Internet Engineering Task Force J. Palet
Internet-Draft M. Diaz
Expires: April 24, 2005 Consulintel
P. Savola
CSC/FUNET
October 24, 2004
Analysis of IPv6 Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms
draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
which he or she 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.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).
Abstract
Tunneling is commonly used in several IPv6 transition mechanisms. To
be able to automate setting up tunnels, one critical component is
being able to automatically determine the tunnel end-point for the
tunneling mechanism. This memo analyses the different approaches for
configuring the IPv6 tunnel endpoint on a node.
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Scenarios for Tunnel Endpoint Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Scenario 1: Initial IPv6 Deployment Stage . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Scenario 2: Initial IPv6 Support from External ISP . . . . 4
2.3 Scenario 3: Nomadic Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Scenario 4: Advanced IPv6 Deployment Stage . . . . . . . . 5
3. Analysis of Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Shared-unicast -based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Centralized Broker-based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3 DNS-based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.1 Prefixing the DNS Search Path . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 DHCP-based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 PPP-based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6 SLP-based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6.1 Remote Service Discovery through SLP-based
Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7 Combined Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
1. Introduction
Tunneling is commonly used in several IPv6 transition mechanisms. It
is critically important to make setting up IPv6 connectivity simpler,
so that it can be done simply also by IPv6-ignorant, novice users, or
even completely transparently, without the user even having to know
that IPv6 connectivity has been obtained.
One critical piece in the automated set-up is discovering the
end-point for the IPv6-in-IPv4 (or possibly in the future,
IPv4-in-IPv6) tunnel. Note that the other end-point ("tunnel
server") typically also needs to have a means to configure the
client's end-point, but that is assumed to be transition mechanism
specific, and beyond the scope of this memo. A solution is being
designed [1] based on the tunnel server/broker concept [2] which
will, in particular, require this kind of discovery.
Many already-specified mechanisms already include a form of
auto-discovery: for example, 6to4 [3] uses global anycast [4] and/or
vendor's branch of DNS, Teredo [5] uses vendor's branch of DNS, and
ISATAP [6] uses search-path -prefixed DNS.
2. Scenarios for Tunnel Endpoint Discovery
At least three scenarios can be identified where tunnel endpoint
discovery would be useful.
2.1 Scenario 1: Initial IPv6 Deployment Stage
During the initial IPv6 deployment stage, the ISPs may not provide
native IPv6 connectivity, at least in the access network. However,
the ISP might offer IPv6 connectivity (probably for free) through an
automatically set-up tunnel.
In this scenario, the users (or rather, their operating systems) need
to be capable of automatically detecting whether the user's ISP is
offering such service or not, and setting up the tunnel if available.
If this kind of IPv6 connectivity is set up automatically, it could
create a load on the ISP's equipment which is configured as the
tunnel-endpoint (e.g., a tunnel server). This is particularly
important if state needs to be maintained. To address this
consideration, the discovery method should allow for multiple
end-points within a domain or even including a load-balancing
mechanism.
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
2.2 Scenario 2: Initial IPv6 Support from External ISP
During the initial IPv6 deployment stage, the ISPs might not support
IPv6 at all; there are thousands of ISPs, and many certainly won't be
supporting IPv6 any time soon. The customers of those ISPs then have
to use automatic tunneling mechanisms such as 6to4 or Teredo, or get
a third-party ISP for IPv6 connectivity.
In this scenario, the users (in general their operating systems) may
have a capability of automatically selecting a third-party ISP which
is servicing outsiders. The service is often free of charge. The
discovery process could either detect the closest serving end-point,
or pick the one manually configured by the user.
Given the fact that IPv6 service could be offered by third parties,
some kind of authentication could be required in order to allow only
registered customers to use the IPv6 service. The authentication
method will depend on the transition mechanism, so it is out of scope
of this memo.
2.3 Scenario 3: Nomadic Users
Nomadic users require connectivity to Internet from everywhere, from
different locations: meetings, conferences, holidays, etc. Under
this circumstance (always) obtaining native IPv6 connectivity is not
feasible. The user has two choices: to discover a local tunnel (with
different IPv6 addresses and prefixes) if provided by the local ISP,
or to connect to the "home ISP" or "home network", implying the
possibility of keeping the same addresses.
A local tunnel is typically a preferable choice, and could also be
used as a Mobile IPv6 [7] care-of address. However, in many cases,
the local ISP may not be providing a tunnel service.
