[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 draft-ietf-v6ops-campus-transition

IPv6 Operations                                                 T. Chown
Internet-Draft                                 University of Southampton
Expires: April 25, 2005                                 October 25, 2004



        IPv6 Campus Transition Scenario Description and Analysis
                 draft-chown-v6ops-campus-transition-01


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.


   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2005.


Copyright Notice


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  All Rights Reserved.


Abstract


   In this document we consider and analyse the specific scenario of
   IPv6 transition and deployment in a large department of a university
   campus network.  The department is large enough to operate its own
   instances of all the conventional university services including (for
   example) web, DNS, email, filestore, interactive logins, and remote
   and wireless access.  The scenario is a dual-stack one, i.e.
   transition to IPv6 means deploying IPv6 in the first instance
   alongside IPv4.  This analysis will both identify the available (and
   still missing) components for IPv6 transition, and also test the
   applicability of the recently completed IPv6 Enterprise Network




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   Scenarios document.


Table of Contents


   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     1.1  Site Philosphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   2.   Discussion of Scenarios Network Infrastructure Components  .   5
     2.1  Component 1: Enterprise Provider Requirements  . . . . . .   5
     2.2  Component 2: Enterprise Application Requirements . . . . .   6
     2.3  Component 3: Enterprise IT Department Requirements . . . .   7
     2.4  Component 4: Enterprise Network Management System  . . . .   8
     2.5  Component 5: Enterprise Network Interoperation and
          Coexistence  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.   Discussion of Network Infrastructure Component
        Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.1  DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2  Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.3  Configuration of Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.4  Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.5  Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.6  Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.7  Address Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.8  Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.9  Multihoming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   4.   Specific Scenario Component Review . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1  Network Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.1  Physical connectivity (Layer 2)  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.2  Routing and Logical subnets (Layer 3)  . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.3  Firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       4.1.4  Intrusion Detection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.5  Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.6  Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.7  Remote access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.1.8  IPv6 External Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.2  Address Allocation Components  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.2.1  IPv6 network prefix allocation . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       4.2.2  IPv6 Address allocation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.3  Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.1  Email  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.2  Web Hosting  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       4.3.3  Databases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.4  Directory Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.5  DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.6  PKI  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.7  NTP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.8  USENET News  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.9  Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       4.3.10   Remote login . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



       4.3.11   File serving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.3.12   Backups  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.4  Host and Device Platforms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.1  Server platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.2  Desktop/laptop platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       4.4.3  PDA platforms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.5  User Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.5.1  Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.5.2  Mail Client  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.5.3  Web Browser  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       4.5.4  Conferencing systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.5.5  Other collaboration tools  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.5.6  Usenet news client . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       4.5.7  Host communications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.6  Hard-coded address points  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.   Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.1  Dual-Stack Deployment: Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.2  Dual-Stack Deployment: Transition toolbox  . . . . . . . .  20
     5.3  Missing components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.3.1  Standards (IETF)-specific  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.3.2  Vendor or platform-specific  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.3.3  Application-specific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.3.4  Other (policy, political,...)  . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     5.4  Considerations beyond the Scenarios Document . . . . . . .  22
   6.   Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   7.   Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   8.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   9.   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
        Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
        Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  25






















Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



1.  Introduction


   The scope of the enterprise network transition scenarios is very
   large, much more so than that of the other three IPv6 transition
   areas under study within the IETF.  The IPv6 Enterprise Network
   Scenarios [14] have been defined.  In this document we present a
   specific case study area for IPv6 transition, namely a large
   department (1,500 staff and students, over 1,000 hosts) in an
   academic campus network.  The purpose of this document in its current
   form is to both define and analyse the IPv6 transition of such a
   network, but also to test the applicability of the IPv6 Enterprise
   Network Scenarios document to a specific example.


   The work on IPv6 Enterprise Analysis [19] is now underway, and this
   campus transition experience is being fed into that analysis.


   Our campus study falls under "Scenario 1" of the IPv6 Enterprise
   Network Scenarios [14] document, i.e.  the campus network is an
   existing IPv4 network, where IPv6 is to be deployed in conjunction
   with the IPv4 network.


