"Gateway-Initiated" 6rd

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Cathy Zhou  , Ole Trøan  , Qi Chen  , Tina Tsou  , Tom Taylor 
Last updated 2012-02-03 (latest revision 2011-12-29)
Stream (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized 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)
RFC Editor RFC Editor state ISR-AUTH
Internet Engineering Task Force                                  T. Tsou
Internet-Draft                                 Huawei Technologies (USA)
Intended status: Informational                                   C. Zhou
Expires: August 5, 2012                                        T. Taylor
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                                O. Troan
                                                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                                 Q. Chen
                                                           China Telecom
                                                        February 2, 2012

                        "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd


   This document proposes an alternative 6rd deployment model to that of
   RFC 5969.  The basic 6rd model allows IPv6 hosts to gain access to
   IPv6 networks across an IPv4 access network using 6-in-4 tunnels. 6rd
   requires support by a device (the 6rd-CE) on the customer site, which
   must also be assigned an IPv4 address.  The alternative model
   described in this document initiates the 6-in-4 tunnels from an
   operator-owned gateway collocated with the operator's IPv4 network
   edge, rather than from customer equipment.  The advantages of this
   approach are that it requires no modification to customer equipment
   and avoids assignment of IPv4 addresses to customer equipment.  The
   latter point means less pressure on IPv4 addresses in a high-growth

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 August 5, 2012.

Copyright Notice

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Proposed Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     3.1.  Prefix Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     3.2.  Relevant Differences From Basic 6rd . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 2012

1.  Introduction

   6rd ([RFC5969]) provides a transition tool for connecting IPv6
   devices across an IPv4 network to an IPv6 network, at which point the
   packets can be routed natively.  The network topology is shown in
   Figure 1.

      +--------------+     +-----------------+      +---------+
      |              |     |                 |      |         |
   +-----+        +-----+  | Provider   +--------+  |         |
   |IPv6 |        | 6rd |__|   IPv4     | Border |__|  IPv6   |
   |Host |        |  CE |  |  network   | Router |  | network |
   +-----+        +-----+  |            +--------+  |         |
      | Customer LAN |     |                 |      |         |
      +--------------+     +-----------------+      +---------+

                     Figure 1: 6rd Deployment Topology

   In Figure 1, the CE is the customer edge router.  It is provisioned
   with a delegated IPv6 prefix, but also with an IPv4 address so that
   it is reachable through the IPv4 network.  If a public IPv4 address
   is provisioned to every customer, it will aggravate the pressure due
   to IPv4 address shortage for operators faced with a high rate of
   growth in the number of broadband subscribers to their network.  The
   use of private addresses with 6rd avoids this particular difficulty,
   but brings other complications.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   This document uses no requirements language.

2.  Problem Statement

   Consider an operator facing a high subscriber growth rate.  As a
   result of this growth rate, the operator faces pressure on its stock
   of available public IPv4 addresses.  For this reason, the operator is
   motivated to offer IPv6 access as quickly as possible.  Figure 2
   shows the sort of network situation envisioned in the present

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 2012

   +----+              +-------------------+    +----------------+
   |Host|\             |                   |    |                |
   +----+ \_+---+    +----+    Metro    +----+  |    Backbone    |
           _|CPE|----| GW |   Network   | BR |--|     Network    |
   +----+ / +---+    +----+    (IPv4)   +----+  |      (IPv6)    |
   |Host|/             |                   |    |                |
   +----+              +-------------------+    +----------------+

   Host = IPv6 customer host device
   CPE  = customer edge device (customer-provided)
   GW   = provider edge device (Gateway)
   BR   = border router (dual stack)

   Specialized GW and BR functions are described in the next section.

