Network Working Group JP. Dionne
Internet-Draft S. Perreault
Intended status: Informational Viagenie
Expires: April 25, 2013 T. Tsou
Huawei Technologies (USA)
C. Zhou
Huawei Technologies
October 22, 2012
Gap Analysis for IPv4 Sunset
draft-ietf-sunset4-gapanalysis-01
Abstract
Sunsetting IPv4 refers to the process of turning off IPv4
definitively. It can be seen as the final phase of the migration to
IPv6. This memo analyses difficulties arising when sunsetting IPv4,
and identifies the gaps resulting in additional work.
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 April 25, 2013.
Copyright Notice
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. Code Components extracted from this document must
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
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. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Remotely Disabling IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Indicating that IPv4 connectivity is unavailable . . . . . 3
3.2. Disabling IPv4 in the LAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Client Connection Establishment Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Disabling IPv4 in Operating System and Applications . . . . . . 5
6. On-Demand Provisioning of IPv4 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
1. Introduction
The final phase of the migration to IPv6 is the sunset of IPv4, that
is turning off IPv4 definitively on the attached networks and on the
upstream networks.
Some current implementations behavior make it hard to sunset IPv4.
Additionally, some new features could be added to IPv4 to make its
sunsetting easier. This document analyzes the current situation and
proposes new work in this area.
2. Related Work
[RFC3789], [RFC3790],[RFC3791], [RFC3792], [RFC3793], [RFC3794],
[RFC3795] and [RFC3796] contain surveys of IETF protocols with their
IPv4 dependencies.
3. Remotely Disabling IPv4
3.1. Indicating that IPv4 connectivity is unavailable
PROBLEM 1: When an IPv4 node boots and requests an IPv4 address
(e.g., using DHCP), it typically interprets the absence
of a response as a failure condition even when it is not.
PROBLEM 2: Home router devices often identify themselves as default
routers in DHCP responses that they send to requests
coming from the LAN, even in the absence of IPv4
connectivity on the WAN.
One way to address these issues is to send a signal to an dual-stack
node that IPv4 connectivity is unavailable. Given that IPv4 shall be
off, the message must be delivered through IPv6.
3.2. Disabling IPv4 in the LAN
PROBLEM 3: IPv4-enabled hosts inside an IPv6-only LAN can auto-
configure IPv4 addresses [RFC3927] and enable various
protocols over IPv4 such as mDNS
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] and LLMNR [RFC4795].
This can be undesirable for operational or security
reasons, since in the absence of IPv4, no monitoring or
logging of IPv4 will be in place.
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
PROBLEM 4: IPv4 can be completely disabled on a link by filtering it
on the L2 switching device. However, this may not be
possible in all cases or complex to deploy. For example,
an ISP is often not able to control the L2 switching
device in the subscriber home network.
One way to address these issues is to send a signal to an dual-stack
node that auto-configuration of IPv4 addresses is undesirable, or
that direct IPv4 communications between nodes on the same link should
not take place.
This problem was described in [RFC2563], which standardized a DHCP
option to disable IPv4 address auto-configuration. However, using
this option requires running an IPv4 DHCP server, which is contrary
to the goal of IPv4 sunsetting. An equivalent way of signalling this
over IPv6 is necessary,, using either Router Advertisements or
DHCPv6.
Furthermore, it could be useful to have L2 switches snoop this
signalling and automatically start filtering IPv4 traffic as a
consequence.
Finally, it could be useful to publish guidelines on how to safely
block IPv4 on an L2 switch.
4. Client Connection Establishment Behavior
PROBLEM 5: Happy Eyeballs [RFC6555] refers to the multiple
approaches to dual-stack client implementations that try
to reduce connection setup delays by trying both IPv4 and
IPv6 paths simultaneously. Some implementations
introduce delays which provide an advantage to IPv6,
while others do not [Huston2012]. The latter will pick
the fastest path, no matter whether it is over IPv4 or
IPv6, directing more traffic over IPv4 than the other
kind of implementations. This can prove problematic in
the context of IPv4 sunsetting, especially for Carrier-
Grade NAT phasing out.
PROBLEM 6: getaddrinfo() [RFC3493] sends DNS queries for both A and
AAAA records regardless of the state of IPv4 or IPv6
availability. The AI_ADDRCONFIG flag can be used to
change this behavior, but it relies on programmers using
the getaddrinfo() function to always pass this flag to
the function. The current situation is that in an IPv6-
only environment, many useless A queries are made.
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
Recommendations on client connection establishment behavior that
would facilitate IPv4 sunsetting is therefore appropriate.
5. Disabling IPv4 in Operating System and Applications
PROBLEM 7: Completely disabling IPv4 at runtime often reveals
implementation bugs. Hard-coded dependencies on IPv4
abound, such as on the 127.0.0.1 address assigned to the
loopback interface. It is therefore often operationally
impossible to completely disable IPv4 on individual
nodes.
