idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01.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 (February 2, 2011) is 4832 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4294 (Obsoleted by RFC 6434) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 6036 (Obsoleted by RFC 9386) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 V6OPS B. Carpenter 3 Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland 4 Intended status: Informational S. Jiang 5 Expires: August 6, 2011 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 6 V. Kuarsingh 7 Rogers Communications 8 February 2, 2011 10 Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios 11 draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01 13 Abstract 15 This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios 16 and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition 17 from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co- 18 existence of the two protocols. 20 Status of this Memo 22 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 23 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 25 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 26 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 27 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 28 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 30 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 31 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 32 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 33 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 35 This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2011. 37 Copyright Notice 39 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 40 document authors. All rights reserved. 42 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 43 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 44 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 45 publication of this document. Please review these documents 46 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 47 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 48 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 49 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 50 described in the Simplified BSD License. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. Document Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 6. Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 1. Introduction 65 This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios 66 and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition 67 from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co- 68 existence of the two protocols. A general "call to arms" for 69 transition is found in [RFC5211], and a recommendation for four 70 principal scenarios is given in 71 [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]. A report on experience and 72 plans of various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is given in 73 [RFC6036]. However, it is clear that operators require more detailed 74 technical recommendations than are available so far. Unfortunately, 75 the number of different combinations of existing IPv4 deployment 76 models, customer profiles and requirements, and possible coexistence 77 and transition models, is enormous, so it is quite impracticable to 78 produce either a set of recommendations for each case, or a 79 recommended "one size fits all" model. That is why this document 80 proposes a set of topics or dimensions, as a framework for a 81 reasonable number of recommendation documents. 83 The reader is assumed to be familiar with IPv6. The IETF's view of 84 core IPv6 requirements is to be found in [RFC4294] (currently being 85 updated as [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]). However, this does not 86 give a complete view of mechanisms an ISP may need to deploy, since 87 it considers the requirements for an individual node, not for a 88 network or service infrastructure as a whole. 90 [RFC4029] discussed scenarios for introducing IPv6 into ISP networks, 91 as the problem was viewed some years ago. Its end goal was simply a 92 dual-stack ISP backbone. Today's view is that this is insufficient, 93 as it does not allow for prolonged interworking between IPv6-only and 94 legacy (IPv4-only) hosts. Indeed, the end goal today might be an 95 IPv6-only ISP backbone, with some form of legacy IPv4 support 96 [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]. 98 Although the basic IPv6 standards are stable, considerable work 99 continues in several IETF working groups, on issues such as 100 multihoming, tunneling, and IP layer interworking between IPv6-only 101 and IPv4-only hosts. However, operators faced with IPv4 address 102 exhaustion in the coming few years need immediate guidance. These 103 operators cannot avoid the need for general skills acquisition, or 104 the need to write their own detailed deployment plan, but they also 105 need guidance for generic scenarios similar to their actual 106 situation. They cannot obtain such guidance from individual protocol 107 specifications developed by the IETF, so there is a need for 108 additional documents. 110 2. Document Topics 112 On the assumption that a series of documents are produced describing 113 and recommending transition scenarios, there are two basic 114 conditions: 115 1. The documents will not be primary protocol specifications, 116 because those are the outcome of IETF working groups chartered to 117 work on specific protocol mechanisms. 118 2. The documents are addressed to service providers who have taken 119 the decision to support IPv6, have acquired basic knowledge and 120 skills, have determined how they will obtain upstream IPv6 121 connectivity, and are ready to write their operational plan for 122 transition. 