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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4852

IPv6 Operations Working Group
Internet Draft                                    Jim Bound (Editor)
Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt                    HP
Obsoletes: ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt
Expires: June 2005

                  IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis


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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

Copyright Notice

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


 This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise
 networks.  These networks are characterized as a network that has
 multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or
 more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity.  The
 analysis will focus on a base set of transition notational networks
 and requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios
 document. Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition
 analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6,
 assuming a dual IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node
 environment, within the enterprise.  Then a set of transition
 mechanisms are recommended for each notational network.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 1]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

Table of Contents:

1  Introduction.................................................3
2  Terminology..................................................5
3  Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition....................6
4  Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis....................9
4.1  Staged Dual-Stack Deployment...............................9
4.2  Analysis of Required Tools for Dual-Stack Deployment......10
4.3  IPv6 Capability in the Routing Infrastructure.............10
4.4  IPv6 Capability not in the Routing Infrastructure.........10
4.4.1  Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure................10
4.4.2  Deploy a parallel IPv6 infrastructure...................11
4.5  Remote IPv6 access to the enterprise......................11
4.6  Other considerations......................................11
5  Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis.......................12
5.1  Internal versus External Tunnel End Point.................12
5.2  Manual versus Autoconfigured..............................13
6  IPv6 Dominant Network Deployment Analysis...................14
7  General Issues and Applicability from Analysis..............15
7.1 Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment............................15
7.2  Network Infrastructure Requirements.......................15
7.3 Stage 1: Initial connectivity steps........................15
7.3.1 Obtaining external connectivity..........................15
7.3.2 Obtaining global IPv6 address space......................16
7.4 Stage 2: Deploying generic basic service components........16
7.4.1 IPv6 DNS.................................................16
7.4.2  IPv6 Routing............................................16
7.4.3  Configuration of Hosts..................................17
7.4.4  Developing an IPv6 addressing plan......................17
7.4.5  Security................................................17
7.5  Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack deployment on-site.........18
7.5.1  Deploying IPv6 across the enterprise....................18
8  Applicable Transition Mechanisms............................19
9  Security Considerations.....................................20
10  References.................................................20
10.1  Normative References.....................................20
10.2  Non-Normative References.................................21
Changes from -00 t -01.........................................21
Document Acknowledgments.......................................22
Author Addresses...............................................23
Appendix A - Campus Deployment Scenario with VLANs.............23
Appendix B - Crisis Management Network Scenarios...............24
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements.................29

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 2]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

1  Introduction

 NOTE to v6ops WG: This draft is mainly to get consensus on section
 3, that we have correct analysis topics sections 4-7, and section 8
 still has to be written.  All sections need more work but this is
 to move discussion further. See changes from -00 to -01.

 This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise
 networks.  These networks are characterized as a network that has
 multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or
 more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity.  The
 analysis will focus on a base set of transition notational networks
 and requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios
 document. Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition
 analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6,
 assuming a dual IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node
 environment, within the enterprise.  Then a set of transition
 mechanisms are recommended for each notational network.

 The audience for this document is the enterprise network team
 considering deployment of IPv6.  The document will be useful for
 enterprise teams that will have to determine the IPv6 transition
 strategy for their enterprise.  It is expected those teams include
 members from management, network operations, and engineering. The
 analysis and notational networks presented provide an example set
 of cases the enterprise can use to build an IPv6 transition

 The enterprise analysis will begin by describing a matrix as a tool
 to be used to portray the different IPv4 and IPv6 possibilities for
 deployment.  The document will then provide analysis to support a
 wide dual IP layer deployment strategy across the enterprise, to
 provide the reader a view of how that can be planned and what is
 options are available. The document will then discuss the
 deployment of sparse IPv6 nodes within the enterprise and what
 requirements need to be considered and implemented, when the
 enterprise will remain with IPv4-only routing infrastructure for
 some time. The next discussion focuses on the use of IPv6 when it
 is determined to be dominant across or within parts of the
 enterprise network.

 The document then begins to discuss the the general issues and
 applicability from the previous analysis.  The document concludes
 providing a set of recommendations for each notational network
 within the matrix based on the previous analysis, issues and
 applicability discussion, adding additional analysis useful for an
 enterprise planning to deploy IPv6.

 This document, as stated in the introduction, focuses only on the
 deployment cases where a dual IP layer is supported across the
 network and on the nodes in the enterprise.  Additional deployment
 transition analysis will be required from the effects of IPv6-only
 node or Provider deployments, and beyond the scope of this
 document.  In addition this document does not attempt to define or
 discuss any use with network address translation or the use of
 Provider Independent address space.

 The following specific topics are currently out of scope for this

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 3]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005


  - Multihoming
  - Application transition/porting (see [APPS]).
  - IPv6 VPN, firewall or intrusion detection deployment
  - IPv6 network management and QoS deployment
  - Detailed IT Department requirements
  - Deployment of novel IPv6 services, e.g. Mobile IPv6
  - Requirements or Transtion at the Providers network
  - Transport protocol selection for applications with IPv6
  - Application layer and configuration issues.
  - IPv6 only future deployment scenarios.

 We are focusing in this document on Layer 3 deployment, in the same
 way as the other IPv6 deployment analysis works have done
 [UMAN,ISPA, 3GPA].  This document covers deployment of IPv6 "on the
 wire", including address management and DNS services.

