6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels
draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-06

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Victor Kuarsingh  , Yiu Lee  , Olivier Vautrin 
Last updated 2012-07-09 (latest revision 2012-05-15)
Stream ISE
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream ISE state (None)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Document shepherd None
IESG IESG state Approved-announcement sent
Telechat date
Responsible AD Ron Bonica
IESG note ISE Submission
Send notices to victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com, yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com, Olivier@juniper.net, draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel@tools.ietf.org, rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
v6ops                                                  V. Kuarsingh, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                     Rogers Communications
Intended status: Informational                                    Y. Lee
Expires: November 16, 2012                                       Comcast
                                                              O. Vautrin
                                                        Juniper Networks
                                                            May 15, 2012

                     6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels
         draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-06

Abstract

   6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels (6to4-PMT) provide a framework which
   can help manage 6to4 [RFC3056] tunnels operating in an anycast
   [RFC3068] configuration.  The 6to4-PMT framework is intended to serve
   as an option to operators to help improve the experience of 6to4
   operation when conditions of the network may provide sub-optimal
   performance or break normal 6to4 operation. 6to4-PMT provides a
   stable provider prefix and forwarding environment by utilizing
   existing 6to4 relays with an added function of IPv6 Prefix
   Translation.  This operation may be particularly important in NAT444
   infrastructures where a customer endpoint may be assigned a non-
   RFC1918 address thus breaking the return path for anycast [RFC3068]
   based 6to4 operation.  The 6to4-PMT model has successfully been used
   in a production network and has been implemented as open source code
   and by a major routing vendor.

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 November 16, 2012.

Copyright Notice

Kuarsingh, et al.       Expires November 16, 2012               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft        6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels             May 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.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  6to4 Provider Managed Tunnel Model . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Traffic Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  Prefix Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.4.  Translation State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Deployment Considerations and Requirements . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.1.  Customer Opt-out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.2.  Shared CGN Space Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  End to End Transparency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.4.  Path MTU Discovery Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.5.  Checksum Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.6.  Application Layer Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.7.  Routing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.8.  Relay Deployments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Kuarsingh, et al.       Expires November 16, 2012               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft        6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels             May 2012

Show full document text