Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios
This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co-existence of the two protocols.
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 February 19, 2011.
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 Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co-existence of the two protocols. A general "call to arms" for transition is found in [RFC5211] (Curran, J., “An Internet Transition Plan,” July 2008.), and a recommendation for four principal scenarios is given in [I‑D.arkko‑ipv6‑transition‑guidelines] (Arkko, J. and F. Baker, “Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment,” August 2010.). A report on experience and plans of various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is given in [I‑D.ietf‑v6ops‑isp‑scenarios] (Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, “Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment,” April 2010.). However, it is clear that operators require more detailed technical recommendations than are available so far. A companion document [reference TBD] provides a technical problem statement. Unfortunately, the number of different combinations of existing IPv4 deployment models, customer profiles and requirements, and possible coexistence and transition models, is enormous, so it is quite impracticable to produce either a set of recommendations for each case, or a recommended "one size fits all" model. That is why this document proposes a set of topics or dimensions, as a framework for a reasonable number of recommendation documents.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with IPv6. The IETF's view of core IPv6 requirements is to be found in [RFC4294] (Loughney, J., “IPv6 Node Requirements,” April 2006.) (currently being updated as [I‑D.ietf‑6man‑node‑req‑bis] (Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, “IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis,” July 2010.)). However, this does not give a complete view of mechanisms an ISP may need to deploy, since it considers the requirements for an individual node, not for a network or service infrastructure as a whole.
[RFC4029] (Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P. Savola, “Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks,” March 2005.) discussed scenarios for introducing IPv6 into ISP networks, as the problem was viewed some years ago. Its end goal was simply a dual-stack ISP backbone. Today's view is that this is insufficient, as it does not allow for prolonged interworking between IPv6-only and legacy (IPv4-only) hosts. Indeed, the end goal today might be an IPv6-only ISP backbone, with some form of legacy IPv4 support [I‑D.arkko‑ipv6‑transition‑guidelines] (Arkko, J. and F. Baker, “Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment,” August 2010.).
Although the basic IPv6 standards are stable, considerable work continues in several IETF working groups, on issues such as multihoming, tunneling, and IP layer interworking between IPv6-only and IPv4-only hosts. However, operators faced with IPv4 address exhaustion in the coming few years need immediate guidance.
2. Document Topics
On the assumption that a series of documents are produced describing and recommending transition scenarios, there are two basic conditions:
- The documents will not be primary protocol specifications, because those are the outcome of IETF working groups chartered to work on specific protocol mechanisms.
- The documents are addressed to service providers who have taken the decision to support IPv6, have acquired basic knowledge and skills, have determined how they will obtain upstream IPv6 connectivity, and are ready to write their operational plan for transition.
The documents should each cover some or all of the following aspects or dimensions:
- For the convenience of readers, each document should briefly describe its network model in the Abstract (or Introduction) for quick reference.
- The documents should explain how certain technology components fit together in a given transition and co-existence scenario.
- They will present major generic network models, and their subsets, which exist (or are firmly planned) today, including network topologies and/or architectures.
- They should specify their scope: the range of technologies that they do or do not apply to (e.g. specific access network technologies, core network technologies and topologies, mobile vs fixed hosts, business vs private customers, etc.).
- They should develop analysis criteria on how to recognize appropriate transition technologies for existing provider networks within their scope. This should include information related to deployed protocols and functions which may assist or hinder various transition technologies from being deployed.
- If multiple transition technologies are needed for provider environments where access networks differ and have various capabilities, the documents should show how these technologies can be deployed simultaneously.
- They should describe how multiple technologies can co-exist, if necessary, during all stages of migration (e.g., moving from IPv4 Only to Dual-Stack to DS-Lite to NAT64).
- They should cover considerations for legacy operation while moving to IPv6 and its transition technologies. Many operators will have large quantities of IPv4-only equipment which cannot feasibly be upgraded until the end of its economic life, or which is under customer control.
- They should cover considerations which apply when retro-fitting various technologies to existing networks. Included in this would be impacts on ancillary protocols, routing platforms/systems, security policies, provisioning systems, network services (i.e. DHCP, DNS etc), law enforcement procedures and more.
- They should quantify scaling characteristics of deployment modes for each technology model and intersections during co-existence (e.g. if some of the Network is DS-Lite and some is classical Dual Stack; peak load on NAT64; etc.).
- The documents should include security considerations for their specific transition scenario(s).
A desirable outcome would be a set of Best Current Practice (BCP) or advisory (Informational) documents for a range of generic deployment models and how they fit into a network, including key services such as subscriber authentication, DHCP, and DNS. However, it must not be forgotten that every service provider is different and such documents can never replace specific deployment plans drawn up by each individual service provider.
3. Security Considerations
Service providers will insist on having security for IPv6 services, and for all transition technologies, that is at least as good as for IPv4 services in all respects. Particular attention must be paid to security exposures that are specific to transition and coexistence mechanisms. Thus, all recommendations for transition scenarios must include security aspects.
4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA.
Useful comments and contributions were made by ... and others.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629] (Rose, M., “Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML,” June 1999.).
6. Change log
draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00: original version, 2010-08-18
7. Informative References
|[I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]||Arkko, J. and F. Baker, “Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment,” draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-04 (work in progress), August 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]||Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, “IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis,” draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05 (work in progress), July 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios]||Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, “Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment,” draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-00 (work in progress), April 2010 (TXT).|
|[RFC2629]||Rose, M., “Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML,” RFC 2629, June 1999 (TXT, HTML, XML).|
|[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 (TXT).|
|[RFC4294]||Loughney, J., “IPv6 Node Requirements,” RFC 4294, April 2006 (TXT).|
|[RFC5211]||Curran, J., “An Internet Transition Plan,” RFC 5211, July 2008 (TXT).|
|Department of Computer Science|
|University of Auckland|
|Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd|
|KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,|
|Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing|