Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support IPv4 Connectivity as-a-Service
draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (v6ops WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jordi Palet Martinez , Hans M.-H. Liu , Masanobu Kawashima | ||
| Last updated | 2018-04-28 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
GENART Last Call review
(of
-12)
Ready with Nits
SECDIR Last Call review
(of
-11)
Has Issues
RTGDIR Last Call review
(of
-11)
Has Issues
OPSDIR Last Call review
(of
-11)
Has Issues
TSVART Last Call review
(of
-11)
Ready with Issues
|
||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-00
IPv6 Operations (v6ops) J. Palet Martinez
Internet-Draft The IPv6 Company
Updates: RFC7084 (if approved) H. M.-H. Liu
Intended status: Informational D-Link Systems, Inc.
Expires: October 29, 2018 M. Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd.
April 27, 2018
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support IPv4 Connectivity
as-a-Service
draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-00
Abstract
This document specifies the IPv4 service continuity requirements for
an IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) router, either provided by the service
provider or thru the retail market.
Specifically, this document extends the "Basic Requirements for IPv6
Customer Edge Routers" ([RFC7084]) in order to allow the provisioning
of IPv6 transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service"
(IPv4aaS) by means of new transition mechanisms, which were not
available at the time [RFC7084] (Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer
Edge Routers) was published. The document only covers transition
technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only access networks,
commonly called "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS), as required in a world
where IPv4 addresses are no longer available, so hosts in the
customer LANs with IPv4-only or IPv6-only applications or devices,
requiring to communicate with IPv4-only services at the Internet, are
still able to do so.
This document updates section 4.4 (Transition Technologies
Requirements) of [RFC7084].
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 https://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
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://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
1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 service
continuity (IPv4 as-a-Service - IPv4aaS) . . . . . 5
3.3.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. UPnP IGD-PCP IWF Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Update of RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
1. Introduction
This document defines IPv4 service continuity features over an
IPv6-only network, for a residential or small-office router, referred
to as an "IPv6 CE Router with IPv4aaS support", in order to establish
an industry baseline for transition features to be implemented on
such a router.
These routers are likely to rely upon "Basic Requirements for IPv6
Customer Edge Routers" ([RFC7084]), so the scope of this document is
to ensure the IPv4 "service continuity" support, in the LAN side and
the access to IPv4-only Internet services from an IPv6-only access
WAN even from IPv6-only applications or devices in the LAN side.
This document covers a set of IP transition techniques required when
ISPs have an IPv6-only access network. This is a common situation in
a world where IPv4 addresses are no longer available, so the service
providers need to provision IPv6-only WAN access. At the same time,
they need to ensure that both IPv4-only and IPv6-only devices or
applications in the customer networks, can still reach IPv4-only
devices and applications in the Internet.
This document specifies the IPv4 service continuity mechanisms to be
supported by an IPv6 Transition CE Router, and relevant provisioning
or configuration information differences from [RFC7084].
This document is not a recommendation for service providers to use
any specific transition mechanism.
Automatic provisioning of more complex topology than a single router
with multiple LAN interfaces may be handled by means of HNCP
([RFC7788]), which is out of the scope of this document.
Service providers who specify feature sets for CE Routers MAY specify
a different set of features than those included in this document.
Since it is impossible to know prior to sale which transition
mechanism a device will need over the lifetime of the device, IPv6 CE
Routers intended for the retail market MUST support all of them.
A complete description of "Usage Scenarios" and "End-User Network
Architecture" is provided in Annex A and B, respectively.
1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note
Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
"REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as
described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document uses these keywords
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the
purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality. As
such, the document points to several other specifications to provide
additional guidance to implementers regarding any protocol
implementation required to produce a successful IPv6 Transition CE
Router that interoperates successfully with a particular subset of
currently deploying and planned common IPv6-only access networks.
2. Terminology
This document uses the same terms as in [RFC7084], with minor
clarifications.
"IPv4aaS" stands for "IPv4 as-a-Service", meaning transition
technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only access networks.