   "Scenario 1" has the assumption that the IPv4 network infrastructure
   used has an equivalent capability in IPv6.  This document will
   analyse that assumption.  The Scenario also has requirements, i.e.
   that the existing IPv4 network infrastructure is not disrupted, and
   that IPv6 should be equivalent or better than the network
   infrastructure in IPv4.  The Scenario also notes that it may also not
   be feasible to deploy IPv6 on all parts of the network immediately.


   These assumptions and requirements will be discussed later in this
   text.


   It should also be noted why Scenarios 2 and 3 did not apply to this
   campus transition scenario.  Scenario 2 talks of specific
   applications, but in the campus case we wish to deploy IPv6
   pervasively, in wired and wireless networks, as an enabler for
   education and research, to encourage new application development.
   Scenario 3 focuses on using IPv6 as the basis for most network
   communication, but in the campus we already have a significant IPv4
   deployment that will be utilised for the foreseeable future (Scenario
   3 would perhaps  be more appropriate for a greenfield deployment).


   This document is very much a work in progress, and thus this first
   instance of this document is not intended to be complete or
   comprehensive.  Some sections are empty at this stage.  We make no
   claims that this campus scenario is typical, but believe the lessons
   leanrt and analysis undertaken may be of wider interest.  Feedback is
   sought on scope and the required level of detail.




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



1.1  Site Philosphy


   The site which is the subject of this study is an IPv4 network with
   up to 20 subnets, using a core network infrastructure that combines
   switch-router functionality in centralised devices, with switches at
   the network edge.  The main switching equipment is all VLAN capable.
   There are around 1,000 networked nodes, and 1,500 users.


   The site wishes to deploy IPv6 dual-stack.  Currently, the core
   network infrastructure does not support IPv6, and no upgrade is
   possible.  Thus the infrastructure cannot support IPv6 until the next
   procurement cycle.  Given the site wishes to deploy IPv6 pervasively
   as soon as possible, and interim deployment solution is required.
   The goal is to IPv6 enable the network (on the wire) and services
   (DNS, SMTP, etc) such that the whole operation is dual-stack.  This
   will allow in due course IPv6-only devices to be deployed within the
   fully IPv6-capable environment.  Some network links may become
   IPv6-only in the future.


2.  Discussion of Scenarios Network Infrastructure Components


   In this section, we look at the issues raised by following the
   Scenarios Network Infrastructure Components of the IPv6 Enterprise
   Network Scenarios [14] document, section 3.2.


2.1  Component 1: Enterprise Provider Requirements


   The answers to the questions posed in this section of the IPv6
   Enterprise Network Scenarios document are as follows:


   o  There is external access to/from the campus network, regional MAN
      and National Research Network beyond.


   o  There are needs for access by remote staff, student and
      researchers.


   o  It is a single site, with four buildings.


   o  There are no leased lines or wide-area VPNs between remote
      buildings.


   o  The department has 12 IPv4 Class C's, the campus has a Class B,
      independent from its provider (assigned prior to use of CIDR).


   o  The IPv4 and IPv6 provider is the National Research and Education
      Network (JANET in the UK).  JANET provides a /48 prefix for the
      university.  The university offers a /52 prefix for the
      department.




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   o  The university and department make their own prefix allocations
      for subnets.


   o  There is no multihoming, and thus no multihomed clients.


   o  The only IPv6 service offered by the provider to date is a 6to4
      [4] relay.


   o  There is no exteral IPv6 routing protocol needed due to the use of
      static route configuration.


   o  There is no external data centre.


   o  IPv6 runs over the same access links to campus (the JANET backbone
      uses true dual stack, the regional MAN uses 6PE [15].  On campus,
      the IPv4 traffic to the department is received through a Nokia
      IP740 firewall, the IPv6 traffic is received through a BSD
      firewall.  Thus the access links into the department for IPv4 and
      IPv6 are different, though the goal is to make them the same.



2.2  Component 2: Enterprise Application Requirements


   Answers to the next IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios section are as
   follows:


   o  The application inventory is discussed in the specific component
      review in the next section.


   o  We expect the first applications to be moved will be the support
      services, including DNS.  The first applications should be the
      common IPv4 applications, e.g.  web, remote login and email, such
      that IPv6 offers as least an equivalent service to IPv4 for the
      important applications.


   o  The academic environment has a good mix of open source and
      commercial software, predominantly either Microsoft or Linux, but
      with a growing number of Mac OS/X users.  Specific platforms are
      reviewed in the component review in the next main section.  Most
      open source applications have been upgraded to allow IPv6
      operation; others can be upgraded given time.


   o  The general goal is for applications to support both IPv4 or IPv6
      operation, i.e.  to be IP agnostic.


   o  There is no use of NAT in the department's network.  Home users,
      or users access into the network remotely from certain locations,
      may experience NAT at their client side.




