idnits 2.17.1 draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 9, 2012) is 4185 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-06) exists of draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-04 == Outdated reference: A later version (-03) exists of draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-02) exists of draft-liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching-01 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2407 (Obsoleted by RFC 4306) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3633 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 6RENUM B. Carpenter 3 Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland 4 Intended status: Informational S. Jiang 5 Expires: May 13, 2013 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 6 November 9, 2012 8 Next Steps for Renumbering IPv6 Sites 9 draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00 11 Abstract 13 This document summarises for the record the next steps proposed 14 following the completion of chartered work in the 6RENUM WG. It is 15 not expected to become an RFC. 17 Status of this Memo 19 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 20 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 22 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 23 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 24 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 25 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 27 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 28 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 29 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 30 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 13, 2013. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 37 document authors. All rights reserved. 39 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 40 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 41 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 42 publication of this document. Please review these documents 43 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 44 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 45 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 46 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 47 described in the Simplified BSD License. 49 Table of Contents 51 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 2. Advice to the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3. IETF work items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 7. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 1. Introduction 63 The IPv6 Site Renumbering (6RENUM) working group completed its 64 chartered set of documents by November 2012. The present document 65 summarises for the record the next steps proposed and discussed in 66 the final WG meeting. It is posted as a draft for convenience but is 67 not expected to become an RFC. 69 The next steps are divided into two categories, after analysis of the 70 gap analysis documents in particular [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis], 71 [I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem]. Firstly, there are items that have 72 been identified as needed for site renumbering but are either not 73 widely implemented or not widely used. These items need to be 74 documented in the form of advice to the community, but do not appear 75 to require specification work in the IETF. Secondly, there are items 76 that may be useful for site renumbering, and which need specification 77 work of some kind. The two following sections address these two 78 areas. 80 2. Advice to the community 82 The following items could form part of one or more informational (or 83 possibly BCP) documents. 85 1. The long-standing advice that names, rather than numeric 86 addresses, should be used whenever possible is reiterated. In 87 general that means DNS names, but in some circumstances it might 88 mean some other form of parametric name. A specific case is that 89 IPsec security associations should use names, as allowed since 90 [RFC2407], whenever possible. 91 2. Some form of name-based service discovery should be used wherever 92 possible, rather than configuring service addresses. This could 93 be DNS-based, mDNS-based or even SLP. 94 3. Addresses used for internal traffic could be stabilised by 95 deploying a ULA prefix (as well as a globally routed prefix). 96 4. Sites should use some sort of configuration management tool. 97 This could be described as an IP address management (IPAM) tool, 98 an asset management tool, or more generally as an operational 99 support system (OSS). Its role is to populate DNS, reverse DNS, 100 DHCPv6, and router configurations. The tool should use DNS names 101 or parametric names in configuration files. See 102 [I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering]. 103 5. Include servers in DHCPv6 to avoid manual configuration. 104 6. Use Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007] where appropriate 105 (requires key management in the management tool). 107 7. Plan a renumbering procedure as part of the IPv6 network design. 108 Handy references include [RFC4192], [RFC5887], 109 [I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise], [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis], 110 [I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem]. 111 8. Avoid software license systems that rely on IP addresses. 113 Finally, it is noted that the management tool mentioned above might 114 be able to take advantage of certain features that are defined but 115 apparently not widely used. In particular, these are DHCPv6 116 RECONFIGURE/RENEW [RFC3315], DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] and ICMPv6 router 117 renumbering [RFC2894]. There is an open question whether the latter 118 is in fact usable. 120 3. IETF work items 122 These are the items identified in the 6RENUM gap analysis that appear 123 to need work in the appropriate IETF WGs. 125 1. Reconcile use of DHCPv6 and RA in an enterprise network. 126 * The DHCPv6 and ND state machines inside a host influence each 127 other. 128 * What should a DHCPv6-configured host do when it receives RA 129 messages containing a new prefix? Current implementations 130 just configure the new prefix. Is this OK? 131 * What should a SLAAC-configured host do when it receives RA 132 messages with "M" set? 133 * See analysis in [I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching]. 134 2. Bulk DHVPv6 RECONFIGURE mechanism. 135 3. Clarify how a MIPv6 host rebinds with its home agent if the 136 latter is renumbered while mobile is disconnected. 137 4. Review ICMPv6 router renumbering [RFC2894] to see if it needs 138 updating and if it is viable as a solution. 140 4. Security Considerations 142 This document defines no protocol, so does not introduce any new 143 security exposures. 145 5. IANA Considerations 147 This document requests no action by IANA. 149 6. Acknowledgements 151 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 153 Brian Carpenter was a visitor at the Computer Laboratory, Cambridge 154 University during this work. 156 7. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] 158 draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00: original version, 2012-11-09. 160 8. Informative References 162 [I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering] 163 Baker, F., "Renumbering using an Operational Support 164 System", draft-baker-6renum-oss-renumbering-00 (work in 165 progress), November 2012. 167 [I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise] 168 Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise 169 Network Renumbering Scenarios and Guidelines", 170 draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-03 (work in progress), 171 October 2012. 173 [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis] 174 Liu, B., Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Venaas, "IPv6 175 Site Renumbering Gap Analysis", 176 draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-04 (work in progress), 177 October 2012. 179 [I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem] 180 Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Problem Statement for 181 Renumbering IPv6 Hosts with Static Addresses", 182 draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-02 (work in progress), 183 September 2012. 185 [I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching] 186 Liu, B., Wang, W., and X. Gong, "DHCPv6/SLAAC Address 187 Configuration Switching for Host Renumbering", 188 draft-liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching-01 (work in 189 progress), July 2012. 191 [RFC2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of 192 Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998. 194 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 195 June 1999. 197 [RFC2894] Crawford, M., "Router Renumbering for IPv6", RFC 2894, 198 August 2000. 200 [RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic 201 Update", RFC 3007, November 2000. 203 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 204 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 205 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 207 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 208 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 209 December 2003. 211 [RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for 212 Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192, 213 September 2005. 215 [RFC5887] Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering 216 Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010. 218 Authors' Addresses 220 Brian Carpenter 221 Department of Computer Science 222 University of Auckland 223 PB 92019 224 Auckland, 1142 225 New Zealand 227 Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com 229 Sheng Jiang 230 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 231 Q14, Huawei Campus 232 No.156 Beiqing Road 233 Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095 234 P.R. China 236 Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com