IPv6 Operations Working Group Internet Draft Jim Bound (Editor) Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt HP Obsoletes: ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt Expires: June 2005 IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis <draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt> Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise networks. These networks are characterized as a network that has multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity. The analysis will focus on a base set of transition notational networks and requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios document. Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6, assuming a dual IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node environment, within the enterprise. Then a set of transition mechanisms are recommended for each notational network. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 1]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Table of Contents: 1 Introduction.................................................3 2 Terminology..................................................5 3 Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition....................6 4 Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis....................9 4.1 Staged Dual-Stack Deployment...............................9 4.2 Analysis of Required Tools for Dual-Stack Deployment......10 4.3 IPv6 Capability in the Routing Infrastructure.............10 4.4 IPv6 Capability not in the Routing Infrastructure.........10 4.4.1 Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure................10 4.4.2 Deploy a parallel IPv6 infrastructure...................11 4.5 Remote IPv6 access to the enterprise......................11 4.6 Other considerations......................................11 5 Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis.......................12 5.1 Internal versus External Tunnel End Point.................12 5.2 Manual versus Autoconfigured..............................13 6 IPv6 Dominant Network Deployment Analysis...................14 7 General Issues and Applicability from Analysis..............15 7.1 Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment............................15 7.2 Network Infrastructure Requirements.......................15 7.3 Stage 1: Initial connectivity steps........................15 7.3.1 Obtaining external connectivity..........................15 7.3.2 Obtaining global IPv6 address space......................16 7.4 Stage 2: Deploying generic basic service components........16 7.4.1 IPv6 DNS.................................................16 7.4.2 IPv6 Routing............................................16 7.4.3 Configuration of Hosts..................................17 7.4.4 Developing an IPv6 addressing plan......................17 7.4.5 Security................................................17 7.5 Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack deployment on-site.........18 7.5.1 Deploying IPv6 across the enterprise....................18 8 Applicable Transition Mechanisms............................19 9 Security Considerations.....................................20 10 References.................................................20 10.1 Normative References.....................................20 10.2 Non-Normative References.................................21 Changes from -00 t -01.........................................21 Document Acknowledgments.......................................22 Author Addresses...............................................23 Appendix A - Campus Deployment Scenario with VLANs.............23 Appendix B - Crisis Management Network Scenarios...............24 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements.................29 draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 2]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 1 Introduction NOTE to v6ops WG: This draft is mainly to get consensus on section 3, that we have correct analysis topics sections 4-7, and section 8 still has to be written. All sections need more work but this is to move discussion further. See changes from -00 to -01. This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise networks. These networks are characterized as a network that has multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity. The analysis will focus on a base set of transition notational networks and requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios document. Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6, assuming a dual IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node environment, within the enterprise. Then a set of transition mechanisms are recommended for each notational network. The audience for this document is the enterprise network team considering deployment of IPv6. The document will be useful for enterprise teams that will have to determine the IPv6 transition strategy for their enterprise. It is expected those teams include members from management, network operations, and engineering. The analysis and notational networks presented provide an example set of cases the enterprise can use to build an IPv6 transition strategy. The enterprise analysis will begin by describing a matrix as a tool to be used to portray the different IPv4 and IPv6 possibilities for deployment. The document will then provide analysis to support a wide dual IP layer deployment strategy across the enterprise, to provide the reader a view of how that can be planned and what is options are available. The document will then discuss the deployment of sparse IPv6 nodes within the enterprise and what requirements need to be considered and implemented, when the enterprise will remain with IPv4-only routing infrastructure for some time. The next discussion focuses on the use of IPv6 when it is determined to be dominant across or within parts of the enterprise network. The document then begins to discuss the the general issues and applicability from the previous analysis. The document concludes providing a set of recommendations for each notational network within the matrix based on the previous analysis, issues and applicability discussion, adding additional analysis useful for an enterprise planning to deploy IPv6. This document, as stated in the introduction, focuses only on the deployment cases where a dual IP layer is supported across the network and on the nodes in the enterprise. Additional deployment