Skip to main content

Framework for Multi-domain IPv6-only Underlay Network and IPv4-as-a-Service
draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-27

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, ron@bonica.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Document Action: 'Framework for Multi-domain IPv6-only Underlay Network and IPv4-as-a-Service' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-23.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Framework for Multi-domain IPv6-only Underlay Network and IPv4-as-a-
   Service'
  (draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay-23.txt) as Informational
  RFC

This document is the product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Mahesh Jethanandani and Mohamed Boucadair.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay/


Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   For the IPv6 transition, IPv6-only is considered the final stage
   where only IPv6 protocol is used for transport while maintaining
   global reachability for both IPv6 and IPv4 services.  This document
   introduces a framework for a multi-domain IPv6-only underlay network
   from the perspective of network operators.  In particular, it
   proposes stateless address mapping as the basis for enabling IPv4
   service data transmission in a multi-domain IPv6-only environment
   (i.e., IPv4-as-a-Service).  It describes the methodology of stateless
   IPv4/IPv6 mapping, illustrates the behaviors of network devices,
   analyzes the options of IPv6 mapping prefix allocation, and discusses
   the security considerations.  This framework is not intended to
   replace existing IPv6-only technologies, but rather to leverage or
   remain compatible with them.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

From Shepherd Report:

While there was active debate, all issues have been resolved

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

From Shepherd Report:

This is not a protocol document

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Ron Bonica. The Responsible
   Area Director is Mahesh Jethanandani.

IANA Note

  (Insert IANA Note here or remove section)

RFC Editor Note