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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Individual Submission                               E. Jankiewicz (Ed.)
Internet Draft                                  SRI International, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                          October 5, 2010
Expires: April 2011



    An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Coexistence
                 draft-jankiewicz-v6ops-v4v6biblio-01.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 "annotated bibliography" compiled to help in the
   analysis and development of 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 5, 2009.




Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6     October 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
         6.1.1. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-lite)...................... 8
      6.2. Tunneling Mechanisms............................. 10
         6.2.1. Teredo.................................... 10
         6.2.2. IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd)and Extensions........ 10
         6.2.3. Tunnel Support Protocol (TSP) ................. 11
         6.2.4. Residual IPv4 Deployment over IPv6-only Infrastructure11
         6.2.5. Address Plus Port (AplusP).................... 11
         6.2.6. IRON-RANGER and ISATAP Solutions............... 12
      6.3. Translation.................................... 13
         6.3.1. Historic Approach........................... 13
         6.3.2. Current Translation Approaches................. 13
            6.3.2.1. An IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet........ 15
            6.3.2.2. The IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network........ 15
            6.3.2.3. The IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network........ 15
            6.3.2.4. An IPv4 network to the IPv6 Internet........ 16
            6.3.2.5. An IPv6 network to an IPv4 network......... 16
            6.3.2.6. An IPv4 network to an IPv6 network......... 16
            6.3.2.7. The IPv6 Internet to the IPv4 Internet...... 16
            6.3.2.8. The IPv4 Internet to the IPv6 Internet...... 16
   7. Prefix and Address Assignment and Distribution............ 16
   8. Experiments, Trials and Prototypes...................... 17
   9. Implementation Reports ............................... 18
   10. Books on IPv6...................................... 18
   11. Miscellaneous...................................... 18
   12. Security Considerations.............................. 19


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 2]


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


   13. IANA Considerations................................. 19
   14. Conclusions........................................ 19
   15. References ........................................ 20
      15.1. Normative References............................ 20
      15.2. Informative References .......................... 20
   16. Acknowledgments.................................... 20

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) 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.



Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 3]


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


   [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
   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
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis

   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.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem

   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
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks

   Mobile Internet access from smartphones and other mobile devices is
   accelerating the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.  IPv6 is widely seen
   as crucial for the continued operation and growth of the Internet,
   and in particular, it is critical in mobile networks.  This document
   discusses the issues that arise when deploying IPv6 in mobile
   networks.  Hence, this document can be a useful reference for service
   providers and network designers.





Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 4]


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


   "Routing Loop Attack using IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement
   and Proposed Mitigations", G. Nakibly and F. Templin
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops

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

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

4. Deployment Scenarios and Architectures

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

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

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"
   J. Arkko and F. Baker
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines

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

   "IPv6 Rollout: Where do we start?" O. Crepin-Leblond
   http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/suggestion-for-an-ipv6-roll-out

   "Everything Sysadmin" T. Limoncelli
   http://everythingsysadmin.com/2009/01/google-enables-ipv6-for-most-
   s.html
   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.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech


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


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


   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.

   "Migrating SIP to IPv6 Media Without Connectivity Checks" D. Wing, A.
   Yourtchenko
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dispatch-v6-migration

   During the migration from IPv4 to IPv6, it is anticipated that an
   IPv6 path might be broken for a variety of reasons, causing endpoints
   to not receive RTP data.  Connectivity checks would detect and avoid
   the user noticing such a problem, but there is industry reluctance to
   implement connectivity checks.

   This document describes a mechanism allowing dual-stack SIP endpoints
   to attempt communications over IPv6 and fall back to IPv4 if the IPv6
   path is not working.  The mechanism does not require connectivity
   checks.

   "IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)", Roque Gagliano
   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.

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


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 6]


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


   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.

   RFC 4213 "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" E.
   Nordmark and R. Gilligan October 2005
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4213

6.1. Address Mapping

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

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




Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 7]


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


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

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

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

   "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.

   "Flexible IPv6 Migration Scenarios in the Context of IPv4 Address
   Shortage" M. Boucadair (Ed.) et al, October 20, 2009 (expired)
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-behave-ipv6-portrange-04

   This memo presents a solution to solve IPv4 address shortage and ease
   IPv4-IPv6 interconnection.  The document presents a set of
   incremental steps for the deployment of IPv6 as a means to solve IPv4
   address exhaustion.  Stateless IPv4/IPv6 address mapping functions
   are introduced and IPv4-IPv6 interconnection scenarios presented.

   This memo advocates for a more proactive approach for the deployment
   of IPv6 into operational networks.  This memo specifies the IPv6
   variant of the A+P. Both encapsulation and translation scheme are
   covered.  Moreover, two modes are elaborated: the binding mode
   (compatible mode with DS-lite) and the stateless mode.

6.1.1. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-lite)

   http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/46600

   "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion" A.
   Durand et al.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite

   This document revisits the dual-stack model and introduces the dual-
   stack lite technology aimed at better aligning the costs and benefits
   of deploying IPv6 in service provider networks.  Dual-stack lite
   enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4 addresses among



Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 8]


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


   customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP (IPv4-
   in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT).

