they are of consideration and should be addressed when delivering IPv6 services. Other IETF documents ([RFC4942], [RFC6092], [RFC6169], for instance) are excellent resources. 5.1.4. Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture The operator should plan out their transition architecture in advance (with room for flexibility) to help optimize how they will build out and scale their networks. If the operator should want to use multiple technologies like CGN, DS-Lite and 6RD, they may want to plan out where such equipment may be located and potentially choose locations which can be used for all three functional roles (i.e. placement of NAT44 translator, AFTR and 6RD relays). This would allow for the least disruption as the operator evolves the transition environment to meet the needs of the network. This approach may also prove beneficial if traffic patterns change rapidly in the future and the operator may need to evolve their network faster than originally anticipated. Operators should inform their vendors of what technologies they plan to support over the course of the transition to make sure the Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 equipment is suited to support those modes of operation. This is important for both network gear and customer premise equipment. 5.1.5. Phase 0- Foundation: Tools and Management The operator should thoroughly analyze all provisioning and operations systems to develop requirements for each phase. This will include address concepts related to the 128-bit addressing field, the notation of an assigned IPv6 prefix (PD) and the ability to detect either or both address families when determining if a customer has full Internet service. If an operator stores usage information, this would need to be aggregated to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 traffic flows. Also, tools that verify connectivity may need to query the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. 5.2. Phase 1 - Tunnelled IPv6 Many network operators can deploy native IPv6 from access edge to peering edge fairly quickly. Others, may want to support IPv6 services before they can support native IPv6. During this period of time, tunnelled access to IPv6 is a viable alternative to Native IPv6. Even while slowly rolling out native IPv6, operators can deploy relays for automatic tunnelling technologies like 6to4 and Teredo. Where native IPv6 is a longer-term project, operators can consider 6RD [RFC5969]. Note that 6to4 and Teredo have different address selection behaviours from 6RD [RFC3484]. Additional guidelines on deploying and supporting 6to4 can be found in [RFC6343]. The operator can deploy 6RD relays easily and scale them as needed to meet the early customer needs of IPv6. Since 6RD requires the upgrade or replacement of CPE gateways, the operator may want ensure that the gateways support not just 6RD but Native Dual Stack and other tunnelling technologies if possible. 6RD clients are now available in some retail channel products and within the OEM market. Retail availability of 6RD is important since not all operators control or have influence over what equipment is deployed in the consumer home network. Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 +--------+ ----- | | / \ Encap IPv6 Flow | 6RD | | IPv6 | - - -> | BR | <- > | Net | +---------+ / | | \ / | | / +--------+ ----- | 6RD + <----- ----- | | / \ | Client | IPv4 Flow | IPv4 | | + < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> | Net | | | \ / +---------+ ----- Figure 1: 6RD Basic Model 6RD used as an initial phase technology also provides the added benefit of a deterministic IPv6 prefix which is based on the IPv4 assigned address. Many operational tools are available or have been built to identify what IPv4 (often dynamic) address was assigned to a customer host/CPE. So a simple tool and/or method can be built to help the operational staff in an organization know that the IPv6 prefix is for 6RD based on knowledge of the IPv4 address. An operator may choose to not offer internal services over IPv6 if such services generate a large amount of traffic. This mode of operation should avoid the need to greatly increase the scale of the 6RD Relay environment. 5.2.1. 6RD Deployment Considerations Deploying 6RD can greatly speed up an operator's ability to support IPv6 to the customer network. Consider by whom the system would be deployed, provisioned, scaled and managed. The first core consideration is deployment models. 