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

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6

v6ops                                                  V. Kuarsingh, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                     Rogers Communications
Intended status: Informational                           October 9, 2011
Expires: April 11, 2012


                       Wireline Incremental IPv6
              draft-kuarsingh-wireline-incremental-ipv6-02

Abstract

   Operators worldwide are in various stages of preparing for, or
   deploying IPv6 into their networks.  The operators often face
   challenges related to both IPv6 introduction along with a growing
   risk of IPv4 run out within their organizations.  The overall problem
   for many of there operators will be to meet the simultaneous needs of
   IPv6 connectivity and continue support for IPv4 connectivity for
   legacy devices and systems with a depleting supply of IPv4 addresses.
   The overall transition will take most networks form an IPv4-Only
   environment to a dual stack network environment and potentially an
   IPv6-Only operating mode.  This document helps provide a framework
   for Wireline providers who may be faced with many of these challenges
   as they consider what IPv6 transition technologies to use, how to use
   the selected technologies and when to use them.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 11, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.











































Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Operator Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  IPv4 Resource Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.3.  IPv6 Introduction and Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  Service Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.5.  Sub-Optimal Operation of Transition Technologies . . . . .  8
   5.  IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     5.1.  Automatic Tunnelling using 6to4 and Teredo . . . . . . . .  9
     5.2.  Carrier Grade NAT (NAT444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.3.  6RD  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.4.  Native Dual Stack  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.5.  DS-Lite  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.6.  NAT64  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  IPv6 Transition Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     6.1.  Phase 0 - Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.1.1.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Training . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       6.1.2.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       6.1.3.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security  . . 15
       6.1.4.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture  . . . . 15
       6.1.5.  Phase 0- Foundation: Tools and Management  . . . . . . 16
     6.2.  Phase 1 - Tunnelled IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       6.2.1.  6RD Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.3.  Phase 2: Native Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       6.3.1.  Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations  . . . . . 20
     6.4.  Intermediate Phase for CGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       6.4.1.  CGN Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.5.  Phase 3 - Tunnelled IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       6.5.1.  DS-Lite Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . 24
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27











Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


1.  Introduction

   IPv6 represents the strategic IP protocol version which will meet the
   addressing needs of the Internet into the future.  Many operators are
   already working on implementing IPv6 within their networks, and other
   operators may just be starting this process.  A solid IPv6 plan will
   need to include both the baseline requirements to enable IPv6 within
   the network, but must also include facilities to provide continued
   support for IPv4 connectivity.  Given the vast number of
   technological options now available to operators for transition to
   IPv6, the task may seem daunting when attempting to identify which
   technologies are appropriate for a given network, and how these
   technologies can be introduced.

   This draft sets out to help operators who may be just starting the
   evaluation process or well underway, by identifying which
   technologies can be used in an incremental fashion to transition from
   an IPv4-only environment to an efficient IPv6/IPv4 dual stack
   environment.  Some plans may also include IPv6-Only end state
   targets, but there is not clear consensus on how long IPv4 support is
   required.  Although no single plan will work for for all operators,
   generically, options listed herein provide a baseline which can be
   included in many plans.

   This draft is specifically catered towards wireline environments
   which may use technologies such as Cable, DSL and/or Fibre as the
   access method to the end consumer.  This draft also attempts to
   follow the methodologies set out in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-
   framework] to identify how the technologies can be used individual
   and in combination.  This document also attempts to follow the
   principles laid out in [RFC6180] which provides guidance on using
   IPv6 transition mechanisms.  This document does not show the IPv6-
   Only end state architecture since it is years away from existing
   mainstream Internet service connections.  This document will show how
   tunnelling using 6RD [RFC5969] and DS-Lite [RFC6333] as well as
   translation via CGN can be used with Native Dual Stack to deliver
   effective IPv4 and IPv6 services in an evolving wireline network.


2.  Motivation

   Wireline Operators are increasingly becoming aware of the need to
   support IPv6.  The depletion of unassigned IPv4 addresses within IANA
   and the RIRs has highlighted the need to move beyond IPv4-Only
   operation.  In many operator environments, the main task will be the
   addition of IPv6 into the network.  As straightforward as this task
   may seem, it will require forethought and planning.  However, of
   greater concern is that the introduction of IPv6 may need to take



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   place in a volatile environment where IPv4 resources are depleted
   complicating what technologies can be used, and how Dual Stack
   services may be offered to customers.

   Operators will want to understand which of the prevailing
   technologies can be used in a changing network environment while
   adapting to the needs and conditions of the network.  IPv6 will be a
   focal point in the Operators plans, but the realities of IPv4, and
   it's demand by legacy equipment and system needs to be acknowledged
   and managed.  The Operator's main goal will be to maintain quality IP
   services to Internet customers while the world moves from a
   predominately IPv4 centric system to a Dual Dtack IPv6/IPv4 system
   and eventually to an IPv6 centric world.  The IPv6 centric world may
   not preclude the use of IPv4 altogether, but focuses on a time where
   most functions and and will be delivered over IPv6.


3.  Operator Assumptions

   For the purposes of this document, it's assumed the operator is
   considering deploying IPv6.  It is also assumed that the operator has
   a legacy IPv4 customer base which will continue to exist and for a
   long period of time (years).  Other assumptions include that that
   operator will want to minimize the level of disruption to the
   existing and new customers by minimizing number of technologies and
   functions that are needed to mediate any given set of customer flows
   (overall preference for Native IP flows).

   These assumptions translate into analyzing technologies and
   subsequently selecting technologies which minimize how many flows
   must be tunnelled, translated or intercepted at any given time.
   Technology selections would be made to manage the non dominant flows
   and allow Native IP routing (IPv4 and/or IPv6) to manage the bulk of
   the traffic.  This allows the operator to minimize the cost of IPv6
   transition technologies by containing the scale required by the
   relevant systems.