 We are also assuming that the enterprise deployment is one being
 undertaken by the network administration team, i.e. this document
 is not discussing the case of an individual user gaining IPv6
 connectivity (to some external IPv6 provider) from within an
 enterprise network.  Much of the analysis is applicable to wireless
 networks, but there are additional considerations for wireless
 networks not contained within this document.

 In Section 2 we introduce the terminology used in this document.
 In Section 3 we introduce and define a tools matrix and define the
 layer 3 connectivity requirements. In Section 4 we discuss wide
 scale dual IP layer use within an enterprise. In section 5 we
 discuss sparse dual IP layer deployment within an enterprise.  In
 section 6 we discuss IPv6 dominant network deployment within the
 enterprise.  In sectioin 7 we discuss general issues and
 applicability. In section 8 a set of deployment analysis is
 provided and recommendations.

 This document then provides Appendix A for readers depicting a
 Crisis Management enterprise network to demonstrate an enterprise
 network example that requires all the properties as analyzed in
 Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 4]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

2  Terminology

 Enterprise Network - A network that has multiple internal links,
                      one or more router connections, to one or
                      more Providers and is actively managed by a
                      network operations entity.

 Provider           - An entity that provides services and
                      connectivity to the Internet or
                      other private external networks for the
                      enterprise network.

 IPv6-capable       - A node or network capable of supporting both
                      IPv6 and IPv4.

 IPv4-only          - A node or network capable of supporting only

 IPv6-only          - A node or network capable of supporting only
                      IPv6.  This does not imply an IPv6 only
                      stack, in this document.

 Dual-IP            - References a network or node that supports both
                      IPv4 and IPv6.

 IP-capability      - The ability to support IPv6 only, IPv4 only,
                      or Dual IP Layer

 IPv6-dominant      - A network or link that uses only IPv6 routing.

 Transition         - The network strategy the enterprise uses to
 Implementation       transition to IPv6.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 5]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

3  Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition

 To provide layer 3 enterprise analysis context for discussion we
 provide for this document the use of a matrix with a common set of
 enterprise notational networks resulting from a selected Transition
 Implementation chosen for the enterprise.  The notional networks
 are comprised of hosts attached to an enterprise-owned intranet(s)
 at two different global locations separated by the Internet.  The
 enterprise owns, operates and maintains its own intranetworks, but
 relies on an external provider organization that offers Internet
 Service. Both local and destination intranetworks are operated by
 different organizations within the same enterprise and consequently
 could use different IP-capability, than other intranetworks, at
 certain times in the transition period.

 Addressing every possible combination of network IP-capability in
 this notional enterprise network is impractical, therefore trivial
 (i.e. pure IPv4, pure IPv6, ubiquitous dual-IP and straight forward
 tunneling or translation at local or destination hosts) are not
 considered. In addition, the authors could not conceive of any
 scenarios involving IPv6-only ISPs or IPv6-only nodes in the near-
 term and consequently have not addressed scenarios with IPv6-only
 ISPs or IPv6-only nodes.  We assume all nodes that use IPv6
 applications are Dual IP.  The matrix does not assume or suggest
 that network address translation is used.  The authors recommend
 that network address translation not be used in these notational

 Future enterprise transitions that will support IPv6-only nodes and
 IPv6-only ISPs will be a separate analysis required, that is beyond
 the scope of this document.

 Table 1 below is a matrix of nine possible Transition
 Implementations that may be selected in an enterprise, which
 require analysis and the selection of an IPv6 transition mechanism
 for that notational network, which are the rows of the matrix.  The
 matrix describes a set of notational networks as follows:

   - The first column represents the protocol used by the
     application and below the IP-capability of the node
     originating the IP packets.
     (Application/Host 1 OS).

   - The second column represents the IP-capability of the
     network where the node originated the packet.
     (Host 1 Network)

   - The third column represents the IP-capability of the
     service provider network.
     (Service Provider)

   - The fourth column represents the IP-capability of the
     destination network where the originating IP packets
     are received.
     (Host 2 Network)

   - The fifth column represents the protocol used by the

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 6]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

     application and below the IP-capability of the
     destination node receiving the originating IP packets.
     (Application/Host 2 OS).

 As an example, notational network 1 is an IPv6 application residing
 on a dual IP layer host trying to establish a communications
 exchange with a destination IPv6 application. To complete the
 information exchange the packets must first traverse the host's
 originating IPv4 network (intranet), then the service provider's,
 and destination hosts dual-IP network.

 Obviously Table 1 does not describe every possible scenario.

 Trivial notational networks (such as pure IPv4, pure IPv6, and
 straight-forward tunneling or translation) are not addressed.
 Additionally there are other possible permutations, which are not
 addressed. However, the authors feel these nine represent
 notational networks, which are likely to be encountered in today's
 enterprise. Therefore, we will use these nine to address the
 analysis for enterprise deployment.

