[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Individual Submission                               E. Jankiewicz (Ed.)
Internet Draft                                  SRI International, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                       September 20, 2010
Expires: March 2011



    An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Coexistence
                 draft-jankiewicz-v6ops-v4v6biblio-00.txt


Abstract

   The Internet is in the early stages of what may be a protracted
   period of coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6.  Network operators are
   challenged with the task of activating IPv6 without negative impact
   on operating IPv4 networks and their customers.  This draft is an
   informational companion to another draft providing basic guidelines
   and recommendations for network operators.  The goal of this document
   is to survey the current state of RFCs, Internet-Drafts and external
   reference materials that define the use cases, problem statements,
   protocols, transition mechanisms and coexistence tools that will be
   of interest to a network operator planning to turn on IPv6.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), 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 March 20, 2009.





Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. IPv6 and related Protocol Specifications.......................4
   3. Problem Statements and Use Cases...............................4
   4. Deployment Scenarios and Architectures.........................5
   5. How-to, Whitepapers and FAQs...................................5
   6. Transition/Coexistence Tools...................................6
      6.1. Address Mapping...........................................7
      6.2. Tunneling Mechanisms......................................7
         6.2.1. Teredo...............................................8
         6.2.2. IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd)and Extensions............8
         6.2.3. Tunnel Support Protocol (TSP)........................8
         6.2.4. Residual IPv4 Deployment over IPv6-only Infrastructure8
      6.3. Translation...............................................9
         6.3.1. Historic Approach....................................9
         6.3.2. Current Translation Approaches.......................9
            6.3.2.1. An IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet...........10
            6.3.2.2. The IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network...........10
            6.3.2.3. The IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network...........11
            6.3.2.4. An IPv4 network to the IPv6 Internet...........11
            6.3.2.5. An IPv6 network to an IPv4 network.............11
            6.3.2.6. An IPv4 network to an IPv6 network.............11
            6.3.2.7. The IPv6 Internet to the IPv4 Internet.........11
            6.3.2.8. The IPv4 Internet to the IPv6 Internet.........12
   7. Prefix and Address Assignment and Distribution................12
   8. Experiments, Trials and Prototypes............................13
   9. Implementation Reports........................................13
   10. Miscellaneous................................................13
   11. Security Considerations......................................14
   12. IANA Considerations..........................................14
   13. Conclusions..................................................14
   14. References...................................................14
      14.1. Normative References....................................14


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


      14.2. Informative References..................................14
   15. Acknowledgments..............................................14

1. Introduction

   Since the IPv6 protocol was defined in 1995 as RFC 1883 (replaced in
   1998 by RFC 2460) the Internet has been in a long transition from
   IPv4 to IPv6.  In reality, we are still in the early stages of what
   is likely to be a protracted period of coexistence, where IPv6
   penetration in hosts (both servers and clients) will gradually ramp
   up as networks make IPv6 available through their infrastructures.

   Network operators face a daunting task to design and implement plans
   to activate IPv6 without negative impact on large (in some cases very
   large) operating IPv4 networks with many live customers.  Some basic
   guidelines and recommendations for network operators are being
   developed (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-01)
   and this draft is an informational companion to that effort.  The
   goal of this document is to survey the current state of RFCs, active
   (and expired but still relevant) Internet-Drafts and external
   reference materials that define the use cases, problem statements,
   protocols, transition mechanisms and coexistence tools that will be
   of interest to a network operator planning to turn on IPv6.

   This is a dynamic and evolving marketplace of ideas.  At best, this
   draft is a blurry snapshot of the landscape near to the time of its
   publication.  The editor intends this compendium to be merely the
   starting point for an active database or wiki available for community
   contribution including feedback on the real-world experience of
   network operators as they turn on IPv6.

   The following sections comprise an annotated bibliography of the
   currently available documentation to knowledge of the editor.  It is
   provided as informational guidance only, and any network operator
   contemplating an IPv6 implementation will of course exercise due
   diligence in researching all the issues, standards and
   recommendations and analyze applicability to the particular network
   operation.

   Note that as the body of this text includes full reference
   information for the bibliography entries these are not included in
   the normal Reference section.