          Figure 2: Typical Network Scenario For IPv6 Transition

   The backbone network will be the first part of the operator's network
   to support IPv6.  The metro network is not so easily upgraded to
   support IPv6 since many devices need to be modified and there may be
   some impact to existing services.  Thus any means of providing IPv6
   access has to minimize the changes required to devices in the metro

   In contrast to the situation described for basic 6rd [RFC5569], the
   operator is assumed to have no control over the capabilities of the
   IP devices on the customer premises.  As a result, the operator
   cannot assume that any of these devices are capable of supporting

   If the customer equipment is in bridged mode and IPv6 is deployed to
   sites via a Service Provider's (SP's) IPv4 network, the IPv6-only
   host needs a IPv6 address to visit the IPv6 service.  In this
   scenario, 6to4 or 6rd can be used.  However, each IPv6-only host may
   need one corresponding IPv4 address when using public IPv4 address in
   6to4 or 6rd, which puts great address pressure on the operators.

   If the CPE in the above figure is acting in bridging mode, each host
   behind it needs to be directly assigned an IPv6 prefix so it can
   access IPv6 services.  If the CPE is acting in routing mode, only the
   CPE needs to be assigned an IPv6 prefix, and it delegates prefixes to
   the hosts behind it.

   If the Gateway supports IPv4 only, then an IPv4 address must also be
   assigned to each host (bridging mode) or to the CPE (routing mode).
   Both cases, but bridging mode in particular, put pressure on the
   provider's stock of IPv4 addresses.

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 2012

   If the Gateway is dual stack, an arrangement may be possible whereby
   all communication between the Gateway and the customer site uses IPv6
   and the need to assign IPv4 addresses to customer devices is avoided.
   A possible solution is presented in the next section.

3.  Proposed Solution

   For basic 6rd [RFC5969], the 6rd CE initiates the 6-in-4 tunnel to
   the 6rd Border Relay to carry its IPv6 traffic.  To avoid the
   requirement for customer premises equipment to fulfill this role, it
   is necessary to move the tunneling function to a network device.
   This document identifies a functional element termed the 6rd Gateway
   to perform this task.  In what follows, the 6rd Gateway and 6rd
   Border Relay are referred to simply as the Gateway and Border Relay

   The functions of Gateway are:

   o  to generate and allocate Gateway initiated 6rd delegated prefixes
      for IPv6-capable customer devices, as described in Section 3.1.

   o  to forward outgoing IPv6 packets through a tunnel to a Border
      Relay, which extracts and forwards them to an IPv6 network as for

   o  to extract incoming IPv6 packets tunneled from the Border Relay
      and forward them to the correct user device.

   In the proposed solution, there is only one tunnel initiated from
   each Gateway to the Border Relay, which greatly reduces the number of
   tunnels the Border Relay has to handle.  The deployment scenario
   consistent with the problem statement in Section 2 collocates the
   Gateway with the IP edge of the access network.  This is shown in
   Figure 2 above, and is the typical placement of the Broadband Network
   Gateway (BNG) in a fixed broadband network.  By assumption, the metro
   network beyond the BNG is IPv4.  Transport between the customer site
   and the Gateway is over layer 2.

   The elements of the proposed solution are these:

   o  The IPv6 prefix assigned to the customer site contains the
      compressed IPv4 address of the network-facing side of the Gateway,
      plus a manually provisioned or Gateway-generated customer site
      identifier.  This is illustrated in Figure 3 below.

   o  The Border Relay is able to route incoming IPv6 packets to the
      correct Gateway by extracting the compressed Gateway address from

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 2012

      the IPv6 destination address of the incoming packet, expanding it
      to a full 32-bit IPv4 address, and setting it as the destination
      address of the encapsulated packet.

   o  The Gateway can route incoming packets to the correct link after
      decapsulation using a mapping from either the full IPv6 prefix or
      the customer site identifier extracted from that prefix to the
      appropriate link.

