Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-02

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01
• 02

Internet Engineering Task Force                                G. Lencse
Internet-Draft                                                      BUTE
Intended status: Informational                         J. Palet Martinez
Expires: July 28, 2019                                  The IPv6 Company
                                                               L. Howard
                                                                 Retevia
                                                            R. Patterson
                                                                  Sky UK
                                                               I. Farrer
                                                     Deutsche Telekom AG
                                                        January 24, 2019

       Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
               draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-02

Abstract

   Several IPv6 transition technologies have been developed to provide
   customers with IPv4-as-a-Service (IPv4aaS) for ISPs with an IPv6-only
   access and/or core network.  All these technologies have their
   advantages and disadvantages, and depending on existing topology,
   skills, strategy and other preferences, one of these technologies may
   be the most appropriate solution for a network operator.

   This document examines the five most prominent IPv4aaS technologies
   considering a number of different aspects to provide network
   operators with an easy to use reference to assist in selecting the
   technology that best suits their needs.

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
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 28, 2019.

Lencse, et al.            Expires July 28, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    Pros and Cons of IPv4aaS Technologies     January 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Overview of the Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Dual-Stack Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Lightweight 4over6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   3.  High-level Architectures and their Consequences . . . . . . .   8
     3.1.  Service Provider Network Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.2.  Network Address Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3.  IPv4 Address Sharing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4.  CE Provisioning Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5.  Support for Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.  Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  Architectural Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.1.  Basic Comparison  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.2.  Tradeoff between Port Number Efficiency and Stateless
           Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.3.  Support for Public Server Operation . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.4.  Support and Implementations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.1.  OS Support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.2.  Support in Cellular and Broadband Networks  . . . . .  15
       4.4.3.  Implementation Code Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.5.  Typical Deployment and Traffic Volume Considerations  . .  16