Internet Engineering Task Force H. Singh
Internet-Draft W. Beebee
Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: April 28, 2011 C. Donley
CableLabs
B. Stark
AT&T
O. Troan, Ed.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
October 25, 2010
Advanced Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-04
Abstract
This document continues the work undertaken by the IPv6 CE Router
Phase I work in the IETF v6ops Working Group. Advanced requirements
or Phase II work is covered in this document.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 28, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
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. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Conceptual Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Advanced Features and Feature Requirements . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Multicast Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. ND Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.4. Prefix Delegation on LAN interface(s) (More details
are TBD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.5. Routed network behavior(General Cases TBD) . . . . . . . . 8
5.6. Transition Technologies Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6.1. Dual-Stack(DS)-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.6.2. 6rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6.3. Transition Technologies Coexistence . . . . . . . . . 10
5.7. Quality Of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.8. Unicast Data Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.9. ZeroConf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
1. Introduction
This document defines Advanced IPv6 features for a residential or
small office router referred to as an IPv6 CE router. Typically
these routers also support IPv4. The IPv6 End-user Network
Architecture for such a router is described in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router]. This version of the document
includes the requirements for Advanced features.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2. Terminology
End-user Network one or more links attached to the IPv6 CE
router that connect IPv6 hosts.
IPv6 Customer Edge router a node intended for home or small office
use which forwards IPv6 packets not
explicitly addressed to itself. The IPv6
CE router connects the end-user network to
a service provider network.
IPv6 host any device implementing an IPv6 stack
receiving IPv6 connectivity through the
IPv6 CE router
LAN interface an IPv6 CE router's attachment to a link in
the end-user network. Examples are
Ethernets (simple or bridged), 802.11
wireless or other LAN technologies. An
IPv6 CE router may have one or more network
layer LAN Interfaces.
Service Provider an entity that provides access to the
Internet. In this document, a Service
Provider specifically offers Internet
access using IPv6, and may also offer IPv4
Internet access. The Service Provider can
provide such access over a variety of
different transport methods such as DSL,
cable, wireless, and others.
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
WAN interface an IPv6 CE router's attachment to a link
used to provide connectivity to the Service
Provider network; example link technologies
include Ethernets (simple or bridged), PPP
links, Frame Relay, or ATM networks as well
as Internet-layer (or higher-layer)
"tunnels", such as tunnels over IPv4 or
IPv6 itself.
3. Conceptual Configuration Variables
The CE Router maintains such a list of conceptual optional
configuration variables.
1. Enable an IGP on the LAN.
4. Architecture
This document extends the architecture described in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router] to cover a strictly larger set of
operational scenarios. In particular, QoS, multicast, DNS, routed
network in the home, transition technologies, and conceptual
configuration variables. This document also extends the model
described in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router] to a two router
topology where the two routers are connected back-to-back (the LAN of
one router is connected to the WAN of the other router). This
topology is depicted below:
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
+-------+-------+ \
| Service | \
| Provider | | Service
| Router | | Provider
+-------+-------+ | network
| /
| Customer /
| Internet connection /
|
+------+--------+ \
| IPv6 | \
| Customer Edge | \
| Router | |
+----+-+-----+--+ |
Network A | | | Network B |
----+-------------+----+ | --+--+-------------+--- |
| | | | | | |
+----+-----+ +-----+----+ | +----+-----+ +-----+----+ |
|IPv6 Host | |IPv6 Host | | | IPv6 Host| |IPv6 Host | |
| | | | | | | | | |
+----------+ +-----+----+ | +----------+ +----------+ |
| |
+------+--------+ | End-User
| IPv6 | | networks
| Interior | |
| Router | |
+---+-------+-+-+ |
Network C | | Network D |
----+-------------+---+- --+---+-------------+--- |
| | | | |
+----+-----+ +-----+----+ +----+-----+ +-----+----+ |
|IPv6 Host | |IPv6 Host | | IPv6 Host| |IPv6 Host | |
| | | | | | | | /
+----------+ +-----+----+ +----------+ +----------+/
Figure 1.
For DNS, the operational expectation is that the end-user would be
able to access home hosts from the home using DNS names instead of
more cumbersome IPv6 addresses. Note that this is distinct from the
requirement to access home hosts from outside the home.
End-users are expected to be able to receive multicast video in the
home without requiring the CE router to include the cost of
supporting full multicast routing protocols.
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
5. Advanced Features and Feature Requirements
The IPv6 CE router will need to support connectivity to one or more
access network architectures. This document describes an IPv6 CE
router that is not specific to any particular architecture or Service
Provider, and supports all commonly used architectures.
