[Search] [pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
v6ops                                                      J. Brzozowski
Internet-Draft                                             Comcast Cable
Intended status: Best Current Practice                       D. Schinazi
Expires: January 1, 2018                                     S. Cheshire
                                                              Apple Inc.
                                                              L. Colitti
                                                                E. Kline
                                                              J. Linkova
                                                                  Google
                                                                M. Keane
                                                               Microsoft
                                                                 P. Saab
                                                                Facebook
                                                           June 30, 2017


      Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
             draft-jjmb-v6ops-ietf-ipv6-only-incremental-00

Abstract

   The purpose of this document is to provide a blueprint and guidance
   for deploying IPv6-only Wi-Fi at IETF meetings.  This document
   outlines infrastructure and operational guidance that operators
   should consider when deploying IPv6-only networks using NAT64 and
   DNS64 to support communication to legacy IPv4-only services.

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 January 1, 2018.








Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Network Infrastructure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Network Services  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  DNS64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  NAT64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  DHCPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  User Equipment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Host Address Assignment and Configuration . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  IPv4 support  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Network Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Telemetry and Monitoring  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Support for User Applications and Services  . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  Support and Operations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Reporting Issues (Ticketing)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Interactive Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   9.  Known Client-side Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     10.1.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. Related Industry Efforts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14








Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


1.  Introduction

   The purpose of this document is to provide a blueprint and guidance
   for deploying IPv6-only Wi-Fi at IETF meetings.  This document
   outlines infrastructure and operational guidance that operators
   should consider when deploying IPv6-only networks using NAT64 and
   DNS64 to support communication to legacy IPv4-only services.

   One of the main strengths of the IETF has always been an insistence
   on running code.  As such, IETF meetings were one of the first
   deployments of a dual-stack network to help test the first
   implementations of IPv6.  Many years later, as several networks are
   shifting towards IPv6-only, it is the responsibility of the IETF to
   lead the trend and make their main network IPv6-only.

   This document outlines the requirements and design principles for an
   IPv6-only network infrastructure that includes support for IPv4-only
   content.  It also discusses techniques and requirements for network
   management, telemetry, and the operations and support for the
   IPv6-only network.  Recommendations and best practices for operations
   and support will be provided, however, alternate approaches may be
   utilized.  Disabling or removal of IPv4 stacks is out of scope for
   this document.  This document focuses on the explicit provisioning of
   IPv6-only using NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64 [RFC6147] to access
   IPv4-only content and services.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels" [RFC2119].



















Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


2.  Design Principles

2.1.  Network Infrastructure

   The following are specific network design details that are minimally
   required to support an IPv6-only network that utilize NAT64 and
   DNS64.  The following have been drawn from real deployment scenarios
   for large scale uses of IPv6-only with NAT64 and DNS64.  The
   parameters specified here are specific to providing IPv6-only
   connectivity.  It is assumed that IPv6-only is provisioned and that
   IPv4 stacks remain active on network and host interfaces.  The
   disabling or removal of IPv4 stacks from hosts or routers is out of
   scope for this document.  As such, it is important to note that link
   local IPv4 [RFC3927] will likely remain active and will appear on
   hosts and network infrastructure.

   The following section outlines the requirement to provisioning
   IPv6-only.  We minimally assume that SLAAC will be utilized, however,
   for completeness the parameters required for DHCPv6 [RFC3315] and
   [RFC3736] are also provided:

   o  IPv6-only hosts are expected to be provisioned with IPv6-only
      connectivity, however, link local IPv4 is likely to be present.

   o  RA interval is RECOMMENDED to be minimally set to 600 seconds per
      the guidance outlined in [RFC7772].

   o  Support for solicited unicast router advertisements are also
      recommended per [RFC7772]

   o  At least one prefix information option (PIO) MUST be included in
      router advertisements, the transmitted PIO MUST correspond to the
      IPv6 prefix that is valid for a given IPv6 link.

   o  The use of SLAAC [RFC4862] MUST be signalled by the network,
      specifically for each transmitted PIO the A bit MUST be set to
      one.

   o  DHCPv6 support SHOULD be included to support legacy operating
      systems that do not support DNS RA options but is not required.
      Whether stateless or stateful DHCPv6 is used, both the DNS Server
      IPv6 address and DNS Search List options [RFC8106] MUST minimally
      be included.  The DNS server IPv6 address(es) MUST be those used
      for DNS64.  It is RECOMMENDED that these values be identical to
      those used in the IPv6 router advertisements that include the DNS
      options [RFC8106].  If DHCPv6 support is deployed, stateless
      DHCPv6 MUST minimally be available.




Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


   o  IPv6 router advertisements MUST include the DNS options [RFC8106].
      Both the DNS Server IPv6 address(es) and DNS Search List are
      REQUIRED.  If DHCPv6 support is deployed the values sent here for
      DNS RA options are RECOMMENDED to match those sent via DHCPv6.

   To ensure seamless and to support an incremental deployment of
   IPv6-only access to legacy dual stack infrastructure should remain
   available.  The following are recommended approaches that may be
   considered to achieve the same.

   The deployment of IPv6-only with NAT64 and DNS64 may very well help
   to identify applications, services, or use cases that are not
   entirely compatible with the same.  It is therefore important to
   ensure that users of IP networks, whether wired or wireless, have
   access to legacy dual stack infrastructure as a fallback.  For
   wireless network it is recommend to have a secondary SSID labelled
   accordingly, e.g.  example-ssid-dual-stack or example-ssid-legacy.
   For wired network connectivity having secondary ports that are dual
   stack enabled is also recommended.  Note that while it is recommended
   to ensure the presence of a fallback network, the goal remains to
   make the IPv6-only network the primary network.

   This document assumes that dual stack connectivity is available by
   default and that IPv4-only connectivity is no longer supported.  As
   such, it is out of scope for this document to outline fallback or
   access to legacy connectivity that is IPv4-only.

3.  Network Services

   The following network services are required for an IPv6-only where
   support for and access to IPv4 content, services, and applications
   are required.

3.1.  DNS64

   The following recommendations apply to the use and deployment of
   DNS64:

   o  Use of the well known DNS64 prefix per [RFC6052]

   o  It is also recommended that query logging be enabled for DNS64,
      performance impacts of query logging must be noted but are largely
      out of scope for this document.  Query logging is essential to
      determine the volume and make up of DNS queries and replies that
      are are specific to DNS64 and IPv4-only content, services, and
      applications.





Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


3.2.  NAT64

   The following recommendations apply to the use and deployment of
   NAT64:

   o  DNS64 is a critical aspect to direct requests from IPv6-only hosts
      to a NAT64 service.

   o  NAT64 configurations vary widely, port allocation techniques are
      largely out of scope for this document.  One-to-one (1:1) mappings
      can be used to allocate an IPv4 address per connected device or
      alternatively blocks of IPv4 ports can also be assigned per
      device, each has different properties.  It is generally
      recommended to allocate IPv4 ports per device in an effort to
      maximize IPv4 utilization for NAT64.

3.3.  DHCPv6

   Support for DHCPv6 may be required in some deployments.  If required,
   parameters pertaining to IPv6 router discovery may require
   adjustment.  The following outlines the guidance specific to the use
   of DHCPv6:

   o  Stateless DHCPv6 SHOULD be supported to facilitate the
      transmission of DNS servers IPv6 address(es) and DNS search lists
      to legacy hosts that do not support DNS RA options.

   o  Stateful DHCPv6 for address assignment MAY be supported, but is
      not required.  If stateful DHCPv6 is used the DNS parameters
      mentioned above MUST be included.

   o  If, at some future date, support for IPv6 prefix delegation
      becomes necessary, stateful DHCPv6 will likely be mandatory
      (Future Work (Section 11)).  The details of IPv6 prefix delegation
      are out of scope for this document.
















Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


4.  User Equipment

4.1.  Host Address Assignment and Configuration

   o  Hosts MUST support SLAAC.

   o  Hosts SHOULD support DNS RA options [RFC8106] for the acquisition
      of DNS server IPv6 addresses and a DNS Search List.

   o  Hosts MAY support DHCPv6 for address acquisition, the use of
      DHCPv6 for address acquisition is not prohibited.

   o  DHCPv6 option to configure DNS server option 23 and domain search
      list option 24 [RFC3646] address MUST be implemented if DHCPv6 is
      to be utilized.

4.2.  IPv4 support

   The IPv4 stacks of hosts MAY remain enabled, which means that Link
   Local IPv4 [RFC3927] (169.254/16) addresses MAY continue to be
   present and in use.  Disabling of the IPv4 stack of hosts is out of
   scope for this document.

   Host operating systems SHOULD provide a means for applications to
   easily connect to IPv4-only servers by using the NAT64/DNS64.  While
   modern applications simply need to make AAAA queries and connect to
   the resulting IPv6 address, operating systems SHOULD provide simple
   ways for applications to do so or even connect to IPv4 literals in
   the absence of host names.  Possible solutions include 464XLAT
   [RFC6877], "Bump-in-the-Host" [RFC6535] and Happy Eyeballs v2 [HEv2].