transition analysis will be required from the effects of IPv6-only node or Provider deployments, and beyond the scope of this document. In addition this document does not attempt to define or discuss any use with network address translation or the use of Provider Independent address space. The following specific topics are currently out of scope for this draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 3]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 document: - Multihoming - Application transition/porting (see [APPS]). - IPv6 VPN, firewall or intrusion detection deployment - IPv6 network management and QoS deployment - Detailed IT Department requirements - Deployment of novel IPv6 services, e.g. Mobile IPv6 - Requirements or Transtion at the Providers network - Transport protocol selection for applications with IPv6 - Application layer and configuration issues. - IPv6 only future deployment scenarios. We are focusing in this document on Layer 3 deployment, in the same way as the other IPv6 deployment analysis works have done [UMAN,ISPA, 3GPA]. This document covers deployment of IPv6 "on the wire", including address management and DNS services. We are also assuming that the enterprise deployment is one being undertaken by the network administration team, i.e. this document is not discussing the case of an individual user gaining IPv6 connectivity (to some external IPv6 provider) from within an enterprise network. Much of the analysis is applicable to wireless networks, but there are additional considerations for wireless networks not contained within this document. In Section 2 we introduce the terminology used in this document. In Section 3 we introduce and define a tools matrix and define the layer 3 connectivity requirements. In Section 4 we discuss wide scale dual IP layer use within an enterprise. In section 5 we discuss sparse dual IP layer deployment within an enterprise. In section 6 we discuss IPv6 dominant network deployment within the enterprise. In sectioin 7 we discuss general issues and applicability. In section 8 a set of deployment analysis is provided and recommendations. This document then provides Appendix A for readers depicting a Crisis Management enterprise network to demonstrate an enterprise network example that requires all the properties as analyzed in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 4]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 2 Terminology Enterprise Network - A network that has multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or more Providers and is actively managed by a network operations entity. Provider - An entity that provides services and connectivity to the Internet or other private external networks for the enterprise network. IPv6-capable - A node or network capable of supporting both IPv6 and IPv4. IPv4-only - A node or network capable of supporting only IPv4. IPv6-only - A node or network capable of supporting only IPv6. This does not imply an IPv6 only stack, in this document. Dual-IP - References a network or node that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. IP-capability - The ability to support IPv6 only, IPv4 only, or Dual IP Layer IPv6-dominant - A network or link that uses only IPv6 routing. Transition - The network strategy the enterprise uses to Implementation transition to IPv6. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 5]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 3 Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition To provide layer 3 enterprise analysis context for discussion we provide for this document the use of a matrix with a common set of enterprise notational networks resulting from a selected Transition Implementation chosen for the enterprise. The notional networks are comprised of hosts attached to an enterprise-owned intranet(s) at two different global locations separated by the Internet. The enterprise owns, operates and maintains its own intranetworks, but relies on an external provider organization that offers Internet Service. Both local and destination intranetworks are operated by different organizations within the same enterprise and consequently could use different IP-capability, than other intranetworks, at certain times in the transition period. Addressing every possible combination of network IP-capability in this notional enterprise network is impractical, therefore trivial (i.e. pure IPv4, pure IPv6, ubiquitous dual-IP and straight forward tunneling or translation at local or destination hosts) are not considered. In addition, the authors could not conceive of any scenarios involving IPv6-only ISPs or IPv6-only nodes in the near- term and consequently have not addressed scenarios with IPv6-only ISPs or IPv6-only nodes. We assume all nodes that use IPv6 applications are Dual IP. The matrix does not assume or suggest that network address translation is used. The authors recommend that network address translation not be used in these notational cases. Future enterprise transitions that will support IPv6-only nodes and IPv6-only ISPs will be a separate analysis required, that is beyond the scope of this document. Table 1 below is a matrix of nine possible Transition Implementations that may be selected in an enterprise, which require analysis and the selection of an IPv6 transition mechanism for that notational network, which are the rows of the matrix. The matrix describes a set of notational networks as follows: - The first column represents the protocol used by the application and below the IP-capability of the node originating the IP packets. (Application/Host 1 OS). - The second column represents the IP-capability of the network where the node originated the packet. (Host 1 Network) - The third column represents the IP-capability of the service provider network. (Service Provider) - The fourth column represents the IP-capability of the destination network where the originating IP packets are received. (Host 2 Network) - The fifth column represents the protocol used by the draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 6]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 application and below the IP-capability of the destination node receiving the originating IP packets. (Application/Host 2 OS). As an example, notational network 1 is an IPv6 application residing on a dual IP layer host trying to establish a communications exchange with a destination IPv6 application. To complete the information exchange the packets must first