   Not all operators may see these assumptions as valid, but most
   operators who have built and optimized their networks for efficient
   delivery of IP traffic from their customer base to the Internet (and
   vice versa) would typically agree with the approch suggested herein.


4.  Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach

   When faced with the challenges described in the Introductory portion
   of this document, operators may need to consider a phased approach to
   IPv6 service introduction and IPv4 service continuance.  Both IPv4



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   and IPv6 play critical role in connectivity throughout the IPv6
   transition yet each protocol will be based with challenges as time
   progresses.  Some of these challenges include the depletion of IPv4
   which will occur in many networks long before most traffic is able to
   delivered over IPv6.  IPv6 will also be added into many networks and
   pose many operational challenges to organizations and customers since
   much of the hardware, software and processes will be relatively new.
   Connectivity modes will move from single stack to dual stack in the
   home further challenging the transition as operators contend with
   many functional behaviours in the home network.

   These challenges, as noted, will occur over time which means the
   operator's plans need to address the every changing requirements of
   the network and customer demand.  The following few sections
   highlight some of the key reasons why a phase approach to IPv6
   transition may be warranted and desired.

4.1.  Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4

   The reality for operators over the next few years will be that both
   IPv4 and IPv6 will play a role in the Internet experience.  Although
   many IPv6 advocates seek to move the Internet to IPv6 quickly, the
   fact that many older operating systems and hardware support IPv4-Only
   operating modes will need to be accepted and managed.  Internet
   customers don't buy IPv4 or IPv6 connections, they buy Internet
   connections, which demands the need to support both IPv4 and IPv6 for
   as long at the customer's home network demands such support.

   The Internet is made of of many interconnecting systems, networks,
   hardware, software and content sources - all of which will move to
   IPv6 at different rates.  The Operator's mandate during this time of
   transition will be to support connectivity to both IPv6 and IPv4
   through various technological means.  The operator may be able to
   leverage one or the other protocol to help bridge connectivity, but
   the home network will demand both IPv4 and IPv6 for the foreseeable
   future.

4.2.  IPv4 Resource Challenges

   Since connectivity to IPv4-Only endpoints and/or content will remain
   prevalent for a long period of time, IPv4 resource challenges are of
   key concern to operators.  The lack of new IPv4 addressees for
   additional endpoints means that growth in demand of IPv4 connections
   in some networks will be based on address sharing.

   Networks are growing at different rates based on a number of factors
   which may be related to emerging markets and/or proliferation of
   Internet based services and endpoints.  Given that reality, growth on



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   the Internet will continue.  IPv4 address constraints will likely
   impact many if not most operators at some point.  This will play an
   important role when considering what technologies are viable as the
   transition period moves on.  Of note will be any use of technologies
   which rely on IPv4 as the mechanism to supply IPv6 services such as
   6RD.  Also, if Native Dual Stack is considered by the operator,
   challenges on the IPv4 path is also of concern.

   Some operators may be able to achieve some level of IPv4 address
   reclamation through various levels of efficiency in the network and
   replacement of GUA assignments with private addresses such as those
   in [RFC1918], but these measures are tactical in nature and do not
   support a longer term strategic option.  The lack of new IPv4
   addresses will therefore force operators to support some form of IPv4
   address sharing and may impact technological options for transition
   once the operator runs out of new IPv4 addresses for assignment.

4.3.  IPv6 Introduction and Maturity

   Operators will want to or be forced to support IPv6 at some point.
   The introduction of IPv6 will require the operationalization of IPv6.
   The IPv4 environment we have today was built over many years and was
   matured by experience.  Although many of these experiences are
   transferable from IPv4 to IPv6, new experience specific to IPv6 will
   be needed.

   Engineering and Operational staff will need to become acclimatized to
   IPv6 which and gain this needed experience.  During this ramp up
   period, Operators will need to be aware that instability may occur in
   the IPv6 deployment and should be taking this into account when
   selecting what technologies are viable during early transition.
   Operators may not want to subject their mature IPv4 service to a "new
   IPv6" path initially while it may be going through growing pains.
   This plays a role during initial transition when considering
   technologies which require IPv6 to support IPv4 services such as DS-
   Lite.

   Of consideration as well will be the reality that some of these
   technologies are new and require refinement within running code and
   operations.  Deployment experience may be needed to vet these
   technologies out and stabilize them in production environments.  Many
   supporting systems are also under development and have newly
   developed IPv6 functionality including vendor implementations of
   DHCPv6, Management Tools, Monitoring Systems, Diagnostic systems,
   along with other systems.

   Although the base technological capabilities exist to enable and run
   IPv6 in most environments; until such time as each key technical



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   member of an operator's organization can identify IPv6, understand
   it's relevance to the IP Service offering, how it operates and how to
   troubleshoot it - it's still maturing.

4.4.  Service Management

   Services are managed within most networks and is often based on the
   gleaning and monitoring of IPv4 addresses.  Operators will need to
   address such management tools, troubleshooting methods and storage
   facilities (such as databases) to deal with not just a new address
   type containing 128-bits, but often both IPv4 and IPv6 at the same
   time.

   With any Dual Stack service - whether Native, 6RD based, DS-Lite
   based or otherwise - two address families need to be managed
   simultaneously to help provide for the full Internet experience.  In
   the early transition phases, it's quite likely that many systems will
   be missed and that IPv6 services will go un-monitored and impairments
   undetected.

   These issues may be of consideration when selecting technologies
   which require IPv6 as the base protocol to delivery IPv4.
   Instability on the IPv6 service in such case would impact IPv4
   services.

4.5.  Sub-Optimal Operation of Transition Technologies

   Yet another important concept for an operator to understand is the
   difference between a native path and a path which requires a
   transition technology to bridge certain connectivity.  Native paths
   are often well understood and most networks are optimized to send
   traffic to and from the customer (to/from Internet) in an efficient
   manner.

   The addition of transition technologies may alter the normal path of
   traffic and delay or hinder the IP flows due to tunnelling and
   translation operation.  New logical nodes in the network will be
   needed to supply the full IP path, all of which will be slower and
   less agile then the native alternative.

