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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Internet Engineering Task Force                                 J. Palet
Internet-Draft                                                   M. Diaz
Expires: April 24, 2005                                      Consulintel
                                                               P. Savola
                                                               CSC/FUNET
                                                        October 24, 2004



         Analysis of IPv6 Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms
                 draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-02.txt


Status of this Memo


   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.


   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.


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


   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.


   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.


   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 24, 2005.


Copyright Notice


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).


Abstract


   Tunneling is commonly used in several IPv6 transition mechanisms.  To
   be able to automate setting up tunnels, one critical component is
   being able to automatically determine the tunnel end-point for the
   tunneling mechanism.  This memo analyses the different approaches for
   configuring the IPv6 tunnel endpoint on a node.




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



Table of Contents


   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Scenarios for Tunnel Endpoint Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1   Scenario 1: Initial IPv6 Deployment Stage  . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2   Scenario 2: Initial IPv6 Support from External ISP . . . .  4
     2.3   Scenario 3: Nomadic Users  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.4   Scenario 4: Advanced IPv6 Deployment Stage . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Analysis of Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1   Shared-unicast -based Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2   Centralized Broker-based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.3   DNS-based Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.3.1   Prefixing the DNS Search Path  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4   DHCP-based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.5   PPP-based Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.6   SLP-based Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.6.1   Remote Service Discovery through SLP-based
               Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.7   Combined Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   4.  Conclusions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   8.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 16


























Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



1.  Introduction


   Tunneling is commonly used in several IPv6 transition mechanisms.  It
   is critically important to make setting up IPv6 connectivity simpler,
   so that it can be done simply also by IPv6-ignorant, novice users, or
   even completely transparently, without the user even having to know
   that IPv6 connectivity has been obtained.


   One critical piece in the automated set-up is discovering the
   end-point for the IPv6-in-IPv4 (or possibly in the future,
   IPv4-in-IPv6) tunnel.  Note that the other end-point ("tunnel
   server") typically also needs to have a means to configure the
   client's end-point, but that is assumed to be transition mechanism
   specific, and beyond the scope of this memo.  A solution is being
   designed [1] based on the tunnel server/broker concept [2] which
   will, in particular, require this kind of discovery.


   Many already-specified mechanisms already include a form of
   auto-discovery: for example, 6to4 [3] uses global anycast [4] and/or
   vendor's branch of DNS, Teredo [5] uses vendor's branch of DNS, and
   ISATAP [6] uses search-path -prefixed DNS.


2.  Scenarios for Tunnel Endpoint Discovery


   At least three scenarios can be identified where tunnel endpoint
   discovery would be useful.


2.1  Scenario 1: Initial IPv6 Deployment Stage


   During the initial IPv6 deployment stage, the ISPs may not provide
   native IPv6 connectivity, at least in the access network.  However,
   the ISP might offer IPv6 connectivity (probably for free) through an
   automatically set-up tunnel.


   In this scenario, the users (or rather, their operating systems) need
   to be capable of automatically detecting whether the user's ISP is
   offering such service or not, and setting up the tunnel if available.


   If this kind of IPv6 connectivity is set up automatically, it could
   create a load on the ISP's equipment which is configured as the
   tunnel-endpoint (e.g., a tunnel server).  This is particularly
   important if state needs to be maintained.  To address this
   consideration, the discovery method should allow for multiple
   end-points within a domain or even including a load-balancing
   mechanism.







Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



2.2  Scenario 2: Initial IPv6 Support from External ISP


   During the initial IPv6 deployment stage, the ISPs might not support
   IPv6 at all; there are thousands of ISPs, and many certainly won't be
   supporting IPv6 any time soon.  The customers of those ISPs then have
   to use automatic tunneling mechanisms such as 6to4 or Teredo, or get
   a third-party ISP for IPv6 connectivity.


   In this scenario, the users (in general their operating systems) may
   have a capability of automatically selecting a third-party ISP which
   is servicing outsiders.  The service is often free of charge.  The
   discovery process could either detect the closest serving end-point,
   or pick the one manually configured by the user.