   "Dual-stack Lite Mobility Solutions" B. Sarikaya and F. Xia October
   11, 2009 (expired)
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemobility-01

   Two solutions are presented to show how to use Dual-Stack Lite
   transition technique in mobile networks: one for Proxy Mobile IPv6
   and the other for Dual-Stack Mobile IPv6.  Proxy Mobile IPv6 allows
   IPv4 nodes to receive mobility services using an IPv4 home address.
   In case of client based mobility using DSMIPv6, mobile node is a
   dual-stack node and it can receive an IPv4 home address from the home
   agent which is co-located with DS-lite carrier-grade NAT.

   "Scalable Operation of Address Translators with Per-Interface
   Bindings" J. Arkko and L. Eggert February 9, 2009 (expired)
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-dual-stack-extra-lite-00

   This document explains how to employ address translation in networks
   that serve a large number of individual customers without requiring a
   correspondingly large amount of private IPv4 address space.

   "Gateway Initiated Dual-Stack Lite Deployment" F. Brockners et al.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite

   Gateway-Initiated Dual-Stack lite (GI-DS-lite) is a modified approach
   to the original Dual-Stack lite (DS-lite) applicable to certain
   tunnel-based access architectures.  GI-DS-lite extends existing
   access tunnels beyond the access gateway to an IPv4-IPv4 NAT using
   softwires with an embedded context identifier, that uniquely
   identifies the end-system the tunneled packets belong to.  The access
   gateway determines which portion of the traffic requires NAT using
   local policies and sends/receives this portion to/from this softwire
   tunnel.

   "Deployment DS-lite in Point-to-Point Access Network" Y. Lee (Ed.) et
   al. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-softwire-ds-lite-p2p

   Gateway-Initiated Dual-Stack lite (GI-DS-lite) is a proposal to
   logically extend existing access tunnels beyond the access gateway to
   DS-Lite Address Family Transition Router element (AFTR) using
   softwires with an embedded context identifier.  This memo describes a
   deployment model using GI-DS-lite in Point-to-Point access network.

   "Deploying Dual-Stack Lite in IPv6 Network" M. Boucadair (Ed.) et al.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-dslite-interco-v4v6


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                  [Page 9]


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


   Dual-Stack lite requires that the AFTR must have IPv4 connectivity.
   This forbids a service provider who wants to deploy AFTR in an IPv6-
   only network.  This memo proposes an extension to implement a
   stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation in the AFTR so that AFTR can be
   deployed in an IPv6-only network.

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

   RFC 2529 "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4 Domains without Explicit
   Tunnels" B. Carpenter and C. Jung March 1999.

   RFC 3056 "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds" B. Carpenter
   and K. Moore February 2001
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3056

   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
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions

6.2.2. IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd)and Extensions

   RFC 5569 "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)" R.
   Despres January 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5569

   RFC 5969 "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)-
   Protocol Specification" W. Townsley and O. Troan August 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5969

   "IPv6 Across NAT44 CPEs (6a44)" R. Despres, B. Carpenter and S. Jiang
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-6a44

   IPv6 Across NAT44 CPEs (6a44) 6a44 is based on an address mapping and
   on a mechanism whereby suitably upgraded hosts behind a NAT may
   obtain IPv6 connectivity via a stateless 6a44 server function
   operated by their Internet Service Provider.  With it, traffic
   between two 6a44 hosts in a single site remains within the site.
   Except for IANA numbers that remain to be assigned, the specification



Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 10]


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


   is intended to be complete enough for running codes to be
   independently written and interwork.

   Note that this draft converges and supersedes work started in two
   separate drafts, which are no longer relevant:
   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
   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

6.2.5. Address Plus Port (AplusP)

   "The A+P Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage" R. Bush (Ed.) October
   27, 2009 (expired, but authors indicate a new draft is coming)
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-aplusp




Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 11]


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


   This draft discusses the possibility of address sharing by treating
   some of the port number bits as part of an extended IPv4 address
   (Address plus Port, or A+P).  Instead of assigning a single IPv4
   address to a customer device, we propose to extended the address by
   "stealing" bits from the port number in the TCP/UDP header, leaving
   the applications a reduced range of ports.  This means assigning the
   same IPv4 address to multiple clients (e.g., CPE, mobile phones),
   each with its assigned port-range.  In the face of IPv4 address
   exhaustion, the need for addresses is stronger than the need to be
   able to address thousands of applications on a single host.  If
   address translation is needed, the end-user should be in control of
   the translation process - not some smart boxes in the core.

   "Aplusp Lite - A light weight aplusp approach" Z. Xiaoyu
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xiaoyu-aplusp-lite

   This document proposes a solution aimed at providing IPv4 continuity
   in IPv6 environment. The proposed solution is expected to alleviate
   the public IPv4 depletion problem while maximize the benefits from
   IPv6 deployment, and meet the desired service availability and
   reliability with affordable cost.