   The consideration for this issue may be that an operator minimize the
   amount of traffic that needs to be delivered over a transition
   technology platform by optimizing the technologies deployed over
   time.  During earlier phases of transition, IPv6 traffic volumes may
   be lower, so tunnelling of IPv6 traffic may be reasonable.  Over
   time, these traffic volumes will increase, raising the benefits of
   native delivery of this traffic.  Also, as IPv4 content diminishes,
   translation and tunnelling of this protocol may become more tolerable



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   when considering performance.

   Operators may wish to align their own internal service delivery with
   the deployment of transition technologies including Native IPv6 and
   potential CGN deployments.  An operator may not want to enable many
   of their services, especially high traffic flow services, for IPv6
   delivery if IPv6 tunnelling is used.  The operator may which to
   constrain such customers to IPv4 delivery until Native IPv6 is
   available.  Also, the operation may likewise which to constrain
   customers to IPv6 content versus IPv4 if CGN is deployed in the
   future to deal with IPv4 address depletion.


5.  IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis

   Understanding the main IPv6 transition technologies and those related
   to dealing with IPv4 run out should be a primary goal of any
   operator.  Although this draft is not designed to list all options or
   to provide a full technical analysis of each of the identified
   technologies, it provides a brief description and explains some of
   the mainstream technological options can be used in an operator
   network.

   In this analysis, common automatic tunnelling, provider controlled
   tunnelling, translation and native modes of operations are
   considered.  The analysis also includes technologies such as NAT64
   which may not be appropriate for near term wireline transition due to
   the nature of the home network.  This analysis is also focused
   primarily on the applicability of technologies to deliver residential
   services and less focused on commercial or support for the provider's
   infrastructure.  It is assume the operator is able to Dual Stack
   their own core network and transition their own services to support
   IPv6.

5.1.  Automatic Tunnelling using 6to4 and Teredo

   Operators may not be actively deploying IPv6, but automatic
   mechanisms do exist on deployed operating systems and hardware that
   should be of note.  Such technologies include 6to4 described within
   [RFC3056] which is mostly commonly used in a deployment mode using
   anycast relays as described in [RFC3068].  Additionally, Teredo
   [RFC4380] is also used widely by many Internet hosts as a means to
   reach the IPv6 world when no native or operator provided path is made
   present.

   The operator may not want or have intended for these technologies to
   be active in their networks, but should be aware that the traffic
   exists.  The operator may be inclined to provide the best possible



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   experience for endpoints using automatic tunnelling technologies.
   Documents such as [RFC6343] have been written to help operators
   understand observed problems and provide guidelines on how to manage
   such protocols.  An Operator may want to incrementally provide local
   relays for 6to4 and/or Teredo to help improve the protocol's
   performance for ambient traffic utilizing these IPv6 connectivity
   methods.  Experiences such as those described in [I-D.jjmb-v6ops-
   comcast-ipv6-experiences] show that local relays have proved
   beneficial to 6to4 protocol performance.

   Operators should also be aware of breakage cases for 6to4 if non-
   RFC1918 address are used for CGN zones.  Many off the shelf CPEs and
   operating systems may turn on 6to4 without a valid return path to the
   originating (local) host.  This particular use can is likely to occur
   if squat space (not assigned to local operator) is used in place of
   RFC1918 space or if Shared CGN Space is used [I-D.weil-shared-
   transition-space-request].  The operator can used options such as
   6to4-PMT to help mitigate this issue as described in [I-D.kuarsingh-
   v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] or attempt to block 6to4
   operation entirely.

5.2.  Carrier Grade NAT (NAT444)

   Carrier Grade NAT (GGN), specifically as deployed in a NAT444
   scenario [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements], is also a relevant
   technology.  Although CGN is not a IPv6 specific function, it may
   prove beneficial for those operators who offer Dual Stack services to
   customer endpoints once they exhaust their pools of IPv4 addresses.
   CGNs, and address sharing overall, are known to cause certain
   challenges for the IPv4 service path as described in documents like
   [RFC6269], but will often be necessary for a time.

   In a network where IPv4 address availability is low or no new
   addressees can be assigned to Internet hosts, a CGN deployment may be
   a viable way to provide continued access to the IPv4 path.  Other
   technologies may also be used, but a provider may choose to use this
   method earlier on since it's a well understood method of delivering
   IPv4 connectivity - notwithstanding the challenges of CGN and address
   sharing.  Some of the advantages of using CGN include the
   similarities in provisioning and activation IPv4 hosts within a
   network and operational procedures in managing such hosts or CPEs
   (i.e.  DHCPv6, DNSv4, TFTP, TR-069 etc).

   When considered in the overall IPv6 transition, CGN may play a vital
   role in the delivery of Internet services.






Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


5.3.  6RD

   6RD as described in [RFC5969] does provide a quick and effective way
   to deliver IPv6 services to access network endpoints which do not yet
   support Native IPv6 on the operator's access network (WAN Side
   connection). 6RD provides tunnelled connectivity to IPv6 over the
   existing IPv4 path.  The lack of Native IPv6 support at customer
   premise may be related to technological challenges of delivering IPv6
   on a given access type or related to other operational or technical
   impediments that may existing in the operator's network.

   6RD defiantly offers a solid early transition option to operators by
   eliminating the bottle neck of needing to deploy Native IPv6 to the
   access edge and customer CPE.  Over time, as the access edge is
   upgraded and customer premise equipment is replaced, 6RD can be
   superseded by Native IPv6 access. 6RD can be delivered along with
   CGN, but this mode of operation would be a sub-optimal way of
   delivering service since the operator would then need to relay all
   IPv6 traffic as well as provide NAT functionally for all Internet
   bound IPv4 flows.