6RD requires the CPE (6RD client) to send traffic to a 6RD relay. These relays can share a common anycast address, or can use unique addresses. Using an anycast model, the operator can deploy all the 6RD relays using the same IPv4 interior service address. As the load increases on the deployed relays, the operator can deploy more relays into the network. The one drawback here is that it may be difficult manage the traffic volume among additional relays, since all 6RD traffic will find the nearest (in terms of IGP cost) relay. Use of specific addresses can help provide more control but has the disadvantage of being more complex to provision as CPEs will contain different information. An alternative approach is to use a hybrid model using multiple anycast service IPs for clusters of 6RD relays should the Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 operator anticipate massive scaling of the environment. This way, the operator has multiple vectors by which to scale the service. +--------+ | | IPv4 Addr.X | 6RD | - - - > | BR | +-----------+ / | | | Client A | <- - - +--------+ +-----------+ Separate IPv4 Service Addresses +-----------+ | Client B | < - - +--------+ +-----------+ \ | | - - - > | 6RD | IPv4 Addr.Y | BR | | | +--------+ Figure 2: 6RD Multiple IPv4 Service Address Model +--------+ | | IPv4 Addr.X | 6RD | - - - > | BR | +-----------+ / | | | Client A |- - - - +--------+ +-----------+ Common (Anycast) IPv4 Service Addresses +-----------+ | Client B | - - - +--------+ +-----------+ \ | | - - - > | 6RD | IPv4 Addr.X | BR | | | +--------+ Figure 3: 6RD Anycast IPv4 Service Address Model Provisioning of the endpoints is affected by the deployment model chosen (i.e. anycast vs. specific service IPs). Using multiple IPs may require more planning and management as customer equipment will have different sets of data to be provisioned into the devices. The Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 operator may use DHCPv4, manual provisioning or other mechanisms to provide parameters to customer equipment. If the operator manages the CPE, support personnel will need tools able to report the status of the 6RD tunnel. Usage information can be counted on the operator edge, but if it requires source/ destination flow details, data must be collected after the 6RD relay (IPv6 side of connection). +---------+ IPv4 Encapsulation +------------+ | +- - - - - - - - - - - + | | 6RD +----------------------+ 6RD +--------- | | IPv6 Packet | Relay | IPv6 Packet | Client +----------------------+ +--------- | +- - - - - - - - - - - + | ^ +---------+ ^ +------------+ | | | | | IPv4 IP (Tools/Mgmt) IPv6 Flow Analysis Figure 4: 6RD Tools and Flow Management 5.3. Phase 2: Native Dual Stack Either as a follow-up phase to "Tunnelled IPv6" or as an initial step, the operator may deploy Native IPv6 to the customer premise. This phase would then allow for both IPv6 and IPv4 to be natively accessed by the customer home gateway/CPE. The Native Dual Stack phase be rolled out across the network while the tunnelled IPv6 service remains running. As areas begin to support Native IPv6, customer home equipment can be set to use it in place of technologies like 6RD. Hosts using 6to4 and/or Teredo will automatically prefer [RFC3484] the IPv6 address delivered via Native IPv6 (assumed to be a Delegated Prefix as per [RFC3769]). Native Dual Stack is the best option, and should be sought as soon as possible. During this phase, the operator can confidently move both internal and external services to IPv6. Since there are no translation devices needed for this mode of operation, it transports both protocols (IPv6 and IPv4) efficiently within the network. 5.3.1. Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations Native Dual Stack is a very desirable option for deployment. The operator must enable IPv6 at the network core and peering before they attempt to turn on Native IPv6 services. Additionally, provisioning Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 and support systems such as DHCPv6, DNS and other functions which support the customer's IPv6 Internet connection need to be in place. The operator must treat IPv6 connectivity as seriously as IPv4. Poor IPv6 service may be worse than not offering an IPv6 service at all, since users will disable IPv6, which will be difficult for the operator to reverse. New code and IPv6 functionality may cause instability at first. The operator will need to monitor, troubleshoot and resolve issues promptly. Prefix assignment and routing are new for common residential services. Prefix assignment is straightforward (DHCPv6 using IA_PDs), but installation and propagation of routing information for the prefix, especially during access layer instability, is often poorly understood. The Operator should develop processes for renumbering customers who they move to a new Access nodes. Operators need to keep track of both the dynamically assigned IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. Any additional dynamic elements, such as auto- generated DNS names, need to be considered and planned for. 5.4. Intermediate Phase for CGN At some point during the first two phases, acquiring more IPv4 addresses may become challenging or