    |Application |Host 1 |Service |Host 2 |Application |
    |----------- |Network|Provider|Network|----------  |
    | Host 1 OS  |       |        |       | Host 2 OS  |
    |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
  1 |    ----    | IPv4  |Dual IP |Dual IP|    ----    |
    |    Dual IP |       |        |       |   Dual IP  |
    |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
  2 |    ----    | IPv4  |Dual IP | IPv4  |    ----    |
    |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
    |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
  4 |    ----    |Dual IP|Dual IP | IPv4  |    ----    |
    |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
    |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
  4 |    ----    |Dual IP| IPv4   |Dual IP|    ----    |
    |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
    |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
  5 |    ----    | IPv4  | IPv4   |Dual IP|    ----    |
    |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
    |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
  6 |    ----    | IPv6  |Dual IP |Dual IP|    ----    |
    |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
    |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
  7 |    ----    | IPv6  |  IPv4  | IPv6  |    ----    |
    |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
    |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
  8 |    ----    | IPv4  |Dual IP | IPv6  |    ----    |
    |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    Dual IP |

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 7]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

    |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
  9 |    ----    | IPv4  |  IPv4  | IPv6  |    ----    |
    |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    Dual IP |

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 8]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

4  Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis

 In this section we are covering Scenario 1 as described in Section
 3.1 of [BSCN]. The scenario, assumptions and requirements are
 driven from the [BSCN] text.

 A common scenario for IPv6 deployment is the enterprise network
 that wishes to introduce IPv6 by enabling IPv6 on the wire in a
 structured fashion with the existing IPv4 infrastructure. In such a
 scenario, a number of the existing IPv4 routers (and thus subnets)
 will be made dual-stack, such that communications can run over
 either protocol.

 Nodes within the dual-stack links may themselves be IPv4-only and
 IPv6-capable. The driver for deploying IPv6 may not be for
 immediate wide-scale usage of IPv6, but rather to prepare an
 existing IPv4 infrastructure to support IPv6-capable nodes, such
 that Dual-IP nodes exist, but IPv6 is not used, but exist when IPv6
 is implemented.

 We analyze the scenario against existing transition mechanisms for
 their applicability, suggesting a staged approach for IPv6
 deployment in the enterprise.

4.1  Staged Dual-Stack Deployment

 The site administrator should formulate a staged plan for the
 introduction of dual-stack IPv6 network.  We suggest that the
 generic plan of Section 7 of this document provides a good basis
 for such a plan.

 The generic plan has a number of stages that are independent of
 whether Dual-IP IPv4, or IPv6-dominant networks are selected as a
 IP-cabability Transition Implmentation for deployment.

 In an enterprise network, the administrator will generally seek to
 deploy IPv6 in a structured, controlled manner, such that IPv6 can
 be enabled on specific links at specific stages of deployment.   It
 may be a specific requirement that some links remain IPv4 only, or
 specifically should not have IPv6 connectivity.  It may also be a
 requirement that aggregatable global IPv6 addresses, assigned by
 the enterprise's upstream provider from the address space allocated
 to them by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), are used for

 In this document we do not discuss the deployment of Unique Local
 IPv6 Unicast Addresses [ULA].  The address type and scope selected
 is orthogonal to the the layer 3 analysis in this document.

 A typical deployment would involve the establishment of a single
 "testbed" Dual-IP subnet at the enterprise site, prior to wider
 deployment.  Such a testbed not only allows the IPv6 capability of
 specific platforms and applications to be evaluated and verified,
 it also permits the steps in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of this document
 to be undertaken without (potential) adverse impact on the
 production elements of the enterprise.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005     [Page 9]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

 Section 7.5 describes the stages for the widespread deployment in
 the enterprise, which would be undertaken after the basic building
 blocks for IPv6 deployment are in place.

4.2  Analysis of Required Tools for Dual-Stack Deployment

 The critical part of Dual-IP deployment is the IPv6 routing
 infrastructure implemented.   The path taken will depend on whether
 the enterprise has existing Layer 2/3 switch/router equipment that
 has an IPv6 (routing) capability, or that can be upgraded to have
 such capability.

 In Section 4, we are not considering sparse IPv6 deployment; the
 goal of Dual-IP deployment is widespread use in the enterprise.

4.3  IPv6 Capability in the Routing Infrastructure

Where IPv6 routing capability exists within the infrastructure, the
network administrator can enable IPv6 on the same physical hardware
as the existing IPv4 service.   This is the end goal of any
enterprise Dual-IP deployment, when the capability, performance, and
robustness of the Dual-IP operational deployment has been verified.

Ideally, the IPv6 capability will span the entire enterprise,
allowing deployment on any link or subnet.  If not, techniques from
Section 4.4 below may be required.

4.4  IPv6 Capability not in the Routing Infrastructure

In this case the enterprise administrator faces two basic choices,
either to tunnel IPv6 over some or all of the existing IPv4
infrastructure, or to deploy a parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure
providing IPv6 connectivity into existing IPv4 subnets.

It may thus be the case that a nodes IPv4 and IPv6 default routes to
reach other links (subnets) are through different routing platforms.

4.4.1  Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure

The tunneling, as described in [BCNF] would be established between
Dual-IP capable routers on the enterprise, thus "bypassing" existing
non IPv6-capable routers and platforms.   For example, some IPv6
edge routers in the enterprise may be IPv6-capable, while others,
and perhaps the enterprise backbone itself, are not IPv6-capable.

In the widespread dual-stack scenario, a more structured, manageable
method is required, where the administrator has control of the
deployment per-link and (ideally) long-term, aggregatable global
IPv6 addressing is obtained, planned and used from the outset.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 10]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

4.4.2  Deploy a parallel IPv6 infrastructure

In this case, the administrator may deploy a new, separate IPv6-
capable router (or set of routers).  It is quite possible that such
a parallel infrastructure would be IPv6-dominant.