5.1. DNS
D-1: For local DNS queries for configuration, the CE Router may
include a DNS server to handle local queries. Non-local
queries can be forwarded unchanged to a DNS server specified in
the DNS server DHCPv6 option. The CE Router may also include
DNS64 functionality which is specified in
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-dns64].
D-2: The local DNS server MAY also handle renumbering from the
Service Provider provided prefix for local names used
exclusively inside the home (the local AAAA and PTR records are
updated). This capability provides connectivity using local
DNS names in the home after a Service Provider renumbering. A
CE Router MAY add local DNS entries based on dynamic requests
from the LAN segment(s). The protocol to carry such requests
from hosts to the CE Router is yet to be described.
5.2. Multicast Behavior
This section is only applicable to a CE Router with at least one LAN
interface. A host in the home is expected to receive multicast
video. Note the CE Router resides at edge of the home and the
Service Provider, and the CE Router has at least one WAN connection
for multiple LAN connections. In such a multiple LAN to a WAN
toplogy at the CE Router edge, it is not necessary to run a multicast
routing protocol and thus MLD Proxy as specified in [RFC4605] can be
used. The CE Router discovers the hosts via a MLDv2 Router
implementation on a LAN interface. A WAN interface of the CE Router
interacts with the Service Provider router by sending MLD Reports and
replying to MLD queries for multicast Group memberships for hosts in
the home.
The CE router SHOULD implement MLD Proxy as specified in [RFC4605].
For the routed topology shown in Figure 1, each router implements a
MLD Proxy. If the CE router implements MLD Proxy, the requirements
on the CE Router for MLD Proxy are listed below.
WAN requirements, MLD Proxy:
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
WMLD-1: Consistent with [RFC4605], the CE router MUST NOT implement
the router portion of MLDv2 for the WAN interface.
LAN requirements, MLD Proxy:
LMMLD-1: The CPE Router MUST follow the model described for MLD
Proxy in [RFC4605] to implement multicast.
LMMLD-2: Consistent with [RFC4605], the LAN interfaces on the CPE
router MUST NOT implement an MLDv2 Multicast Listener.
LAN requirements:
LM-1: If the CE Router has bridging configured between the LAN
interfaces, then the LAN interfaces MUST support snooping of
MLD [RFC3810] messages.
5.3. ND Proxy
LAN requirements:
LNDP-1: If the CE Router has only one /64 prefix to be used across
multiple LAN interfaces and the CE Router supports any two
LAN interfaces that cannot bridge data between them because
the two interfaces have disparate MAC layers, then the CE
Router MUST support Proxying Neighbor Advertisements as
specified in Section 7.2.8 of [RFC4861]. If any two LAN
interfaces support bridging between the interfaces, then
Proxying Neighbor Advertisements is not necessary between
the two interfaces. Legacy 3GPP networks have the following
requirements:
1. No DHCPv6 prefix is delegated to the CE Router.
2. Only one /64 is available on the WAN link.
3. The link types between the WAN interface and LAN
interface(s) are disparate and, therefore, can't be
bridged.
4. No NAT66 is to be used.
5. Each LAN interface needs global connectivity.
6. Uses SLAAC to configure LAN interface addresses.
For these legacy 3GPP networks, the CPE Router MUST support
ND Proxy between the WAN and LAN interface(s). If a CE
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
Router will never be deployed in an environment with these
characteristics, then ND Proxy is not necessary.
5.4. Prefix Delegation on LAN interface(s) (More details are TBD)
This section is only applicable to a CE Router with at least one LAN
interface. The LAN interface(s) are delegated prefixes subnetted
from the delegated prefix acquired by the WAN interface and the ULA
prefix. After the CE router has assigned prefixes for all of its
internally defined needs (its interfaces and any other purposes
defined in its internal logic), any leftover prefixes are available
for delegation. Any automated prefix delegation mechanism is TBD.
5.5. Routed network behavior(General Cases TBD)
CPE Router Behavior in a routed network:
R-1: One example of the CPE Router use in the home is shown below.
