idnits 2.17.1 draft-chen-sunset4-traffic-migration-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 (October 15, 2012) is 4210 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC6146' is defined on line 265, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6180' is defined on line 278, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC6264' is defined on line 282, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat (ref. 'I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6145 (Obsoleted by RFC 7915) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6555 (Obsoleted by RFC 8305) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group G. Chen 3 Internet-Draft China Mobile 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 15, 2012 5 Expires: April 18, 2013 7 Graceful IPv4 Sunset with Traffic Migration 8 draft-chen-sunset4-traffic-migration-00 10 Abstract 12 In order to make a graceful IPv4 sunset, this memo described a method 13 helping traffic migration to IPv6. With the growth of IPv6 traffic, 14 operators could safely turn off IPv4 and evolve to IPv6-only network. 15 In order to achieve the goal, new traffic-migration options have been 16 proposed in DHCPv6 and PCP. IPv6 traffic steering could be performed 17 using those configurations. 19 Status of this Memo 21 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 22 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 24 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 25 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 26 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 27 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 29 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 30 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 31 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 32 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 34 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2013. 36 Copyright Notice 38 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 39 document authors. All rights reserved. 41 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 42 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 43 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 44 publication of this document. Please review these documents 45 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 46 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 47 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 48 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 49 described in the Simplified BSD License. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Traffic Migration Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 4. Configurations with DHCPv6 Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 5. Configurations with PCP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 1. Introduction 67 The working group of Sunset4 was targeted to standardize technologies 68 that facilitate the graceful sunsetting of the IPv4 Internet in the 69 context of the exhaustion of IPv4 address space while IPv6 is 70 deployed. This memo has described the way to incrementally turn off 71 the IPv4 by steering traffic to IPv6 networks. 73 As imminent demands to IP address, the community has to seek a way to 74 accelerate IPv6. However, the tremendous success of the Internet has 75 adhered to IPv4 technologies. ISPs don't want to significantly 76 changed its IPv4 network. Dual stack[RFC4213] was designed to 77 provide complete support for both Internet protocols. It's the 78 simplest deployment model to enable IPv4 hosts to access the IPv4 79 Internet and IPv6 hosts to access the IPv6 Internet. With the 80 thoughtful considerations, e.g. happy eyeballs[RFC6555], white- 81 listing[RFC6589], dual-stack approach could ensure user experiences 82 as original as possible. 84 [RFC6180]recommended the native dual-stack connectivity model. Some 85 ISPs have already successfully deployed dual-stack networks, in which 86 the dual-stack capable devices integrate both IPv6 and IPv4 87 forwarding. In those cases, IPv4 and IPv6 data flows are ships-in- 88 the-night. [RFC6264]commentated such transition mechanism may be 89 lack of drive to motive IPv6 growth, since most end users are not 90 sufficiently expert to configure or maintain host-based IPv6 91 transition. If there are no IPv4 sunset technologies, IPv4 92 connectivity and traffic would still continue to represent the 93 majority of traffic in most ISP networks. 95 The IPv4 sunset should be graceful. The arbitrary IPv4 turning off 96 may don't help the IPv6 acceleration, but exacerbate the situation of 97 instable IPv6 connections and IPv4 incompability. [RFC6586] has 98 stated the concerns in a IPv6-only environment. It should be avoided 99 during the period of IPv4 sunset, especially in a commercial network. 100 Under those considerations, traffic migration could achieve the 101 graceful process with no impacts to services. This memo enumerates 102 several migration technologies in Section 3. The corresponding 103 configurations have been described afterwards. 105 2. Requirements Language 107 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 108 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 109 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 111 3. Traffic Migration Technologies 113 With the stress of IP address shortage, switching the whole ISP 114 network into IPv6-only would be considered a ultimate strategy. A 115 number of IPv6 transition technologies were proposed. Some of them 116 may likely be less optimal than equivalent technologies for native IP 117 connections, i.e. IPv6-only and dual-stack networks. Whereas, it 118 could help migrate IPv4 traffic to IPv6 network that is transparent 119 to user's experiences. The Figure show the architecture those 120 technologies apply to . 122 +---+ IPv4 +-----+ IPv4 +-----+ IPv4 /----------\ 123 | UE|--------|Dual |--------------| |--------/ \ 124 +---+ |Stack| | GW | | Internet | 125 +---+ IPv6 | CPE | IPv6 | | IPv6 | | 126 |UE |------- | |-------+------| |--------\ / 127 +---+ +-----+ | +-----+ \----------/ 128 +------+ 129 |Server| 130 +------+ 132 Figure 1: Traffic Migration architecture 134 Traffic migration technologies could shift IPv4 traffic to IPv6 135 links. Meanwhile, the issues of IPv4 compability have been 136 thoroughly considered and addressed in those technologies. The 137 migration enforcement could be located on a end-host or dual-stack 138 CPE. Translations or tunnel could be performed at an enforcement 139 point. Following enumerates relevant technologies. 