Such an approach can mean acquiring additional hardware, but it has
the advantage that the existing IPv4 routing platforms are not
disturbed by the introduction of IPv6.

To distribute IPv6 to the existing IPv4 enterprise subnets, either
dedicated physical infrastructure can be deployed or, if it is
available, IEEE 802.1q VLANs could be used, as described in [VLAN].
The latter has the significant advantage of not requiring any
additional physical cabling/wiring; it offers all the advantages of
VLANs for the new dual-stack environment.

Many router platforms can tag multiple VLAN IDs on a single physical
interface based on the subnet/link the packet is destined for; thus
multiple IPv6 links can be collapsed for delivery on a single (or
small number of) physical IPv6 router interfaces in the early stages
of deployment.

The parallel infrastructure would only ever be seen as an interim
step towards a full Dual-IP deployment on a unified infrastructure.
The parallel infrastructure however allows all other aspects of the
IPv6 enterprise services to be deployed, including IPv6 addressing,
ready for that unifying step at a later date.

4.5  Remote IPv6 access to the enterprise

Where the enterprise's users are off-site, and using an ISP that
does not support any native IPv6 service or IPv6 transition aids,
the enterprise may consider deploying it's own remote IPv6 access
support, as described in Section 7.5.2.

4.6  Other considerations

There are some identified issues with turning IPv6 on by default,
including application connection delays, poor connectivity, and
network insecurity, as discussed in [V6DEF]. The issues can be
worked around or mitigated by following the advice in [V6DEF].

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 11]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

5  Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis

 This section covers the Scenario 2 as described in Section 3.1 of
 [BSCN].  This scenario assumes the requirements defined within the
 [BSCN] text.

 IPv6 deployment within the enterprise network, with an existing
 IPv4 infrastructure, could be motivated by mission critical or
 business applications or services that require IPv6. In this case
 the prerequisite is that only the nodes using those IPv6
 applications need to be upgraded to be IPv6-capable. The routing
 infrastructure will not be upgraded to support IPv6, nor does the
 enterprise wish to deploy a parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure at
 this point, since this is an option in section 4.

 There is a need for end-to-end communication with IPv6, but the
 infrastructure only supports IPv4 routing. Thus, the only viable
 method for end-to-end communication with IPv6 is to tunnel the
 traffic over the existing IPv4 infrastructure, within this analysis
 documents boundaries defined.

 The network team needs to decide which are the most efficient the
 available transition tunneling mechanisms to deploy, so they can be
 used without disrupting the existing IPv4 infrastructure.  Several
 conditions require analysis, as introduced in the following sub

5.1  Internal versus External Tunnel End Point

 Assuming the upstream provider has deployed some IPv6 services,
 either native IPv6 in its backbone or in the access network, or a
 combination of both. Also, or alternatively, could have deployed
 one or more several transition mechanisms based upon tunnels for

 for example in the case where the access network doesn't support
 IPv6, the enterprise could decide to use those available transition
 services from the Provider. However, this will usually mean that
 individual nodes in the network will have their own IPv6-in-IPv4
 tunnel. Then, the IPv6 intranetworks communication may not be as
 efficient, because it will require all the traffic to be forwarded
 by the IPv4 infrastructure to the Tunnel-End-Point located at the
 Provider. This may be acceptable if the IPv6 applications do not
 require intranetworks communication at all. For example in the case
 where the application server is located outside of the enterprise
 network, or on other intranetworks of the same enterprise.

 The enterprise could also decide to deploy its own transition
 mechanism node, and possibly collocate it adjacent to the border
 router that connects to the upstream Provider. In this case,
 intranetnetworks communication using this tunnel end point is also

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 12]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

5.2  Manual versus Autoconfigured

 If the number of nodes to be using IPv6 is reduced, an option is to
 use statically configured tunnels.

 However, in general automatic configured tunnels will be preferred.

 Section 5 doesn't yet discuss pros and cons of connecting sparse
 nodes, nor management/security issues.  We need to add that in -02.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 13]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

6  IPv6 Dominant Network Deployment Analysis

 In this section we are covering Scenario 3 as described in Section
 3.1 of [BSCN].  The scenario, assumptions and requirements are
 driven from the [BSCN] text.

 IPv6 deployment in some enterprise networks will use an IPv6-
 dominant network deployment strategy. What this means essentially
 is that the network or specific sites within the enterprise network
 will transition to IPv6 using only IPv6 routing to transfer both
 IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the network, even though the network is
 Dual-IP capable.

 IPv6 communications between IPv6 nodes will use IPv6 to
 communicate.  When IPv6-capable nodes in the IPv6-dominant network
 need to communicate with IPv4 nodes, on the IPv6-dominant network,
 the IPv6 nodes will use their Dual-IP implementation to tunnel IPv4
 packets in IPv6 [6TUN]. An edge router within the IPv6-dominant
 network will decapsulate the IPv4 packet and route to the path of
 the IPv4 node on the network.  This permits Dual-IP layer nodes to
 communicate with legacy IPv4 nodes within an IPv6-dominant network.

 This section needs more work.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 14]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

7  General Issues and Applicability from Analysis

 In this section we describe generic enterprise IPv6 deployment
 issues, applicable to the analysis sections 4-6 in this document.

 This section needs more work.

7.1 Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment
 The enterprise network administrator will need to follow a staged
 plan for IPv6 deployment.

 This section needs more work.