   Given the fact that IPv6 service could be offered by third parties,
   some kind of authentication could be required in order to allow only
   registered customers to use the IPv6 service.  The authentication
   method will depend on the transition mechanism, so it is out of scope
   of this memo.


2.3  Scenario 3: Nomadic Users


   Nomadic users require connectivity to Internet from everywhere, from
   different locations: meetings, conferences, holidays, etc.  Under
   this circumstance (always) obtaining native IPv6 connectivity is not
   feasible.  The user has two choices: to discover a local tunnel (with
   different IPv6 addresses and prefixes) if provided by the local ISP,
   or to connect to the "home ISP" or "home network", implying the
   possibility of keeping the same addresses.


   A local tunnel is typically a preferable choice, and could also be
   used as a Mobile IPv6 [7] care-of address.  However, in many cases,
   the local ISP may not be providing a tunnel service.


   Connecting to a "home provider" to obtain the tunnel is typically a
   safe choice, provided that the "home provider" allows IPv4 addresses
   outside its own domain to use its tunnel services; at the very least,
   typically this will require some sort of authentication.  However,
   especially when roaming on a different continent as the home network,
   the latencies, etc., may be undesirable, so one might want to keep
   this only as a backup option in case other approaches fail.


   The whole process for having a new IPv6 tunnel with a new provider
   should be as transparent as possible in order to avoid that users
   need to manually re-register or change the configuration in their
   host.  It would be desirable that the architecture enables the users
   to get connected and re-connected to the nearest tunnel end-point
   without manual intervention (for example when moving).




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



2.4  Scenario 4: Advanced IPv6 Deployment Stage


   When the IPv6 deployment is in a more advanced stage, namely more
   users in more places looking for IPv6 connectivity, it is possible
   that ISPs providing IPv6 connectivity need to start a broader
   deployment.  For a best IPv6 service, it is feasible that they
   increase the performance by using a tunnel end-point cluster
   geographically distributed to cover a country, etc.  Furthermore they
   could offer the users only one of the methods proposed below for
   accessing the IPv6 connectivity.  Each time users get IPv6
   connectivity, they could use the same accessing method but they could
   be assigned to different tunnel end-point belonging the cluster.


   Under this schema, some kind of load balancing could be required in
   order to distribute the load among the ISP resources.


   In order to let all the candidate tunnel end-points to know the
   configuration of the previous user's tunnels, some kind of tunnel
   management should be defined.  However it is strongly dependant on
   the transition mechanism used, so it is out of the scope of this
   document.


   In any case, as stated before, the whole process for obtaining a new
   IPv6 tunnel with a new TS should be as much transparent as possible
   in order to avoid that users need to manually re-register or change
   the configuration in their host.  It would be desirable that the
   architecture makes the users get connected and re-connected to the
   nearest tunnel end-point without manual intervention.


3.  Analysis of Solutions


   Several possible solutions to discovering the tunnel end-point can be
   imagined; this section describes them in detail.


3.1  Shared-unicast -based Solutions


   An "anycast" (shared-unicast by some terminology: see [8]) address
   identifies a group of hosts, usually server hosts.  When a client
   sends a datagram to a shared-unicast address, it is delivered to one
   of the shared-unicast servers based on the routing topology and
   metrics.


   There are two possible ways of using "anycast": as a global service
   (where a shared-unicast prefix is the same for everyone, and
   advertised in the Inter-domain routing) or as a local service, where
   the service provider is sharing one of its own addresses on multiple
   nodes for example for load-balancing or redundancy reasons.





Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



   Global "anycast" might be best applicable in scenario 2, to
   automatically discover the closest serving third party ISP.  However,
   this raises the question of feasibility of that scenario.  Local
   "anycast" can be combined with other solutions, described later, to
   seamlessly provide multiple tunnel end-points inside a single domain.


   A packet to a shared-unicast address may end up being delivered to
   more than one node.  In addition, there is no guarantee that two
   consecutive datagrams sent from the same host towards the same
   shared-unicast address are going to be delivered to the same node.
   However, when the routing topology is stable and metrics are
   well-designed, the packets are regularly delivered to the same nodes.