Connecting to a "home provider" to obtain the tunnel is typically a
safe choice, provided that the "home provider" allows IPv4 addresses
outside its own domain to use its tunnel services; at the very least,
typically this will require some sort of authentication. However,
especially when roaming on a different continent as the home network,
the latencies, etc., may be undesirable, so one might want to keep
this only as a backup option in case other approaches fail.
The whole process for having a new IPv6 tunnel with a new provider
should be as transparent as possible in order to avoid that users
need to manually re-register or change the configuration in their
host. It would be desirable that the architecture enables the users
to get connected and re-connected to the nearest tunnel end-point
without manual intervention (for example when moving).
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
2.4 Scenario 4: Advanced IPv6 Deployment Stage
When the IPv6 deployment is in a more advanced stage, namely more
users in more places looking for IPv6 connectivity, it is possible
that ISPs providing IPv6 connectivity need to start a broader
deployment. For a best IPv6 service, it is feasible that they
increase the performance by using a tunnel end-point cluster
geographically distributed to cover a country, etc. Furthermore they
could offer the users only one of the methods proposed below for
accessing the IPv6 connectivity. Each time users get IPv6
connectivity, they could use the same accessing method but they could
be assigned to different tunnel end-point belonging the cluster.
Under this schema, some kind of load balancing could be required in
order to distribute the load among the ISP resources.
In order to let all the candidate tunnel end-points to know the
configuration of the previous user's tunnels, some kind of tunnel
management should be defined. However it is strongly dependant on
the transition mechanism used, so it is out of the scope of this
document.
In any case, as stated before, the whole process for obtaining a new
IPv6 tunnel with a new TS should be as much transparent as possible
in order to avoid that users need to manually re-register or change
the configuration in their host. It would be desirable that the
architecture makes the users get connected and re-connected to the
nearest tunnel end-point without manual intervention.
3. Analysis of Solutions
Several possible solutions to discovering the tunnel end-point can be
imagined; this section describes them in detail.
3.1 Shared-unicast -based Solutions
An "anycast" (shared-unicast by some terminology: see [8]) address
identifies a group of hosts, usually server hosts. When a client
sends a datagram to a shared-unicast address, it is delivered to one
of the shared-unicast servers based on the routing topology and
metrics.
There are two possible ways of using "anycast": as a global service
(where a shared-unicast prefix is the same for everyone, and
advertised in the Inter-domain routing) or as a local service, where
the service provider is sharing one of its own addresses on multiple
nodes for example for load-balancing or redundancy reasons.
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
Global "anycast" might be best applicable in scenario 2, to
automatically discover the closest serving third party ISP. However,
this raises the question of feasibility of that scenario. Local
"anycast" can be combined with other solutions, described later, to
seamlessly provide multiple tunnel end-points inside a single domain.
A packet to a shared-unicast address may end up being delivered to
more than one node. In addition, there is no guarantee that two
consecutive datagrams sent from the same host towards the same
shared-unicast address are going to be delivered to the same node.
However, when the routing topology is stable and metrics are
well-designed, the packets are regularly delivered to the same nodes.
It is also possible to only use an "anycast" address only for the
initial handshake, to establish a stable unicast address of the
end-point and to perform some initial negotiation (an example of such
is described in [9]).
3.2 Centralized Broker-based Solutions
Inside a single administrative domain, it would also be possible to
deploy a centralized server or a "broker", which should know,
probably in real-time, the status of all the associated end-points.
Furthermore, it could, by using some means, redirect the users the
correct end-points. This mechanism would still need another
complementary approach to find the centralized broker.
This approach is highly assumptive of the tunneling set-up mechanism,
and likely requires the implementation of lengthy
redirection/negotiation features. As such, its applicability is not
further analyzed here.
The selection of the proper TEP would be based on information about
TEP loads and network metrics collected by several ways, such as RTTs
measured by network probes, routing protocol information, and so
forth. The user will need to connect to the selected TEP either by
using the DNS system, when the client tries to resolve the host name,
or by mean of whatever other mechanism defined, which possibly will
require an specific code implementation on both centralized server
and clients.
Applying a centralized model over multiple administrative domains,
e.g., having a single server for the whole Internet, would be
administratively and management-wise unfeasible. Nevertheless,
agreements between several domains could make possible sophisticated
models.
In summary, the main drawbacks of this solution are:
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
1. Centralized server is a single-point-of-failure. All the
discovery service depends on the reliability of the server.
2. The implementation of a method to verify the load and RTTs of
TEPs can be very complex and it can require external
infrastructure such as network probes.