The term "IPv6 transition Customer Edge Router with IPv4aaS"
(shortened as "CE Router" or "IPv6 CE Router") is defined as an "IPv6
Customer Edge Router" that provides features for the delivery of IPv4
services over an IPv6-only WAN network including IPv6-IPv4
communications.
The "WAN Interface" term used across this document, means that can
also support link technologies based in Internet-layer (or higher-
layers) "tunnels", such as IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels.
3. Requirements
The CE Router MUST comply with [RFC7084] (Basic Requirements for IPv6
Customer Edge Routers), with the exception of Section 4.4, which
becomes updated by this document.
3.1. General Requirements
A new general requirement is added, in order to ensure that the CE
Router respects the IPv6 prefix length as a parameter:
G-6 The IPv6-only CE Router MUST comply with [RFC7608] (IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding).
3.2. LAN-Side Configuration
A new LAN requirement is added, which in fact is common in regular CE
Router, and it is required by most of the transition mechanisms:
L-15 The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD implement a DNS proxy as described in
[RFC5625] (DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines).
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
3.3. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 service continuity (IPv4
as-a-Service - IPv4aaS)
The main target of this document is the support of IPv6-only WAN
access. To enable legacy IPv4 functionality, this document also
includes the support of IPv4-only devices and applications in the
customers LANs, as well as IPv4-only services on the Internet. Thus,
both IPv4-only and the IPv6-only devices inside the CE Router are
able to reach the IPv4-only services.
This document takes no position on simultaneous operation of any
transition mechanism and native IPv4.
In order to seamlessly provide the IPv4 Service Continuity in
Customer LANs, allowing an automated IPv6 transition mechanism
provisioning, a new general transition requirement is added.
General transition requirements:
TRANS-1: If more than one S46 mechanism is supported, the CE Router
MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 priority option described in
[RFC8026] (Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire Customer Premises
Equipment (CPE): A DHCPv6-Based Prioritization Mechanism).
TRANS-2: The CE Router MUST verify if the WAN link supports native
IPv4. In that case, transition mechanisms SHOULD NOT be
automatically enabled for that interface.
TRANS-3: If native IPv4 is not available and 464XLAT [RFC6877] is
supported, the CE Router MUST enable the CLAT (in order to
automatically configure 464XLAT [RFC6877]). If 464XLAT
[RFC6877] is not supported, and more than one S46 mechanism
is supported, following Section 1.4 of [RFC8026], MUST
check for a valid match in OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which will
allow configuring any of the other transition mechanisms.
The following sections describe the requirements for supporting
transition mechanisms.
3.3.1. 464XLAT
464XLAT [RFC6877] is a technique to provide IPv4 service over an
IPv6-only access network without encapsulation. This architecture
assumes a NAT64 [RFC6146] (Stateful NAT64: Network Address and
Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers) function
deployed at the service provider or a third-party network.
The CE Router SHOULD support CLAT functionality. If 464XLAT is
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6877]. The
following CE Router requirements also apply:
464XLAT requirements:
464XLAT-1: The CE Router MUST perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic translated using the
CLAT, unless a dedicated /64 prefix has been acquired
using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] (IPv6 Prefix Options for
DHCPv6).
464XLAT-2: The CE Router SHOULD support IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970] (UPnP
Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol
Interworking Function).
464XLAT-3: If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented, the CE Router MUST
also implement [RFC7291] (DHCP Options for the PCP). If
no PCP server is configured, the CE Router MAY verify if
the default gateway, or the NAT64 is the PCP server. A
plain IPv6 mode is used to send PCP requests to the
server.
464XLAT-4: The CE Router MUST implement [RFC7050] (Discovery of the
IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis) in order to
discover the PLAT-side translation IPv4 and IPv6
prefix(es)/suffix(es). The CE Router MUST follow
[RFC7225] (Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
PCP), in order to learn the PLAT-side translation IPv4
and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es) used by an upstream PCP-
controlled NAT64 device.