   It is also possible to only use an "anycast" address only for the
   initial handshake, to establish a stable unicast address of the
   end-point and to perform some initial negotiation (an example of such
   is described in [9]).


3.2  Centralized Broker-based Solutions


   Inside a single administrative domain, it would also be possible to
   deploy a centralized server or a "broker", which should know,
   probably in real-time, the status of all the associated end-points.
   Furthermore, it could, by using some means, redirect the users the
   correct end-points.  This mechanism would still need another
   complementary approach to find the centralized broker.


   This approach is highly assumptive of the tunneling set-up mechanism,
   and likely requires the implementation of lengthy
   redirection/negotiation features.  As such, its applicability is not
   further analyzed here.


   The selection of the proper TEP would be based on information about
   TEP loads and network metrics collected by several ways, such as RTTs
   measured by network probes, routing protocol information, and so
   forth.  The user will need to connect to the selected TEP either by
   using the DNS system, when the client tries to resolve the host name,
   or by mean of whatever other mechanism defined, which possibly will
   require an specific code implementation on both centralized server
   and clients.


   Applying a centralized model over multiple administrative domains,
   e.g., having a single server for the whole Internet, would be
   administratively and management-wise unfeasible.  Nevertheless,
   agreements between several domains could make possible sophisticated
   models.


   In summary, the main drawbacks of this solution are:




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



   1.  Centralized server is a single-point-of-failure.  All the
       discovery service depends on the reliability of the server.


   2.  The implementation of a method to verify the load and RTTs of
       TEPs can be very complex and it can require external
       infrastructure such as network probes.


   3.  It can require the installation of specific software on both
       centralized server and clients to negotiate the proper TEP.


   4.  Seems to bring additional operational and protocol complexity
       (more complicated model, more boxes you need to communicate with
       meaning more packets sent and received, etc.).


   Of course, it will be possible to set-up complex redundant
   infrastructures to cope with some of those drawbacks.


   The fundamental question here is what benefits the centralized
   broker-based model could offer compared to a simpler model.  Possibly
   many of those things which are often attributed to tunnel brokers can
   be done without them, but there may be some which are not as easy.
   Therefore, when evaluating the solutions, it will be important to be
   able to contrast the real benefits of the solution vs the drawbacks.


3.3  DNS-based Solutions


   As DNS is globally deployed and easy to use, it could provide a means
   for discovering the end-point address.


   There are roughly three kinds of different approaches with DNS-based
   discovery:


   1.  "global name": the systems look up a globally unique name, like
       www.tunnel-server.net.; this could be applicable with
       (unfeasible) global inter-domain broker or anycast-based
       solutions, and is therefore not considered at more length.


   2.  "vendor branch": the operating system vendors may provide a DNS
       record which is looked up (e.g., "6to4.windows.microsoft.com."),
       giving the vendor some control over already deployed systems.
       This is typically only feasible to configure a global anycast
       address, or provide the address of the vendor's own service, and
       is not applicable in a multi-vendor environment, and is not
       considered further.


   3.  "prefixing the search path" [10]: one could look up a
       service-specific special string, like "_tunnel-server", appended
       by the DNS search path, e.g., "isp.example.com", resulting in a




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



       query of "_tunnel-server.isp.example.com".  This assumes that the
       DNS search path is provided by the ISP, and used by the user;
       this applies to most users (advanced users may have their own
       domain names, own DNS servers, etc., but those could be expected
       to manually configure the end-point information).  This is the
       most interesting approach, explored at more length below.


   The special string could be more complex and make reference somehow
   to the transition mechanism it will accept, i.e.  6to4_tunnel-server,
   6in4_tunnel-server, teredo_tunnel-server, any_tunnel-server and so
   on.


   All of these approaches are typically coupled with a manual override
   option, which can be used by the knowledgeable users to look up
   different names or to specify the IP address completely.


3.3.1  Prefixing the DNS Search Path


   Prefixing the search path bears a bit more analysis.  There a couple
   of fundamental questions: where to store the records (i.e., the
   prefix to use, and what to do with the conflicts), and how to store
   the information (i.e., whether to use A/AAAA records, other records).


   There are at least three concrete possibilities for how to store the
   information:


   1.  "A/AAAA/CNAME records": one could use just the regular records
       for storing the end-point address or name.  A drawback is that
       there is a slightly higher probability of collision, depending on
       the service identifier used.  The advantage is that it's very
       simple to implement and use.  This also doesn't offer advanced
       load-balancing features, beyond those already provided by DNS
       round-robin techniques [11].


   2.  "SRV records": SRV records were created specifically for service
       discovery and load-balancing, mainly as a means to provide the
       users (also external users) knowledge of services within a
       domain.  Quite this amount of unambiguity would not be needed if
       the service identifier is unique enough and only used internally.
       A slight drawback is that SRV records require slightly more
       implementation and possibly more round-trips (if the results
       aren't cached).  However they could be assumed considering the
       advantages that this solution offers.


   3.  "NAPTR records": NAPTR records provide even more flexibility than
       SRV records.  The drawback compared to SRV is even more
       implementation and more round-trips.  Furthermore, additional
       drawbacks of this solution are its complexity and the scarcity of




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



       support on both DNS servers and DNS resolvers.


   The question of where to store the information has a few tradeoffs,
   also depending on how the information is being stored.  Using a
   commonly used name as a service identifier coupled with A/AAAA
   records would likely lead to false positives.  On the other hand, if
   a prefix like '_tunnel-server' would be chosen, it would be quite
   improbable that conflicts would appear in practice.  It is also worth
   remembering that the result of a false positive (i.e., getting an
   address which is not a valid end-point) is not necessarily a huge
   problem because it's only an indicator that such service didn't exist
   in the domain, as long as the tunneling mechanism can recover from
   that scenario.


   Another consideration is the deployment of wildcard DNS records.  If
   A/AAAA records were to be used, such records might create false
   positives quite easily.  Fortunately, wildcards are commonly deployed
   only for MX records.  A benefit of using SRV records is that they use
   an additional level in the zones, like:
   _tunnel-server._udp.isp.example.com."; this would prevent a wildcard
   record "*.isp.example.com" from harassing the discovery of the
   end-point.  XXX: needs to be checked.


3.4  DHCP-based Solutions


   In most situations, the users receive the IPv4 information by means
   of an IPv4 DHCP server.  Consequently, one of the parameters to be
   provided by the DHCP server could be the tunnel end-point address,
   e.g., as described in [12].


   This approach has several drawbacks:


   o  It requires upgrading the DHCP client/server implementations to
      support this feature.


   o  It is restricted to the local ISP.  That is, it will not be
      effective if the local ISP doesn't provide this parameter.  This
      could be also be an advantage considering that the this would only
      support the tunnels provided by the local ISP, which would
      probably be of good quality.


   o  It will not work if DHCP client is not used.  DHCP is omitted
      especially in many dial-up scenarios, where only PPP is used; DHCP
      is not used in some (advanced) xDSL setups which use static
      routing.  Also, some managed networks do not use DHCP.  Still, in
      many cases, DHCP is used between a customer and the ISP.


   o  If a router is providing local DHCP information (e.g., an ADSL




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



      router), the tunnel end-point information would have to be
      automatically "proxied" to the "local DHCP", or manually
      configured on the router to propagate to the hosts in the case
      that the router is not activating the tunnel itself.


   o  It requires manual configuration/update of the ISP's DHCP servers
      when there are changes to the tunnel end-points, similar to
      updating DNS, NTP, etc., servers.



3.5  PPP-based Solutions


   In the case of PPP-like connections, specific PPP parameters could be
   passed to the clients, as part of the AAA signaling process.  This
   solution has the same drawbacks (and advantages) as indicated for the
   DHCP-based solution.  Further, there has been resistance to making
   extensions to PPP (e.g., passing IPv6 prefix options), so it is an
   open question whether this information could be passed as a
   standardized PPP option at all.