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   o  NAT issues are relevant from the end-to-end perspective, for
      establishment of end-to-end security where desired, and in
      relation to IPv6 transition (remote access) mathods that may be
      run through NATs.


   o  There is a mix of internal and external applications.  Where
      limitations occur, it is mainly by policy not technology, e.g.  as
      implemented in firewall restrictions.



2.3  Component 3: Enterprise IT Department Requirements


   Here we list responses to the next IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios
   section on IT Department Requirements:


   o  Ownership and support is all in-house.


   o  Remote VPNs are supported.


   o  No inter-site networking is required.


   o  No network mobility support is needed at this point, though we
      expect to use Mobile IPv6 between the department network and a
      local community wireless network.


   o  The IPv6 address plan for the department requires a /52 prefix.


   o  There is no detailed asset database, though one is being built.


   o  There are no geographically separate sites.


   o  The internal IPv4 address assignment mechanism is DHCP for
      clients, with manual configuration for servers.  We thus expect to
      use DHCPv6 for at least some IPv6 clients.


   o  Internal IPv4 routing is static or uses RIP.  We thus expect to
      use RIPng internally.


   o  We expect our IPv6 network management policy to be very similar to
      that for IPv4.


   o  There is no QoS provision at present, largely due to the ample
      campus bandwidth (1Gbit/s uplink).


   o  Security is applied through many technologies implementing our
      policies, e.g.  firewall, email scanning, wireless LAN access
      controls.  We expect similar policies for IPv6, but need to
      analyse differences.




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   o  Training will be done in-house.


   o  The impacted software components are discussed in the next main
      section.  Not all functions are upgradeable to IPv6; those that
      are not are discussed in the analysis section.  Some are, e.g.
      use of OpenLDAP in place of MS Active Directory.


   o  The impacted hardware components are discussed in the next main
      section.  Not all hardware is upgradeable, e.g.  network printers.
      There are no load balancing systems in use.  There are wireless
      LAN hosts in the network that are mobile, but currently the
      wireless network is a flat IPv4 subnet.  There may be nodes moving
      to external wireless networks (the local community wireless
      network.



2.4  Component 4: Enterprise Network Management System


   The responses to the next IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios section
   are as follows:


   o  No performance management is required.


   o  There are a number of network management and monitoring tools in
      use, which will need to be used in a dual stack or IPv6 mode, e.g.
      the nocol availability monitring tools, and SNMP-based management.


   o  The configuration management may include use of tools to configure
      services including DNS and email.


   o  No policy management and enforcement tools are required.


   o  No detailed security management is required, though we expect to
      manage the implementations including firewalls and intrusion
      detection.


   o  We may need to manage the deployed transition tools and
      mechanisms.


   o  We need to analyse the considerations IPv6 creates for network
      management, e.g.  use (or not) of RFC3041 privacy addresses.



2.5  Component 5: Enterprise Network Interoperation and Coexistence


   Answers to the final IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios section on
   Coexistence are as follows:





Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   o  The platforms that are required to be IPv6 capable are listed in
      the next main section.


   o  There is only one network ingress and egress point to the site
      that needs to be IPv6 capable; this is a Gigabit Ethernet
      interface.


   o  The required transition mechanisms are discussed in the analysis
      section.  We expect to mainly use the VLAN [8] mechanism for
      internal IPv6 transport, with a parallel IPv6 routing
      infrastructure based on BSD routers, until the core infrastructure
      is able to support IPv6 (via upgrade or a new procurement).


   o  The transition to IPv6 will be enabled on the wire first, enabling
      clients, with a phased introduction of service capability, as
      discussed below in the analysis section.


   o  The preferred mechanism for interoperation with legacy nodes is to
      use dual-stack and thus IPv4 to communicate to IPv4 nodes and IPv6
      to communicate to IPv6 nodes.  We have not identified any
      in-house, non-upgradeable legacy applications.