3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)
Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] enables both continued support for IPv4
services and incentives for the deployment of IPv6. It also de-
couples IPv6 deployment in the service provider network from the rest
of the Internet, making incremental deployment easier. Dual-Stack
Lite enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4 addresses
among customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP
(IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT). It is expected
that DS-Lite traffic is forwarded over the IPv6 CE Router's native
IPv6 WAN interface, and not encapsulated in another tunnel.
The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD implement DS-Lite [RFC6333] functionality.
If DS-Lite is supported, it MUST be implemented according to
[RFC6333]. The following CE Router requirements also apply:
DS-Lite requirements:
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
DSLITE-1: The IPv6 CE Router MUST support configuration of DS-Lite
via the DS-Lite DHCPv6 option [RFC6334] (DHCPv6 Option for
Dual-Stack Lite). The IPv6 CE Router MAY use other
mechanisms to configure DS-Lite parameters. Such
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
DSLITE-2: The CE Router SHOULD support IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970] (UPnP
Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol
Interworking Function).
DSLITE-3: If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented, the CE Router SHOULD
also implement [RFC7291] (DHCP Options for the PCP). If
PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented and a PCP server is not
configured, the CE Router MUST assume, by default, that
the AFTR is the PCP server. A plain IPv6 mode is used to
send PCP requests to the server.
DSLITE-4: The IPv6 CE Router MUST NOT perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic encapsulated using DS-
Lite ([RFC6333]).
3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6)
Lw4o6 [RFC7596] specifies an extension to DS-Lite, which moves the
NAPT function from the DS-Lite tunnel concentrator to the tunnel
client located in the CE Router, removing the requirement for a CGN
function in the tunnel concentrator and reducing the amount of
centralized state.
The CE Router SHOULD implement lw4o6 functionality. If DS-Lite is
implemented, lw4o6 SHOULD be supported as well. If lw4o6 is
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7596]. The
following CE Router requirements also apply:
Lw4o6 requirements:
LW4O6-1: The CE Router MUST support configuration of lw4o6 via the
lw4o6 DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 Options for
Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped Clients).
The CE Router MAY use other mechanisms to configure lw4o6
parameters. Such mechanisms are outside the scope of this
document.
LW4O6-2: The CE Router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP
4o6) transport described in [RFC7341] (DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6
Transport).
LW4O6-3: The CE Router MAY support Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
Addresses as described in [RFC7618] (Dynamic Allocation of
Shared IPv4 Addresses).
3.3.4. MAP-E
MAP-E [RFC7597] is a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets across
an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, including an algorithmic
mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses as
well as transport-layer ports.
The CE Router SHOULD support MAP-E functionality. If MAP-E is
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7597]. The
following CE Router requirements also apply:
MAP-E requirements:
MAPE-1: The CE Router MUST support configuration of MAP-E via the
MAP-E DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 Options for
Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped Clients).
The CE Router MAY use other mechanisms to configure MAP-E
parameters. Such mechanisms are outside the scope of this
document.
MAPE-2: The CE Router MAY support Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4
Addresses as described in [RFC7618] (Dynamic Allocation of
Shared IPv4 Addresses).
3.3.5. MAP-T
MAP-T [RFC7599] is a mechanism similar to MAP-E, differing from it in
that MAP-T uses IPv4-IPv6 translation, rather than encapsulation, as
the form of IPv6 domain transport.
The CE Router SHOULD support MAP-T functionality. If MAP-T is
supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7599]. The
following CE Router requirements also apply:
MAP-T requirements:
MAPT-1: The CE Router MUST support configuration of MAP-T via the
MAP-T DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 Options for
Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped Clients).
The CE Router MAY use other mechanisms to configure MAP-T
parameters. Such mechanisms are outside the scope of this
document.
MAPT-2: The CE Router MAY support Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4
Addresses as described in [RFC7618] (Dynamic Allocation of
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
Shared IPv4 Addresses).
4. IPv4 Multicast Support
Actual deployments support IPv4 multicast for services such as IPTV.
In the transition phase it is expected that multicast services will
still be provided using IPv4 to the customer LANs.