PROBLEM 8: In an IPv6-only world, legacy IPv4 code in operating
systems and applications incurs a maintenance overhead
and can present security risks.
It is possible to completely remove IPv4 support from an operating
system as has been shown by the work of Bjoern Zeeb on FreeBSD.
[Zeeb] Removing IPv4 support in the kernel revealed many IPv4
dependencies in libraries and applications.
It would be useful for the IETF to provide guidelines to programmers
on how to avoid creating dependencies on IPv4, how to discover
existing dependencies, and how to eliminate them. Having programs
and operating systems that behave well in an IPv6-only environment is
a prerequisite for IPv4 sunsetting.
6. On-Demand Provisioning of IPv4 Addresses
As IPv6 usage climbs, the usefulness of IPv4 addresses to subscribers
will become smaller. This could be exploited by an ISP to save IPv4
addresses by provisioning them on-demand to subscribers and
reclaiming them when they are no longer used. This idea is described
in [I-D.fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving] and [BBF.TR242] for the
context of PPP sessions. In these scenarios, the home router is
responsible for requesting and releasing IPv4 addresses, based on
snooping the traffic generated by the hosts in the LAN, which are
still dual-stack and unaware that their traffic is being snooped.
PROBLEM 9: Dual-stack hosts that implement Happy-Eyeballs [RFC6555]
will generate both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic even if the
algorithm end up chooosing IPv6. This means that an
IPv4 address will always be requested by the home
router, which defeats the purpose of on-demand
provisioning.
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
PROBLEM 10: Many operating systems periodically perform some kind of
network connectivity check as long as an interface is
up. Similarly, applications often send keep-alive
traffic continuously. This permanent "background noise"
will prevent an IPv4 address from being released by the
home router.
PROBLEM 11: Hosts in the LAN have no knowledge that IPv4 is
available to them on-demand only. If they had explicit
knowledge of this fact, they could tune their behaviour
so as to be more conservative in their use of IPv4.
PROBLEM 12: This mechanism is only being proposed for PPP even
though it could apply to other provisioning protocols
(e.g., DHCP).
7. IANA Considerations
None.
8. Security Considerations
TODO
9. Acknowledgements
TODO
10. Informative References
[BBF.TR242]
Broadband Forum, "TR-242: IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for
Broadband Networks", August 2012.
[Huston2012]
Huston, G. and G. Michaelson, "RIPE 64: Analysing Dual
Stack Behaviour and IPv6 Quality", April 2012.
[I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns]
Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS",
draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-15 (work in progress),
December 2011.
[I-D.fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving]
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
Fleischhauer, K. and O. Bonness, "On demand IPv4 address
provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment scenarios",
draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-03 (work in progress),
August 2012.
[RFC2563] Troll, R., "DHCP Option to Disable Stateless Auto-
Configuration in IPv4 Clients", RFC 2563, May 1999.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3789] Nesser, P. and A. Bergstrom, "Introduction to the Survey
of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards
Track and Experimental Documents", RFC 3789, June 2004.
[RFC3790] Mickles, C. and P. Nesser, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area Standards Track and
Experimental Documents", RFC 3790, June 2004.
[RFC3791] Olvera, C. and P. Nesser, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards Track and
Experimental Documents", RFC 3791, June 2004.
[RFC3792] Nesser, P. and A. Bergstrom, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards Track and
Experimental Documents", RFC 3792, June 2004.
[RFC3793] Nesser, P. and A. Bergstrom, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards Track and
Experimental Documents", RFC 3793, June 2004.
[RFC3794] Nesser, P. and A. Bergstrom, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards Track and
Experimental Documents", RFC 3794, June 2004.
[RFC3795] Sofia, R. and P. Nesser, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards Track
and Experimental Documents", RFC 3795, June 2004.
[RFC3796] Nesser, P. and A. Bergstrom, "Survey of IPv4 Addresses in
Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area
Standards Track and Experimental Documents", RFC 3796,
June 2004.
[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
May 2005.
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
[RFC4795] Aboba, B., Thaler, D., and L. Esibov, "Link-local
Multicast Name Resolution (LLMNR)", RFC 4795,
January 2007.
[RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012.
[Zeeb] "FreeBSD Snapshots without IPv4 support",
<http://wiki.freebsd.org/IPv6Only>.
Authors' Addresses
Jean-Philippe Dionne
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Phone: +1 418 656 9254
Email: jean-philippe.dionne@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Simon Perreault
Viagenie
246 Aberdeen
Quebec, QC G1R 2E1
Canada
Phone: +1 418 656 9254
Email: simon.perreault@viagenie.ca
URI: http://viagenie.ca
Tina Tsou
Huawei Technologies (USA)
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Phone: +1 408 330 4424
Email: tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv4 Sunsetting Analysis October 2012
Cathy Zhou
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Industrial Base
Bantian, Shenzhen
China
Email: cathy.zhou@huawei.com
Dionne, et al. Expires April 25, 2013 [Page 9]