3.1.  Prefix Delegation

   Referring back to Figure 2, prefix assignment to the customer
   equipment occurs in the normal fashion through the Gateway/IP edge,
   using either DHCPv6 or SLAAC.  Figure 3 illustrates the structure of
   the assigned prefix, and how the components are derived, within the
   context of a complete address.

   |  32 bit Gateway IPv4 address   |
   |<---IPv4MaskLen --->|  o bits   |   Gateway or manually
                        /           /    generated value, unique
      Configured       /           /   / for the gateway
       |              /           /   |
       |             /           /    V
   |   V  p bits    |  o bits    | n bits  |m bits |     64 bits    |
   |                |  Gateway   |Customer |       |                |
   | Common prefix  | identifier |  site   |subnet | interface ID   |
   |                |            | index   |  ID   |                |
   |<------ GI 6rd delegated prefix ------>|

    Figure 3: Gateway-Initiated 6rd Address Format for a Customer Site

   The common prefix, i.e., the first p bits of the GI 6rd delegated
   prefix, is configured in the Gateway.  This part of the prefix is
   common across multiple customers and multiple Gateways.  Multiple
   common prefix values may be used in a network either for service
   separation or for scalability.

   The Gateway Identifier is equal to the o low-order bits of the
   Gateway IPv4 address on the virtual link to the Border Relay.  The
   number of bits o is equal to 32 - IPv4MaskLen, where the latter is
   the length of the IPv4 prefix from which the Gateway IPv4 addresses
   are derived.  The value of IPv4MaskLen is configured in both the
   Gateways and the Border Relays.

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 2012

   The Customer Site Index is effectively a sequence number assigned to
   an individual customer site served by the Gateway.  The value of the
   index for a given customer site must be unique across the Gateway.
   The length n of the Customer Site Index is provisioned in the
   Gateway, and must be large enough to accommodate the number of
   customer sites that the Gateway is expected to serve.

   To give a numerical example, consider a 6rd domain containing ten
   million IPv6-capable customer devices (a rather high number given
   that 6rd is meant for the early stages of IPv6 deployment).  The
   estimated number of 6rd Gateways needed to serve this domain would be
   in the order of 3,300, each serving 30,000 customer devices.
   Assuming best-case compression for the Gateway addresses, the Gateway
   Identifier field has length o = 12 bits.  If IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling
   is being used, this best case is more likely to be achievable than it
   would be if the IPv4 addresses belonged to the customer devices.
   More controllably, the customer device index has length n = 15 bits.

   Overall, these figures suggest that the length p of the common prefix
   can be 29 bits for a /56 delegated prefix, or 21 bits if /48
   delegated prefixes need to be allocated.

3.2.  Relevant Differences From Basic 6rd

   A number of the points in [RFC5969] apply with the simple
   substitution of the Gateway for the 6rd CE.  When it comes to
   configuration, the definition of IPv4MaskLen changes, and there are
   other differences as indicated in the previous section.  Since
   special configuration of customer equipment is not required, the 6rd
   DHCPv6 option is inapplicable.

   Since the link for the customer site to the network now extends only
   as far as the Gateway, Neighbour Unreachability Detection on the part
   of customer devices is similarly limited in scope.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

5.  Security Considerations

   No change from [RFC5969].

6.  References

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 2012

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC5969]  Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
              Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
              RFC 5969, August 2010.

6.2.  Informative References

   [RFC5569]  Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
              Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, January 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Tina Tsou
   Huawei Technologies (USA)
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050

   Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com

   Cathy Zhou
   Huawei Technologies
   Bantian, Longgang District
   Shenzhen  518129
   P.R. China

   Email: cathy.zhou@huawei.com

   Tom Taylor
   Huawei Technologies
   Ottawa, Ontario

   Email: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft           "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd           February 2012

   Ole Troan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Telemarksvingen 20
   Oslo,   N-0655

   Email: ot@cisco.com

   Qi Chen
   China Telecom
   109, Zhongshan Ave. West,
   Tianhe District, Guangzhou  510630
   P.R. China

   Email: chenqi.0819@gmail.com

Tsou, et al.             Expires August 5, 2012                 [Page 9]