If the CE Router supports delivery of IPv4 multicast services, then
it MUST support [RFC8114] (Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to
IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network) and [RFC8115] (DHCPv6
Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes).
5. UPnP IGD-PCP IWF Support
UPnP MAY be enabled on the CE Router for stateless mechanisms that
forward unsolicited inbound packets through to the CE. If UPnP is
enabled, the agent MUST reject any port mapping requests for ports
outside of the range(s) allocated to the CE Router.
UPnP SHOULD be disabled by default for stateful mechanisms that do
not forward unsolicited inbound packets to the CE Router, unless
implemented in conjunction with a method to control the external port
mapping, such as IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970].
6. Update of RFC7084
This document updates [RFC7084], by removing section 4.4 (Transition
Technology Support), so all the transition related references of this
document take preference over those in RFC7084.
Namely, that means that 6rd [RFC5969]) is no longer considered and
DS-LITE [RFC6333] requirements have been updated.
7. Code Considerations
One of the apparent main issues for vendors to include new
functionalities, such as support for new transition mechanisms, is
the lack of space in the flash (or equivalent) memory. However, it
has been confirmed from existing open source implementations
(OpenWRT/LEDE, Linux, others), that adding the support for the new
transitions mechanisms, requires around 10-12 Kbytes (because most of
the code base is shared among several transition mechanisms already
supported by [RFC7084]), as a single data plane is common to all
them, which typically means about 0,15% of the existing code size in
popular CEs already in the market.
It is also clear that the new requirements don't have extra cost in
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
terms of RAM memory, neither other hardware requirements such as more
powerful CPUs.
The other issue seems to be the cost of developing the code for those
new functionalities. However, at the time of writing this document,
it has been confirmed that there are several open source versions of
the required code for supporting the new transition mechanisms, and
even several vendors already have implementations and provide it to
ISPs, so the development cost is negligent, and only integration and
testing cost may become a minor issue.
8. Security Considerations
The CE Router must comply with the Security Considerations as stated
in [RFC7084], as well as those stated by each transition mechanism
implemented by the CE Router.
9. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mikael Abrahamsson, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian Carpenter, Lee
Howard, Richard Patterson, Barbara Stark, Ole Troan, James Woodyatt,
and "TBD", for their review and comments in this and previous
versions of this document.
10. Annex A: Usage Scenarios
The situation previously described, where there is ongoing IPv6
deployment and lack of IPv4 addresses, is not happening at the same
pace at every country, and even within every country, every ISP. For
different technical, financial, commercial/marketing and socio-
economic reasons, each network is transitioning at their own pace,
and nobody has a magic crystal ball, to make a guess.
Different studies (for example [IPv6Survey]) also show that this is a
changing situation, because in a single country, it may be that not
all operators provide IPv6 support, and consumers may switch ISPs and
use the same CE Router with an ISP that provides IPv4-only and an ISP
that provides IPv6 plus IPv4aaS.
So, it is clear that, to cover all those evolving situations, a CE
Router is required, at least from the perspective of the transition
support, which can accommodate those changes.
Moreover, because some services will remain IPv4-only for an
undetermined time, and some service providers will remain IPv4-only
for an undetermined period of time, IPv4 will be needed for an
undetermined period of time. There will be a need for CEs with
support "IPv4 as-a-Service" for an undetermined period of time.
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
This document is consequently, based on those premises, in order to
ensure the continued transition from networks that today may provide
access with dual-stack or IPv6-in-IPv4, as described in [RFC7084],
and as an "extension" to it, evolving to an IPv6-only access with
IPv4-as-a-Service.
Considering that situation and different possible usage cases, the CE
Router described in this document is expected to be used typically,
in the following scenarios:
1. Residential/household, Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) and Small/
Medium Enterprise (SME). Common usage is any kind of Internet
access (web, email, streaming, online gaming, etc.).
2. Residential/household and Small/Medium Enterprise (SME) with
advanced requirements. Same basic usage as for the previous
case, however there may be requirements for allowing inbound
connections (IP cameras, web, DNS, email, VPN, etc.).