7.2  Network Infrastructure Requirements

 The considerations for the enterprise components are detailed in
 Section 3.2 of [BSCN].  We do not go into detail of all aspects of
 such components in this document.  In this document we focus on
 Layer 3 issues.

 This section needs more work.

7.3 Stage 1: Initial connectivity steps

 The first steps for IPv6 deployment do not involve technical
 aspects per se; the enterprise needs to select an external IPv6
 provider, and obtain globally routable IPv6 address space from that

7.3.1 Obtaining external connectivity

 The enterprise service provider would typically be a
 topographically close (to minimize connectivity RTT) IPv6 provider
 that is able to provide an IPv6 upstream link.

 It would be expected that the enterprise would use either native
 IPv6 upstream connectivity or, in its absence, a manually
 configured tunnel [BCNF] to the upstream provider.

 It is not recommended to use 6to4 [6TO4] or a tunnel broker [TBRK]
 for an enterprise deployment.  The enterprise has a requirement for
 long-term, stable IPv6 connectivity.  6to4 and the tunnel broker
 are more appropriate for SOHO or single node environments.  Use of

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 15]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

 6to4 also prevents the enterprise adopting aggregatable global IPv6
 addressing from the outset.

7.3.2 Obtaining global IPv6 address space

 The enterprise will obtain global IPv6 address space from its
 selected upstream provider, as provider assigned (PA) address

 The enterprise should receive at least a /48 allocation from its
 provider, as described in [ALLOC].

 The procedure for enterprise renumbering between providers is
 described in [RENUM].

 This section needs more work.

7.4 Stage 2: Deploying generic basic service components

 Most of these are discussed in Section 4 of [BSCN].   Here we
 comment on those aspects that we believe are in scope for this
 analysis document. Thus we have not included network management,
 multihoming, multicast or application transition analysis here, but
 these aspects should be addressed in Stage 2.

7.4.1 IPv6 DNS

 The enterprise site should deploy a DNS service that is capable of
 both serving IPv6 DNS records using the AAAA format [DNSV6REC] and
 of communicating over IPv6 transport.

 Specific IPv6 DNS issues are reported in [DNSV6].

 This section needs more work.

7.4.2  IPv6 Routing

 The enterprise network will need to support methods for internal
 and external routing.

 For a single-homed single-site network, a static route to a single

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 16]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

 upstream provider may be sufficient, although the site may choose
 to use an exterior routing protocol, especially where it has
 multiple upstream providers.

 For internal routing, an appropriate interior routing protocol may
 be deployed.

 IPv6 routing protocols that can be used are as follows: BGP4+
 [BGPv6], IS-IS [ISISv6], OSPFv3 [RFC????) and RIPng [RIPv6].

 This section needs more work.

7.4.3  Configuration of Hosts

 An enterprise network will have a number of tools available for
 IPv4 address and other configuration information delegation and
 management, including manual configuration, NIS [NIS] or DHCP

 In an IPv6 enterprise, Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
 [ADDRCONF] may be used to configure a host with a global IPv6
 address, a default router, and an on-link prefix information.

 For secure autoconfiguration, the IPsec [IPSEC] or SEND method
 [SEND] can be used.

 A stateless configured node wishing to gain other configuration
 information (e.g. DNS, NTP servers) will likely need a Stateful
 DHCPv6 [DHCPv6] service available.

 For nodes configuring via DHCPv6, where DHCPv6 servers are offlink,
 a DHCPv6 Relay Agent function will be required.

 Hosts may also generate or request IPv6 Privacy Addresses [PRIVv6];
 there is support for DHCPv6 to assign privacy addresses to nodes in
 managed environments.

 This section needs more work continuity.

7.4.4  Developing an IPv6 addressing plan

 <to be completed >

7.4.5  Security

 <to be completed - see Pekka's various drafts on 6to4 and others?,
 and  emphasize use of best practice>

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 17]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

7.5  Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack deployment on-site

 With the basic building blocks of external connectivity, interior
 IPv6 routing, an IPv6 DNS service and address allocation management
 in place, the IPv6 capability can be rolled out to the wider
 enterprise.  This involves putting IPv6 on the wire in the desired
 links, and enabling applications and other services to begin using
 IPv6 transport.

7.5.1  Deploying IPv6 across the enterprise

 In the Dual-IP deployment case, this means enabling IPv6 on
 existing IPv4 subnets.  It is most likely that the administrator
 will deploy IPv6 links to be congruent with existing IPv4 subnets
 (because IPv4 subnets tend to be created for geographic, policy or
 administrative reasons that would be IP-independent).

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 18]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

8  Applicable Transition Mechanisms

 This section will provide guidance for the use of specific
 transition mechanisms below that can be used by the enterprise to
 support the enterprise matrix notational networks (rows) in Section
 3, and within the context of the analysis discussed in Sections 4,
 5, and 6.

 Section to be written.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 19]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

9  Security Considerations

 WRITING: Lets do this after we get above writing done.

10  References

10.1  Normative References

Most of these need to be moved to non-normative reference section
and additional references need to be added.

 [DNSV6]  Durand, A., Ihren, J. and P. Savola, "Operational
          Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS", Work in

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

 [DHCPF]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., et al. "Dynamic
          Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" RFC 3315 July

 [DHCPL]  Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
          (DHCP) Service for IPv6" RFC 3756 April 2004.