   [Editor's note to be removed before publication:

   While this draft is circulating, the editor is interested in any and
   all pointers to additional useful references.  Contributions of


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


   capsule summaries and applicability for any of the listed entries
   would also be appreciated and will be graciously acknowledged.  If I
   have missed anyone who already chipped in, this will be cheerfully
   rectified upon your reminder via a private e-mail.  ]

2. IPv6 and related Protocol Specifications

   "IPv6 Node Requirements" J. Loughney, Ed. April 2006
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4294

   "IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis" E. Jankiewicz, J. Loughney, T.
   Narten July 12, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05

   RFC 4294 and its update draft are included by reference.  These
   provide a comprehensive overview of the IPv6 baseline specifications
   and the reader is directed to them to avoid a redundant listing here.

3. Problem Statements and Use Cases

   "Problem Statements of IPv6 Transition of ISP" Y. Lee, Ed. September
   4, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-01

   This draft is being developed by an ad-hoc group interested in
   providing guidance to network operators on the IPv6 transition.  It
   will include high level use cases (as contributed by IETF
   participants with network operator experience) and a problem
   statement documenting what additional work IETF could do to provide
   sufficient tools and guidance for the network operators

   "Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 Deployment" R. Koodli, July
   2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks-01

   "Routing Loop Attack using IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement
   and Proposed Mitigations", G. Nakibly and F. Templin, Sept 12, 2010
   http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-00.txt

   "Use Case for IPv6 Transition for a Large-Scale Broadband Service" H/
   Tian and XY. Li September 15, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tian-v4v6tran-broadband-sp-usecase-
   00

   [v4v6 drafts to be]
   Huang: Broadband Use Case
   Zhou:  Mobile Use Case


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


4. Deployment Scenarios and Architectures

   "Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment", B.
   Carpenter, S. Jiang April 15, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops- -scenarios-00

   "Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios", B. Carpenter, S.
   Jiang and V. Kuarasingh August 18, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00

5. How-to, Whitepapers and FAQs

   RFC 5211 "An Internet Transition Plan." J. Curran, July 2008
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5211

   "Guidelines for Using Transition Mechanisms During IPv6 Deployment",
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-06

   "IPv6 Transition Guide For A Large ISP Providing Broadband Access",
   G. Yang (Ed.), L. Hu and J. Lin September 15, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yang-v4v6tran-ipv6-transition-guide-
   00

   http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/suggestion-for-an-ipv6-roll-out

   http://everythingsysadmin.com/2010/08/methods-of-converting-to-
   ipv6.html

   "Happy Eyeballs:  Trending Towards Success (IPv6 and SCTP)", D. Wing,
   A. Yourtchenko, P. Natarajan. Aug 20, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01

   This draft makes several recommendations to ensure user satisfaction
   and a smooth transition from HTTP's pervasive IPv4 to IPv6 and from
   TCP to SCTP.  While the target audience is app developers and content
   providers, network operators should be aware of techniques needed to
   maintain peaceful coexistence without negative impact on end-user
   perception of service level.

   "IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)", Roque Gagliano,
   15-Jul-10  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp

   This draft suggests that in an Internet Exchange Point one might use
   an address that helps in debugging routing exchanges.  One could also
   look at what other folks do, embedding identifying marks in
   addresses.  For example, Facebook includes "face:b00c" in the IID
   portion of their address.


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


6. Transition/Coexistence Tools

   As network operators and end-users independently proceed with
   transition to IPv6 while others continue to use IPv4, a potentially
   long period of coexistence will ensue.  Variations on terminology
   have been used since the specification of IPv6; transition implies a
   process whereby the star of IPv6 rises and the star of IPv4 sets;
   coexistence implies that both will operate together.  Due to
   thoroughly discussed limits to the growth of an Internet using only
   IPv4, IPv6 is a necessary technology for the future of the Internet.
   However, nothing compels the elimination of IPv4; no protocol police
   will forbid its use in the foreseeable future.  IPv4 may disappear
   due to irrelevance when IPv6 is so pervasive to make it redundant,
   but network operators should be prepared to operate IPv4 and IPv6 in
   a mixed deployment for some time.  However, the techniques and
   mechanisms supported by a network operator can be expected to evolve
   and change over time as a rational goal would be to gradually shift
   coexistence costs (real operational expense as well as convenience)
   from "early adopters" of IPv6 to the shrinking pool of IPv4
   maintainers.