141 o Dual-stack Lite: it employs IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel on CPE. The 142 packages would be encapsulated in IPv6 and transmitted. GW would 143 decapsulate the IPv6 packages and perform IPv4/IPv4 NAT[RFC6333]. 144 It should be noted that several technologies have been discussed 145 in Softwires working group recently. Those technologies could 146 also successfully switch traffic to IPv6 network. 148 o 464xlat: it employs double translation 149 framework[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]. CPE could receive IPv4 150 packages and make stateless translation[RFC6145] to IPv6. GW 151 adopts stateful NAT64 [RFC6146]processing. 153 o BIH: It employs host based translation[RFC6535]. Embedded BIH 154 module could translate IPv4 packages into IPv6 on a host. Such 155 process is transparent to IPv4 applications. 157 At a sunset stage, a devices(e.g. a host or CPE) would observe the 158 appearance of enabling messages to discover the availability of 159 migration technology. Thus, when an ISP decides to switch their 160 traffic to IPv6, the devices would detect and switch automatically to 161 traffic-migration mode. 163 4. Configurations with DHCPv6 Options 165 Enabling traffic migration could be achieved via DHCPv6. The 166 migration DHCPv6 option is proposed as below to inform the device 167 performing the traffic steering process. The format of the migration 168 option is shown in Figure 2. 170 0 1 2 3 171 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | OPTION_MIGRATION | option-len | 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 175 | mechanism | 176 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 178 option-code OPTION_MIGRATION(TBD) 180 option-len 1 182 mechanism This data is to indicate the particular 183 mechanism to be performed 185 Figure2: Migration Option for DHCPv6 187 The DHCPv6 client MUST include the OPTION_Migration option code in 188 the Option Request Option[RFC3315]. 190 [Editor note: the mechanism filed informs the device that the 191 specific technology should be taken. This is very depending on the 192 ISP strategy and implementations. Weighting different options is 193 surely going beyond the scope of this document. Therefore, it should 194 be decided whether the particular semantics should be defined in the 195 draft.] 197 5. Configurations with PCP Options 199 It's also feasible to deliver such message in a NAT environment, 200 where there is coexistence of NAT44 and NAT64 on a network side. If 201 PCP clients are embedded in CPE or UE, new PCP options could help to 202 indicate migration preferring. 204 The format of migration PCP Option is depicted in Figure 3. 206 0 1 2 3 207 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 208 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 209 | Option Code | Reserved | Option Length | 210 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 211 | mechanism | 212 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 214 option-code To be assigned by IANA 216 option-len 1 218 mechanism This data is to indicate the particular 219 mechanism to be performed 221 Figure3: Migration Option for PCP 223 A PCP Client MAY include a migration PCP Option in a MAP request to 224 learn network capability used by an upstream PCP-controlled device. 225 A PCP server controlling a NAT SHOULD be configured to return the 226 value to indicate if the migration technology should be enable. When 227 allowed, migration PCP Option conveys the value for the selection of 228 specific mechanism. 230 [Editor note: Same concern applies to the mechanism filed. it should 231 be decided whether the particular semantics should be defined in the 232 draft. ] 234 6. Security Considerations 236 TBD 238 7. IANA Considerations 240 This document makes no request of IANA. 242 8. References 244 8.1. Normative References 246 [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat] 247 Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: 248 Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", 249 draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08 (work in progress), 250 September 2012. 252 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 253 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 255 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 256 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 257 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 259 [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms 260 for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 262 [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation 263 Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. 265 [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful 266 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 267 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011. 269 [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- 270 Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 271 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011. 273 [RFC6535] Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts 274 Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535, February 2012. 276 8.2. Informative References 278 [RFC6180] Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6 279 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180, 280 May 2011. 282 [RFC6264] Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental 283 Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264, 284 June 2011. 286 [RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with 287 Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012. 289 [RFC6586] Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only 290 Network", RFC 6586, April 2012. 292 [RFC6589] Livingood, J., "Considerations for Transitioning Content 293 to IPv6", RFC 6589, April 2012. 295 Author's Address 297 Gang Chen 298 China Mobile 299 No.32 Xuanwumen West Street 300 Xicheng District 301 Beijing 100053 302 China 304 Email: phdgang@gmail.com