Internet Engineering Task Force                                W. George
Internet-Draft                                                    Sprint
Updates: 1812, 1122                                            C. Donley
(if approved)                                                  Cablelabs
Intended status: Standards Track                         C. Liljenstolpe
Expires: July 10, 2011                                           Telstra
                                                               L. Howard
                                                       Time Warner Cable
                                                         January 6, 2011

             IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes


   Given the global lack of available IPv4 space, and limitations in
   IPv4 extension and transition technologies, this document deprecates
   the concept that an IP-capable node MAY support IPv4 _only_, and
   redefines an IP-capable node as one which supports either IPv6 _only_
   or IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack.  This document updates RFC1812 and 1122 to
   reflect the change in requirements.

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

   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 10, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   ( in effect on the date of

George, et al.            Expires July 10, 2011                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                IPv6-required                 January 2011

   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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   2.  Requirements and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

George, et al.            Expires July 10, 2011                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                IPv6-required                 January 2011

1.  Introduction

   IP version 4 (IPv4) has served to connect public and private hosts
   all over the world for over 30 years.  However, due to the success of
   the Internet in finding new and innovative uses for IP networking,
   billions of hosts are now connected via the Internet and requiring
   unique addressing.  This demand has led to the exhaustion of the IANA
   [IANA-exhaust] global pool of unique IPv4 addresses.  While
   transition technologies and other means to extend the lifespan of
   IPv4 do exist, nearly all of them come with tradeoffs that prevent
   them from being optimal long-term solutions when compared with
   deployment of IP version 6 (IPv6) as a means to allow continued
   growth on the Internet.  See I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-
   issues [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]and I-D.donley-
   nat444-impacts [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] for some discussion on
   this topic. [add'l informative citations needed]

   IPv6 was proposed in 1995 [RFC 1883 [RFC1883]] as, among other
   things, a solution to the limitations on globally unique addressing
   that IPv4's 32-bit addressing space represented, and has been under
   continuous refinement and deployment ever since.  [RFC 2460
   [RFC2460]].  The exhaustion of IPv4 and the continued growth of the
   internet worldwide has created the driver for widespread IPv6

   However, the IPv6 deployment necessary to reduce reliance on IPv4 has
   been hampered by a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support
   throughout the industry.  Many of those who are deploying IPv6 have
   been forced to fund the initial IPv6 implementations for their
   vendors, because the vendor continued to view IPv6 support as
   optional.  This added burden on the early adopters, plus the high
   cost of replacing installed-base that does not currently support IPv6
   has been a significant barrier to wider deployment of IPv6.  Even
   today, many vendors, especially in the consumer space are still
   selling "IP capable" devices which are not IPv6-capable, and are
   choosing not to update existing software to enable IPv6 support on
   software-updatable devices.  It is not realistic to expect that the
   hardware refresh cycle will single-handedly purge IPv4-only devices
   from the active network in a reasonable amount of time, especially in
   the consumer space, where the operator often has no control over the
   hardware the consumer chooses to use.

   This lack of support is making the eventual IPv6 transition
   considerably more difficult, and drives the need for expensive and
   complicated transition technologies to extend the life of IPv4-only
   devices as well as eventually to interwork IPv4-only and IPv6-only
   hosts.  While IPv4 is expected to coexist on the Internet with IPv6
   for many years, a transition from IPv4 as the dominant Internet

George, et al.            Expires July 10, 2011                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                IPv6-required                 January 2011

   Protocol towards IPv6 as the dominant Internet Protocol will need to
   occur.  The sooner the majority of devices support IPv6, the less
   protracted this transition period will be.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Requirements and Recommendation

   This draft updates RFC 1812 [RFC1812] to note that IP nodes SHOULD no
   longer support IPv4 only.  This is to ensure that those using it as a
   guideline for IP implementations use the other informative references
   in this document as a guideline for proper IPv6 implementations.
   This draft also updates RFC 1122 [RFC1122] to redefine generic "IP"
   support to include and require IPv6 for IP-capable nodes and routers.

   From a practical perspective, the requirements proposed by this draft
   mean that:

      New IP implementations MUST support IPv6, and current IP
      implementations SHOULD support IPv6.

      Helpful informative references can be found in RFC 4294 [RFC4294],
      and I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router

      Current and new IP Networking implementations SHOULD support IPv4
      and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but MUST NOT require IPv4 for
      proper and complete function.

      It is expected that many existing devices and implementations will
      not be able to support IPv6 for one or more valid technical
      reasons, but for maximum flexibility and compatibility, a best
      effort SHOULD be made to update existing hardware and software to
      enable IPv6 support.

   Within the IETF, further protocol development on applications
   _exclusive_ to IPv4 SHOULD cease in order to concentrate on
   additional refinements and enhancements to IP version 6, with the
   goal of bringing IPv6 to complete parity with IPv4.  This does not
   mean that further work SHOULD NOT have support for IPv4, merely that
   it MUST happen as a part of an IP version-agnostic implementation, or
   as an implementation that explicitly supports both IPv4 and IPv6.
   New features and protocols SHOULD NOT be introduced for use as IPv4-

George, et al.            Expires July 10, 2011                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                IPv6-required                 January 2011

   only unless they are specifically in support of IPv6 transition or
   IPv4-IPv6 interworking.  A comprehensive list of these parity items
   and enhancements is outside the scope of this document, but this
   document recommends that the charters and work items of currently
   active IETF Working Groups (WGs) be evaluated to ensure that they are
   supporting the goal of full parity for IPv6.

3.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to Marla Azinger and Victor Kuarsingh for their additional
   review of the proto-draft.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

5.  Security Considerations

   There are no direct security considerations generated by this
   document, but existing documented security considerations for
   implementing IPv6 will apply.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, June 1995.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

6.2.  Informative References

              Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Chandrasekaran, A.,
              and V. Ganti, "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
              Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 (work in
              progress), October 2010.


George, et al.            Expires July 10, 2011                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                IPv6-required                 January 2011

              Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing",
              draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-02 (work in
              progress), October 2010.

              Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
              Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
              Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09 (work in
              progress), December 2010.

              IANA, "IANA address allocation", 2011, <http://

   [RFC1883]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, December 1995.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC4294]  Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
              April 2006.

Authors' Addresses

   Wesley George
   12000 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Reston, VA  20196

   Phone: +1 703-592-4847

   Chris Donley
   858 Coal Creek Circle
   Louisville, CO  80027

   Phone: +1-303-661-9100

George, et al.            Expires July 10, 2011                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                IPv6-required                 January 2011

   Christopher Liljenstolpe
   Level 32/242 Exhibition Street
   Melbourne, VIC  3000

   Phone: +61-3-8647-6389

   Lee Howard
   Time Warner Cable
   13241 Woodland Park Road
   Herndon, VA  20171

   Phone: +1-703-345-3513

George, et al.            Expires July 10, 2011                 [Page 7]