   6RD may also be seen as advantageous during early transition while
   IPv6 traffic volumes are low.  During this period, the operator can
   gain experience with IPv6 on the core and improve their peering
   framework to match those of the IPv4 service.  Scaling of 6RD may be
   required by adding relays to the operator's network, but since 6RD is
   stateless, this task is quite manageable.  In the case where CGN is
   used, there are stateful considerations to be made on the NATed IPv4
   path.

   Operators may want to use 6RD, as noted, while traffic volumes are
   low and while internal services are mainly on IPv4.  As higher
   capacities are reached on the IPv6 path, the operator may want to
   move away from delivering heavy loads on a tunnelled connection. 6RD
   can continue to run indefinitely if the operator wishes to continue
   this service, but over time, Native IPv6 would be a much more
   efficient way of delivering robust IPv6 services.

   Of specific consideration for 6RD is the client support required
   needed at the CPE.  Most currently deployed CPEs do not have 6RD
   client functionality built into them and may or may not be
   upgradable. 6RD deployments would most likely require the replacement
   of the home CPE.  An advantage of this technology over DS-Lite is
   that the WAN side interface does not need to implement IPv6 to
   function correctly which may make it easier to deploy to field
   hardware which is restricted in memory footprint, processing power
   and storage space. 6RD will also require parameter configuration
   which can be powered by the operator through DHCPv4, manually



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   provisioned on the CPE or automatically through some other means.
   Manual provisioning would likely limit deployment scale.

5.4.  Native Dual Stack

   Native Dual Stack is often referred to as the "Gold Standard" of IPv6
   and IPv4 delivery.  It is a method of service delivery which is
   already used in many existing IPv6 deployments.  Native Dual Stack
   does however require that Native IPv6 be delivered to the customer
   premise.  This technology option is desirable in many cases and can
   be used immediately if the access network and customer premise
   equipment supports Native IPv6 to the operators access network.

   As time progresses, continued delivery new Native Dual Stack service
   connections may be challenging should the operator run out of free
   IPv4 addresses to assign to CPEs.  For a sub-set of the IPv6 Native
   Dual Stack Customers, operators may include NATed IPv4 path as an
   assist, leveraging CGN.  Delivering Native Dual Stack would require
   the operator's core and access network support IPv6.  Additionally,
   other systems like DHCPv6, DNS, and diagnostic/management facilities
   need to be upgraded to support IPv6.  The upgrade of such systems may
   often not be trivial.

5.5.  DS-Lite

   DS-Lite, as described in [RFC6333], is an architecturally desirable
   way of delivery both IPv4 and IPv6 services in an IPv4 constrained
   environment.  DS-Lite is able to provide IPv4 services to customer
   networks which are only addressed with IPv6.  DS-Lite uses tunnelling
   mechanisms to pass IPv4 traffic between the customer's network device
   (often a CPE) and the IPv4 internet using a provider managed AFTR.

   DS-Lite however can only be used where there are native IPv6
   facilities to the customer premise endpoint.  This may mean that the
   technology's use may not be viable during early transition.  The
   operator may also not want to use DS-Lite immediately after IPv6
   introduction as the organization may be development and maturing
   their IPv6 environment and may not want to subject the customers IPv4
   connection to the IPv6 path.  This is likely an early transition
   consideration and would diminish over time as IPv6 service delivery
   is matured.  The provider may also want to make sure that most of
   their internal services, and external provider content is available
   over IPv6 before deploying DS-Lite.  This would lower the overall
   load on the AFTR devices helping reduce cost and load on that layer
   of the network.  Nothing precludes an operator from using DS-Lite
   earlier in the transition, but the operator needs to be aware of the
   challenges that can arise.  If DS-Lite is used during early
   transition the operator will face scenario where they have support



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   personnel learning to troubleshoot IPv6 while this new protocol is
   supporting the legacy IPv4 service.

   One of the strongest benefits of DS-Lite is the technology's ability
   to facilitate continued growth of IPv4 services if required without
   the need to deploy more IPv4 addressees to customer endpoints.  This
   is quite advantageous as the transition period progresses and IPv4
   resources become more and more challenging to secure.

   Similar to 6RD, DS-Lite requires client support on the CPE to
   function.  Client functionality is likely to be more prevalent in the
   future as IPv6 capable (WAN side) CPEs begin to penetrate the market.
   This includes both retail and operator provided gateways.

5.6.  NAT64

   NAT64 as described in [RFC6146] provides the ability to connection
   IPv6-Only connected clients and hosts to IPv4 Servers (or other like
   hosts).  This technology, although useful in many circumstances, is
   not considered viable by many operators during early transition.
   NAT64 requires that the client, host or by extension the home
   network, supports IPv6-Only modes of operation.  This type of
   environment is not considered typical in most traditional Wireline
   connections.

   It is possible that in the future, NAT64 may become more viable for
   Wireline provides as home networking environments support IPv6-Only
   attachment modes, but until then, this technology is less useful for
   mass deployments in Wireline networks.  As noted earlier, alternate
   technologies such as DS-Lite which still provide in-home IPv4
   services though an IPv6-Only network (WAN) attachment are still of
   strong consideration.


6.  IPv6 Transition Phases

   The Phases described in this document are not provided as a ridged
   set of steps, but are considered a guideline which should be analyzed
   by an operator planning their IPv6 transition.  The phases presented
   reflect the need to support IPv4 and IPv6 during the early to mid-
   term transition.  The phased approach as presented in this document,
   attempts to match the most appropriate technologies for the various
   phases of the transition.  The other key point of note with respect
   to this position on transition is the relationship between selected
   IPv6 transition technologies and overall traffic flow volumes.