   Various techniques are required for coexistence, roughly divided into
   three categories:

   1. Address Mapping:  Many situations will require the use of address
       mapping to maintain scalability in the face of dwindling IPv4
       global address space and to support translation and tunneling
       approaches.

   2. Tunneling:  A method for the encapsulation and transport of one
       protocol over or through the infrastructure that favors the
       other, e.g. IPv6 traffic via an IPv4 infrastructure

   3. Translation:  A mechanism for rewriting packets from one protocol
       to the other so they can be delivered as native (non-
       encapsulated) packets typically due to incompatible end nodes,
       e.g. an IPv6 client to an IPv4 server.

   These categories are not mutually exclusive, as some scenarios and
   solutions incorporate aspects of multiple approaches.

   "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers"
   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt






Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


6.1. Address Mapping

   "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng
   Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter, 18-Jun-10
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn

   "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
   Clients to IPv4 Servers" Bagnulo, Matthews, van Beijnum, July 10,
   2010
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-
   stateful/

   "Legacy NAT Traversal for IPv6: Simple Address Mapping for Premises
   Legacy Equipment (SAMPLE)"
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00

   "Some Considerations on the Load-Balancer for NAT64" D. Zhang et al.
   August 25, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-behave-nat64-load-balancer-02

   "NAT64 for Dual Stack Mobile IPv6" B. Sarikaya and F. Xia June 4,
   2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-behave-mext-nat64-dsmip-00

   "NAT64 for Proxy Mobile IPv6" B. Sarikaya and F. Xia June 4, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-behave-netext-nat64-pmip-00

   "A Note on NAT64 Interaction with Mobile IPv6" W. Haddad and C.
   Perkins April 28, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful-
   01

   "Referrals Across an IPv6/IPv4 Translator" D. Wing, October 19, 2009
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-behave-nat64-referrals-01

   While this draft is expired, this issue remains a topic of
   conversation, including a Bar-BoF at IETF 78.  Referrals across
   disparate address domains may be needed for provision of services
   such as SIP during transition.

6.2. Tunneling Mechanisms

   RFC 2473 "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification."  A. Conta
   and S. Deering, December 1998
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473




Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


   RFC 3053 "IPv6 Tunnel Broker" A. Durand, I. Guardini and D. Lento
   January 2001
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3053

6.2.1. Teredo

   "Teredo Extensions", D. Thaler, July 12, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-07

6.2.2. IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd)and Extensions

   "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)" R. Despres
   January 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5569

   "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)-Protocol
   Specification" W. Townsley and O. Troan August 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5969

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus-00

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-02

6.2.3. Tunnel Support Protocol (TSP)

   RFC 5572 "IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP)" M.
   Blanchet and F. Parent, February 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5572

   TSP is an Experimental RFC defining a method for a tunnel client to
   negotiate tunnel characteristics with a tunnel broker.  It enables
   tunnels in various deployment architectures including NAT traversal
   and mobility, and for user authentication it utilizes:

   RFC 4422 "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)" A. Melikov
   ad K. Zeilenga(Eds.) June 2006
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4422

6.2.4. Residual IPv4 Deployment over IPv6-only Infrastructure

   Further down the transition road, operators may desire to retire IPv4
   routing support and move their backbone networks to IPv6-only.  There
   may be residual IPv4 legacy customers (clients and servers) still
   requiring the delivery of IPv4 packets.  While the previously
   proposed Dual-Stack Transition Mechanism (DSTM) approach attempted to
   satisfy this use case, it was complex and stateful.  A stateless
   approach to IPv4 residual deployment (4rd) is defined in section 3.2
   of the Stateless Address Mapping (SAM) draft.  At the time of this


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


   publication, several network operators in Japan are planning
   implementation to support residual IPv4 customers.

   "Stateless Address Mapping (SAM) - a Simplified Mesh-Softwire Model"
   Despres, R. July 12, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-sam-01

6.3. Translation

   From the earliest specification of IPv6 IETF contributors have
   recognized that translation would be a necessary tool for transition
   and coexistence, as IPv6 was designed as an incompatible replacement
   rather than an extension of IPv4.  The original approach to stateless
   translation defined in RFC 2765 and its implementation as NA(P)T-PT
   as described in RFC 2766 had a number of issues that resulting in the
   approach being deprecated by RFC 4966.  Recently the Behave WG has
   taken on the work of defining a set of scenarios covering the use
   cases for translation, prioritizing the work and defining new
   solutions that overcome the deficiencies of the historic approach.

