idnits 2.17.1 draft-horley-v6ops-lab-02.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 seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (26 January 2022) is 821 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 183, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3515' is defined on line 195, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5180' is defined on line 216, but no explicit reference was found in the text Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group E. Horley 3 Internet-Draft T. Coffeen 4 Intended status: Informational S. Hogg 5 Expires: 30 July 2022 HexaBuild 6 N. Buraglio 7 C. Cummings 8 Energy Sciences Network 9 K. Myers 10 IP ArchiTechs 11 R. White 12 Juniper Networks 13 26 January 2022 15 Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space 16 draft-horley-v6ops-lab-02 18 Abstract 20 To reduce the likelihood of addressing conflicts and confusion 21 between lab deployments and non-lab (i.e., production) deployments, 22 an IPv6 unicast address prefix is reserved for use in lab, proof-of- 23 concept, and validation networks as well as for any similar use case. 24 This document describes the use of the IPv6 address prefix 0200::/7 25 as a prefix reserved for this purpose (repurposing the deprecated OSI 26 NSAP-mapped prefix). 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on 30 July 2022. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 52 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 53 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 54 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 55 extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as 56 described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 57 provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 2. New Lab IPv6 Address Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 3. Operational Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 65 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 1. Introduction 74 The address architecture for IPv6 ([RFC4291]) does not explicitly 75 define any prefixes allocated exclusively for lab use, nor is such 76 address space allocated in [RFC6890] or in [RFC8200]. While lab 77 deployments could potentially use IPv6 address prefixes typically 78 assigned and configured in non-lab network, the use of such 79 addressing in lab environments may create addressing conflicts and 80 operational confusion. For instance, designing labs utilizing ULA 81 fc00::/7 [RFC4193] is problematic due to the random global ID 82 requirement preventing hierarchical network prefix design 83 possibilities. Further, default address selection behavior [RFC6724] 84 by end nodes may result in a depreferencing of such addresses and 85 prevent lab deployments from accurately modeling their desired non- 86 lab equivalents. 88 To resolve these problems involved in building large-scale lab 89 networks, and pre-staging, or automating large-scale networks for 90 deployment, this document allocates the IPv6 address prefix 0200::/7 91 for these purposes. 93 The goal is to allow organization to share working lab configuration 94 files (with little or no need of modification) to be deployed in a 95 third party lab environment like, 97 public and private clouds, 98 virtualization or hosting environments, 100 and in other networks like Service Providers, Enterprise, Government, 101 IoT, and Energy, 103 all with the knowledge that the lab GUA address space will perform 104 the same as any GUA but with the added knowledge that filtering will 105 be used to protect accidental leaks to the Internet. 107 The following criteria is for selecting the lab prefix: 109 The precedence for the lab prefix should no be lower than the GUA 110 prefix as defined in [RFC6724] (unlike ULA). Reduce the operational 111 impacts to IANA and the RIR's in selecting lab prefix space. 113 2. New Lab IPv6 Address Prefix 115 The prefix reserved for lab and testing purposes is 0200::/7. 117 3. Operational Implications 119 This space SHOULD NOT be employed for addressing use cases which are 120 already defined in other RFCs, such as addresses set apart for 121 documentation, testing, etc. 123 Enterprise and large-scale networks have some specific criteria 124 around building and validating prior to deployment. The issues with 125 ULA for infrastructure modeling and labbing at the host level are 126 more impactful in large enterprises. This is due to the increased 127 focus on large-scale hosts, servers, and apps testing. Also, it is 128 likely that both GUA and ULA may co-exist (or are planned) and 129 reconfiguring lab hosts and networks isn't practical or desirable due 130 to inconsistent results for host preference due to [RFC6724] 131 behavior. 133 Most large enterprises strive to build lab, dev, and QA environments 134 that reflect production as accurately as possible. This is a fairly 135 straightforward way to avoid disparity between production and non- 136 production. Enterprise environments are an area that need increased 137 IPv6 adoption. In an effort to make it easier to model a global 138 enterprise and to avoid the pitfalls of ULA de-preferenced host 139 behavior or squatting on other IPv6 space, a specific IPv6 lab prefix 140 is being assigned. 142 Because this address prefix has previously been used for the OSI 143 NSAP-mapped prefix set in [RFC4048] and [RFC4548], and deprecated, 144 this address prefix is already limited in its usability. In 145 addition, the address prefix was returned to IANA and is available to 146 be marked for lab or other purposes. 148 This assignment implies that IPv6 network operators SHOULD add this 149 address prefix to the list of non-routable IPv6 address space, and if 150 packet filters are deployed, then this address prefix SHOULD be added 151 to packet filters. This is not a local-use address prefix so these 152 filters may be used in both local and public contexts. 154 4. IANA Considerations 156 IANA is to record the reservation of the IPv6 global unicast address 157 prefix 0200::/7 as a lab-only prefix in the IPv6 address registry. 158 No end party is to be assigned this address. 160 5. Security Considerations 162 The addresses assigned for lab and staging use SHOULD be filtered as 163 noted above. 165 Setting aside address space for lab and staging use, and adding this 166 address space to common filters to prevent destinations in this space 167 from being routed in production networks (including the global 168 Internet) improves security by preventing the leakage of prefixes 169 used for testing into production environments. As such, setting 170 aside this space improves the overall security posture of the 171 Internet. 173 6. Acknowledgements 175 The authors acknowledge the work of Bob Hinden and Stephen Deering, 176 in authoring the protocol standard and the addressing architecture 177 for IPv6. 179 7. References 181 7.1. Normative References 183 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 184 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 185 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 186 . 188 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 189 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, 190 DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, 191 . 193 7.2. Informative References 195 [RFC3515] Sparks, R., "The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Refer 196 Method", RFC 3515, DOI 10.17487/RFC3515, April 2003, 197 . 199 [RFC4048] Carpenter, B., "RFC 1888 Is Obsolete", RFC 4048, 200 DOI 10.17487/RFC4048, April 2005, 201 . 203 [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast 204 Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005, 205 . 207 [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing 208 Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 209 2006, . 211 [RFC4548] Gray, E., Rutemiller, J., and G. Swallow, "Internet Code 212 Point (ICP) Assignments for NSAP Addresses", RFC 4548, 213 DOI 10.17487/RFC4548, May 2006, 214 . 216 [RFC5180] Popoviciu, C., Hamza, A., Van de Velde, G., and D. 217 Dugatkin, "IPv6 Benchmarking Methodology for Network 218 Interconnect Devices", RFC 5180, DOI 10.17487/RFC5180, May 219 2008, . 221 [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, 222 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 223 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, 224 . 226 [RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman, 227 "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153, 228 RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013, 229 . 231 Authors' Addresses 233 Ed Horley 234 HexaBuild 235 Email: ed@hexabuild.io 237 Tom Coffeen 238 HexaBuild 240 Email: tom@hexabuild.io 242 Scott Hogg 243 HexaBuild 245 Email: scott@hexabuild.io 247 Nick Buraglio 248 Energy Sciences Network 250 Email: buraglio@es.net 252 Chris Cummings 253 Energy Sciences Network 255 Email: chriscummings@es.net 257 Kevin Myers 258 IP ArchiTechs 260 Email: kevin.myers@iparchitechs.com 262 Russ White 263 Juniper Networks 265 Email: russ@riw.us