 [APPS]  Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Haigino, J., Savola, P., Castro, E.,
         "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition" Work in Progress.

 [BSCN]  Bound, J., (Ed) et al. "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios"
         Work in Pogress.

 [6TO4]  Carpenter, B., Moore, K., "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
         IPv4 Clouds" RFC 3056 February 2001.

 [TRDO]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
         NATs" Work in Progress.

 [BCNF]  Nordmark, E., Gilligan, R., "Basic Transition Mechanisms
         for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" Work in Progress from RFC 2893.

 [DSTM]  Bound, J., (Ed) et al. "Dual Stack Transition Mechanim"
         Work in Progress.

 [ISTP]  Templin, F., et al "Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel
         Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)". Work in Progress.

 [6TUN]  Conta, A., Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling in
         IPv6" RFC 2473 December 1998.

 [TBRK]  Durand, A., et al "IPv6 Tunnel Broker"
         RFC 3053 January 2001.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 20]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

 [SEC1]  Savola, P., Patel, C., "Security Considerations for
         6to4.  Work in Progress.

 [ULA]   Hinden, B., Haberman, B., "Unique Local IPv6
         Addresses". Work in Progress.

 [RENUM] Baker, F., Lear, E., Droms, R., "Procedures for Renumbering
         an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day". Work in Progress.

 [ALLOC] IAB, IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address
         Allocations to Sites" RFC 3177 September 2001.

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

 [UMAN]  Huitema, C.,. et al "Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms
         for Unmanaged Networks".  Work in Progress.

 [ISPA]  Lind, M., et al "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6
         into ISP Networks".  Work in Progress.

 [3GPA]  Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in 3GPP Networks"
         Work in Progress.

10.2  Non-Normative References

 To be completed in next draft version.

Changes from -00 t -01

     - Changed abstract and context of document to only deal with dual
IP layer
       networks and nodes.

     - Changed introduction, Section 1-3 to reflect authors and IETF WG
       to attempt consensus on these initial sections.

     - Added explanation of why Appendix A is in the document to

     - Expanded what topics are out of scope for this document.

     - Updated terminology section

     - Updated section 3 matrix and description to simplify and focus on
dual IP layer

     - Edited base text of Sections 4-7 but all three require extensive
additional test
       for descriptions.

     - Edited section 8 and removed table and will reference table in
section 3. This
       section still needs to be written.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 21]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

Document Acknowledgments

 The Authors would like to acknowledge contributions from the
 following: IETF v6ops Working Group members Pekka Savola.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 22]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

Author Addresses

 Jim Bound
 110 Spitbrook Road
 Nashua, NH 03062
 Phone: 603.305.3051
 Email: jim.bound@hp.com

 Yanick Pouffary
 HP Competency Center
 950, Route des Colles, BP027,
 06901 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX
 Phone: + 33492956285
 Email: Yanick.pouffary@hp.com

 Tim Chown
 School of Electronics and Computer Science
 University of Southampton
 Southampton SO17 1BJ
 United Kingdom
 Email: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk

 David Green
 SRI International
 333 Ravenswood Ave
 Menlo Park, CA 94025-3493
 Phone: 732 532-6715
 Email: david.green@sri.com

 Jordi Palet Martinez
 San Jose Artesano, 1
 Madrid, SPAIN
 Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
 Fax:   +34 91 151 81 98
 Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es

 Steve Klynsma
 The MITRE Corporation
 7515 Colshire Drive
 McLean, VA 22102-5708
 Email: sklynsma@mitre.org


Appendix A - Campus Deployment Scenario with VLANs

To be completed in next drafts.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 23]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

Appendix B - Crisis Management Network Scenarios


 This appendix first describes different scenarios for the
 introduction of IPv6 into a crisis management network for
 emergency services, defense, or security forces that are currently
 running IPv4 service. Then, the scenarios for introducing IPv6 are
 analyzed and the relevance of already defined transition mechanisms
 are evaluated. Known challenges are also identified.

 When a crisis management enterprise deploys IPv6, its goal is to
provide IPv6
 connectivity on it's institutional fixed networks and on the mobile
 services that are deployed to a crisis area. The new IPv6 service must
 be added to an already existing IPv4 service, the introduction of
 IPv6 must not interrupt this IPv4 service, and the IPv6 services must
 be interoperable with existing IPv4 services.

 Crisis management enterprises accessing IPv4 service across mobile
 networks, airborne networks, and satellites will find different ways to
 IPv6 to this service based on their network architecture, funding,
 and institutional goals. This document discusses a small set of
 scenarios representing the architectures for IPv6 expected to be
 in crisis management networks during the next decade. It evaluates the
 relevance of the existing transition mechanisms in the context of
 these deployment scenarios, and points out the lack of essential
 functionality in these methods to the ISP's operation of an IPv6

 The document is focused on services that include both IPv6 and IPv4
 and does cover issues surrounding accessing IPv4 services across
 networks. It is outside the scope of this document to describe detailed
 implementation plans for IPv6 in defense networks

 Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment in Crisis Management Networks:

 Scenario 1:  Limited IPv6 Deployment Network.....................

 Sparse IPv6 dual-stack deployment in an existing IPv4 network
 Enterprise with an existing IPv4 network wants to deploy a set of
 IPv6 "applications" and have some ability to interoperate with other
 institutions that are using IPv6 services. The IPv6 deployment is
 to the minimum required to operate this set of applications.

