Network Working Group J. Arkko
Internet-Draft Ericsson
Intended status: Standards Track F. Baker
Expires: August 29, 2010 Cisco Systems
February 25, 2010
Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms
draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-01
Abstract
The Internet continues to grow beyond the capabilities of IPv4. An
expansion in the address space is clearly required. With its
increase in the number of available prefixes and addresses in a
subnet, and improvements in address management, IPv6 is the only real
option on the table. Yet, IPv6 deployment requires some effort,
resources, and expertise. The availability of many different
deployment models is one reason why expertise is required. This
document discusses the IPv6 deployment models and migration tools,
and recommends ones that have been found to work well in many common
situations.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29, 2010.
Copyright Notice
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
Copyright (c) 2010 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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Choosing a Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Guidelines for IPv6 Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Native Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Crossing IPv4 Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. IPv6-Only Core Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Unilateral Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
1. Introduction
The Internet continues to grow beyond the capabilities of IPv4. The
tremendous success of the Internet has strained the IPv4 address
space, which is no longer sufficient to fuel future growth. At the
time of this writing, the IANA "free pool" contained only 24
unallocated unicast IPv4 /8 prefixes. This is sufficient for the
next 2-3 years at best. An expansion in the address space is clearly
required. With its increase in the number of available prefixes and
addresses in a subnet, and improvements in address management, IPv6
is the only real option on the table.
Accordingly, many organizations have employed or are planning to
employ IPv6 in their networks. Yet, IPv6 deployment requires some
effort, resources, and expertise. This is largely a natural part of
maintaining and evolving a network: changing requirements are taken
into account in normal planning, procurement and update cycles. Very
large networks have successfully adopted IPv6 alongside IPv4, with
surprisingly little effort.
However, in order to successfully make this transition, some amount
of new expertise is required. Different types of experience will be
required: basic understanding of IPv6 mechanisms, debugging tools,
product capabilities and caveats when used with IPv6, and so on. The
availability of many different IPv6 deployment models and tools is an
additional reason why expertise is required. These models and tools
have been developed over the years at the IETF, some for specific
circumstances and others for more general use. They differ greatly
in their principles of operation. Over time, views about the best
ways to employ the tools have evolved. Given the number of options,
network managers are understandably confused. They need guidance on
recommended approaches to IPv6 deployment.
The rest of this document is organized as follows. Section 2
introduces some terminology, Section 3 discusses some of the general
principles behind choosing particular deployment models and tools,
and Section 4 goes through the recommended deployment models for
common situations
2. Terminology
In this document, the following terms are used. "NAT44" refers to
any IPv4-to-IPv4 network address translation algorithm, both "Basic
NAT" and "Network Address/Port Translator (NAPT)", as defined by
[RFC2663].
"Dual Stack" refers to a technique for providing complete support for
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
both Internet protocols -- IPv4 and IPv6 -- in hosts and routers
[RFC4213].
"Dual Stack Lite" refers to a technique that employs tunneling and
NAT44 to provide IPv4 connectivity over IPv6 networks
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite].
"NAT-PT" refers to a specific, old design of a Network Address
Translator - Protocol Translator defined in [RFC2766].
3. Principles
The end goal is network-wide native IPv6 deployment, resulting in the
obsolescence of transitional mechanisms based on encapsulation,
tunnels, or translation, and also resulting in the obsolescence of
IPv4. Transition mechanisms, taken as a class, are a means to an
end, to simplify the process for the network administration.
However, the goals, constraints, and opportunities for IPv6
deployment differ from one case to another. There is no single right
model for IPv6 deployment, just like there is no one and only model
IPv4 network design. Some guidelines can be given, however. Common
deployment models that have been found to work well are discussed in
Section 4, and the small set of standardized IETF migration tools
support these models. But first it may be useful to discuss some
general principles that guide our thinking about what is a good
deployment model.
3.1. Goals
The primary goal is to facilitate the continued growth of the
networking industry and deployment of Internet technology at
relatively low capital and operational expense. This is at risk with
IPv4 due to the address runout; economics teaches us that a finite
resource, when stressed, becomes expensive, either in the actual cost
of the resource or in the complexity of the technology and processes
required to manage it. It is also at risk while both IPv4 and IPv6
are deployed in parallel, as it costs more to run two technologies
than one. To this end, since IPv4 clearly will not scale to meet our
insatiable requirements, the primary technical goals are the global
deployment of IPv6 both in the network and by applications, and the
resulting obsolescence of IPv4. Temporary goals in support of this
focus on enabling parts of the Internet to employ IPv6 and disable
IPv4 before the entire Internet has done so.
