idnits 2.17.1 draft-lencse-v6ops-transition-benchmarking-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 doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet has text resembling RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (16 October 2021) is 922 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC8219' is defined on line 116, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'LEN2020' is defined on line 139, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'LEN2021' is defined on line 147, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Outdated reference: A later version (-04) exists of draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 v6ops G. Lencse 3 Internet-Draft Szechenyi Istvan University 4 Intended status: Informational 16 October 2021 5 Expires: 19 April 2022 7 Performance Analysis of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS 8 draft-lencse-v6ops-transition-benchmarking-00 10 Abstract 12 Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to provide 13 customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an IPv6-only 14 access and/or core network. All these technologies have their 15 advantages and disadvantages, and depending on existing topology, 16 skills, strategy and other preferences, one of these technologies may 17 be the most appropriate solution for a network operator. 19 This document examines and compares the performance of some free 20 software implementations of the five most prominent IPv4aaS 21 technologies (464XLAT, Dual Stack Lite, Lightweight 4over6, MAP-E, 22 MAP-T). 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 April 2022. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 48 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 49 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 50 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 51 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 52 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 53 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 A.1. 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 1. Introduction 71 IETF has standardized several IPv6 transition technologies [LEN2019] 72 and occupied a neutral position trusting the selection of the most 73 appropriate ones to the market. 74 [I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison] provides a comprehensive 75 comparative analysis of the five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies 76 to assist operators with this problem. This document adds one more 77 detail: performance analysis and comparison of the examined IPv4aaS 78 technologies. 80 Currently this document is a stub. It has been created to provide a 81 citable reference for the above mentioned I-D. 83 1.1. Requirements Language 85 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 86 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 87 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 88 BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 89 capitals, as shown here. 91 2. Acknowledgements 93 The authors would like to thank ... TBD 95 3. IANA Considerations 97 This document does not make any request to IANA. 99 4. Security Considerations 101 TBD. 103 5. References 105 5.1. Normative References 107 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 108 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 109 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 110 . 112 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 113 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 114 May 2017, . 116 [RFC8219] Georgescu, M., Pislaru, L., and G. Lencse, "Benchmarking 117 Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies", RFC 8219, 118 DOI 10.17487/RFC8219, August 2017, 119 . 121 5.2. Informative References 123 [I-D.ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison] 124 Lencse, G., Martinez, J. P., Howard, L., Patterson, R., 125 and I. Farrer, "Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition 126 Technologies for IPv4aaS", Work in Progress, Internet- 127 Draft, draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-comparison-00, 15 April 128 2021, . 131 [LEN2019] Lencse, G. and Y. Kadobayashi, "Comprehensive Survey of 132 IPv6 Transition Technologies: A Subjective Classification 133 for Security Analysis", IEICE Transactions on 134 Communications, vol. E102-B, no.10, pp. 2021-2035., DOI: 135 10.1587/transcom.2018EBR0002, 1 October 2019, 136 . 139 [LEN2020] Lencse, G., "Adding RFC 4814 Random Port Feature to 140 Siitperf: Design, Implementation and Performance 141 Estimation", International Journal of Advances in 142 Telecommunications, Electrotechnics, Signals and Systems, 143 vol 9, no 3, pp. 18-26, DOI: 10.11601/ijates.v9i3.291, 144 2020, . 147 [LEN2021] Lencse, G., "Design and Implementation of a Software 148 Tester for Benchmarking Stateless NAT64 Gateways", IEICE 149 Transactions on Communications, DOI: 150 10.1587/transcom.2019EBN0010, 2021, 151 . 154 Appendix A. Change Log 156 A.1. 00 158 Initial version. 160 Author's Address 162 Gabor Lencse 163 Szechenyi Istvan University 164 Gyor 165 Egyetem ter 1. 166 H-9026 167 Hungary 169 Email: lencse@sze.hu