   During early transition, it is possible IPv6 traffic volumes will be
   present in most operator networks serving the Internet.  As time



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   moves on more content is becoming available over IPv6 so this
   variable must be monitored by the operator.  The early low volume
   conditions will most likely be attributable to IPv4-Only equipment in
   the home network and the Operator's access network.  During these
   earlier time periods, technologies which "tunnel" IPv6 may be quite
   appropriate as operators attempt to provide IPv6 before the access
   network supports it .  As time progresses and IPv6 traffic volumes
   rise, it may be desirable to provide a Native path for IPv6 service
   to better deal with the increased traffic volumes.  Over time, IPv4
   traffic volumes may be reduced as IPv6 traffic becomes the primary
   load in the Network.  As the IPv4 traffic volumes lower, the operator
   may consider tunnelling this traffic if IPv4 resources are depleted
   or in short supply.  Since the traffic levels are low, the scale
   needs to support this type of configuration would also be lower.

   The overall objective with the phases provided is to also make sure
   the operator has prepared a solid foundation for IPv6 Services and is
   able to supply this in a timely manor to the customer base.  Not all
   technologies which are technical available to the operator are
   included in this document and additional guidelines and information
   on utilizing IPv6 transition mechanisms can also be found in
   [RFC6180].

6.1.  Phase 0 - Foundation

   An operator considering an IPv6 service offering must initially be
   prepared to support it.  These preparation steps are likely be to
   somewhat unique to each operator, but some basic items are well
   known, or at least common to most environments.  These foundational
   steps include those listed below.

6.1.1.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Training

   Training is one of the most important steps in preparing an
   organization to support IPv6.  Most resources in an organization have
   little to no experience with IPv6.  Resources in organizations may
   only have a trivial understanding of IPv4 and given it's long history
   on the Internet, most may not be familiar with the intricacies of IP.
   Since there is likely to be many challenges with implementing IPv6
   due to immature code on hardware and the evolution of many
   applications and systems to support IPv6 - it is of utmost important
   that organizations train their staff on IPv6 (and IP in general to
   that point).

   Training should also be provided within reasonable timelines from
   actual IPv6 deployment.  This means the operator needs to plan in
   advance as they train the various parts of their organization.  New
   Technology and Engineering staff will require upfront training as



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   they plan and draw the designs for the network.  Operation staff
   which support the network and other systems need to be trained closer
   to the deployment timeframes allowing them to more immediately use
   their new found knowledge and limiting memory loss issues.  Customer
   support staff would require much more basic, but large scale training
   as may organizations have massive call centres to support the
   customer base.

6.1.2.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing

   The network infrastructure will need to be in place to support IPv6.
   This includes the routed infrastructure along with addressing
   principles, routing principles, peering and related network
   functions.  Since IPv6 is quite different from IPv4 in number of ways
   including the number of addresses which are made available, careful
   attention to a scalable and manageable architecture needs to be made.
   Also, given that home networks environments will no longer receive a
   token single address as is common in IPv4, operators will need to
   understand the impacts of delegating larges sums of addresses
   (Prefixes) to consumer endpoints.  Delegating prefixes can be of
   specific importance in access network environments where downstream
   customers often move between access nodes, raising the concern of
   frequent renumbering and/or managing movement of routed prefixes
   within the network (common in Cable based networks).

6.1.3.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security

   Like many principles, network policy and security needs to be
   considered for IPv6.  Although it is possible that many of the IPv4
   policies may transfer transparently over to the IPv6 world, others
   may not be straight forward.  There is also a potential that new
   policies need to be made to deal with issues specifically related to
   IPv6.  This document does not highlight these specific issues, but
   raises the awareness they are of consideration and should be
   addressed when delivering IPv6 services.

6.1.4.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture

   The operator may want to plan out their transition architecture in
   advance (with obvious room for flexibility) to help optimize how they
   will build out and scale their networks.  If the operator should want
   to use multiple technologies like CGN, DS-Lite and 6RD, they may want
   to plan out where such equipment may be located and potentially
   choose locations which can be used for all three functional roles
   (i.e. placement of NAT44 translator, AFTR and 6RD relays).  This
   would allow for the least disruption as the operator evolves the
   transition environment to meet the needs of the network.  This
   approach may also prove beneficial if traffic patterns change rapidly



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   in the future and the operator may need to evolve their network quick
   then originally anticipated.

   Operators should inform their vendors of what technologies they plan
   to support over the course of the transition to make sure the
   equipment is suited to support those modes of operation.  This is of
   importance for both network resident gear and more importantly CPEs.
   Once deployed it's difficult and expensive to replace equipment.
   Vendors need to be brief and ready to pre-load or upgrade their
   systems to support the technology suites planned for deployment.

6.1.5.  Phase 0- Foundation: Tools and Management

   Although many of the tools and and service management systems may
   change over the course of the IPv6 transition, this area is of
   specific note.  The operator may want to do a thorough analysis in
   advance as to what systems will need to be modified to deal with the
   interowrking models related to IPv6 service delivery.  This will
   include address concepts related to the 128-bit addressing field, the
   notation of an assigned IPv6 prefix (PD) and the ability to detect
   either or both address families when determining if a customer has
   full Internet service.

   If an operator stores usage information, this would need to be
   aggregated to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 traffic flows.  Also,
   tools. that verify connectivity may need to query or interrogate the
   IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

6.2.  Phase 1 - Tunnelled IPv6

   During the initial phase of transition the operator may want to
   support IPv6 Services before Native IPv6 can be supported by the
   access network.  During this period of time, tunnelled access to IPv6
   is a viable alternative to Native IPv6.  Providers can deploy relays
   for automatic tunnelling technologies like 6to4 and Teredo, and can
   more importantly deploy technologies like 6RD.  It should be noted
   that technologies like 6to4 and Teredo do not share the same address
   selection behaviours as those like 6RD as per address [RFC3484].
   Additional guidelines on deploying and supporting 6to4 can be found
   in [RFC6343].

   The operator can deploy 6RD relays quite easily and scale them as
   needed to meet the early customer needs of IPv6.  Since 6RD requires
   the upgrade or replacement of most CPEs, the operator may want ensure
   that the CPEs support not just 6RD but Native Dual Stack and other
   tunnelling technologies if possible. 6RD client side deployments are
   now available in some retail channel products and within the OEM
   market making it a viable option for a wide range of operators.