3.  Discussion of Network Infrastructure Component Requirements


   In this section, we discuss the network infrastructure component
   requirements raised in the IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios [14]
   document, in section 4.



3.1  DNS


   BIND9 is used for our three internal name servers.  The servers will
   be made dual stack, to be available for IPv6 transport for local
   dual-stack or IPv6-only nodes.  The three servers will each be listed
   with AAAA records, and AAAA glue added.


3.2  Routing


   Internal routing is either statically configured or uses RIP.  We
   thus expect to use RIPng for internal IPv6 routing.  The external
   routing is statically configured for IPv4, and thus is likely to be
   statically configured for IPv6.


3.3  Configuration of Hosts


   IPv4 clients use DHCP for address and other configuration options.
   We expect to use Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   (DHCPv6) [5] for IPv6 clients.  This will require analysis of the
   IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack Issues for DHCPv6 [11].  We expect some
   clients, especially in wireless LANs, to use IPv6 Stateless
   Autoconfiguration [1], and these nodes will need support for
   Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6
   [6] for other configuration options, including the IPv6 address of a
   local DNS resolver.


   Although IPv6 offers Stateless Autoconfiguration, it is expected that
   the managed environment will continue, driven from the asset
   database, for some time.  Thus DHCPv6 is required.  Use of Stateless
   Autoconfiguration implies a requirement for dynamic DNS updates for
   such nodes.  It is not yet decided how to apply or enforce that plan;
   it may certainly be flexible with time.


3.4  Security


   We need to identify new IPv6 related security considerations, and
   those associated with transition mechanisms [16].  Site policies may
   need to be updated as a result.


3.5  Applications


   The Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition [13] document describes
   best porting practice for applications.  There should also be
   consideration for any required application proxies.


3.6  Network Management


   The network management and monitoring systems will need to embrace
   IPv6, and any transition mechanisms used to deploy IPv6.  Monitoring
   includes usage tracking (e.g.  via MRTG) and availability monitoring
   (e.g.  via nocol).


3.7  Address Planning


   The department receives 12 Class C prefixes for IPv4 use, and uses
   only globally routable addresses internally.  The IPv4 address space
   for the campus was obtained prior to CIDR, but the IPv6 address space
   is allocated from the UK National Research Network (JANET) address
   space under 2001:0630::/32.  The university receives a /48 prefix,
   which is 2001:0630:d0::/48.  The department has a /52 allocation
   within this block of 2001:0630:d0:0:/52.


3.8  Multicast


   IPv4 multicast is used for a number of applications, including the
   AccessGrid.  Connectivity is provided via the local campus and




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   regional network.  We expect to use both IPv6 ASM (i.e.  PIM-SM), and
   may seek to make use of the Embedding the Address of RP in IPv6
   Multicast Address [12] technique.  For briding between IPv4 and IPv6
   multicast, we believe an IPv4 - IPv6 multicast gateway [17] may prove
   valuable.  Finally, we expect to make use of source specific
   multicast (SSM) more heavily in IPv6, bringing IPv6 and SSM together
   in one deployment cycle.


3.9  Multihoming


   The site is not multihomed.


4.  Specific Scenario Component Review


   Here we describe specific technology in use now in the department.
   Later in this section we discuss any items not included in the above
   section, i.e.  those not explicitly mentioned in the IPv6 Enterprise
   Network Scenarios document.  In the next main section we analyse
   these for missing technologies, as a form of gap analysis.


4.1  Network Components


4.1.1  Physical connectivity (Layer 2)


   o  Switched Ethernet


   o  Gigabit Ethernet


   o  Wireless networking (802.11b)



4.1.2  Routing and Logical subnets (Layer 3)


   The hybrid Layer 2/3 routing equipment has approximately 20 internal
   IPv4 subnets (in effect, routed VLANs).  There is no specific
   internal routing protocol used.  There is a static route via the site
   firewall to the main upstream provider (academic) running at 1Gbit/s.


4.1.3  Firewall


   The firewall is currently CheckPoint Firewall-1 running on a Sun
   Solaris platform, just migrating to  a Nokia IP740 hardware platform.
   There is one internal facing interface, one external facing
   interface, and two .DMZ.  interfaces, one for wired hosts and one for
   the Wireless LAN provision.







Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



4.1.4  Intrusion Detection System


   Snort is used locally for IPv4 IDS.  There is some IPv6 functionality
   in Snort.  The precise requirements of an IPv6 IDS need to be
   understood.


4.1.5  Management


   Some network management is performend by SNMP; there is no specific
   package for this.  There is a greater emphasis on monitoring than
   explictly in management.


4.1.6  Monitoring


   A number of tools are used, to monitor network usage as well as
   systems availability, e.g.  nocol, nagios and MRTG.  The IBM AWM tool
   is used for network testing, along with iperf, rude and crude.


4.1.7  Remote access


   o  Livingston Portmaster 56K/ISDN dialup


   o  RADIUS server


   o  (Microsoft) VPN server



4.1.8  IPv6 External Access


   o  IPv6 connectivity comes via 6PE from our regional network.



4.2  Address Allocation Components


   The department receives its IPv4 and IPv6 address allocations from
   the University.  For IPv4, the University has a Class B allocation
   which is not aggregated under the JANET NREN.  For IPv6, the
   University receives its allocation from JANET.


4.2.1  IPv6 network prefix allocation


   For IPv6, JANET has the prefix 2001:630::/32 from RIPE-NCC, as the
   national academic ISP in the UK.  The University has been allocated
   2001:630:d0::/48 by JANET.  The department transitioning will be
   allocated a /52 size prefix under 2001:630:d0::/48, i.e.
   2001:630:d0:0::/52.


   In the initial deployment, we expect that IPv4 and IPv6 subnets will




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   be congruent (and share the same VLANs).  The advantage for IPv6 is
   that subnets will not need to be resized to conserve or efficiently
   utilise address space as is the case currently for IPv4 (as subnet
   host counts rise and fall for administrative or research group
   growth/decline reasons).


4.2.2  IPv6 Address allocation


   It is expected that the network devices will use a combination of
   address allocation mechanisms:


   o  Manually configured addresses (in some servers)


   o  Stateful DHCPv6 (probably in fixed, wired devices and some
      servers)


   o  Stateless address autoconfiguration (probably in wireless and
      mobile devices)


   o  RFC3041 privacy addresses (in some client devices)


   For devices using stateless or RFC3041 mechanisms, a Stateless DHCPv6
   server will be required for other (non-address) configuration
   options, e.g.  DNS and NTP servers.


4.3  Services



4.3.1  Email


   There are three MX hosts for inbound email, and two main internal
   mail servers.  Sendmail is the MTA.  POP and IMAP (and their secure
   versions) are used for mail access, using the UW-IMAP open source
   code.  There is an MS Exchange server used by up to 100 users
   (generally those wanting shared access to mail spools, e.g.
   professors and secretaries).  MailScanner is used for anti-spam/
   anti-virus.  This uses external services including various RBLs for
   part of its spam checking.  Successful reverse DNS lookup is required
   for sendmail to accept internal SMTP connections for delivery.


4.3.2  Web Hosting


   Web content hosting is provided either with Apache 1.3.x (open
   source) or Microsoft IIS 5.0.  Common components used to build
   systems with are MySQL, PHP 4 and Perl 5; these enable local tools
   such as Wikis to be run.






Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



4.3.3  Databases


   All database systems are presented via a web interface, including the
   financial systems.  In some cases, e.g.  student records, ODBC-like
   access is required/used in to/out from the department systems to the
   campus systems.  Databases include: finance records, people, projects
   and publications (offered using ePrints).


4.3.4  Directory Services


   The following are used:


   o  NIS (6 servers, all Solaris)


   o  LDAP


   o  Active Directory


   o  RADIUS



4.3.5  DNS


   The three DNS servers have recently been upgraded to BIND9.  A DNS
   secondary is held at another UK university site.


4.3.6  PKI


   The department has at least 10 SSL certificates from Thawte,
   including Web-signing certificates.  No personal certificates are
   supported by the department (though users may have their own).


4.3.7  NTP


   The JANET NREN offers a stratum 0 NTP server.  The department also
   has a GPS-based NTP server built-in to its own RIPE NCC test traffic
   server.


4.3.8  USENET News


   The news feed is delivered using dnews.