The home has a broadband modem combined with a CPE Router, all
in one device. The LAN interface of the device is connected to
another standalone CPE Router that supports a wireless access
point. To support such a network, this document recommends
using prefix delegation of the prefix obtained either via IA_PD
from WAN interface or a ULA from the LAN interface . The
network interface of the downstream router may obtain an IA_PD
via stateful DHCPv6. If the CPE router supports the routed
network through automatic prefix delegation, the CPE router
MUST support a DHCPv6 server or DHCPv6 relay agent. Further,
if an IA_PD is used, the Service Provider or user MUST allocate
an IA_PD or ULA prefix short enough to be delegated and
subsequently used for SLAAC. Therefore, a prefix length
shorter than /64 is needed. The CPE Router MAY support and IGP
in the home network.
/-------+------------\ /------------+-----\
SP <--+ Modem | CPE Router +--+ CPE Router | WAP + --> PC
\-------+------------/ \------------+-----/
WAP = Wireless Access Point
Figure 2.
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
5.6. Transition Technologies Support
5.6.1. Dual-Stack(DS)-Lite
Even as users migrate from IPv4 to IPv6 addressing, a significant
percentage of Internet resources and content will remain accessible
only through IPv4. Also, many end-user devices will only support
IPv4. As a consequence, Service Providers require mechanisms to
allow customers to continue to access content and resources using
IPv4 even after the last IPv4 allocations have been fully depleted.
One technology that can be used for IPv4 address extension is DS-
Lite.
DS-Lite enables a Service Provider to share IPv4 addresses among
multiple customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP
(IPv4-in-IPv6) tunneling and Carrier Grade NAT. More specifically,
Dual-Stack-Lite encapsulates IPv4 traffic inside an IPv6 tunnel at
the IPv6 CE Router and sends it to a Service Provider Address Family
Translation Router (AFTR). Configuration of the IPv6 CE Router to
support IPv4 LAN traffic is outside the scope of this document.
The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD implement DS-Lite functionality as
specified in [I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite].
WAN requirements:
DLW-1: To facilitate IPv4 extension over an IPv6 network, if the CE
Router supports DS-Lite functionality, the CE Router WAN
interface MUST implement a B4 Interface as specified in
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite].
DLW-2: If the IPv6 CE Router implements DS-Lite functionality, the
CE Router MUST support using a DS-Lite DHCPv6 option
[I-D.ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option] to configure the
DS-Lite tunnel. The IPv6 CE Router MAY use other mechanisms
to configure DS-Lite parameters. Such mechanisms are outside
the scope of this document.
DLW-3: IPv6 CE Router MUST NOT perform IPv4 Network Address
Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic encapsulated using DS-Lite.
DLW-4: If the IPv6 CE Router is configured with an non-RFC1918 IPv4
address on its WAN interface, the IPv6 CE Router MUST disable
the DS-Lite B4 element.
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
DLW-5: If DS-Lite is operational on the IPv6 CE Router, multicast
data MUST NOT be sent on any DS-Lite tunnel.
5.6.2. 6rd
The IPv6 CE Router can be used to offer IPv6 service to a LAN, even
when the WAN access network only supports IPv4. One technology that
supports IPv6 service over an IPv4 network is IPv6 Rapid Deployment
(6rd). 6rd encapsulates IPv6 traffic from the end user LAN inside
IPv4 at the IPv6 CE Router and sends it to a Service Provider Border
Relay (BR). The IPv6 CE Router calculates a 6rd delegated IPv6
prefix during 6rd configuration, and sub-delegates the 6rd delegated
prefix to devices in the LAN.
The IPv6 CE Router SHOULD implement 6rd functionality as specified in
[RFC5969].
6rd requirements:
6RD-1: If the IPv6 CE Router implements 6rd functionality, the CE
Router WAN interface MUST support at least one 6rd Virtual
Interface and 6rd CE functionality as specified in [RFC5969].
6RD-2: If the IPv6 CE Router implements 6rd CE functionality, it
MUST support using the 6rd DHCPv4 Option (212) for 6rd
configuration. The IPv6 CE Router MAY use other mechanisms
to configure 6rd parameters. Such mechanisms are outside the
scope of this document.
6RD-3: If 6rd is operational on the IPv6 CE Router, multicast data
MUST NOT be sent on any 6rd tunnel.
5.6.3. Transition Technologies Coexistence
Run the following four in parallel to provision CPE router
connectivity to the Service Provider:
1. Initiate IPv4 address acquisition.
2. Initiate IPv6 address acquisition as specified by
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router].
3. If 6rd is provisioned, initiate 6rd.
4. If DS-Lite is provisioned, initiate DS-Lite.
The default route for IPv6 through the native physical interface
should have preference over the 6rd tunnel interface. The default
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
route for IPv4 through the native physical interface should have
preference over the DS-Lite tunnel interface.
