datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.4.0, 2014-04-22
Report a bug

Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05

Softwires Working Group                                M. Boucadair, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                            France Telecom
Intended status: Informational                             S. Matsushima
Expires: May 17, 2013                                   Softbank Telecom
                                                                  Y. Lee
                                                                 Comcast
                                                              O. Bonness
                                                        Deutsche Telekom
                                                               I. Borges
                                                        Portugal Telecom
                                                                 G. Chen
                                                            China Mobile
                                                       November 13, 2012

    Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration
                               Solutions
            draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-05

Abstract

   IPv4 service continuity is one of the most pressing problems that
   must be resolved by Service Providers during the IPv6 transition
   period - especially after the exhaustion of the public IPv4 address
   space.  Current standardization effort that addresses IPv4 service
   continuity focuses on stateful mechanisms.  This document elaborates
   on the motivations for the need to undertake a companion effort to
   specify stateless IPv4 over IPv6 approaches.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2013.

Copyright Notice

Boucadair, et al.         Expires May 17, 2013                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Solution Motivations             November 2012

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Why Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Solutions are Needed? . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Network Architecture Simplification  . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.1.1.  Network Dimensioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       3.1.2.  No Intra-domain Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.3.  Logging - No Need for Dynamic Binding Notifications  .  5
       3.1.4.  No Additional Protocol for Port Control is Required  .  5
     3.2.  Operational Tasks and Network Maintenance Efficiency . . .  6
       3.2.1.  Preserve Current Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.2.  Planned Maintenance Operations . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.3.  Reliability and Robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.4.  Support of Multi-Vendor Redundancy . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.2.5.  Simplification of Qualification Procedures . . . . . .  7
     3.3.  Facilitating Service Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.3.1.  Implicit Host Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.3.2.  No Organizational Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Cost Minimization Opportunities  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Dependency Between IPv4 and IPv6 Address Assignments . . . 10
     4.2.  IPv4 Port Utilisation Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  IPv4 Port Randomization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

[include full document text]