3. It can require the installation of specific software on both
centralized server and clients to negotiate the proper TEP.
4. Seems to bring additional operational and protocol complexity
(more complicated model, more boxes you need to communicate with
meaning more packets sent and received, etc.).
Of course, it will be possible to set-up complex redundant
infrastructures to cope with some of those drawbacks.
The fundamental question here is what benefits the centralized
broker-based model could offer compared to a simpler model. Possibly
many of those things which are often attributed to tunnel brokers can
be done without them, but there may be some which are not as easy.
Therefore, when evaluating the solutions, it will be important to be
able to contrast the real benefits of the solution vs the drawbacks.
3.3 DNS-based Solutions
As DNS is globally deployed and easy to use, it could provide a means
for discovering the end-point address.
There are roughly three kinds of different approaches with DNS-based
discovery:
1. "global name": the systems look up a globally unique name, like
www.tunnel-server.net.; this could be applicable with
(unfeasible) global inter-domain broker or anycast-based
solutions, and is therefore not considered at more length.
2. "vendor branch": the operating system vendors may provide a DNS
record which is looked up (e.g., "6to4.windows.microsoft.com."),
giving the vendor some control over already deployed systems.
This is typically only feasible to configure a global anycast
address, or provide the address of the vendor's own service, and
is not applicable in a multi-vendor environment, and is not
considered further.
3. "prefixing the search path" [10]: one could look up a
service-specific special string, like "_tunnel-server", appended
by the DNS search path, e.g., "isp.example.com", resulting in a
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
query of "_tunnel-server.isp.example.com". This assumes that the
DNS search path is provided by the ISP, and used by the user;
this applies to most users (advanced users may have their own
domain names, own DNS servers, etc., but those could be expected
to manually configure the end-point information). This is the
most interesting approach, explored at more length below.
The special string could be more complex and make reference somehow
to the transition mechanism it will accept, i.e. 6to4_tunnel-server,
6in4_tunnel-server, teredo_tunnel-server, any_tunnel-server and so
on.
All of these approaches are typically coupled with a manual override
option, which can be used by the knowledgeable users to look up
different names or to specify the IP address completely.
3.3.1 Prefixing the DNS Search Path
Prefixing the search path bears a bit more analysis. There a couple
of fundamental questions: where to store the records (i.e., the
prefix to use, and what to do with the conflicts), and how to store
the information (i.e., whether to use A/AAAA records, other records).
There are at least three concrete possibilities for how to store the
information:
1. "A/AAAA/CNAME records": one could use just the regular records
for storing the end-point address or name. A drawback is that
there is a slightly higher probability of collision, depending on
the service identifier used. The advantage is that it's very
simple to implement and use. This also doesn't offer advanced
load-balancing features, beyond those already provided by DNS
round-robin techniques [11].
2. "SRV records": SRV records were created specifically for service
discovery and load-balancing, mainly as a means to provide the
users (also external users) knowledge of services within a
domain. Quite this amount of unambiguity would not be needed if
the service identifier is unique enough and only used internally.
A slight drawback is that SRV records require slightly more
implementation and possibly more round-trips (if the results
aren't cached). However they could be assumed considering the
advantages that this solution offers.
3. "NAPTR records": NAPTR records provide even more flexibility than
SRV records. The drawback compared to SRV is even more
implementation and more round-trips. Furthermore, additional
drawbacks of this solution are its complexity and the scarcity of
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
support on both DNS servers and DNS resolvers.
The question of where to store the information has a few tradeoffs,
also depending on how the information is being stored. Using a
commonly used name as a service identifier coupled with A/AAAA
records would likely lead to false positives. On the other hand, if
a prefix like '_tunnel-server' would be chosen, it would be quite
improbable that conflicts would appear in practice. It is also worth
remembering that the result of a false positive (i.e., getting an
address which is not a valid end-point) is not necessarily a huge
problem because it's only an indicator that such service didn't exist
in the domain, as long as the tunneling mechanism can recover from
that scenario.
Another consideration is the deployment of wildcard DNS records. If
A/AAAA records were to be used, such records might create false
positives quite easily. Fortunately, wildcards are commonly deployed
only for MX records. A benefit of using SRV records is that they use
an additional level in the zones, like:
_tunnel-server._udp.isp.example.com."; this would prevent a wildcard
record "*.isp.example.com" from harassing the discovery of the
end-point. XXX: needs to be checked.