6.3.1. Historic Approach

   RFC 2765 "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation (SIIT)." E. Nordmark,
   February 2000 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2765

   RFC 2766 "Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-
   PT)." G. Tsirtsis and P. Srisresh, February 2000
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2766

6.3.2. Current Translation Approaches

   A renewed effort to define new translation mechanisms started with
   discussions in the Internet Area (intarea) meeting and the Technical
   Plenary at IETF 71 in Dublin, and contined at a special meeting in
   Montreal in October 2008.  This led to a commitment by contributors
   in the Behave WG to take on the work.  A set of scenarios were
   defined along with a framework for the translation solutions.

   "A Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation" F. Baker et al. August 17,
   2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10

   This draft (Framework) is the place to start to understand the
   historic context for translation, the definition and rationale for
   the set of translation scenarios and canonical definitions for some
   of the terminology that arises when talking about translation and
   coexistence in general.


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


   The 4 deployment modes for these scenarios are:

   1. Connecting between the IPv4 Internet and the IPv6 Internet

   2. Connecting an IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet

   3. Connecting an IPv4 network to the IPv6 Internet

   4. Connecting between an IPv4 network and an IPv6 network

   As solutions may differ with respect to the initiating end of the
   conversation, 8 scenarios are defined in the Framework draft, as
   recapped in the following sections along with specifications that fit
   each scenario.

   Some general specifications that are cited in the various solution
   specifications are:

   "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators" C. Bao et al. August 16,
   2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10

   "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6
   Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo et al.  July 5, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10

6.3.2.1. An IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet

   The Framework defines Scenario 1 for an early adopter (end user or
   network operator) which establishes an IPv6 network and needs to
   maintain access to the global IPv4 Internet, preferably without
   assigning IPv4 addresses to the nodes of the IPv6 network.  Either
   the Stateful or Stateless solutions proposed may satisfy this
   deployment scenario.

   "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
   Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo, P. Matthews and I. van Beijnum
   July 10, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12

   "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm" X. Li, C. Bao and F. Baker August 21,
   2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-22

6.3.2.2. The IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network

   The Framework defines Scenario 2 for a node on the IPv4 Internet
   initiating a transmission to a node on an IPv6 network.  The original
   approach to this deployment was SIIT (in RFC 2765) which has been


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


   deprecated (by RFC 4966).  The Stateless Translation solution for
   Scenario 1 also would work for this case as it does support IPv4-
   initiated communication with a subset of IPv6 addresses.

6.3.2.3. The IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network

   The Framework defines Scenario 3 where a legacy IPv4 network has a
   requirement to provide services to users in the IPv6 Internet.
   Stateful Translation with static AAAA records in DNS to represent the
   IPv4-only hosts will work.

   "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
   Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo, P. Matthews and I. van Beijnum
   July 10, 2010.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12

   "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6
   Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo et al. July 5, 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10

6.3.2.4. An IPv4 network to the IPv6 Internet

   Scenario 4 is not easy to solve but fortunately will not arise until
   significant IPv6 uptake.  In-network translation is not viable, and
   other techniques should be considered.

6.3.2.5. An IPv6 network to an IPv4 network

   Scenario 5 describes a configuration where both the IPv6 network and
   IPv4 network are within the administrative control of the same
   organization.  It appears amenable to the same solutions proposed for
   Scenario 1.

6.3.2.6. An IPv4 network to an IPv6 network

   Scenario 6 is the mirror image of Scenario 5, with communication
   initiated from the IPv4 side.  It appears amenable to the same
   solution proposed for Scenario 2.

6.3.2.7. The IPv6 Internet to the IPv4 Internet

   The Framework indicates that Scenario 7, the interconnection of the
   IPv4 Internet with the IPv6 Internet may appear to be an ideal case
   for an in-network translator (such as the deprecated NAT-PT), but
   there is no viable way to map the immense IPv6 address space onto
   IPv4.  This situation would not entail until significant IPv6
   adoption, and has not been a priority for solution.