6.2.5.1. IRON-RANGER and ISATAP Solutions

   A body of RFCs and drafts in progress provide an alternative approach
   to IPv4/IPv6 coexistence.  This approach utilizes tunneling
   techniques to create "overlay" networks.  While currently considered
   "Experimental" it may be of interest to network operators as an
   alternative network architecture.

   RFC 5214 "Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)"
   F. Templin et al. March 2008 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5214

   RFC 5320 "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)"
   F. Templin (Ed.) February 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5320

   RFC 5558 "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)" F. Templin (Ed.)
   February 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5558

   RFC 5579 "Transmission of IPv4 Packets over Intra-Site Automatic
   Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) Interfaces" F. Templin (Ed.)
   February 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5579

   RFC 5720 "Routing and Addressing in Networks with Global Enterprise
   Recursion (RANGER)" F. Templin (Ed.) February 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5720



Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 12]


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


   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet

   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron

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

   RFC 2767 "Dual-Stack Hosts Using 'Bump in the Stack' Technique (BIS)"
   K. Tsuchiay, H. Higuchi and Y. Atarashi February 2000

   RFC 3338 "Dual-Stack Hosts Using 'Bump in the API' (BIA)" S. Lee, et
   al. October 2002
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3338

   These two RFCs are proposed for obsolescence by a draft that combines
   both:

   "Dual-Stack Hosts Using 'Bump in the Host'(BIH)" B. Huang, H. Deng
   and T. Savolainen
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-huang-behave-bih

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 continued at a special meeting in


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 13]


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


   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.
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework

   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.

   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 (or may be in subsequent revisions) 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

   "Analysis of 64 Translation" R. Penno, T. Saxena and D. Wing
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-behave-64-analysis

   Due to specific problems, NAT-PT was deprecated by the IETF as a
   mechanism to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  Since then, new effort
   has been undertaken within IETF to standardize alternative mechanisms
   to perform IPv6-IPv4 translation.  This document evaluates how the
   new translation mechanisms avoid the problems that caused the IETF to
   deprecate NAT-PT.


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 14]


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




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
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful

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

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
   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
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful

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

   Alternatively, host-based translation (BIH) or tightly-coupled
   translators may be considered.





Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 15]


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


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 including host-based
   translation (BIH) or tightly-coupled translators that adapt legacy
   hosts or networks to the IPv6 Internet.

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.

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://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291

   RFC 5952 "A Recommendation for IPv6 Text Representation" S. Kawamura
   and M. Kawashima, August 2010
   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952

   "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators" C. Bao et al. (Status:
   Standards Track, in RFC Editor will update RFC 4291)
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-address-format/


Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 16]


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


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

   "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://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5942

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

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

   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://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3315

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/



Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 17]


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


   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

   Google has hosted a meeting of IPv6 Implementers in 2009 and 2010,
   several presentations covered experimental or live transition
   experience.
   https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2009/agenda
   https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda

10. Books on IPv6

   Blanchet, Marc. "Migrating to IPv6: a Practical Guide to Implementing
   IPv6 in Mobile and Fixed Networks." Chichester, England: J. Wiley &
   Sons, 2006. Print.

   Siil, Karl A. "IPv6 Mandates: Choosing a Transition Strategy,
   Preparing Transition Plans, and Executing the Migration of a Network
   to IPv6."  Indianapolis, IN: Wiley, 2008. Print.



11. Miscellaneous

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

   A little more detail than a Dancing Turtle, on your IPv6 readiness
   can be obtained by using this site put up by Jason Fesler:
   http://test-ipv6.com/

   There is an extension for Firefox (and perhaps other browsers) that
   displays the IP address of web pages you visit, clearly indicating
   when you are connected via IPv4 or IPv6.  In Firefox, click on
   Tools..Add-ons..Extensions and search for ShowIP.

   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/



Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 18]


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


   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.

   A study of some of the brokenness around Path MTU Discovery
   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/presentations/Stasiewicz-
   Measurements_of_IPv6_Path_MTU_Discovery_Behaviour.pdf

   Cluenet hosts a mailing list with IPv6 operator participation.
   Various transition-related topics are brought up there from time to
   time.http://lists.cluenet.de/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-ops

12. Security Considerations

   This draft does not introduce any security considerations.

13. IANA Considerations

   This draft does not require any action from IANA.

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

14. 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.




Jankiewicz (Ed.)        Expires April 5, 2011                 [Page 19]


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


15. References

15.1. Normative References

   None.

15.2. Informative References

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

16. Acknowledgments

   This bibliography is a recapitulation of the contributions of the
   authors of the cited RFCs, drafts, websites and other publications
   and many folks on the v6ops and v4v6transition mailing lists, the
   editor has freely borrowed abstract and summary text from the cited
   works and e-mail postings.  In addition, the editor wishes to
   acknowledge significant contributions and suggestions from Fred
   Baker, Brian Carpenter, Remi Despres, Tina Tsou, Yiu Lee, Marc
   Blanchet, Med Boucadair, Fred Templin and many contributors on the
   v4v6trans mailing list.  The mailing list archive can be found at:
   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition

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

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 April 5, 2011                 [Page 20]


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