3.4 DHCP-based Solutions
In most situations, the users receive the IPv4 information by means
of an IPv4 DHCP server. Consequently, one of the parameters to be
provided by the DHCP server could be the tunnel end-point address,
e.g., as described in [12].
This approach has several drawbacks:
o It requires upgrading the DHCP client/server implementations to
support this feature.
o It is restricted to the local ISP. That is, it will not be
effective if the local ISP doesn't provide this parameter. This
could be also be an advantage considering that the this would only
support the tunnels provided by the local ISP, which would
probably be of good quality.
o It will not work if DHCP client is not used. DHCP is omitted
especially in many dial-up scenarios, where only PPP is used; DHCP
is not used in some (advanced) xDSL setups which use static
routing. Also, some managed networks do not use DHCP. Still, in
many cases, DHCP is used between a customer and the ISP.
o If a router is providing local DHCP information (e.g., an ADSL
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
router), the tunnel end-point information would have to be
automatically "proxied" to the "local DHCP", or manually
configured on the router to propagate to the hosts in the case
that the router is not activating the tunnel itself.
o It requires manual configuration/update of the ISP's DHCP servers
when there are changes to the tunnel end-points, similar to
updating DNS, NTP, etc., servers.
3.5 PPP-based Solutions
In the case of PPP-like connections, specific PPP parameters could be
passed to the clients, as part of the AAA signaling process. This
solution has the same drawbacks (and advantages) as indicated for the
DHCP-based solution. Further, there has been resistance to making
extensions to PPP (e.g., passing IPv6 prefix options), so it is an
open question whether this information could be passed as a
standardized PPP option at all.
3.6 SLP-based Solutions
The Service Location Protocol [13] provides a framework for the
discovery and selection of network services. Tunnel-End-Point for
IPv6 tunnels could be defined as a network service which will have
also assigned a specific service name. Given the fact that currently
exists several types of transition mechanism based on IPv4 tunnels,
even more ones could appear in future, the service URL defined in the
SLP system should specify the specific type of TEP the network has.
For instance:
o service:tep:6to4://6to4.domainexample.net
o service:tep:6in4://6in4.domainexample.net
o service:tep:teredo://teredo.domainexample.net
By using this protocol, users requiring IPv6 connectivity based on a
tunneled service could easily discover the specific IPv6 TEPs
deployed on its network.
Although an SLP-based solution is a good approach, it is intended to
function within networks under cooperative administrative control, so
it does not scale for the global Internet. For this reason, this
solution seems to fit only in scenario 1, where users willing to get
IPv6 connectivity only contact to local providers (home ISP, LAN,
etc.).
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
However, SLP presents also other drawbacks to be taken into account:
1. It requires the deployment of Service Agents (SA), or at least a
Directory Agent (DA), to which the User Agent (UA), on behalf of
the user, sends the queries about the TEP service. Such SA
deployment is not usually done within ISP, so it would be
necessary to convince them to do it. It is hard work due to no
revenue is expected from such a deployment.
2. If only SA is deployed, it requires multicast support for SA
discovery.
3. If DA is deployed and the network has not multicast support, some
way for discovery the DA is required. DHCP could be used as
pointed at [13] but users connected to their ISP often utilize
PPP instead, so DA discovery become an issue.
4. It requires the implementation of an UA on the client's host.
This is neither always possible nor feasible.
5. It can not offer any kind of load balancing if more than one TEP
is deployed.
6. It only announces TEPs belonging to the ISP scope, so it would
not be possible to announce TEP deployed in third party networks.
3.6.1 Remote Service Discovery through SLP-based Solutions
Remote service discovery through SLP [14] refers to discovering
desired services in remote domains. By using [14], the local domain
limitation of SLP is overcome, so the SLP scope can easily be
increased to scale for the global Internet. It discovers remote
services deployed in remote domains by querying directly to the
remote DA instead the local one. Discovery of the remote DA is done
via DNS SRV queries to the remote DNS server.
This solution presents more advantages than the previous one, mainly
it increases the scenarios where it applies to scenario 1 and
scenario 3, however it still has most of the SLP drawbacks,
particularly previous items 1, 4, 5 and 6.
Furthermore the use of this solution is very restricted in the sense
that users requiring IPv6 connectivity must previously know the
remote domain where to make the SLP discovery.
In other words, if the user's home-domain is domain A, and he knows
that domain B has the TEP that he is looking for, then he has to make
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
an SLP query to the domain B DA (previously he has discovered the DA
address by querying a DNS SRV) to discover the TEP. However, if the
user does not know that domain B is deploying an IPv6 TEP, then he
will not make the SLP query to the domain B DA and he will not obtain
the required IPv6 connectivity.