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


6.3.2.8. The IPv4 Internet to the IPv6 Internet

   Scenario 8 presents a challenge similar to Scenario 7.

7. Prefix and Address Assignment and Distribution

   RFC 4291 "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture." R. Hinden, S.
   Deering. February 2006.
   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4291.txt

   "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators" C. Bao et al. Aug 16, 2010
   (Status:  Standards Track, updates 4291)
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-address-format/

   RFC 3177 "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to
   Sites." IAB, IESG. September 2001.
   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3177.txt

   "IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites", T. Narten, G. Huston, R.
   Roberts, 12-Jul-10
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary

   RFC 5942 "IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and
   Subnet Prefixes." H. Singh, W. Beebee, E. Nordmark. July 2010.
   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5942.txt

   RFC 4862 "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration." S. Thomson, T.
   Narten, T. Jinmei. September 2007.
   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4862.txt

   RFC 4941 "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
   in IPv6." T. Narten, R. Draves, S. Krishnan. September 2007.
   http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4941.txt

   The IPv6 addressing architecture presumes that the remaining 64 bits
   are an endpoint interface identifier.  This could be the MAC Address
   (EUI-64 Address) in an appropriate encoding, or it could be what is
   called a "privacy address", which is a random number.  You will find
   the most common approach to that, for hosts, in this RFC.

   RFC 3315 "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)." R.
   Droms (Ed.), J. Bound, B. Volz, T. Lemon, C. Perkins, M. Carney. July
   2003.  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3315.txt






Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


8. Experiments, Trials and Prototypes

   6bone (concluded)
   http://go6.net/ipv6-6bone/

   Hurricane Electric (ongoing)
   http://www.he.net/

   T-Mobile USA (ongoing)
   http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta

   Comcast (ongoing)
   http://www.comcast6.net/

   Internode ADSL (Ongoing)
   http://ipv6.internode.on.net/access/adsl/

   Verizon FiOS (small scale test - concluded)
   http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2010/verizon-
   begins-testing-ipv6.html

9. Implementation Reports

   IPv6 Rapid Deployment
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5569

10. Miscellaneous

   See the Dancing Turtle, but only if you have native IPv6!
   http://www.kame.net/

   Eric Vyncke is collecting some statistics on IPv6 penetration.
   http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/

   A reasonable estimation of how fast the sky is falling.
   http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/

   A graphical representation of IPv4 depletion.
   http://www.ipv4depletion.com/old.html

   "IPv6 Adoption Remains Slow, Survey Says" W. Jackson, GCN Sept. 5,
   2101
   http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/14/adoption-of-ipv6-is-slow.aspx
   http://www.nro.net/documents/GlobalIPv6SurveySummaryv2.pdf

   Some troubling, yet interesting news about what operators and end-
   user organizations are thinking about IPv6 adoption at this time.


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


11. Security Considerations

   This draft does not introduce any security considerations.

12. IANA Considerations

   This draft does not require any action from IANA.

   [Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed.]

13. Conclusions

   This draft is merely the starting point for a network operator
   planning an IPv6 rollout.  The intention of the editor was to
   document the great work that is already available that can help in
   the process and to perhaps save a few hours of redundant effort for
   someone to find this information.  Of course, this will be out of
   date before it is published as active research continues in
   coexistence and transition tools.  The editor hopes it is at least a
   useful "You Are Here" map to help navigate the thrill rides available
   in the IPv6 theme park.

   This compendium could serve as an initial set of data to populate an
   active database or wiki.  This would allow continuing community
   contribution including feedback on the real-world experience of
   network operators as they turn on IPv6.

14. References

14.1. Normative References

   None.

14.2. Informative References

   Complete reference information is included in the body of the draft.

15. Acknowledgments

   In addition to the authors of the cited RFCs, drafts, websites and
   other publications and many folks on the v6ops and v4v6transition
   mailing lists, the editor wishes to acknowledge significant
   contributions from Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Remi Despres, Tina
   Tsou, Yiu Lee, Marc Blanchet and many contributors on the v4v6trans
   mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition

   This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6   September 2010


Author's Address

   Edward J. Jankiewicz
   SRI International, Inc.
   333 Ravenswood Ave
   Menlo Park, CA USA

   Phone: 732-389-1003 or 650-859-2000
   Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com








































Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires March 20, 2011                [Page 15]


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