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   Retail availability of 6RD is important since not all operators
   control or have influence over what equipment is deployed in the
   consumer home network which connects to the operator's network.


                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                       Encap IPv6 Flow |  6RD   |      |  IPv6   |
                                - - -> |  BR    | <- > |   Net   |
          +---------+         /        |        |       \       /
          |         |        /         +--------+         -----
          |   6RD   + <-----                              -----
          |         |                                   /       \
          |  Client |         IPv4 Flow                |  IPv4   |
          |         + < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> |   Net   |
          |         |                                   \       /
          +---------+                                     -----


                         Figure 1: 6RD Basic Model

   If the operator is able to support Native IPv6 right away, they may
   want to skip this phase.  However, the operator may still want to
   deploy 6to4 and/or Teredo relays to assist connectivity for IPv4-Only
   connected customers which may have hosts using those protocols. 6RD
   used as an initial phase technology also provides the added benefit
   of a deterministic IPv6 prefix which is based on the IPv4 assigned
   address.  Many operational tools are available or have been built to
   identify what IPv4 (often dynamic) address was assigned to a customer
   host/CPE.  So a simple tool and/or method can be built to help the
   operational folks in an organization know what the IPv6 prefix is for
   6RD based on to knowledge of the IPv4 address.

   An operator may choose to not offer internal services over IPv6 if
   such services generate a large amount of traffic.  This mode of
   operation should avoid the need to greatly increase the scale of the
   6RD Relay environment.

6.2.1.  6RD Deployment Considerations

   Deploying 6RD can greatly speed up an operators ability to support
   IPv6 to the customer network.  If considering deploying 6RD, an
   operator may want to consider who the system would be deployed,
   provisioned, scaled and managed.  The operator may have additional
   considerations particular to their environment but these represent
   the core items which should be addressed.

   The first core consideration is deployment models. 6RD requires the



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   CPE (6RD client) to send traffic to a 6RD relay.  These relays can
   often share a common anycast address or use unique addresses.  Both
   of these options are viable but each share benefits and challenges.
   Anycast options exist since 6RD is stateless by nature.  Using an
   anycast model, the operator can deploy all the 6RD relays using the
   same IPv4 interior service address.  As the load increases on the
   deployed relays, the operator can deploy more relays into the
   network.  The one drawback here is that it may be difficult to
   control large segments (or small segments) of the 6RD customer base
   as placement of the relays (in proximity to client) is the only way
   to steer traffic to new or alternate nodes.  Proximity in this case
   actually refers to netowrk cost (i.e. in IGP) and not necessarily
   actual physical distance (although these can often be related).  Use
   of specific addresses can help provide more control but has the
   disadvantage of being more complex to provision as CPEs will contain
   different information.  An alternative approach is to use a hybrid
   model using multiple anycast service IPs for clusters of 6RD relays
   should the operator anticipate massive scaling of the environment.
   This way, the operator has multiple vectors by which to scale the
   service.


                                              +--------+
                                              |        |
                                IPv4 Addr.X   |  6RD   |
                                     - - - >  |   BR   |
               +-----------+        /         |        |
               | Client A  | <- - -           +--------+
               +-----------+
                             Separate IPv4 Service Addresses
               +-----------+
               | Client B  | < - -            +--------+
               +-----------+       \          |        |
                                     - - - >  |  6RD   |
                                IPv4 Addr.Y   |   BR   |
                                              |        |
                                              +--------+


             Figure 2: 6RD Multiple IPv4 Service Address Model











Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


                                            +--------+
                                            |        |
                              IPv4 Addr.X   |  6RD   |
                                   - - - >  |   BR   |
             +-----------+        /         |        |
             | Client A  |- - - -           +--------+
             +-----------+
                       Common (Anycast) IPv4 Service Addresses
             +-----------+
             | Client B  | - - -            +--------+
             +-----------+       \          |        |
                                   - - - >  |  6RD   |
                              IPv4 Addr.X   |   BR   |
                                            |        |
                                            +--------+


             Figure 3: 6RD Anycast IPv4 Service Address Model

   Provisioning of the endpoints is of consideration to the operator.
   This provisioning is also impacted by the deployment model chose
   (i.e.  Anycast vs. specific service IPs).  Using multiple IPs may
   require more planning and management as CPEs will have different sets
   of data to be provisioned into the devices.  The operator will also
   need to decide if they will use DHCPv4, manual provisioning or other
   mechanisms to set the parameters into the CPEs.

   If the operator wishes to managed the CPEs they will need to have
   access to new management tools or functions which are able to report
   the status of the 6RD tunnel to the inquiring support personnel.
   Also, if an operator needs to collect usage information, they would
   need to understand where this operation can take place.  If the usage
   information includes understanding actual source/destination flow
   details, this information would likley be best collected after the
   6RD relay (IPv6 side of connection).  The operator will also need to
   be mindful of what tools they will need to manage such connections.


       +---------+  IPv4 Encapsulation  +------------+
       |         +- - - - - - - - - - - +            |
       |   6RD   +----------------------+     6RD    +---------
       |         |   IPv6 Packet        |    Relay   | IPv6 Packet
       | Client  +----------------------+            +---------
       |         +- - - - - - - - - - - +            |      ^
       +---------+  ^                   +------------+      |
                    |                                       |
                    |                                       |
                IPv4 IP (Tools/Mgmt)               IPv6 Flow Analysis



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


                  Figure 4: 6RD Tools and Flow Management

6.3.  Phase 2: Native Dual Stack

   Either as a follow-up phase to "Tunnelled IPv6" or as an initial
   step, the operator may deploy Native IPv6 to the customer premise.
   This phase would then allow for both IPv6 and IPv4 to be natively
   accessed by the customer home gateway/CPE.  The Native Dual Stack
   phase be rolled out across the network while the tunnelled IPv6
   service remains running.  As areas begin to support Native IPv6,
   customer home equipment can be set to use it in place of technologies
   like 6RD.  If 6to4 and/or Teredo was the sole method of connectivity
   prior to IPv6 service deliver then the internal home network hosts
   will naturally prefer the IPv6 address delivered via Native IPv6
   (assumed to be a Delegated Prefix as per [RFC3769]).