It is important to start the deployment process in a timely manner.
Most of the effort is practical -- network component choices, network
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
management, planning, implementation -- and at the time of this
writing, reasonably easily achievable. There is no particular
advantage to avoiding dealing with IPv6 as a part the normal network
planning cycle. The migration tools already exist, and while
additional features continue to be developed it is not expected that
they radically change what networks have to do. In other words,
there is no point in waiting for an improved design.
There are only a few exceptional networks where co-existence with
IPv4 is not a consideration at all. These networks are typically new
deployments, strictly controlled by a central authority, and have no
need to deal with legacy devices. For example, specialized sensor
networks that communicate only to designated servers can easily be
deployed as IPv6-only networks. In most other networks IPv4 has to
be considered. A typical requirement is that older, IPv4-only
devices must be accommodated. Most networks that cross
administrative boundaries or allow end user equipment have such
requirements. Even in situations where the network consists of only
new, IPv6-capable devices it is typically required that the devices
can communicate with the IPv4 Internet.
It is expected that after a period of supporting both IPv4 and IPv6,
IPv4 can eventually be turned off. This should happen gradually.
For instance, a service provider network might stop providing IPv4
service within its own network, while still allowing its IPv6
customers to access the rest of the IPv4 Internet.
3.2. Choosing a Deployment Model
The first requirement is that the model or tool actually allows
communications to flow. While this sounds too obvious to even state,
it is sometimes not easy to ensure that a proposed model does not
have failure modes related to supporting older devices, for instance.
A network that is not serving all of its users is not fulfilling its
task.
The ability to communicate is also far more important than fine-
grained performance differences. In general, it is not productive to
focus on optimization of a design that is designed to be temporary,
such as a migration solution necessarily is. Consequently, existing
tools are often preferred over new ones, even if for some specific
circumstance it would be possible to construct a slightly more
efficient design.
Similarly, migration tools that can be disposed after a period of co-
existence are preferred over tools that require more permanent
changes. Such permanent changes may incur costs even after the
transition to IPv6 has been completed.
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
Looking back on the deployment of Internet technology, some of the
factors that have been important for success include
[RFC5218, baker.shanghai]
o The ability to offer a valuable service. In the case of the
Internet, connectivity has been this service.
o The ability to deploy the solution in an incremental fashion.
o Simplicity. This has been a key factor in making it possible for
all types of devices to support the Internet protocols.
o Openly available implementations. These make it easier for
researchers, start-ups and others to build on or improve existing
components.
o The ability to scale. The IPv4 Internet grew far larger than its
original designers had anticipated, and scaling limits only became
apparent 20-30 years later.
o The design supports robust interoperability rather than mere
correctness. This is important in order to ensure that the
solution works in different circumstances and in an imperfectly
controlled world.
These factors are also important when choosing IPv6 migration tools.
It is also essential that any chosen designs allow the network to be
maintained, serviced, diagnosed and measured. The ability of the
network to operate under many different circumstances and surprising
conditions is a key. Any large network that employs brittle
components will incur significant support costs. For instance, it is
generally a bad assumption that large number of devices have specific
software or configuration.
Properly executed IPv6 deployment normally involves a step-wise
approach where individual functions or parts of the network are
updated at different times. For instance, IPv6 connectivity has to
be established and tested before DNS entries with IPv6 addresses can
be entered. Or specific services can be moved to support IPv6
earlier than others. In general, most deployment models employ a
very similar network architecture for both IPv4 and IPv6. The
principle of changing only the minimum amount necessary is applied
here.
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
4. Guidelines for IPv6 Deployment
This section presents a number of common scenarios along with
recommended deployment tools for them. We start from the default,
simplest deployment situation where native connectivity is available
and both IP versions are used. Since native IPv6 connectivity not
available in all networks, our second scenario looks at ways of
arranging such connectivity over the IPv4 Internet. The third
scenario is more advanced and looks at a service provider network
that runs only on IPv6 but which is still capable of providing both
IPv6 and IPv4 services. The fourth and most advanced scenario
focuses unilateral deployment of IPv6, i.e., being able to employ
IPv6 for a particular communication flow even if the other end is
still on IPv4.