4.3.9  Multicast


   There is PIM-SM IPv4 multicast via a dedicated Cisco 7206 router.
   This supports applications including the IPv4 AccessGrid conferencing
   system.  A number of bugs in the existing IPv4 equipment prevent
   heavy use of IPv4 Multicast within the department network (thus an




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   IPv6 Multicast solution is highly desirable).  An IPv4 Multicast
   beacon is used for monitoring Multicast.


4.3.10  Remote login


   Remote login access is offered via ssh, with sftp for file transfer.
   Remote use of telnet and ftp is denied by the firewall.


4.3.11  File serving


   The main file servers are SGI systems, hosting large (multi-TB)
   standalone RAID arrays.  The files are offered via NFS and Samba to
   client systems.  The content distribution server is hosted on such a
   system (e.g.  containing MS software licenced under the Campus
   Agreement).


4.3.12  Backups


   Backups are run over SSH, which is IPv6-enabled.  A site using a
   proprietary rempte backup solution may not yet have IPv6 capability.


4.4  Host and Device Platforms



4.4.1  Server platforms


   These include:


   o  Windows 2003 server


   o  Windows 2000 server


   o  Windows NT


   o  Solaris 8


   o  Solaris 9


   o  RedHat Linux


   o  SGI Origin 300 (Irix 6.5.x)



4.4.2  Desktop/laptop platforms


   These include:


   o  Windows 98, 2000, ME, XP




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   o  Linux (various flavours)


   o  MacOS/X


   o  BSD (various flavours)



4.4.3  PDA platforms


   These include:


   o  Windows CE/.NET, Pocket PC


   o  PalmOS


   o  Familiar Linux on iPaQ


   o  Zaurus (Linux)



4.5  User Tools


   These are non-exhaustive but representative application/platform
   lists


4.5.1  Hardware


   o  Networked printers


   o  Networked webcams



4.5.2  Mail Client


   o  Outlook (various versions)


   o  Eudora


   o  Mutt


   o  Pine



4.5.3  Web Browser


   o  MS Internet Explorer


   o  Mozilla




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   o  Safari


   o  Opera



4.5.4  Conferencing systems


   o  AccessGrid


   o  A dedicated H.323 system


   o  MS Netmeeting



4.5.5  Other collaboration tools


   o  IRC


   o  Jabber


   o  MSN Messenger


   o  cvs



4.5.6  Usenet news client


   o  nn


   o  Mozilla



4.5.7  Host communications


   o  X11


   o  VNC


   o  PC Anywhere



4.6  Hard-coded address points


   Usage of IPv4 hard-coded addresses is interesting for at least two
   reasons.  One is that it illustrates where IPv6 hard-coded addresses
   may appear, and thus secondly it is useful to analyse which
   hard-coded addresses may be barriers to smooth IPv6 renumbering.  A
   procedure for renumbering has been described in Procedures for




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day [7].  A non-exhaustive
   list of instances of such addresses includes:


   o  Provider based prefix(es)


   o  Names resolved to IP addresses in firewall at startup time


   o  IP addresses in remote firewalls allowing access to remote
      services


   o  IP-based authentication in remote systems allowing access to
      online bibliographic resources


   o  IP address of both tunnel end points for IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel


   o  Hard-coded IP subnet configuration information


   o  IP addresses for static route targets


   o  Blocked SMTP server IP list (spam sources)


   o  Web .htaccess and remote access controls


   o  Apache .Listen.  directive on given IP address


   o  Configured multicast rendezvous point


   o  TCP wrapper files


   o  Samba configuration files


   o  DNS resolv.conf on Unix


   o  Nocol monitoring tool


   o  NIS/ypbind via the hosts file


   o  Some interface configurations


   o  Unix portmap security masks


   o  NIS security masks


   The author is contributing to work in studying things to think about
   in IPv6 renumbering [18], where the above issues will be considered.







Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



5.  Analysis


   We start by noting that our analysis does not include issues relating
   to deployment of new IPv6-specific technology, e.g.  MIPv6.


   The work described in this document is also being fed into the IPv6
   Enterprise Analysis [19] document, currently an ongoing work within
   the IPv6 Operations WG.  The reader is referred in particular to
   Section 4 ("Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment") and Section 7
   ("General issues and applicability for all Scenarios") which were
   directly contributed from the work here.