traverse the host's originating IPv4 network (intranet), then the service provider's, and destination hosts dual-IP network. Obviously Table 1 does not describe every possible scenario. Trivial notational networks (such as pure IPv4, pure IPv6, and straight-forward tunneling or translation) are not addressed. Additionally there are other possible permutations, which are not addressed. However, the authors feel these nine represent notational networks, which are likely to be encountered in today's enterprise. Therefore, we will use these nine to address the analysis for enterprise deployment. ====================================================== |Application |Host 1 |Service |Host 2 |Application | |----------- |Network|Provider|Network|---------- | | Host 1 OS | | | | Host 2 OS | =====================================+================ | IPv6 | | | | IPv6 | 1 | ---- | IPv4 |Dual IP |Dual IP| ---- | | Dual IP | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== | IPv6 | | | | IPv6 | 2 | ---- | IPv4 |Dual IP | IPv4 | ---- | | Dual IP | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== | IPv6 | | | | IPv6 | 4 | ---- |Dual IP|Dual IP | IPv4 | ---- | | Dual IP | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== | IPv6 | | | | IPv6 | 4 | ---- |Dual IP| IPv4 |Dual IP| ---- | | Dual IP | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== | IPv6 | | | | IPv6 | 5 | ---- | IPv4 | IPv4 |Dual IP| ---- | | Dual IP | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== | IPv4 | | | | IPv4 | 6 | ---- | IPv6 |Dual IP |Dual IP| ---- | | Dual IP | | | | IPv4 | ====================================================== | IPv4 | | | | IPv4 | 7 | ---- | IPv6 | IPv4 | IPv6 | ---- | | Dual IP | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== | IPv4 | | | | IPv4 | 8 | ---- | IPv4 |Dual IP | IPv6 | ---- | | IPv4 | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 7]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 | IPv4 | | | | IPv4 | 9 | ---- | IPv4 | IPv4 | IPv6 | ---- | | IPv4 | | | | Dual IP | ====================================================== draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 8]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 4 Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis In this section we are covering Scenario 1 as described in Section 3.1 of [BSCN]. The scenario, assumptions and requirements are driven from the [BSCN] text. A common scenario for IPv6 deployment is the enterprise network that wishes to introduce IPv6 by enabling IPv6 on the wire in a structured fashion with the existing IPv4 infrastructure. In such a scenario, a number of the existing IPv4 routers (and thus subnets) will be made dual-stack, such that communications can run over either protocol. Nodes within the dual-stack links may themselves be IPv4-only and IPv6-capable. The driver for deploying IPv6 may not be for immediate wide-scale usage of IPv6, but rather to prepare an existing IPv4 infrastructure to support IPv6-capable nodes, such that Dual-IP nodes exist, but IPv6 is not used, but exist when IPv6 is implemented. We analyze the scenario against existing transition mechanisms for their applicability, suggesting a staged approach for IPv6 deployment in the enterprise. 4.1 Staged Dual-Stack Deployment The site administrator should formulate a staged plan for the introduction of dual-stack IPv6 network. We suggest that the generic plan of Section 7 of this document provides a good basis for such a plan. The generic plan has a number of stages that are independent of whether Dual-IP IPv4, or IPv6-dominant networks are selected as a IP-cabability Transition Implmentation for deployment. In an enterprise network, the administrator will generally seek to deploy IPv6 in a structured, controlled manner, such that IPv6 can be enabled on specific links at specific stages of deployment. It may be a specific requirement that some links remain IPv4 only, or specifically should not have IPv6 connectivity. It may also be a requirement that aggregatable global IPv6 addresses, assigned by the enterprise's upstream provider from the address space allocated to them by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), are used for assignment. In this document we do not discuss the deployment of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses [ULA]. The address type and scope selected is orthogonal to the the layer 3 analysis in this document. A typical deployment would involve the establishment of a single "testbed" Dual-IP subnet at the enterprise site, prior to wider deployment. Such a testbed not only allows the IPv6 capability of specific platforms and applications to be evaluated and verified, it also permits the steps in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of this document to be undertaken without (potential) adverse impact on the production elements of the enterprise. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 9]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Section 7.5 describes the stages for the widespread deployment in the enterprise, which would be undertaken after the basic building blocks for IPv6 deployment are in place. 4.2 Analysis of Required Tools for Dual-Stack Deployment The critical part of Dual-IP deployment is the IPv6 routing infrastructure implemented. The path taken will depend on whether the enterprise has existing Layer 2/3 switch/router equipment that has an IPv6 (routing) capability, or that can be upgraded to have such capability. In Section 4, we are not considering sparse IPv6 deployment; the goal of Dual-IP deployment is widespread use in the enterprise. 4.3 IPv6 Capability in the Routing Infrastructure Where IPv6 routing capability exists within the infrastructure, the network administrator can enable IPv6 on the same physical hardware as the existing IPv4 service. This is the end goal of any enterprise Dual-IP deployment, when the capability, performance, and robustness of the Dual-IP operational deployment has been verified. Ideally, the IPv6 capability will span the entire enterprise, allowing deployment on any link or subnet. If not, techniques from Section 4.4 below may be required. 4.4 IPv6 Capability not in the Routing Infrastructure In this case the enterprise administrator faces two basic choices, either to tunnel IPv6 over some or all of the existing IPv4 infrastructure, or to deploy a parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure providing IPv6 connectivity into existing IPv4 subnets. It may thus be the case that a nodes IPv4 and IPv6 default routes to reach other links (subnets) are through different routing platforms. 