Note that there are many other possible deployment models and
existing specifications to support such models. These other models
are not necessarily frowned upon. However, they are not expected to
be the mainstream deployment models, and consequently, the associated
specifications are typically not IETF standards track RFCs. Network
managers should not adopt these non-mainstream models lightly,
however, as there is little guarantee that they work well. There are
also models that are believed to be problematic. An older model to
IPv6 - IPv4 translation (NAT-PT) [RFC2766] suffers from a number of
drawbacks arising from, for example, its attempt to capture DNS
queries on path [RFC4966]. Another example regarding the preference
to employ tunneling instead of double translation will be discussed
later in this document.
4.1. Native Dual Stack
The simplest deployment model is Dual Stack: one turns on IPv6
throughout one's existing IPv4 network and allows applications using
the two protocols to operate as ships in the night. This model is
applicable to most networks - home, enterprise, service provider, or
content provider network.
The purpose of this model is to support any type of device and
communication, and to make it an end-to-end choice which IP version
is used between the peers. There are minimal assumptions about the
capabilities and configuration of hosts in these networks. Native
connectivity avoids problems associated with the configuration of
tunnels and Maximum Transfer Unit (MTU) settings. As a result, these
networks are robust and reliable. Accordingly, this is the
recommended deployment model for most networks, and supported by IETF
standards such as dual stack [RFC4213] and address selection
[RFC3484].
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
The challenges associated with this model are two-fold. First, while
dual-stack allows each individual network to deploy IPv6 on their
own, actual use still requires participation from all parties between
the peers. For instance, the peer must be reachable over IPv6, have
an IPv6 address to itself, and advertise such an address in the
relevant naming service (such as the DNS). This can create a
situation where IPv6 has been turned on in a network but there is
little actual traffic. One direct way to affect this situation is to
ensure that major destinations of traffic are prepared to receive
IPv6 traffic. Current Internet traffic is highly concentrated on
selected content provider networks, and making a change in even a
small number of these networks can have significant effects. This
was recently observed when YouTube started supporting IPv6
[networkworld.youtube].
The second challenge is that not all applications deal gracefully
with situations where one of the alternative destination addresses
works unreliably. For instance, if IPv6 connectivity is unreliable
it may take a long time for some applications to switch over to IPv4.
As a result, many content providers are shying away from advertising
IPv6 addresses in DNS. This in turn exacerbates the first challenge.
Long term, the use of modern application toolkits and APIs solves
this problem. In the short term content providers and user network
managers have made a mutual agreement a requirement to resolve names
to IPv6 addresses. Such agreements are similar to peering agreements
and are necessary for the time being. Nevertheless, there are many
types of traffic in the Internet and only some of it requires such
careful coordination. Popular peer-to-peer systems can automatically
and reliably employ IPv6 connectivity where it is available, for
instance.
Despite these challenges the native dual stack connectivity model
remains the recommended approach. It is responsible for a large part
of the forward progress on world-wide IPv6 deployment. The largest
IPv6 networks employ this approach.
The original intent of dual stack was to deploy both IP versions
alongside each other before IPv4 addresses were to run out. As we
know, this never happened and deployment now has to take place with
limited IPv4 addresses. Employing dual stack together with a
traditional IPv4 address translator (NAT44) is a very common
configuration. If the address translator is acceptable for the
network from a pure IPv4 perspective, this model can be recommended
from a dual stack perspective as well. The advantage of IPv6 in this
model is that it allows direct addressing of specific nodes in the
network, creating a contrast to the translated IPv4 service and
allowing the construction of IPv6-based applications that offer more
functionality.
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
There may also be situations where a traditional IPv4 address
translator is no longer sufficient. For instance, in typical
residential networks, each subscriber is given one global IPv4
address, and the subscriber's NAT44 device may use this address with
as many devices as it can handle. As IPv4 address space becomes more
constrained and without substantial movement to IPv6, it is expected
that service providers will be pressured to assign a single global
IPv4 address to multiple subscribers. Indeed, in some deployments
this is already the case. The dual stack model is still applicable
even in these networks, but the NAT44 functionality may need to be
relocated and enhanced. On some networks it is possible to employ
overlapping private address space [I-D.miles-behave-l2nat]
[I-D.arkko-dual-stack-extra-lite]. Other networks may require a
combination of NAT44 enhancements and tunneling. These scenarios are
discussed further in Section 4.3.