124 The documents should describe scenarios for real transition to IPv6, 125 not life extensions to IPv4 or other matters best handled in other 126 working groups. They should each cover some or all of the following 127 aspects or dimensions: 128 o For the convenience of readers, each document should briefly 129 describe its network model in the Abstract (or Introduction) for 130 quick reference. 131 o The documents should explain how certain technology components fit 132 together in a given transition and co-existence scenario. 133 o They will present major generic network models, and their subsets, 134 which exist (or are firmly planned) today, including network 135 topologies and/or architectures. 136 o They should specify their scope: the range of technologies that 137 they do or do not apply to (e.g. specific access network 138 technologies, core network technologies and topologies, mobile vs 139 fixed hosts, business vs private customers, etc.). 140 o They should develop analysis criteria on how to recognize 141 appropriate transition technologies for existing provider networks 142 within their scope. This should include information related to 143 deployed protocols and functions which may assist or hinder 144 various transition technologies from being deployed. 145 o If multiple transition technologies are needed for provider 146 environments where access networks differ and have various 147 capabilities, the documents should show how these technologies can 148 be deployed simultaneously. 149 o They should describe how multiple technologies can co-exist, if 150 necessary, during all stages of migration (e.g., moving from IPv4 151 Only to Dual-Stack to DS-Lite to NAT64). 152 o They should cover considerations for legacy operation while moving 153 to IPv6 and its transition technologies. Many operators will have 154 large quantities of IPv4-only equipment which cannot feasibly be 155 upgraded until the end of its economic life, or which is under 156 customer control. 158 o They should cover considerations which apply when retro-fitting 159 various technologies to existing networks. Included in this would 160 be impacts on ancillary protocols, routing platforms/systems, 161 security policies, provisioning systems, network services (i.e. 162 DHCP, DNS etc), law enforcement procedures and more. 163 o They should quantify scaling characteristics of deployment modes 164 for each technology model and intersections during co-existence 165 (e.g. if some of the Network is DS-Lite and some is classical Dual 166 Stack; peak load on NAT64; etc.). 167 o The documents should include security considerations for their 168 specific transition scenario(s). 170 A desirable outcome would be a set of Best Current Practice (BCP) or 171 advisory (Informational) documents for a range of generic deployment 172 models and how they fit into a network, including key services such 173 as subscriber authentication, DHCP, and DNS. However, it must not be 174 forgotten that every service provider is different and such documents 175 can never replace specific deployment plans drawn up by each 176 individual service provider. 178 3. Security Considerations 180 Service providers will insist on having security for IPv6 services, 181 and for all transition technologies, that is at least as good as for 182 IPv4 services in all respects. Particular attention must be paid to 183 security exposures that are specific to transition and coexistence 184 mechanisms. Thus, all recommendations for transition scenarios must 185 include any security aspects that are specific to that scenario. 187 4. IANA Considerations 189 This document makes no request of the IANA. 191 5. Acknowledgements 193 Useful comments and contributions were made by Randy Bush and other 194 members of the V6OPS WG. 196 This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. 198 6. Change log 200 draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01: small addition following 201 WGLC, 2011-02-02 202 draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-00: adopted by WG at IETF 79, 203 2010-12-01 205 draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00: original version, 2010-08-18 207 7. Informative References 209 [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines] 210 Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6 211 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", 212 draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-14 (work in 213 progress), December 2010. 215 [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] 216 Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node 217 Requirements RFC 4294-bis", 218 draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07 (work in progress), 219 December 2010. 221 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 222 June 1999. 224 [RFC4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P. 225 Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into 226 ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005. 228 [RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294, 229 April 2006. 231 [RFC5211] Curran, J., "An Internet Transition Plan", RFC 5211, 232 July 2008. 234 [RFC6036] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Emerging Service Provider 235 Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6036, October 2010. 237 Authors' Addresses 239 Brian Carpenter 240 Department of Computer Science 241 University of Auckland 242 PB 92019 243 Auckland, 1142 244 New Zealand 246 Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com 247 Sheng Jiang 248 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd 249 Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd., 250 Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing 251 P.R. China 253 Email: shengjiang@huawei.com 255 Victor Kuarsingh 256 Rogers Communications 257 Canada 259 Email: Victor.Kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com