   As one of the most desirable options, Native Dual Stack should be
   sought as soon as possible if the operator's network allows.  During
   this phase, the operator can confidently move both internal and
   external services to IPv6.  Since there are no translation devices
   needed for this mode of operation, it allows both protocols (IPv6 and
   IPv4) to work efficiently within the network.  Efficiency in this
   context refers to the need (or lack there of) to translate, tunnel,
   incrementally route or relay customer traffic within the operator's
   network.

6.3.1.  Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations

   Native Dual Stack is a very desirable option for deployment.  That
   said, it also requires a number of things to be in place before IPv6
   it should be turned on.  The operator is assumed to have a fully
   operational IPv6 network core and peering before they attempt to turn
   on Native IPv6 services.  Additionally, supporting systems such as
   DHCPv6, DNS6 and other functions which support the customers IPv6
   Internet connection need to be in place.

   The operator will need make sure the IPv6 environment is stable and
   secure to ensure fluid operation.  Poor IPv6 service may be worse
   then not offering an IPv6 service at all.  Given that many platforms
   have very recent code which has enabled IPv6 or other functions which
   support IPv6 operation, instability may be experienced at first.  The
   operator will need to be fully aware of the IPv6 service and it's
   attributes to make sure they catch erroneous behaviour and address it
   promptly.

   Of particular importance is the management of delegated prefixes.
   Prefix assignment and routing is a new concept for common residential
   services.  The ability to assign the IPv6 prefix may be somewhat



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   strait forward (DHCPv6 using IA_PDs) but installation and propagation
   of this information is not.  Operators who may see access layer
   instability impacting service if the route is not re-installed.
   Incrementally the operator may often re-assign customers to new IP
   Access nodes (such as in a Cable network) may need to consider this
   as PD information may not be transferable to the new location.

   Operators will also needs to build new tools that help managed the
   IPv6 connection and will need to update systems to keep track of both
   the dynamically assigned IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.  Any additional
   dynamic elements, such as auto-generated DNS names, need to be
   considered and planed for.

6.4.  Intermediate Phase for CGN

   As some point during the first two phases, acquiring more IPv4
   addresses may become challenging or impossible, therefore CGN may be
   required on the IPv4 path.  The CGN infrastructure can be enabled if
   needed during either phase.  CGN is less optimal in a 6RD deployment
   (if used with 6RD to a given endpoint) since all traffic must
   transverse some type of operator service node (relay and translator).


                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                             IPv4 Flow |  CGN   |      |         |
                                - - -> +        + < -> |         |
          +---------+         /        |        |      |         |
          |   CPE   | <- - - /         +--------+      |  IPv4   |
          |---------+                                  |   Net   |
                                                       |         |
          +---------+         IPv4 Flow                |         |
          |   CPE   | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > |         |
          |---------+                                   \       /
                                                          -----


                     Figure 5: Overlay CGN Deployment

   In the case of Native Dual Stack, CGN can be used to assist in
   extending connectivity for the IPv4 path while the IPv6 path remains
   native.  For endpoints operating in a IPv6+CGN model the Native IPv6
   path is available for higher quality connectivity helping host
   operation over the network while the CGN path may offer a less then
   optimal performance.






Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                             IPv4 Flow |  CGN   |      |  IPv4   |
                                - - -> +        + < -> |   Net   |
          +---------+         /        |        |       \       /
          |         | <- - - /         +--------+        -------
          |   Dual  |
          |  Stack  |                                     -----
          |   CPE   |         IPv6 Flow                 / IPv6  \
          |         | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > |   Net   |
          |---------+                                   \       /
                                                          -----


                       Figure 6: Dual Stack with CGN

   CGN deployments may make use of a number of address options which
   include RFC1918 or Shared CGN Address Space [I-D.weil-shared-
   transition-space-request].  It is also possible that operators may
   use part of their own RIR assigned address space for CGN zone
   addressing if RFC918 address pose technical challenges in their
   network.  It is not recommended that operators use squat space as it
   may pose additional challenges with filtering and policy control.

6.4.1.  CGN Deployment Considerations

   CGN is often considered undesirable by operators but required in many
   cases.  An operator who needs to deploy CGN services should consider
   it's impacts to the network.  CGN is often deployed in addition to
   running IPv4 services and should not negatively impact the already
   working Native IPv4 service.  CGNs will also be needed at low scale
   at first and grown to meet future demands based on traffic and
   connection dynamics of the customer, content and network peers.

   The operator may want to deploy CGNs more centrally at first and then
   scale the system as needed.  This approach can help conserve costs of
   the system and only spend money on equipment with the actual growth
   of traffic (demand on CGN system).  The operator will need a
   deployment model and architecture which allows the system to scale as
   needed.











Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                                       |  CGN   |      |         |
                                - - -> +        + < -> |         |
          +---------+         /        |        |      |         |
          |   CPE   | <- - - /         +--------+      |  IPv4   |
          |         |                      ^           |         |
          |---------+                      |           |   Net   |
                           +--------+    Centralized   |         |
          +---------+      |        |       CGN        |         |
          |         |      |  CGN   |                  |         |
          |   CPE   | <- > +        + <- - - - - - - > |         |
          |---------+      |        |                   \       /
                           +--------+                     -----
                               ^
                               |
                           Distributed CGN


           Figure 7: CGN Deployment: Centralized vs. Distributed

   CGNs also increase the demands (potentially) for operators due to new
   phenomenon related to shared addressing.  This includes logging of
   translation information for lawful response.  This logging may
   require significant investment in external systems which ingest,
   aggregate and report on such information.