4.2. Crossing IPv4 Islands
Native IPv6 connectivity is not always available, but fortunately it
can established using tunnels. Tunneling introduces some additional
complexity and has a risk of MTU or other mis-configurations. It
should only be used when establishing native connectivity is not
possible. Typically, this involves crossing another administrative
domain or a router that cannot be easily re-configured.
There are several types tunneling mechanisms, including manually
configured IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels [RFC4213], automatic host-based
tunnels [RFC4380] and the use of Virtual Private Network (VPN) or
mobility tunnels to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 [RFC4301] [RFC5454]
[RFC5555]. More advanced solutions provide a mesh-based framework of
tunnels [RFC5565].
There are no major challenges with tunneling beyond the possible
configuration and MTU problems. Tunneling is very widely deployed
both for IPv6 connectivity and other reasons, and well understood.
In general, the IETF recommends that tunneling be used if it is
necessary to cross a segment of IP version X when communicating from
IP version Y to Y. An alternative design would be to employ protocol
translation twice. However, this design involves problems similar to
those created by IPv4 address translation and is largely untried
technology in any larger scale.
4.3. IPv6-Only Core Network
An emerging deployment model uses IPv6 as the dominant protocol at a
service provider network, and tunnels IPv4 through this network in a
manner similar to the one described in the previous section. There
are several motivations for choosing this deployment model:
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
o There may not be enough public or private addresses to support
network management functions in an end-to-end fashion, without
segmenting the network into small parts with overlapping address
space.
o IP address sharing among subscribers may involve new address
translation nodes within the service provider's network. IPv6 can
be used to reach these nodes. Normal IPv4 routing is insufficient
for this purpose, as the same addresses would be used in several
parts of the network.
o It may be simpler for the service provider to employ a single-
version network.
The recommended tool for this model is Dual Stack Lite
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]. Dual Stack Lite provides both
relief for IPv4 address shortage and makes forward progress on IPv6
deployment, by moving service provider networks and IPv4 traffic over
IPv6. Given this IPv6 connectivity, as a side-effect it becomes easy
to provide IPv6 connectivity all the way to the end users.
4.4. Unilateral Deployment
Our final deployment model breaks the requirement that all parties
must upgrade to IPv6 before any actual communications use IPv6. This
model makes sense when the following conditions are met:
o There is a fact or requirement that there be an IPv4-only domain
and an IPv6-only domain.
o There is a requirement that hosts in the IPv4-only domain access
servers or peers in the IPv6-only domain and vice versa.
When we say "IPv4-only" or "IPv6-only", we mean that the applications
can communicate only using IPv4 or IPv6; this might be due to the
absence of stacks in the hosts or routing in the network; the effect
is the same. The reason to switch to an IPv6-only network may be a
desire to test such a configuration, or to simplify the network. It
is expected that as IPv6 deployment progresses, the second reason
will become more prevalent. One particular reason for considering an
IPv6-only domain is the effect of overlapping private address space
to applications. This is important in networks that have exhausted
both public and private IPv4 address space and where arranging an
IPv6-only network is easier than dealing with the overlapping address
space in applications.
Note that the existence of an IPv6-only domain requires that all
devices are indeed IPv6-capable. In today's mixed networking
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
environments with legacy devices this can not always be guaranteed.
But it can be arranged in networks where all devices are controlled
by a central authority. For instance, newly built corporate
networks.
One obvious unilateral deployment approach applies to applications
that include proxies or relays. One might position a web proxy, a
mail server, or a voice transcoder across the boundary between IPv4
and IPv6 domains, so that the application terminates IPv4 sessions on
one side and IPv6 sessions on the other. Doing this preserves the
end-to-end nature of communications between gateways. For obvious
reasons, this solution is preferable to the implementation of
Application Layer Gateways in network layer translators.
The other approach is network layer IPv4/IPv6 translation as
described in IPv4/IPv6 Translation [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate] [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64]
[I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64]. IPv4/IPv6 translation at the network layer
is similar in its advantages and pitfalls to IPv4/IPv4 translation.
It is, however, stateless for interfaces in the IPv6-only network
with IPv4-mapped addresses, and allows IPv4 hosts to directly
initiate communication with those interfaces.
5. Further Reading
Various aspects of IPv6 deployment have been covered in several RFCs.
Of particular interest may be the basic dual stack definition
[RFC4213], application aspects [RFC4038], deployment in Internet
Service Provider Networks [RFC4029], deployment in enterprise
networks [RFC4057] [RFC4852], and considerations in specific access
networks such as cellular networks [RFC3314] [RFC3574] [RFC4215] or
802.16 networks [RFC5181].