With this solution, there is no way to automatically inform the users
where to find the TEP that they are looking for. They must know
where to ask and if there is one or not, which once more, excludes
this as a possible solution for the auto-discovery problem.
3.7 Combined Solutions
There is a particularly interesting combination: DNS-lookups with a
service identifier combined with the DNS search path (particularly
with A/AAAA/CNAME records), and shared-unicast. DNS lookups can
provide a local IP address (or addresses) for the end-points, and the
local "anycast" approach can be used for load-balancing or adding
more end-points to the system transparently so that every user uses
the topologically closest end-point.
Similar approach to "anycasting" the end-point address obviously also
work for "anycast" and DHCP or PPP -based solutions.
4. Conclusions
DNS appears to be the simplest means to achieve end-point discovery;
DHCP and PPP have drawbacks and due to many scenarios where only one
of them is used, both the solutions would be needed. Inter-domain
anycast model appears to be practically unfeasible even if it could
work especially if "anycast" was only used for the unicast address
discovery.
In the DNS, the records could be stored either in A/AAAA/CNAME or SRV
records. The former appears to be slightly advantageous, while the
latter is provably correct and offers slightly better load-balancing
features, rather than a simple round-robin (and whatever may be
obtained using e.g., anycast). Further analysis is still needed on
the tradeoffs of these approaches.
Local anycasting techniques using a shared-unicast address (or
addresses) appear to be the most practical means for redundancy and
load-balancing.
5. Security Considerations
If the tunnel end-point discovery is done in an insecure fashion, so
that an attacker could influence the discovery process, the attacker
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
could be able to hijack all the IPv6 communications. This must be
kept in mind when analyzing the different discovery solutions, and
spelled-out explicitly in the requirements, if the threats are to be
mitigated in tunneling mechanisms somehow (e.g., using a return
routability procedures).
In particular, the potential weaknesses of DNS bear some
consideration.
6. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action for IANA.
[[note to RFC-editor: this section can be removed upon publication.]]
7. Acknowledgements
This memo was written as a consequence of real experience using IPv6
when traveling, number of talks during IETF meetings and specially
the work with the unmanaged, ISP and enterprise v6ops design teams.
The authors would also like to acknowledge inputs from Carl Williams,
Brian Carpenter, Jeroen Massar and the European Commission support in
the co-funding of the Euro6IX project, where this work is being
developed.
8 Informative References
[1] Parent, F., "Goals for Registered Assisted Tunneling",
draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01 (work in
progress), October 2004.
[2] Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I. and D. Lento, "IPv6 Tunnel
Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001.
[3] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[4] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", RFC
3068, June 2001.
[5] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs",
draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02 (work in progress), June 2004.
[6] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., Talwar, M. and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)",
draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22 (work in progress), May 2004.
[7] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[8] Hagino, J. and K. Ettican, "An analysis of IPv6 anycast",
draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02 (work in progress),
June 2003.
[9] Thaler, D. and L. Vicisano, "IPv4 Automatic Multicast Without
Explicit Tunnels (AMT)", draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-02
(work in progress), February 2004.
[10] Faltstrom, P. and R. Austein, "Design Choices When Expanding
DNS", draft-iab-dns-choices-00 (work in progress), October
2004.
[11] Brisco, T., "DNS Support for Load Balancing", RFC 1794, April
1995.
[12] Kim, P. and S. Park, "DHCP Option for Configuring IPv6-in-IPv4
Tunnels", draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-05 (work in progress),
October 2004.
[13] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service
Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.
[14] Zhao, W., Schulzrinne, H., Guttman, E., Bisdikian, C. and W.
Jerome, "Remote Service Discovery in the Service Location
Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV", RFC 3832, July 2004.
Authors' Addresses
Jordi Palet Martinez
Consulintel
San Jose Artesano, 1
Alcobendas - Madrid
E-28108 - Spain
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98
EMail: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
Miguel Angel Diaz Fernandez
Consulintel
San Jose Artesano, 1
Alcobendas - Madrid
E-28108 - Spain
Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
Fax: +34 91 151 81 98
EMail: miguelangel.diaz@consulintel.es
Pekka Savola
CSC/FUNET
Espoo
Finland
EMail: psavola@funet.fi
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms October 2004
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.
Palet, et al. Expires April 24, 2005 [Page 16]