 Assumptions:  IPv6 software/hardware components for the application are
 available, and platforms for the application are IPv6 capable.

 Requirements: Do not disrupt IPv4 infrastructure.

 Scenario 2:    Dual Stack Network

 Wide-scale/total dual-stack deployment of IPv4 and IPv6 capable hosts
 and network infrastructure. Enterprise with an existing
 IPv4 network wants to deploy IPv6 in conjunction with their IPv4
 network in order to take advantage of emerging IPv6 network-centric
 capabilities and to be interoperable with other agencies, international
 partners, and commercial enterprises that are deploying an IPv6

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 24]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

 Assumptions:  The IPv4 network infrastructure used has an
 equivalent capability in IPv6.

 Requirements: Do not disrupt existing IPv4 network infrastructure
 with IPv6. IPv6 should be equivalent or "better" than the network
 infrastructure in IPv4. It may not be feasible to deploy IPv6 on all
parts of
 the network immediately. Dual stacked defense enterprise network
 must be interoperable with both IPv4 and IPv6 networks and

 Scenario 3:   ..............................IPv6 Dominant Network

 Enterprise has some limited IPv4-capable/only nodes/applications
needing to
 communicate over the IPv6 infrastructure. Crisis management enterprise
 re-structuring an existing network, decides to pursue aggressive IPv6
 transition as an enabler for network-centric services and wants to run
 some native IPv6-only networks to eliminate cost/complexity of
supporting a
 dual stack. Some legacy IPv4 capable nodes/applications within the
 will have slow technical refresh/replacement path and will need to
 over the IPv6 dominant infrastructure for years
 until they are replaced. The IPv6 dominant enterprise network will need
to be
 interoperable with it's own legacy networks, commercial networks, and
 legacy networks of similar organizations that will remain IPv4 dominant
 during a long transition period. Reserve units, contractors, other
 and international partners may need IPv4 service across this
 IPv6 dominant backbone.

 Assumptions:  Required IPv6 network infrastructure is available, or
 over some defined timeline, supporting the aggressive transition plan.

 Requirements:Reduce operation and maintenance requirements and
 net-centricity through aggressive IPv6 transition. Interoperation and
 coexistence with legacy IPv4 networks and applications is required.
 IPv4 nodes/applications/networks will need to be able to operate across
 IPv6 backbone and need to be able to interoperate with the
 network's nodes/applications.

 Description of a Generic Crisis Management Network

 A generic network topology for a crisis management reflects the various
 a crisis management network can connect customers through their network
 infrastructure. Because the institution's existing wired and fixed site
 infrastructure can be destroyed or unavailable in a crisis, the crisis
 management network must be able to deploy it's own mobile wireless
 or connect through external wired and wireless networks provided by
ISPs or
 partner organizations.  This infrastructure lets us divide the basic
 for IPv4/IPv6 interoperability into three main areas:
 the customer applications, the local network, and the network backbone.

 The basic components in a crisis management network are depicted in
Figure 1.

      ------------    ----------       ---- Wired Connection
     | Network and|  |          |      .... Wireless Connection
     |  Service   |--| Backbone |
     | Operation  |  |          |
      ------------    ----------

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 25]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

                       /  |          ---------------------
                      /   :        _|Connection to        |
                     /    :          |Commercial Internet  |
                    /     :           ---------------------  Network
      ----------  /  ----------     ----------
     | Home     |/  | Wireless |   External  |.............
     | Base     |   | Mobile   |    |Untrusted |+---------  :
     | Network  |   | Network  |    |Network   |          | :
      ----------     ----------      ----------           | :
          | :            :                                | :  Local

          | :            :                                | :  Customer
       +--------+    +--------+      +--------+           | :
       |        |    |        |      |        |           | :
       |Customer|    |Customer|      |Customer|+----------- :....
       |        |    |        |      |        |..............
       +--------+    +--------+      +--------+

 Figure 1: Crisis Management Network Topology.

 Stages of IPv6 Deployment:

 The stages are derived from the generic description of scenarios
 for crisis management networks in Section 2. Combinations of
 different building blocks that constitute an crisis network
 environment lead to a number of scenarios from which the network
 engineers can choose. The scenarios most relevant to this document
 are those that maximize the network's ability to offer IPv6 to its
 customers in the most efficient and feasible way. The assumption in
 the first three stages the goal is to offer both IPv4 and IPv6 to
 the customer, and that in the distant future all IPv4 services will
 be eventually switched to IPv6. This document will cover
 engineering the first four stages.

    The four most probable stages are:

          o Stage 1      Limited Launch
          o Stage 2      Dual Stack Dominance
          o Stage 3      IPv6 Dominance
          o Stage 4      IPv6 Transition Complete

 Generally, a crisis management network is able to entirely upgrade
 a current IPv4 network to provide IPv6 services via a dual-stack
 network in Stage 2 and then slowly progress to stages 3 and 4 as
 indicted in Figure 2. During stage 2, When most applications are
 IPv6 dominant, operational and maintenance costs can be reduced on
 some networks by moving to stage 3 and running backbone networks
 entirely on IPv6 while adding IPv4 backwards compatibility via v4
 in v6 tunneling or translation mechanisms to the existing
 configuration from stage 2. When designing a new network, if a new
 IPv6-only service is required, it can be implemented at a lower
 cost jumping directly to stage 3/4 if there are only limited/no
 legacy concerns.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 26]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

                Tunnels        Dominant dual     Full dual Stack
  IPv4-only --> or limited --> stacking with --> everywhere, mostly -->
                dual stacks    transition        v6 apps, some
                Limited v6     mechanisms in     v6 only nets with
                Applications   backbone          transition mechanisms
                                                 pushed to legacy v4

 Figure 2: Transition Path.