4.4.1 Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure The tunneling, as described in [BCNF] would be established between Dual-IP capable routers on the enterprise, thus "bypassing" existing non IPv6-capable routers and platforms. For example, some IPv6 edge routers in the enterprise may be IPv6-capable, while others, and perhaps the enterprise backbone itself, are not IPv6-capable. In the widespread dual-stack scenario, a more structured, manageable method is required, where the administrator has control of the deployment per-link and (ideally) long-term, aggregatable global IPv6 addressing is obtained, planned and used from the outset. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 10]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 4.4.2 Deploy a parallel IPv6 infrastructure In this case, the administrator may deploy a new, separate IPv6- capable router (or set of routers). It is quite possible that such a parallel infrastructure would be IPv6-dominant. Such an approach can mean acquiring additional hardware, but it has the advantage that the existing IPv4 routing platforms are not disturbed by the introduction of IPv6. To distribute IPv6 to the existing IPv4 enterprise subnets, either dedicated physical infrastructure can be deployed or, if it is available, IEEE 802.1q VLANs could be used, as described in [VLAN]. The latter has the significant advantage of not requiring any additional physical cabling/wiring; it offers all the advantages of VLANs for the new dual-stack environment. Many router platforms can tag multiple VLAN IDs on a single physical interface based on the subnet/link the packet is destined for; thus multiple IPv6 links can be collapsed for delivery on a single (or small number of) physical IPv6 router interfaces in the early stages of deployment. The parallel infrastructure would only ever be seen as an interim step towards a full Dual-IP deployment on a unified infrastructure. The parallel infrastructure however allows all other aspects of the IPv6 enterprise services to be deployed, including IPv6 addressing, ready for that unifying step at a later date. 4.5 Remote IPv6 access to the enterprise Where the enterprise's users are off-site, and using an ISP that does not support any native IPv6 service or IPv6 transition aids, the enterprise may consider deploying it's own remote IPv6 access support, as described in Section 7.5.2. 4.6 Other considerations There are some identified issues with turning IPv6 on by default, including application connection delays, poor connectivity, and network insecurity, as discussed in [V6DEF]. The issues can be worked around or mitigated by following the advice in [V6DEF]. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 11]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 5 Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis This section covers the Scenario 2 as described in Section 3.1 of [BSCN]. This scenario assumes the requirements defined within the [BSCN] text. IPv6 deployment within the enterprise network, with an existing IPv4 infrastructure, could be motivated by mission critical or business applications or services that require IPv6. In this case the prerequisite is that only the nodes using those IPv6 applications need to be upgraded to be IPv6-capable. The routing infrastructure will not be upgraded to support IPv6, nor does the enterprise wish to deploy a parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure at this point, since this is an option in section 4. There is a need for end-to-end communication with IPv6, but the infrastructure only supports IPv4 routing. Thus, the only viable method for end-to-end communication with IPv6 is to tunnel the traffic over the existing IPv4 infrastructure, within this analysis documents boundaries defined. The network team needs to decide which are the most efficient the available transition tunneling mechanisms to deploy, so they can be used without disrupting the existing IPv4 infrastructure. Several conditions require analysis, as introduced in the following sub sections. 5.1 Internal versus External Tunnel End Point Assuming the upstream provider has deployed some IPv6 services, either native IPv6 in its backbone or in the access network, or a combination of both. Also, or alternatively, could have deployed one or more several transition mechanisms based upon tunnels for subscribers. for example in the case where the access network doesn't support IPv6, the enterprise could decide to use those available transition services from the Provider. However, this will usually mean that individual nodes in the network will have their own IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel. Then, the IPv6 intranetworks communication may not be as efficient, because it will require all the traffic to be forwarded by the IPv4 infrastructure to the Tunnel-End-Point located at the Provider. This may be acceptable if the IPv6 applications do not require intranetworks communication at all. For example in the case where the application server is located outside of the enterprise network, or on other intranetworks of the same enterprise. The enterprise could also decide to deploy its own transition mechanism node, and possibly collocate it adjacent to the border router that connects to the upstream Provider. In this case, intranetnetworks communication using this tunnel end point is also possible. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 12]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 5.2 Manual versus Autoconfigured If the number of nodes to be using IPv6 is reduced, an option is to use statically configured tunnels. However, in general automatic configured tunnels will be preferred. Section 5 doesn't yet discuss pros and cons of connecting sparse nodes, nor management/security issues. We need to add that in -02. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 13]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 6 IPv6 Dominant Network Deployment Analysis In this section we are covering Scenario 3 as described in Section 3.1 of [BSCN]. The scenario, assumptions and requirements are driven from the [BSCN] text. IPv6 deployment in some enterprise networks will use an IPv6- dominant network deployment strategy. What this means essentially is that the network or specific sites within the enterprise network will transition to IPv6 using only IPv6 routing to transfer both IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the network, even though the network is Dual-IP capable. IPv6 communications between IPv6 nodes will use IPv6 to communicate. When IPv6-capable nodes in the IPv6-dominant network need to communicate with IPv4 nodes, on the IPv6-dominant network, the IPv6 nodes will use their Dual-IP implementation to tunnel IPv4 packets in IPv6 [6TUN]. An edge router within the IPv6-dominant network will decapsulate the IPv4 packet and route to the path of the IPv4 node on the network. This permits Dual-IP layer nodes to communicate with legacy IPv4 nodes within an IPv6-dominant network. This section needs more work. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 14]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 7 General Issues and Applicability from Analysis In this section we describe generic enterprise IPv6 deployment issues, applicable to the analysis sections 4-6 in this document. This section needs more work. 7.1 Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment The enterprise network administrator will need to follow a staged plan for IPv6 deployment. This section needs more work. 7.2 Network Infrastructure Requirements The considerations for the enterprise components are detailed in Section 3.2 of [BSCN]. We do not go into detail of all aspects of such components in this document. In this document we focus on Layer 3 issues. This section needs more work. 7.3 Stage 1: Initial connectivity steps The first steps for IPv6 deployment do not involve technical aspects per se; the enterprise needs to select an external IPv6 provider, and obtain globally routable IPv6 address space from that provider. 7.3.1 Obtaining external connectivity The enterprise service provider would typically be a topographically close (to minimize connectivity RTT) IPv6 provider that is able to provide an IPv6 upstream link. It would be expected that the enterprise would use either native IPv6 upstream connectivity or, in its absence, a manually configured tunnel [BCNF] to the upstream provider. It is not recommended to use 6to4 [6TO4] or a tunnel broker [TBRK] for an enterprise deployment. The enterprise has a requirement for long-term, stable IPv6 connectivity. 6to4 and the tunnel broker are more appropriate for SOHO or single node environments. Use of draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 15]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 6to4 also prevents the enterprise adopting aggregatable global IPv6 addressing from the outset. 7.3.2 Obtaining global IPv6 address space The enterprise will obtain global IPv6 address space from its selected upstream provider, as provider assigned (PA) address space. The enterprise should receive at least a /48 allocation from its provider, as described in [ALLOC]. The procedure for enterprise renumbering between providers is described in [RENUM]. This section needs more work. 7.4 Stage 2: Deploying generic basic service components Most of these are discussed in Section 4 of [BSCN]. Here we comment on those aspects that we believe are in scope for this analysis document. Thus we have not included network management, multihoming, multicast or application transition analysis here, but these aspects should be addressed in Stage 2. 7.4.1 IPv6 DNS The enterprise site should deploy a DNS service that is capable of both serving IPv6 DNS records using the AAAA format [DNSV6REC] and of communicating over IPv6 transport. Specific IPv6 DNS issues are reported in [DNSV6]. This section needs more work. 7.4.2 IPv6 Routing The enterprise network will need to support methods for internal and external routing. For a single-homed single-site network, a static route to a single draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 16]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 upstream provider may be sufficient, although the site may choose to use an exterior routing protocol, especially where it has multiple upstream providers. For internal routing, an appropriate interior routing protocol may be deployed. IPv6 routing protocols that can be used are as follows: BGP4+ [BGPv6], IS-IS [ISISv6], OSPFv3 [RFC????) and RIPng [RIPv6]. This section needs more work. 7.4.3 Configuration of Hosts An enterprise network will have a number of tools available for IPv4 address and other configuration information delegation and management, including manual configuration, NIS [NIS] or DHCP [DHCPv4]. In an IPv6 enterprise, Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [ADDRCONF] may be used to configure a host with a global IPv6 address, a default router, and an on-link prefix information. For secure autoconfiguration, the IPsec [IPSEC] or SEND method [SEND] can be used. A stateless configured node wishing to gain other configuration information (e.g. DNS, NTP servers) will likely need a Stateful DHCPv6 [DHCPv6] service available. For nodes configuring via DHCPv6, where DHCPv6 servers are offlink, a DHCPv6 Relay Agent function will be required. Hosts may also generate or request IPv6 Privacy Addresses [PRIVv6]; there is support for DHCPv6 to assign privacy addresses to nodes in managed environments. This section needs more work continuity. 7.4.4 Developing an IPv6 addressing plan <to be completed > 7.4.5 Security <to be completed - see Pekka's various drafts on 6to4 and others?, and emphasize use of best practice> draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 17]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 7.5 Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack deployment on-site With the basic building blocks of external connectivity, interior IPv6 routing, an IPv6 DNS service and address allocation management in place, the IPv6 capability can be rolled out to the wider enterprise. This involves putting IPv6 on the wire in the desired links, and enabling applications and other services to begin using IPv6 transport. 7.5.1 Deploying IPv6 across the enterprise In the Dual-IP deployment case, this means enabling IPv6 on existing IPv4 subnets. It is most likely that the administrator will deploy IPv6 links to be congruent with existing IPv4 subnets (because IPv4 subnets tend to be created for geographic, policy or administrative reasons that would be IP-independent). draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 18]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 8 Applicable Transition Mechanisms This section will provide guidance for the use of specific transition mechanisms below that can be used by the enterprise to support the enterprise matrix notational networks (rows) in Section 3, and within the context of the analysis discussed in Sections 4, 5, and 6. Section to be written. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 19]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 9 Security Considerations WRITING: Lets do this after we get above writing done. 10 References 10.1 Normative References Most of these need to be moved to non-normative reference section and additional references need to be added. [DNSV6] Durand, A., Ihren, J. and P. Savola, "Operational Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS", Work in Progress. [CONF] Thomson, S., Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Autoconfiguration" RFC 2462 December 1998. [DHCPF] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., et al. "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" RFC 3315 July 2003. [DHCPL] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6" RFC 3756 April 2004. [APPS] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Haigino, J., Savola, P., Castro, E., "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition" Work in Progress. [BSCN] Bound, J., (Ed) et al. "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios" Work in Pogress. [6TO4] Carpenter, B., Moore, K., "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds" RFC 3056 February 2001. [TRDO] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs" Work in Progress. [BCNF] Nordmark, E., Gilligan, R., "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" Work in Progress from RFC 2893. [DSTM] Bound, J., (Ed) et al. "Dual Stack Transition Mechanim" Work in Progress. [ISTP] Templin, F., et al "Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)". Work in Progress. [6TUN] Conta, A., Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6" RFC 2473 December 1998. [TBRK] Durand, A., et al "IPv6 Tunnel Broker" RFC 3053 January 2001. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 20]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 [SEC1] Savola, P., Patel, C., "Security Considerations for 6to4. Work in Progress. [ULA] Hinden, B., Haberman, B., "Unique Local IPv6 Addresses". Work in Progress. [RENUM] Baker, F., Lear, E., Droms, R., "Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day". Work in Progress. [ALLOC] IAB, IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to Sites" RFC 3177 September 2001. [NATPT] Tsirtsis, G., Srisuresh, P., "Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)" RFC 2766 February 2000 [UMAN] Huitema, C.,. et al "Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks". Work in Progress. [ISPA] Lind, M., et al "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks". Work in Progress. [3GPA] Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in 3GPP Networks" Work in Progress. 10.2 Non-Normative References To be completed in next draft version. Changes from -00 t -01 - Changed abstract and context of document to only deal with dual IP layer networks and nodes. - Changed introduction, Section 1-3 to reflect authors and IETF WG discussions to attempt consensus on these initial sections. - Added explanation of why Appendix A is in the document to introduction. - Expanded what topics are out of scope for this document. - Updated terminology section - Updated section 3 matrix and description to simplify and focus on dual IP layer - Edited base text of Sections 4-7 but all three require extensive additional test for descriptions. - Edited section 8 and removed table and will reference table in section 3. This section still needs to be written. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 21]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Document Acknowledgments The Authors would like to acknowledge contributions from the following: IETF v6ops Working Group members Pekka Savola. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 22]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Author Addresses Jim Bound HP 110 Spitbrook Road Nashua, NH 03062 USA Phone: 603.305.3051 Email: jim.bound@hp.com Yanick Pouffary HP Competency Center 950, Route des Colles, BP027, 06901 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX FRANCE Phone: + 33492956285 Email: Yanick.pouffary@hp.com Tim Chown School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom Email: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk David Green SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave Menlo Park, CA 94025-3493 USA Phone: 732 532-6715 Email: david.green@sri.com Jordi Palet Martinez Consulintel San Jose Artesano, 1 Madrid, SPAIN Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Steve Klynsma The MITRE Corporation 7515 Colshire Drive McLean, VA 22102-5708 USA 703-883-6469 Email: sklynsma@mitre.org fi Appendix A - Campus Deployment Scenario with VLANs To be completed in next drafts. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 23]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Appendix B - Crisis Management Network Scenarios Introduction: This appendix first describes different scenarios for the introduction of IPv6 into a crisis management network for emergency services, defense, or security forces that are currently running IPv4 service. Then, the scenarios for introducing IPv6 are analyzed and the relevance of already defined transition mechanisms are evaluated. Known challenges are also identified. When a crisis management enterprise deploys IPv6, its goal is to provide IPv6 connectivity on it's institutional fixed networks and on the mobile wireless services that are deployed to a crisis area. The new IPv6 service must be added to an already existing IPv4 service, the introduction of IPv6 must not interrupt this IPv4 service, and the IPv6 services must be interoperable with existing IPv4 services. Crisis management enterprises accessing IPv4 service across mobile ground networks, airborne networks, and satellites will find different ways to add IPv6 to this service based on their network architecture, funding, and institutional goals. This document discusses a small set of scenarios representing the architectures for IPv6 expected to be dominant in crisis management networks during the next decade. It evaluates the relevance of the existing transition mechanisms in the context of these deployment scenarios, and points out the lack of essential functionality in these methods to the ISP's operation of an IPv6 service. The