5.1  Dual-Stack Deployment: Procedure


   As described in the IPv6 Enterprise Analysis [19] document, the
   scenario here is one of wide-scale dual-stack deployment.  The plan
   for deployment follows the general guidelines of Section 7 of that
   document, i.e.:


   o  Gaining initial connectivity.  In our case, the connectivity is
      native IPv6 from JANET, via the regional MAN (using 6PE [15]) and
      the campus (using a VLAN to carry IPv6 natively).


   o  Obtaining global IPv6 address space.  The campus address space is
      a /48 prefix allocated by JANET, under their prefix of 2001:630::/
      32.


   o  Deploying basic network services: DNS, routing, host configuration
      support.  We are currently using BIND9 for DNS servers, static or
      RIPng routing, and SLAAC host configuration until DHCPv6
      implementations are available.


   o  Formulating an IPv6 addressing plan.  Our campus has allocated the
      department network a /56 prefix that can grow into a /52 prefix,
      i.e.  the department can create in theory up to 256 IPv6 subnets
      initially.  However, because the department runs an IPv6 tunnel
      broker for remote access, allocations from the /52 will be taken
      up early.


   o  Ensuring IPv6 security.  This is a function of site policy, which
      needs to be updated for IPv6-specific issues, e.g.  privacy
      addresses, and implemented, via an IPv6 firewall and other
      measures.


   o  IPv4-IPv6 interworking.  As there are not (yet) any IPv6-only
      links, interowrking methods are not required.  Should IPv6-only
      devices be deployed on the dual-stack infrastructure, we
      anticipate using proxy tools (web cache, SMTP relay, etc) to




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



      support their access to legacy IPv4 services.


   o  Supporting remote users.  These may connect via an IPv4 VPN and
      then use an IPv6 connection over that VPN, or use the remote IPv6
      services that we operate (a tunnel broker and a 6to4 relay, as
      described below).


   o  Deploying wider IPv6 application, management and service support.
      This is an ongoing task, based on the services described in
      previous sections.



5.2  Dual-Stack Deployment: Transition toolbox


   We are using the following mechanisms in our department transition
   plan:


   o  VLANs [8] to distribute IPv6 connectivity over the existing
      non-dual-stack network infrastructure.  When dual-stack
      infrastructure is available, and the next procurement due, we will
      upgrade the core network infrastructure to dual-stack.  The VLAN
      solution is an interim step;


   o  An Tunnel broker [3] for remote access;


   o  A 6to4 [4] relay for remote access.  Users can manually configure
      the relay's IPv4 address.


   We may consider deploying a Teredo [10] relay in due course to
   support home users behind NATs, but have no current plans to do so.


   We do NOT currently see a requirement for:


   o  NAT-PT [2], because we are dual-stack with no IPv6-only networks
      (yet), and as we introduce such networks, or IPv6-only nodes in
      the dual-stack networks, we expect to use application layer
      gateways and proxies for legacy IPv4 access;


   o  ISATAP [20], because we prefer to use a structured internal IPv6
      deployment, and are doing so in a pervasive fashion (i.e.  not as
      a sparse deployment);


   o  Teredo [10], as our remote users are capable of using other access
      methods.  However, we may deploy a Teredo relay in due course to
      support home users behind NATs if they report problems with using
      other access methods.






Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



5.3  Missing components


   An initial gap analysis for technology highlights the following
   missing components.


5.3.1  Standards (IETF)-specific


   o  No method available to offer reverse IPv6 DNS for sendmail to
      verify autoconfiguring hosts (prepopulating a 64 bit subnet space
      is a problem, some wildcard method is required).



5.3.2  Vendor or platform-specific


   o  No IPv6 Layer 3 functionality on the department's current Ethernet
      switch/routing equipment (this will be worked around using the
      parallel VLAN method, until new IPv6-capable equipment is
      deployed);


   o  Lack of NFS/Samba IPv6 support;


   o  No IPv6 support for Active Directory;


   o  Lack of supported IPv6 for Windows 98/2000/ME;


   o  Lack of supported IPv6 for Irix;


   o  Lack of supported IPv6 for various PDA platforms;


   o  Lack of MLDv2 (or MLDv1) snooping in Ethernet switch equipment
      (thus IPv6 Multicast will flood subnets);


   o  No available IPv6-enabled X11 (there is an xfree but it is
      encumbered by an unpopular copyright statement that most
      distributors find unnacceptable);


   o  No support for IPv6 hotspot access control via web-redirection
      systems;


   o  Few DHCPv6 server implemntations, very few client implementations.