6.5.  Phase 3 - Tunnelled IPv4

   Over time, the operator will mature the IPv6 service and have more
   ubiquitous coverage within the network.  Once the operator is
   familiar with IPv6, tools have been developed and operational
   procedures refined, more efficient modes of connectivity can be
   enabled.  Once such technology is DS-Lite.  DS-Lite allows the
   operator to grow the IPv4 customer base if needed without the need to
   deploy more IPv4 addresses to customer home networks.  DS-Lite still
   requires IPv4 address sharing for IPv4 Internet connectivity, but
   this is seen as no worse and often more advantageous then CGN (NAT44)
   because only a single layer of NAT is required.

   The operator can also move endpoints (Dual Stack) to DS-Lite
   retroactively in an attempt to reclaim IPv4 addresses for
   redeployment.  Redeployment of addressees may be desirable if IPv4
   resources are needed for legacy equipment and service connections
   which cannot be upgraded to IPv4 and no new IPv4 addressees can be
   acquired otherwise.  The operator may want to have already moved most
   external content and internal content to IPv6 before this phase
   implemented.  By having a significant amount of traffic on IPv6, the



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   operator would limit the amount of translation resources which are
   needed at the AFTR layer to support IPv4 flows.  This would also be a
   benefit to the customer as their traffic need not be translated by a
   operator device improving performance.
                                        +--------+      -----
                                        |        |    /       \
                        Encap IPv4 Flow |  AFTR  |   |  IPv4   |
                                 -------+        +---+   Net   |
           +---------+         /        |        |    \       /
           |         |        /         +--------+      -----
           | DS-Lite +-------                           -----
           |         |                                /       \
           |  Client |         IPv6 Flow             |  IPv6   |
           |         +-------------------------------|   Net   |
           |         |                                \       /
           +---------+                                  -----

                       Figure 8: DS-Lite Basic Model

   If the operator was forced to enable CGN for a NAT444 deployment,
   they may be able to co-locate the AFTR and CGN functions within the
   network to simplify capacity management and the engineering of flows.
   This phase can also co-exist with Native Dual Stack if desired since
   the same basic foundation is needed for both technologies on the IPv6
   side.  DS-Lite however requires incremental functions in the network
   such as the programming of the CPE and the implementation of the
   AFTRs'.

6.5.1.  DS-Lite Deployment Considerations

   DS-Lite although quite useful has a number of considerations for the
   operator.  First all the same deployment considerations associated
   with Native IPv6 deployments are applicable to DS-LIte.  The IPv6
   network and service must be running well to ensure a quality
   experience for the end customer.  IPv4 will now be subject to IPv6
   service quality - this is a very important point.  Tools will need be
   written or used to help manage the encapsulated IPv4 service which to
   not likely exist in most operators arsenal today.  If flow analysis
   is required for IPv4 traffic, this may need to be enabled at a point
   beyond the AFTR or the operator will need equipment that can
   decapsulate DS-Lite to see inside the packets.










Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


     +---------+  IPv4 Encapsulation  +------------+
     |         + - - - - - - - - - - -+            |
     | DS-Lite +----------------------+    AFTR    +---------
     |         |   IPv4 Packet        |            | IPv4 Packet
     | Client  +----------------------+            +---------
     |         + - - - - - - - - - - -+            |      ^
     +---------+  ^                   +------------+      |
                  |                                       |
                  |                                       |
           IPv6 IP (Tools/Mgmt)               IPv4 Packet Flow Analysis


                 Figure 9: DS-Lite Tools and Flow Analysis

   DS-Lite also requires client support.  If the operator has chose to
   have a vendor support multiple transition technologies, the
   activation logic will need to be clearly articulated such that the
   correct behaviour is manifest in the network.  As an example, an
   operator may use 6RD in the outset of the transition, then move to
   Native Dual Stack followed by DS-LIte.


7.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA considerations are defined at this time.


8.  Security Considerations

   No Additional Security Considerations are made in this document.


9.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following people for their textual contributions and/or
   guidance on IPv6 deployment considerations: John Brzozowski, Lee
   Howard, Jason Weil, Nik Lavorato, John Cianfarani, Chris Donley,
   Wesley George and Tina TSOU.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework]
              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and V. Kuarsingh, "Framework for
              IP Version Transition Scenarios",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-02 (work in progress),



Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


              July 2011.

   [RFC6180]  Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6
              Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180,
              May 2011.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
              Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Chandrasekaran, A.,
              and V. Ganti, "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network
              Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 (work in
              progress), October 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
              Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NAT
              (CGN)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-03 (work in
              progress), August 2011.

   [I-D.jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences]
              Brzozowski, J. and C. Griffiths, "Comcast IPv6 Trial/
              Deployment Experiences",
              draft-jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences-02 (work in
              progress), October 2011.

   [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel]
              Kuarsingh, V., Lee, Y., and O. Vautrin, "6to4 Provider
              Managed Tunnels",
              draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-04
              (work in progress), September 2011.

   [I-D.weil-shared-transition-space-request]
              Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
              M. Azinger, "IANA Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared CGN
              Space", draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-07
              (work in progress), October 2011.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

   [RFC3068]  Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
              RFC 3068, June 2001.




Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft          Wireline Incremental IPv6           October 2011


   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [RFC3769]  Miyakawa, S. and R. Droms, "Requirements for IPv6 Prefix
              Delegation", RFC 3769, June 2004.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              February 2006.

   [RFC5969]  Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
              Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
              RFC 5969, August 2010.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              June 2011.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

   [RFC6343]  Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment",
              RFC 6343, August 2011.


Author's Address

   Victor Kuarsingh (editor)
   Rogers Communications
   8200 Dixie Road
   Brampton, Ontario  L6T 0C1
   Canada

   Email: victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com
   URI:   http://www.rogers.com











Kuarsingh                Expires April 11, 2012                [Page 27]


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