   Finally, it is RECOMMENDED that support for DHCPv4 be explicitly
   suppressed in particular to prevent the inadvertent assignment of
   IPv4 addresses on networks that do not have a valid IPv4 egress.
   DHCPv4 servers, rogue or otherwise, could adversely impact the
   experience of end users of the IPv6-only network.















Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


5.  Network Management

   The focus of this document is user equipment and hosts.  The network
   and network service requirements are oriented around providing
   IPv6-only connectivity that allows for the use of NAT64 and DNS64 to
   maintain reachability to IPv4-only content, applications, and
   services.  Operations and management of the underlying network is
   technically out of scope for this document, however, given the
   relevance of the same to the focus of this draft some guidance is
   being provided.

   Strictly speaking the primary requirement for the underlying network
   is that IPv6 is supported along with the services required to enable
   the use of NAT64 and DNS64.  This suggests that the underlying
   network could in fact be dual stack for management and operations.
   It is required that the provisioning of IPv4 for user equipment and
   host connectivity not be supported.  User equipment or host facing
   interfaces MUST NOT acquire non-link-local IPv4 addresses or IPv4 DNS
   server addresses.  Additionally, the network MUST NOT respond to
   DHCPv4 requests or DNS queries sent over IPv4.

   Given the above, within a given VLAN it is possible and likely that
   IPv4 may be observed, present, and possibly used.  It is out of scope
   for this document to prevent the use of IPv4 entirely.

   Depending on the level of readiness IPv6-only network management may
   or may not be possible.  Network management and operations includes
   but is not limited to the following:

   o  Remote access to network infrastructure via SSH or telnet

   o  Remote SNMP communications

   o  Remote NETCONF communications

   o  Remote Syslog communications

   While it is strongly recommended that all network management and
   operations be performed over IPv6-only it is not strictly required.
   However, it is important to note that the presence and use of IPv4
   for network management and operations must not impede or impact the
   use of IPv6-only with NAT64 and DNS64.









Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


6.  Telemetry and Monitoring

   At this point in time, IPv6-only networks with no IPv4 support at all
   are still not widespread and may expose issues in host operating
   systems or applications.  It is therefore recommended that telemetry
   summarizing how hosts are being provisioned and accessing the
   Internet be collected and analyzed.  In order to preserve the privacy
   of users of the network, it is paramount that connectivity
   information (e.g.  DNS64 records) cannot be correlated with
   individual client nodes.

   We can measure how hosts:

   o  Configure IPv6 addresses (SLAAC, DHCPv6) and which ones they use

   o  Configure DNS server addresses (DNS RA options vs DHCPv6)

   We can measure what percentage of the traffic:

   o  Uses native IPv6

   o  Uses NAT64

   Recording the most common hostnames that require the DNS64 would also
   allow operators to establish a list of the most prominent IPv4-only
   services.

   Observing the TCP/UDP ports used by applications that still leverage
   IPv4 link-local on an IPv6-only network will also help prepare for
   the time when routers stop supporting IPv4 communications altogether.

   Given that some users may have devices running legacy IPv4-only
   software, the network should provide a different fallback network
   that is dual-stack.  It is worth measuring the number of users that
   switch to this network, and possibly use an anonymous survey asking
   users what software failure caused them to switch.  Additionally, the
   fallback network SHOULD use different authentication credentials per
   meeting (such as SSID) to make sure a failure causing a user to
   switch does not mean they will stay on the fallback network forever.












Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


7.  Support for User Applications and Services

   Following is a list of commonly used applications and services that
   are expected to operate, without incident, when used in an IPv6-only
   environment that utilizes NAT64 and DNS64.  The list below is not
   exhaustive.

   o  VPN

   o  Chat

   o  Email

   o  SSH/Telnet

   o  Git

   o  Voice

8.  Support and Operations

   Most every network has customers or end users of some sort, therefore
   it essential to ensure that end users or consumers of the have means
   to do the following while transitions are occurring in networks and
   related infrastructure.  One key item referenced earlier is the
   availability of temporary fallback networks that support legacy
   communications.

   The following outline additional items that end users must have
   available to communicate with network operators.  All of the items
   below must be available via dual stack connectivity.

8.1.  Reporting Issues (Ticketing)

   Tools and systems that can be used to report issues with
   applications, services, or content must be available for end-users.
   Network and systems operators are responsible for acknowledging and
   classifying issues and ultimately ensuring that the same are properly
   addressed.  Specifically to this document "fixed" is meant to imply
   that proper support for IPv6 is available.  In some cases network and
   system operators may need to implement temporary workarounds to
   ensure that end users can access the desired content, application, or
   service.








Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


   In order for users experiencing IPv6-specific issues to be able to
   report them, the ticketing system MUST also be reachable over the
   dual-stack fallback network.  The existence of the fallback network
   SHOULD also be made clear to users ahead of time.  In order to help
   narrow down issues, the ticketing system SHOULD ask the user whether
   the issue is specific to IPv6-only and whether they have experienced
   the issue or a different outcome on the fallback network.

8.2.  Interactive Support

   Interactive support is often desired in lieu or in conjunction with
   traditional support models like trouble ticket creation.  It is
   recommended that interactive support be available via real time and
   near real time mechanisms like Slack or electronic mail (e-mail).

9.  Known Client-side Issues

   Following are known client side issues that are specific to the
   deployment of IPv6-only networks and/or the use of NAT64/DNS64:

   o  Use of literal IPv4 addresses - the use of literal IPv4 addresses
      is a known issue given the approach that is documented in this
      I-D.  Addressing the use of literal IPv4 addresses is out of scope
      for this document.

   o  Applications that explicitly require IPv4 by only performing AAAA
      queries or restricting the type of underlying socket they use.

   o  Unreachable but valid AAAA RR in the DNS - in some cases a valid
      AAAA RR is returns by the DNS, however, if the same is unreachable
      or is not configured the presence of the same will prevent a DNS64
      query which in turn prevents the use of the NAT64 to reach the
      target host references by the address in the AAAA DNS RR.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.














Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


10.1.  Security Considerations

   The vastness of the IPv6 address space often makes it more difficult
   to scan the same unlike legacy IPv4-only or dual stack IP networks.
   It is conceivable that IPv6-only network represent a reduction in
   attack surface area which in turn could be viewed a security
   improvement compared to IPv4-only or dual stack IP networks.

   Given the criticality of the DNS64 for reachability to the NAT64,
   poisoning of one or both could represent a vector for the attack of
   the DNS64 and NAT64 which could in turn impact the end user
   experience.  Worse poisoning of the DNS64 and/or NAT64 could result
   in redirection of end use devices to malicious hosts.  It is likely
   that this vulnerability is no greater in IPv6-only networks utilizing
   DNS64 and NAT64 compared to traditional IPv4-only or dual stack
   networks.

11.  Future Work

   The following items are out of scope for this document, however, the
   following are listed as future work items specific to incremental
   IPv6-only deployments:

   o  Support for IPv6 prefix delegation

   o  Disabling IPv4 stacks at some point in the future

   o  Fully deprecating the fallback legacy IPv4 network

12.  Related Industry Efforts

   o  Comcast new building and IPv6-only (John Jason Brzozowski
      <john_brzozowski@comcast.com>)

   o  Microsoft corporate IT IPv6-only (Marcus Keane
      <marcus.keane@microsoft.com>)

   o  Google (Jen Linkova <furry@google.com>)













Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


13.  References

13.1.  Normative References

   [HEv2]     Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2",
              Work in Progress, draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc6555bis, June 2017.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
              2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.

   [RFC3646]  Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.

   [RFC3736]  Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736,
              April 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC6052]  Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
              Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6052, October 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6052>.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.

   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.





Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


   [RFC7772]  Yourtchenko, A. and L. Colitti, "Reducing Energy
              Consumption of Router Advertisements", BCP 202, RFC 7772,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7772, February 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7772>.

   [RFC8106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.

13.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3927]  Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
              Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3927, May 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3927>.

   [RFC6535]  Huang, B., Deng, H., and T. Savolainen, "Dual-Stack Hosts
              Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)", RFC 6535,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6535, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6535>.

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.

Authors' Addresses

   John Jason Brzozowski
   Comcast Cable
   1701 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
   Philadelphia, PA
   USA

   Email: john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com


   David Schinazi
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, California  95014
   US

   Email: dschinazi@apple.com






Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      IETF IPv6-only Wi-Fi Incremental           June 2017


   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, California  95014
   USA

   Email: cheshire@apple.com


   Lorenzo Colitti
   Google

   Email: lorenzo@google.com


   Erik Kline
   Google

   Email: ek@google.com


   Jen Linkova
   Google

   Email: furry@google.com


   Marcus Keane
   Microsoft

   Email: marcus.keane@microsoft.com


   Paul Saab
   Facebook

   Email: ps@fb.com














Brzozowski, et al.       Expires January 1, 2018               [Page 15]