5.3.3  Application-specific


   o  Lack of MS Exchange, Outlook or Eudora IPv6 support;


   o  AccessGrid is IPv4-only (IPv6-enabling work is to be undertaken in
      6NET);




Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   o  Some Apache 2 modules lack Apache 1.3 functionality, hence
      migrating is a problem in a small number of cases;


   o  No IPv6 dnews, so one would have to use inn as a Usenet news
      server.



5.3.4  Other (policy, political,...)


   o  The migration from ip6.int to ip6.arpa is moving slowly.



5.4  Considerations beyond the Scenarios Document


   Here we mention issues or scenario components that were not
   explicitly listed in the IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios document.
   Due to the scope, that document could not embrace all details.  We
   mention here components that other sites may also wish to consider:


   o  Support for WLAN and other access control.  One solution is to use
      802.1x which is IP-agnostic as a Layer 2 port control mechanism.


   o  Consideration for hard-coded addresses.


   o  ..To be completed..



6.  Summary


   In this document we will analyse the specific campus transition
   scenario for the author's site, and report the analysis for the
   benefit of others who may be in a similar scenario, or for whom parts
   of the scenario are relevant.  The basic IPv6 deployment is doable
   now, but there are still missing components that prevent a full
   dual-stack deployment.


7.  Acknowledgements


   Discussions with fellow participants on the 6NET and Euro6IX projects
   have been valuable.


8.  Security Considerations


   There are no specific new considerations from this scenario
   description and analysis.







Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



9  Informative References


   [1]   Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
         Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.


   [2]   Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address Translation -
         Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, February 2000.


   [3]   Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I. and D. Lento, "IPv6 Tunnel
         Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001.


   [4]   Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
         IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.


   [5]   Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M.
         Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
         (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.


   [6]   Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
         (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.


   [7]   Baker, F., Lear, E. and R. Droms, "Procedures for Renumbering
         an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day",
         draft-baker-ipv6-renumber-procedure-01 (work in progress),
         October 2003.


   [8]   Chown, T., "Use of VLANs for IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence in
         Enterprise Networks", draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage-01 (work in
         progress), July 2004.


   [9]   Chown, T., Venaas, S. and C. Strauf, "IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack
         Issues for DHCPv6", draft-chown-dhc-dual-stack-00 (work in
         progress), February 2004.


   [10]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs",
         draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02 (work in progress), June 2004.


   [11]  Chown, T., "DHCP: IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack Issues",
         draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-01 (work in progress), July 2004.


   [12]  Savola, P. and B. Haberman, "Embedding the Rendezvous Point
         (RP) Address in an IPv6 Multicast Address",
         draft-ietf-mboned-embeddedrp-07 (work in progress), July 2004.


   [13]  Shin, M., "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition",
         draft-ietf-v6ops-application-transition-03 (work in progress),
         June 2004.





Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             October 2004



   [14]  Bound, J., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios",
         draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-05 (work in progress), July
         2004.


   [15]  Clercq, J., "Connecting IPv6 Islands over IPv4 MPLS using IPv6
         Provider Edge Routers  (6PE)", draft-ooms-v6ops-bgp-tunnel-03
         (work in progress), April 2004.


   [16]  Savola, P., "IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security
         Considerations", draft-savola-v6ops-security-overview-02 (work
         in progress), February 2004.


   [17]  Venaas, S., "An IPv4 - IPv6 multicast gateway",
         draft-venaas-mboned-v4v6mcastgw-00 (work in progress), February
         2003.


   [18]  Chown, T., "Things to think about when Renumbering an IPv6
         network", draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-00 (work in
         progress), October 2004.


   [19]  Bound, J., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis",
         draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00 (work in progress), September
         2004.


   [20]  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.



Author's Address


   Tim Chown
   University of Southampton


   School of Electronics and Computer Science
   Southampton, Hampshire  SO17 1BJ
   United Kingdom


   EMail: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk













Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft           IPv6 Campus Transition             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.





Chown                    Expires April 25, 2005                [Page 25]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/