5.7. Quality Of Service
Q-1: The CPE router MAY support differentiated services [RFC2474].
5.8. Unicast Data Forwarding
The null route introduced by the WPD-6 requirement in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router] has lower precedence than other
routes except for the default route.
5.9. ZeroConf
The CE Router MAY support manual configuration via the web using a
URL string like http://router.local as per multicast DNS (mDNS).
Zero-configuration is vendor-dependent.
6. Security Considerations
None.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
guidance and feedback:
Mikael Abrahamsson, Merete Asak, Scott Beuker, Mohamed Boucadair, Rex
Bullinger, Brian Carpenter, Remi Denis-Courmont, Gert Doering, Alain
Durand, Katsunori Fukuoka, Tony Hain, Thomas Herbst, Kevin Johns,
Stephen Kramer, Victor Kuarsingh, Francois-Xavier Le Bail, David
Miles, Shin Miyakawa, Jean-Francois Mule, Michael Newbery, Carlos
Pignataro, John Pomeroy, Antonio Querubin, Teemu Savolainen, Matt
Schmitt, Hiroki Sato, Mark Townsley, Bernie Volz, James Woodyatt, Dan
Wing and Cor Zwart
This draft is based in part on CableLabs' eRouter specification. The
authors wish to acknowledge the additional contributors from the
eRouter team:
Ben Bekele, Amol Bhagwat, Ralph Brown, Eduardo Cardona, Margo Dolas,
Toerless Eckert, Doc Evans, Roger Fish, Michelle Kuska, Diego
Mazzola, John McQueen, Harsh Parandekar, Michael Patrick, Saifur
Rahman, Lakshmi Raman, Ryan Ross, Ron da Silva, Madhu Sudan, Dan
Torbet and Greg White.
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
8. Contributors
The following people have participated as co-authors or provided
substantial contributions to this document: Ralph Droms, Kirk
Erichsen, Fred Baker, Jason Weil, Lee Howard, Jean-Francois Tremblay,
Yiu Lee, John Jason Brzozowski and Heather Kirksey.
9. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.bagnulo-behave-dns64]
Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., Beijnum, I., and
M. Endo, "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers",
draft-bagnulo-behave-dns64-02 (work in progress),
March 2009.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option]
Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual- Stack Lite",
draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-05 (work in
progress), September 2010.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite]
Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06 (work
in progress), August 2010.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router]
Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-07 (work in
progress), August 2010.
[I-D.vyncke-advanced-ipv6-security]
Vyncke, E. and M. Townsley, "Advanced Security for IPv6
CPE", draft-vyncke-advanced-ipv6-security-01 (work in
progress), March 2010.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.
[RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
January 1997.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
December 1998.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
December 2003.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
[RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery
Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[RFC4075] Kalusivalingam, V., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
Configuration Option for DHCPv6", RFC 4075, May 2005.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.
[RFC4242] Venaas, S., Chown, T., and B. Volz, "Information Refresh
Time Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 4242, November 2005.
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
[RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
April 2006.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4541] Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky,
"Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP) and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping
Switches", RFC 4541, May 2006.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, August 2006.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, August 2006.
[RFC4779] Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola, P., and
J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband
Access Networks", RFC 4779, January 2007.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC4864] Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and
E. Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", RFC 4864,
May 2007.
[RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over
PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007.
[RFC5571] Storer, B., Pignataro, C., Dos Santos, M., Stevant, B.,
Toutain, L., and J. Tremblay, "Softwire Hub and Spoke
Deployment Framework with Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
Version 2 (L2TPv2)", RFC 5571, June 2009.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, August 2010.
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework]
Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation",
draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10 (work in progress),
August 2010.
[UPnP-IGD]
UPnP Forum, "Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) Internet
Gateway Device (IGD)", November 2001,
<http://www.upnp.org/standardizeddcps/igd.asp>.
Authors' Addresses
Hemant Singh
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978 936 1622
Email: shemant@cisco.com
URI: http://www.cisco.com/
Wes Beebee
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978 936 2030
Email: wbeebee@cisco.com
URI: http://www.cisco.com/
Chris Donley
CableLabs
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027
USA
Email: c.donley@cablelabs.com
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 CE router Advanced requirements October 2010
Barbara Stark
AT&T
725 W Peachtree St
Atlanta, GA 30308
USA
Email: barbara.stark@att.com
Ole Troan (editor)
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Veversmauet 8
N-5017 BERGEN,
Norway
Email: ot@cisco.com
Singh, et al. Expires April 28, 2011 [Page 16]