The above list is not intended to be comprehensive of all the
possible usage scenarios, just an overall view. In fact,
combinations of the above usages are also possible, as well as
situations where the same CE is used at different times in different
scenarios or even different services providers that may use a
different transition mechanism.
The mechanisms for allowing inbound connections are "naturally"
available in any IPv6 router, as when using GUA, unless they are
blocked by firewall rules, which may require some manual
configuration by means of a GUI and/or CLI.
However, in the case of IPv4aaS, because the usage of private
addresses and NAT and even depending on the specific transition
mechanism, it typically requires some degree of more complex manual
configuration such as setting up a DMZ, virtual servers, or port/
protocol forwarding. In general, IPv4 CE Routers already provide GUI
and/or CLI to manually configure them, or the possibility to setup
the CE in bridge mode, so another CE behind it, takes care of that.
It is out of the scope of this document the definition of any
requirements for that.
The main difference for a CE Router to support the above indicated
scenarios and number of users, is related to the packet processing
capabilities, performance, even other details such as the number of
WAN/LAN interfaces, their maximum speed, memory for keeping tables or
tracking connections, etc. It is out of the scope of this document
to classify them.
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
The actual bandwidth capabilities of access technologies such as
FTTH, cable and even 3GPP/LTE, allows the support of such scenarios,
and indeed, is a very common situation that access networks and CE
Router provided by the service provider are the same for SMEs and
residential users.
There is also no difference in terms of who actually provides the CE
Router. In most of the cases is the service provider, and in fact is
responsible, typically, of provisioning/managing at least the WAN
side. However, commonly the user has access to configure the LAN
interfaces, firewall, DMZ, and many other features. In fact, in many
cases, the user must supply or may replace the CE Router; this makes
even more relevant that all the CE Routers, support the same
requirements defined in this document.
The CE Router described in this document is not intended for usage in
other scenarios such as large Enterprises, Data Centers, Content
Providers, etc. So, even if the documented requirements meet their
needs, they may have additional requirements, which are out of the
scope of this document.
11. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture
According to the descriptions in the preceding sections, an end-user
network will likely support both IPv4 and IPv6. It is not expected
that an end user will change their existing network topology with the
introduction of IPv6. There are some differences in how IPv6 works
and is provisioned; these differences have implications for the
network architecture.
A typical IPv4 end-user network consists of a "plug and play" router
with NAT functionality and a single link upstream, connected to the
service provider network.
From the perspective of an "IPv4 user" behind an IPv6 transition
Customer Edge Router with IPv4aaS, this doesn't change.
However, while a typical IPv4 NAT deployment by default blocks all
incoming connections and may allow opening of ports using a Universal
Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device (UPnP IGD) [UPnP-IGD] or some
other firewall control protocol, in the case of an IPv6-only access
and IPv4aaS, that may not be feasible depending on specific
transition mechanism details. PCP (Port Control Protocol, [RFC6887])
may be an alternative solution.
Another consequence of using IPv4 private address space in the end-
user network is that it provides stable addressing; that is, it never
changes even when you change service providers, and the addresses are
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
always there even when the WAN interface is down or the customer edge
router has not yet been provisioned. In the case of an IPv6-only
access, there is no change on that if the transition mechanism keeps
running the NAT interface towards the LAN side.
More advanced routers support dynamic routing (which learns routes
from other routers), and advanced end-users can build arbitrary,
complex networks using manual configuration of address prefixes
combined with a dynamic routing protocol. Once again, this is true
for both, IPv4 and IPv6.
In general, the end-user network architecture for IPv6 should provide
equivalent or better capabilities and functionality than the current
IPv4 architecture.
The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not
providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP
([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream
routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user
network.