impossible, therefore CGN may be required on the IPv4 path. The CGN infrastructure can be enabled if needed during either phase. CGN is less optimal in a 6RD deployment (if used with 6RD to a given endpoint) since all traffic must transverse some type of operator service node (relay and translator). +--------+ ----- | | / \ IPv4 Flow | CGN | | | - - -> + + < -> | | +---------+ / | | | | | CPE | <- - - / +--------+ | IPv4 | |---------+ | Net | | | +---------+ IPv4 Flow | | | CPE | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > | | |---------+ \ / ----- Figure 5: Overlay CGN Deployment In the case of Native Dual Stack, CGN can be used to assist in Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 extending connectivity for the IPv4 path while the IPv6 path remains native. For endpoints operating in a IPv6+CGN model the Native IPv6 path is available for higher quality connectivity helping host operation over the network while the CGN path may offer a less then optimal performance. +--------+ ----- | | / \ IPv4 Flow | CGN | | IPv4 | - - -> + + < -> | Net | +---------+ / | | \ / | | <- - - / +--------+ ------- | Dual | | Stack | ----- | CPE | IPv6 Flow / IPv6 \ | | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > | Net | |---------+ \ / ----- Figure 6: Dual Stack with CGN CGN deployments may make use of a number of address options which include RFC1918 or Shared CGN Address Space [I-D.weil-shared- transition-space-request]. It is also possible that operators may use part of their own RIR assigned address space for CGN zone addressing if RFC918 addresses pose technical challenges in their network. It is not recommended that operators use squat space as it may pose additional challenges with filtering and policy control. 5.4.1. CGN Deployment Considerations CGN is often considered undesirable by operators but required in many cases. An operator who needs to deploy CGN services should consider it's impacts to the network. CGN is often deployed in addition to running IPv4 services and should not negatively impact the already working Native IPv4 service. CGNs will also be needed at low scale at first and grown to meet future demands based on traffic and connection dynamics of the customer, content and network peers. The operator may want to deploy CGNs more centrally at first and then scale the system as needed. This approach can help conserve costs of the system and only spend money on equipment with the actual growth of traffic (demand on CGN system). The operator will need a deployment model and architecture which allows the system to scale as needed. Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 +--------+ ----- | | / \ | CGN | | | - - -> + + < -> | | +---------+ / | | | | | CPE | <- - - / +--------+ | IPv4 | | | ^ | | |---------+ | | Net | +--------+ Centralized | | +---------+ | | CGN | | | | | CGN | | | | CPE | <- > + + <- - - - - - - > | | |---------+ | | \ / +--------+ ----- ^ | Distributed CGN Figure 7: CGN Deployment: Centralized vs. Distributed The operator may be required to log translation information [draft-sivakumar-behave-nat-logging]. This logging may require significant investment in external systems which ingest, aggregate and report on such information [draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]. Since CGN has impacts on some applications [draft-donley-nat444-impacts], operators may deploy CGN only for those customers who do not use affected applications. Affected customers could be selected by observing usage, or by offering CGN and Native IPv4 for different prices. 5.5. Phase 3 - Tunnelled IPv4 Once Native IPv6 is ubiquitous, and well-supported by tools, staff, and processes, an operator may consider Dual-Stack Lite. DS-Lite allows growth of the IPv4 customer base using IPv4 address sharing for IPv4 Internet connectivity, but with only a single layer of translation, compared to CGN (NAT44). This mode of operation also removes the need to directly address customer endpoints with an IPv4 address simplifying the connectivity to the customer (single address family). The operator can also move IPv4 endpoints (Dual Stack) to DS-Lite retroactively to reclaim IPv4 addresses for redeployment. To minimize traffic needing translation, the operator should have already moved most content to IPv6 before this phase. Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 +--------+ ----- | | / \ Encap IPv4 Flow | AFTR | | IPv4 | -------+ +---+ Net | +---------+ / | | \ / | | / +--------+ ----- | DS-Lite +------- ----- | | / \ | Client | IPv6 Flow | IPv6 | | +-------------------------------| Net | | | \ / +---------+ ----- Figure 8: DS-Lite Basic Model If the operator was forced to enable CGN for a NAT444 deployment, they may be able to co-locate the AFTR and CGN functions within the network to simplify capacity management and the engineering of flows. DS-Lite however requires configuration of the CPE and the implementation of the AFTR. 5.5.1. DS-Lite Deployment Considerations The same deployment considerations associated with Native IPv6 deployments apply to DS-LIte. IPv4 will now be dependent on IPv6 service quality, so the IPv6 network and service must be running well to ensure a quality experience for the end customer. Tools and processes will be needed to manage the encapsulated IPv4 service. If flow analysis is required for IPv4 traffic, this should be enabled at a point beyond the AFTR (after de-capsulation). +---------+ IPv4 Encapsulation +------------+ | + - - - - - - - - - - -+ | | AFTR +----------------------+ AFTR +--------- | | IPv4 Packet | | IPv4 Packet | Client +----------------------+ +--------- | + - - - - - - - - - - -+ | ^ +---------+ ^ +------------+ | | | | | IPv6 IP (Tools/Mgmt) IPv4 Packet Flow Analysis Figure 9: DS-Lite Tools and Flow Analysis DS-Lite also requires client support. The operator must clearly articulate to vendors which technologies will be used at which Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 points, how they interact with each other at the CPE, and how they will be provisioned. As an example, an operator may use 6RD in the outset of the transition, then move to Native Dual Stack followed by DS-Lite. 6. IANA Considerations No IANA considerations are defined at this time. 7. Security Considerations No Additional Security Considerations are made in this document. 8. Acknowledgements Thanks to the following people for their textual contributions and/or guidance on IPv6 deployment considerations: John Brzozowski, Jason Weil, Nik Lavorato, John Cianfarani, Chris Donley, Wesley George and Tina TSOU. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework] Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and V. Kuarsingh, "Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios", draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-02 (work in progress), July 2011. [RFC6180] Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180, May 2011. 9.2. Informative References [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U. Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03 (work in progress), November 2011. [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NAT (CGN)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-04 (work in progress), October 2011. [I-D.jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences] Brzozowski, J. and C. Griffiths, "Comcast IPv6 Trial/ Deployment Experiences", draft-jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences-02 (work in progress), October 2011. [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] Kuarsingh, V., Lee, Y., and O. Vautrin, "6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels", draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-04 (work in progress), September 2011. [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and M. Azinger, "IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN Space", draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-09 (work in progress), October 2011. [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. [RFC3068] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", RFC 3068, June 2001. [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. [RFC3769] Miyakawa, S. and R. Droms, "Requirements for IPv6 Prefix Delegation", RFC 3769, June 2004. [RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380, February 2006. [RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/ Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942, September 2007. [RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification", Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 RFC 5969, August 2010. [RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092, January 2011. [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. [RFC6169] Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security Concerns with IP Tunneling", RFC 6169, April 2011. [RFC6264] Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264, June 2011. [RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P. Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269, June 2011. [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011. [RFC6343] Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment", RFC 6343, August 2011. Authors' Addresses Victor Kuarsingh (editor) Rogers Communications 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, Ontario L6T 0C1 Canada Email: victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com URI: http://www.rogers.com Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 November 2011 Lee Howard Time Warner Cable 13820 Sunrise Valley Drive Herndon, VA 20171 US Email: lee.howard@twcable.com URI: http://www.timewarnercable.com Kuarsingh & Howard Expires May 30, 2012 [Page 24]