document is focused on services that include both IPv6 and IPv4 and does cover issues surrounding accessing IPv4 services across IPv6-only networks. It is outside the scope of this document to describe detailed implementation plans for IPv6 in defense networks Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment in Crisis Management Networks: Scenario 1: Limited IPv6 Deployment Network..................... Sparse IPv6 dual-stack deployment in an existing IPv4 network infrastructure. Enterprise with an existing IPv4 network wants to deploy a set of particular IPv6 "applications" and have some ability to interoperate with other institutions that are using IPv6 services. The IPv6 deployment is limited to the minimum required to operate this set of applications. Assumptions: IPv6 software/hardware components for the application are available, and platforms for the application are IPv6 capable. Requirements: Do not disrupt IPv4 infrastructure. Scenario 2: Dual Stack Network Wide-scale/total dual-stack deployment of IPv4 and IPv6 capable hosts and network infrastructure. Enterprise with an existing IPv4 network wants to deploy IPv6 in conjunction with their IPv4 network in order to take advantage of emerging IPv6 network-centric capabilities and to be interoperable with other agencies, international partners, and commercial enterprises that are deploying an IPv6 architecture. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 24]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Assumptions: The IPv4 network infrastructure used has an equivalent capability in IPv6. Requirements: Do not disrupt existing IPv4 network infrastructure with IPv6. IPv6 should be equivalent or "better" than the network infrastructure in IPv4. It may not be feasible to deploy IPv6 on all parts of the network immediately. Dual stacked defense enterprise network must be interoperable with both IPv4 and IPv6 networks and applications. Scenario 3: ..............................IPv6 Dominant Network Enterprise has some limited IPv4-capable/only nodes/applications needing to communicate over the IPv6 infrastructure. Crisis management enterprise re-structuring an existing network, decides to pursue aggressive IPv6 transition as an enabler for network-centric services and wants to run some native IPv6-only networks to eliminate cost/complexity of supporting a dual stack. Some legacy IPv4 capable nodes/applications within the enterprise will have slow technical refresh/replacement path and will need to communicate over the IPv6 dominant infrastructure for years until they are replaced. The IPv6 dominant enterprise network will need to be interoperable with it's own legacy networks, commercial networks, and the legacy networks of similar organizations that will remain IPv4 dominant during a long transition period. Reserve units, contractors, other agencies, and international partners may need IPv4 service across this enterprise's IPv6 dominant backbone. Assumptions: Required IPv6 network infrastructure is available, or available over some defined timeline, supporting the aggressive transition plan. Requirements:Reduce operation and maintenance requirements and increase net-centricity through aggressive IPv6 transition. Interoperation and coexistence with legacy IPv4 networks and applications is required. Legacy IPv4 nodes/applications/networks will need to be able to operate across the IPv6 backbone and need to be able to interoperate with the IPv6-dominant network's nodes/applications. Description of a Generic Crisis Management Network A generic network topology for a crisis management reflects the various ways a crisis management network can connect customers through their network infrastructure. Because the institution's existing wired and fixed site wireless infrastructure can be destroyed or unavailable in a crisis, the crisis management network must be able to deploy it's own mobile wireless network or connect through external wired and wireless networks provided by ISPs or partner organizations. This infrastructure lets us divide the basic areas for IPv4/IPv6 interoperability into three main areas: the customer applications, the local network, and the network backbone. The basic components in a crisis management network are depicted in Figure 1. ------------ ---------- ---- Wired Connection | Network and| | | .... Wireless Connection | Service |--| Backbone | | Operation | | | ------------ ---------- draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 25]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 / | --------------------- / : _|Connection to | / : |Commercial Internet | / : --------------------- Network Backbone -------------- /------|-------------|-------------------------------- ---------- / ---------- ---------- | Home |/ | Wireless | External |............. | Base | | Mobile | |Untrusted |+--------- : | Network | | Network | |Network | | : ---------- ---------- ---------- | : | : : | : Local Network -----:------------:--------------------------------------------------- | : : | : Customer Apps +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | : | | | | | | | : |Customer| |Customer| |Customer|+----------- :.... | | | | | |.............. +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ Figure 1: Crisis Management Network Topology. Stages of IPv6 Deployment: The stages are derived from the generic description of scenarios for crisis management networks in Section 2. Combinations of different building blocks that constitute an crisis network environment lead to a number of scenarios from which the network engineers can choose. The scenarios most relevant to this document are those that maximize the network's ability to offer IPv6 to its customers in the most efficient and feasible way. The assumption in the first three stages the goal is to offer both IPv4 and IPv6 to the customer, and that in the distant future all IPv4 services will be eventually switched to IPv6. This document will cover engineering the first four stages. The four most probable stages are: o Stage 1 Limited Launch o Stage 2 Dual Stack Dominance o Stage 3 IPv6 Dominance o Stage 4 IPv6 Transition Complete Generally, a crisis management network is able to entirely upgrade a current IPv4 network to provide IPv6 services via a dual-stack network in Stage 2 and then slowly progress to stages 3 and 4 as indicted in Figure 2. During stage 2, When most applications are IPv6 dominant, operational and maintenance costs can be reduced on some networks by moving to stage 3 and running backbone networks entirely on IPv6 while adding IPv4 backwards compatibility via v4 in v6 tunneling or translation mechanisms to the existing configuration from stage 2. When designing a new network, if a new IPv6-only service is required, it can be implemented at a lower cost jumping directly to stage 3/4 if there are only limited/no legacy concerns. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 26]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Tunnels Dominant dual Full dual Stack IPv4-only --> or limited --> stacking with --> everywhere, mostly --> V6 dual stacks transition v6 apps, some Only Limited v6 mechanisms in v6 only nets with Applications backbone transition mechanisms pushed to legacy v4 nets Figure 2: Transition Path. Stage 1 Scenario: Limited Launch The first stage begins with an IPv4-only network and IPv4 customers. This is the most common case today and the natural starting point for the introduction of IPv6. During this stage the enterprise begins to connect individual IPv6 applications run on dual stacked hosts through host based tunneling using Tunnel Broker, ISATAP, Teredo. Some early adopter networks are created for pilot studies and networked together through configured tunnels and 6to4. The immediate first step consists of obtaining a prefix allocation typically a /32) from the appropriate RIR (e.g. AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE, ...) according to allocation procedures. The crisis management enterprise will also need to establish IPv6 connectivity between its home base networks and mobile wireless networks over it's backbone and negotiate IPv6 service with its service providers and with peer organizations; it is of utmost importance to require IPv6 capability or an upgrade plan when negotiating purchases of network applications and infrastructure. In the short term, network connections, especially legacy wireless networks, that cannot provide IPv6 services can provide IPv6 services through the use of tunnels. However, the longer-term goal must be requiring and obtaining IPv6 native connectivity from the transit networks, because otherwise the quality of IPv6 connectivity will likely be poor and the transition to stage 2 will be delayed. Stage 2 Scenario: Dual Stack Dominance Stage 2 occurs when most applications, local networks, and network backbones become dual-stacked so that native IPv6 connections are enabled. At this point there is a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 applications and services in use across the enterprise. The enterprise may be made IPv6-capable through either software upgrades, hardware upgrades, or a combination of both. Generally IPv6 is added during normal technical refresh as the enterprise buys new equipment that is IPv6 ready. Specialty legacy applications and wireless/satellite networks may be especially slow to transition to IPv6 capability due to upgrade costs so plans must be made for backwards compatibility for these systems. Since some new IPv6 services cannot be provided through IPv4, and some legacy network connections may not yet be upgraded, tunneling mechanisms have to be provided on the backbone to provide IPv6 connectivity through to customer IPv6 applications still relying on legacy IPv4-only networks. The tunnels may provide host-based tunneling for individual customers or site-to-site draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 27]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 tunnels to connect small IPv6 domains through IPv4 only networks. If any new applications are IPv6-only rather than dual-stacked, and need to interact with IPv4-only legacy applications, translators will be used as a transition mechanism of last resort during this stage. Stage 3 Scenario: IPv6 Dominance Stage 3 occurs when the majority of network services are being provided by IPv6 so that most network traffic is dominantly IPv6 and the net-centric benefits of IPv6 end-to-end communications, IPSEC based security, QOS, mobility, and autoconfiguration are realized. During this stage, some networks and applications will become native IPv6-only and will have to rely on transition mechanism for backwards compatibility with IPv4. The switch to native IPv6 may be pursued to lower the operations and maintenance cost of network operations and lower the performance overhead associated with running two stacks on networked systems. During this stage, IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels are used to provide IPv4 services to the remaining customers needing these services across IPv6 only backbones. At this stage requirements for IPv4 compatibility can be pushed out of the network backbone and to IPv4 end-user networks. DSTM, with or without tunnel brokers, can be used to provide host- based tunnels for IPv4 service on local networks that only support IPv6. Remaining IPv4 dominant networks requiring IPv4 service across IPv6-only backbones will have to connect through site-to- site tunnels. Since many new applications are IPv6-only rather than dual-stacked, legacy IPv4 applications may require translators for interoperability. Stage 4 Scenario: IPv6 Only In the future, if IPv6 becomes the only service required, IPv4 service can be dropped. This transition may be hastened by the desire to save operational and maintenance costs by dropping IPv4 services and only supporting one IP family. Security Concerns Adding security to IPv6 services requires developing new customer applications for IPSEC, new firewalls, guards, VPN/encrypters, and end-user security such as host-based firewalls and virus checkers for IPv6 attacks. Police, homeland defense, and military crisis management networks require especially high levels of security and should begin creation and implementation of their specialized security architectures as soon as they begin planning for IPv6 transition. New IPv6 features such as MIPv6, stateless address auto-assignment, and ubiquitous end-user IPSEC will likely not be compatible with current information-assurance tools that are simply ported from IPv4 to a minimal IPv6 capability. A complete new security policy, architecture, and tools will most likely be required to realize the true net-centric benefits of IPv6 in crisis networks requiring high security. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 28]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis January 2005 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Expires June 2005 [Page 29]