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
+---------------+ \
| Service | \
| Provider | | Service
| Router | | Provider
+-------+-------+ | Network
| /
| Customer /
| Internet Connection /
|
+------+--------+ \
| IPv6 | \
| Customer Edge | \
| Router | /
+---+-------+---+ /
Network A | | Network B |
---+----------------+-+- --+---+-------------+-- |
| | | | \
+---+------+ | +----+-----+ +-----+----+ \
|IPv6 Host | | | IPv4 Host| |IPv4/IPv6 | /
| | | | | | Host | /
+----------+ | +----------+ +----------+ /
| |
+------+--------+ | End-User
| IPv6 | | Network(s)
| Router | \
+------+--------+ \
Network C | \
---+-------------+--+--- |
| | |
+---+------+ +----+-----+ |
|IPv6 Host | |IPv6 Host | /
| | | | /
+----------+ +----------+ /
Figure 1: An Example of a Typical End-User Network
This architecture describes the:
o Basic capabilities of the CE Router
o Provisioning of the WAN interface connecting to the service
provider
o Provisioning of the LAN interfaces
The CE Router may be manually configured in an arbitrary topology
with a dynamic routing protocol or using HNCP ([RFC7788]). Automatic
provisioning and configuration is described for a single CE Router
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
only.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
BCP 152, RFC 5625, DOI 10.17487/RFC5625, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5625>.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, DOI 10.17487/RFC5969, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5969>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
[RFC6334] Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite",
RFC 6334, DOI 10.17487/RFC6334, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6334>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC6970] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "Universal Plug and
Play (UPnP) Internet Gateway Device - Port Control
Protocol Interworking Function (IGD-PCP IWF)", RFC 6970,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6970, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6970>.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J., and D. Wing, "Discovery of
the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis",
RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7050>.
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7225] Boucadair, M., "Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7225,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7225, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7225>.
[RFC7291] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "DHCP Options for
the Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7291, July 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7291>.
[RFC7341] Sun, Q., Cui, Y., Siodelski, M., Krishnan, S., and I.
Farrer, "DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport",
RFC 7341, DOI 10.17487/RFC7341, August 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7341>.
[RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
[RFC7598] Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Farrer, I., Perreault, S., Dec,
W., Bao, C., Yeh, L., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6 Options for
Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped
Clients", RFC 7598, DOI 10.17487/RFC7598, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598>.
[RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[RFC7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.
[RFC7618] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Farrer, I., Lee, Y., Sun, Q., and M.
Boucadair, "Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses",
RFC 7618, DOI 10.17487/RFC7618, August 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7618>.
[RFC8026] Boucadair, M. and I. Farrer, "Unified IPv4-in-IPv6
Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A DHCPv6-Based
Prioritization Mechanism", RFC 8026, DOI 10.17487/RFC8026,
November 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8026>.
[RFC8114] Boucadair, M., Qin, C., Jacquenet, C., Lee, Y., and Q.
Wang, "Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients
over an IPv6 Multicast Network", RFC 8114,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8114, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8114>.
[RFC8115] Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Tsou, T., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6
Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6
Prefixes", RFC 8115, DOI 10.17487/RFC8115, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8115>.
12.2. Informative References
[IPv6Survey]
Palet Martinez, J., "IPv6 Deployment Survey", January
2018,
<https://indico.uknof.org.uk/event/41/contribution/5/
material/slides/0.pdf>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition CE for IPv4aaS April 2018
[UPnP-IGD]
UPnP Forum, "InternetGatewayDevice:2 Device Template
Version 1.01", December 2010,
<http://upnp.org/specs/gw/igd2/>.
Authors' Addresses
Jordi Palet Martinez
The IPv6 Company
Molino de la Navata, 75
La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420
Spain
EMail: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
URI: http://www.theipv6company.com/
Hans M.-H. Liu
D-Link Systems, Inc.
17595 Mount Herrmann St.
Fountain Valley, California 92708
US
EMail: hans.liu@dlinkcorp.com
URI: http://www.dlink.com/
Masanobu Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd.
800, Shimomata
Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka 436-8501
Japan
EMail: kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com
URI: https://www.necplatforms.co.jp/en/
Palet Martinez, et al. Expires October 29, 2018 [Page 18]