 Stage 1 Scenario: Limited Launch

 The first stage begins with an IPv4-only network and IPv4
 customers. This is the most common case today and the natural
 starting point for the introduction of IPv6.  During this stage the
 enterprise begins to connect individual IPv6 applications run on
 dual stacked hosts through host based tunneling using Tunnel
 Broker, ISATAP, Teredo. Some early adopter networks are created for
 pilot studies and networked together through configured tunnels and

 The immediate first step consists of obtaining a prefix allocation
 typically a /32) from the appropriate RIR (e.g. AfriNIC, APNIC,
 ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE, ...) according to allocation procedures.

 The crisis management enterprise will also need to establish IPv6
 connectivity between its home base networks and mobile wireless
 networks over it's backbone and negotiate IPv6 service with  its
 service providers and with peer organizations; it is of utmost
 importance to require IPv6 capability or an upgrade plan when
 negotiating purchases of network applications and infrastructure.
 In the short term, network connections, especially legacy wireless
 networks, that cannot provide IPv6 services can provide IPv6
 services through the use of tunnels. However, the longer-term goal
 must be requiring and obtaining IPv6 native connectivity from the
 transit networks, because otherwise the quality of IPv6
 connectivity will likely be poor and the transition to stage 2 will
 be delayed.

 Stage 2 Scenario: Dual Stack Dominance

 Stage 2 occurs when most applications, local networks, and network
 backbones become dual-stacked so that native IPv6 connections are
 enabled. At this point there is a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 applications
 and services in use across the enterprise. The enterprise may be
 made IPv6-capable through either software upgrades, hardware
 upgrades, or a combination of both. Generally IPv6 is added during
 normal technical refresh as the enterprise buys new equipment that
 is IPv6 ready.

 Specialty legacy applications and wireless/satellite networks may
 be especially slow to transition to IPv6 capability due to upgrade
 costs so plans must be made for backwards compatibility for these
 systems. Since some new IPv6 services cannot be provided through
 IPv4, and some legacy network connections may not yet be upgraded,
 tunneling mechanisms have to be provided on the backbone to provide
 IPv6 connectivity through to customer IPv6 applications still
 relying on legacy IPv4-only networks. The tunnels may provide
 host-based tunneling for individual customers or site-to-site

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 27]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

 tunnels to connect small IPv6 domains through IPv4 only networks.
 If any new applications are IPv6-only rather than dual-stacked, and
 need to interact with IPv4-only legacy applications, translators
 will be used as a transition mechanism of last resort during this

 Stage 3 Scenario: IPv6 Dominance

 Stage 3 occurs when the majority of network services are being
 provided by IPv6 so that most network traffic is dominantly IPv6
 and the net-centric benefits of IPv6 end-to-end communications,
 IPSEC based security, QOS, mobility, and autoconfiguration are
 realized. During this stage, some networks and applications will
 become native IPv6-only and will have to rely on transition
 mechanism for backwards compatibility with IPv4.  The switch to
 native IPv6 may be pursued to lower the operations and maintenance
 cost of network operations and lower the performance overhead
 associated with running two stacks on networked systems. During
 this stage, IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels are used to provide IPv4 services
 to the remaining customers needing these services across IPv6 only
 backbones. At this stage requirements for IPv4 compatibility can be
 pushed out of the network backbone and to IPv4 end-user networks.
 DSTM, with or without tunnel brokers, can be used to provide host-
 based tunnels for IPv4 service on local networks that only support
 IPv6. Remaining IPv4 dominant networks requiring IPv4 service
 across IPv6-only backbones will have to connect through site-to-
 site tunnels. Since many new applications are IPv6-only rather than
 dual-stacked, legacy IPv4 applications may require translators for

 Stage 4 Scenario: IPv6 Only In the future, if IPv6 becomes the only
 service required, IPv4 service can be dropped. This transition may
 be hastened by the desire to save operational and maintenance costs
 by dropping IPv4 services and only supporting one IP family.

 Security Concerns

 Adding security to IPv6 services requires developing new customer
 applications for IPSEC, new firewalls, guards, VPN/encrypters, and
 end-user security such as host-based firewalls and virus checkers
 for IPv6 attacks. Police, homeland defense, and military crisis
 management networks require especially high levels of security and
 should begin creation and implementation of their specialized
 security architectures as soon as they begin planning for IPv6
 transition. New IPv6 features such as MIPv6, stateless address
 auto-assignment, and ubiquitous end-user IPSEC will likely not be
 compatible with current information-assurance tools that are simply
 ported from IPv4 to a minimal IPv6 capability. A complete new
 security policy, architecture, and tools will most likely be
 required to realize the true net-centric benefits of IPv6 in crisis
 networks requiring high security.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 28]

Internet Draft    IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis      January 2005

Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements

Intellectual Property Statement

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
 to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described
 in this document or the extent to which any license under such
 rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that
 it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
 Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC
 documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use
 of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository
 at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Disclaimer of Validity

 This document and the information contained herein are provided on

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


 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt  Expires June 2005    [Page 29]

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