Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-10-22
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IPv6 Operations Working Group                                 G. Lencse
Internet Draft                                                     BUTE
Intended status: Informational                        J. Palet Martinez
Expires: April 2018                                    The IPv6 Company
                                                              L. Howard
                                                                Retevia
                                                           R. Patterson
                                                                 Sky UK
                                                       October 22, 2018

         Pros and Cons of IPv6 Transition Technologies for IPv4aaS
               draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-01.txt

Abstract

   Several IPv6 transition technologies can be used to provide IPv4-as-
   a-service (IPv4aaS) to the customers, while the ISPs have only IPv6
   in their access and or core network. All these technologies have
   their advantages and disadvantages. Depending on several various
   conditions and preferences, different technologies may prove to be
   the most appropriate solution. This document examines the five most
   prominent IPv4aaS technologies considering several different aspects
   in order to provide network operators with an easy to use guideline
   for selecting the technology that suit their needs the best.

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), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Lencse et al.          Expires April 22, 2019                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Pros and Cons of IPv4aaS Technologies      October 2018

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2019.

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
   (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. High-level Architectures and their Consequences .............. 3
      2.1. Service Provider Network Traversal ...................... 3
      2.2. IPv4 Address Sharing .................................... 4
   3. Detailed Analysis ............................................ 4
      3.1. Architectural Differences ............................... 4
         3.1.1. 464XLAT ............................................ 4
         3.1.2. DS-Lite ............................................ 5
         3.1.3. Lw4o6 .............................................. 5
         3.1.4. MAP-E .............................................. 6
         3.1.5. MAP-T .............................................. 6
         3.1.6. Basic Comparison ................................... 6
      3.2. Tradeoff between Port Number Efficiency and Stateless
             Operation ............................................. 7
      3.3. Support for Server Operation ............................ 9
      3.4. Support and Implementations ............................. 9
         3.4.1. OS Support ......................................... 9
         3.4.2. Support in Cellular and Broadband Networks ......... 9
         3.4.3. Implementation Code Sizes ......................... 10
      3.5. Typical Deployment and Traffic Volume Considerations ... 10
         3.5.1. Deployment Possibilities .......................... 10
         3.5.2. Cellular Networks with 464XLAT .................... 10
      3.6. Load Sharing ........................................... 11
      3.7. Logging ................................................ 11
   4. Performance Comparison ...................................... 11
   5. Security Considerations ..................................... 12
   6. IANA Considerations ......................................... 12
Show full document text