6. Security Considerations
This document has no impact on the security properties of specific
IPv6 transition tools.
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA implications.
8. References
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
February 2006.
[RFC5454] Tsirtsis, G., Park, V., and H. Soliman, "Dual-Stack Mobile
IPv4", RFC 5454, March 2009.
[RFC5555] Soliman, H., "Mobile IPv6 Support for Dual Stack Hosts and
Routers", RFC 5555, June 2009.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, June 2009.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address
Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766,
February 2000.
[RFC3314] Wasserman, M., "Recommendations for IPv6 in Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Standards",
RFC 3314, September 2002.
[RFC3574] Soininen, J., "Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks",
RFC 3574, August 2003.
[RFC4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into
ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005.
[RFC4038] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.
Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
RFC 4038, March 2005.
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
[RFC4057] Bound, J., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios", RFC 4057,
June 2005.
[RFC4215] Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks", RFC 4215,
October 2005.
[RFC4852] Bound, J., Pouffary, Y., Klynsma, S., Chown, T., and D.
Green, "IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis - IP Layer 3
Focus", RFC 4852, April 2007.
[RFC4966] Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network
Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to
Historic Status", RFC 4966, July 2007.
[RFC5181] Shin, M-K., Han, Y-H., Kim, S-E., and D. Premec, "IPv6
Deployment Scenarios in 802.16 Networks", RFC 5181,
May 2008.
[RFC5218] Thaler, D. and B. Aboba, "What Makes For a Successful
Protocol?", RFC 5218, July 2008.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]
Durand, A., Droms, R., Haberman, B., Woodyatt, J., Lee,
Y., and R. Bush, "Dual-stack lite broadband deployments
post IPv4 exhaustion",
draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-03 (work in progress),
February 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]
Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation",
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-06 (work in progress),
February 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-address-format]
Huitema, C., Bao, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators",
draft-ietf-behave-address-format-04 (work in progress),
January 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-dns64]
Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum,
"DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation
from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-ietf-behave-dns64-06 (work in progress),
February 2010.
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate]
Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-09 (work in
progress), February 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful]
Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-08 (work in
progress), January 2010.
[I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64]
Beijnum, I., "IPv6-to-IPv4 translation FTP
considerations", draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-00 (work in
progress), December 2009.
[I-D.arkko-townsley-coexistence]
Arkko, J. and M. Townsley, "IPv4 Run-Out and IPv4-IPv6 Co-
Existence Scenarios", draft-arkko-townsley-coexistence-03
(work in progress), July 2009.
[I-D.miles-behave-l2nat]
Miles, D. and M. Townsley, "Layer2-Aware NAT",
draft-miles-behave-l2nat-00 (work in progress),
March 2009.
[]
Arkko, J. and L. Eggert, "Scalable Operation of Address
Translators with Per-Interface Bindings",
draft-arkko-dual-stack-extra-lite-00 (work in progress),
February 2010.
[baker.shanghai]
Baker, F., "The view from IPv6 Operations WG (and we'll
talk about translation)", Presentation in the China Mobile
Workshop on IPv6 Deployment in Cellular Networks, http://
ipv6ws.arkko.com/presentations/
3GPP-IETF-V6OPS-Discussion.pdf, Shanghai, China,
November 2009.
[networkworld.youtube]
Marsan, C., "YouTube support of IPv6 seen in dramatic
traffic spike", Network World article http://
www.networkworld.com/news/2010/020110-youtube-ipv6.html,
February 2010.
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Transition Guidelines February 2010
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the many people who have engaged in
discussions around this topic over the years. Some of the material
in this document comes originally from Fred Baker's presentation in a
workshop in Shanghai [baker.shanghai]. In addition, the authors
would like to thank Mark Townsley with whom the Jari Arkko wrote an
earlier document [I-D.arkko-townsley-coexistence]. The authors would
also like thank Dave Thaler, Alain Durand, Randy Bush, and Dan Wing
who have always provided valuable guidance in this field. Finally,
the authors would like to thank Cameron Byrne, Suresh Krishnan,
Fredrik Garneij, and Mohamed Boucadair who have commented on early
versions of this draft.
Authors' Addresses
Jari Arkko
Ericsson
Jorvas 02420
Finland
Email: jari.arkko@piuha.net
Fred Baker
Cisco Systems
Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA
Email: fred@cisco.com
Arkko & Baker Expires August 29, 2010 [Page 15]