3.6  SLP-based Solutions


   The Service Location Protocol [13] provides a framework for the
   discovery and selection of network services.  Tunnel-End-Point for
   IPv6 tunnels could be defined as a network service which will have
   also assigned a specific service name.  Given the fact that currently
   exists several types of transition mechanism based on IPv4 tunnels,
   even more ones could appear in future, the service URL defined in the
   SLP system should specify the specific type of TEP the network has.
   For instance:


   o  service:tep:6to4://6to4.domainexample.net


   o  service:tep:6in4://6in4.domainexample.net


   o  service:tep:teredo://teredo.domainexample.net


   By using this protocol, users requiring IPv6 connectivity based on a
   tunneled service could easily discover the specific IPv6 TEPs
   deployed on its network.


   Although an SLP-based solution is a good approach, it is intended to
   function within networks under cooperative administrative control, so
   it does not scale for the global Internet.  For this reason, this
   solution seems to fit only in scenario 1, where users willing to get
   IPv6 connectivity only contact to local providers (home ISP, LAN,
   etc.).





Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



   However, SLP presents also other drawbacks to be taken into account:


   1.  It requires the deployment of Service Agents (SA), or at least a
       Directory Agent (DA), to which the User Agent (UA), on behalf of
       the user, sends the queries about the TEP service.  Such SA
       deployment is not usually done within ISP, so it would be
       necessary to convince them to do it.  It is hard work due to no
       revenue is expected from such a deployment.


   2.  If only SA is deployed, it requires multicast support for SA
       discovery.


   3.  If DA is deployed and the network has not multicast support, some
       way for discovery the DA is required.  DHCP could be used as
       pointed at [13] but users connected to their ISP often utilize
       PPP instead, so DA discovery become an issue.


   4.  It requires the implementation of an UA on the client's host.
       This is neither always possible nor feasible.


   5.  It can not offer any kind of load balancing if more than one TEP
       is deployed.


   6.  It only announces TEPs belonging to the ISP scope, so it would
       not be possible to announce TEP deployed in third party networks.



3.6.1  Remote Service Discovery through SLP-based Solutions


   Remote service discovery through SLP [14] refers to discovering
   desired services in remote domains.  By using [14], the local domain
   limitation of SLP is overcome, so the SLP scope can easily be
   increased to scale for the global Internet.  It discovers remote
   services deployed in remote domains by querying directly to the
   remote DA instead the local one.  Discovery of the remote DA is done
   via DNS SRV queries to the remote DNS server.


   This solution presents more advantages than the previous one, mainly
   it increases the scenarios where it applies to scenario 1 and
   scenario 3, however it still has most of the SLP drawbacks,
   particularly previous items 1, 4, 5 and 6.


   Furthermore the use of this solution is very restricted in the sense
   that users requiring IPv6 connectivity must previously know the
   remote domain where to make the SLP discovery.


   In other words, if the user's home-domain is domain A, and he knows
   that domain B has the TEP that he is looking for, then he has to make




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



   an SLP query to the domain B DA (previously he has discovered the DA
   address by querying a DNS SRV) to discover the TEP.  However, if the
   user does not know that domain B is deploying an IPv6 TEP, then he
   will not make the SLP query to the domain B DA and he will not obtain
   the required IPv6 connectivity.


   With this solution, there is no way to automatically inform the users
   where to find the TEP that they are looking for.  They must know
   where to ask and if there is one or not, which once more, excludes
   this as a possible solution for the auto-discovery problem.


3.7  Combined Solutions


   There is a particularly interesting combination: DNS-lookups with a
   service identifier combined with the DNS search path (particularly
   with A/AAAA/CNAME records), and shared-unicast.  DNS lookups can
   provide a local IP address (or addresses) for the end-points, and the
   local "anycast" approach can be used for load-balancing or adding
   more end-points to the system transparently so that every user uses
   the topologically closest end-point.


   Similar approach to "anycasting" the end-point address obviously also
   work for "anycast" and DHCP or PPP -based solutions.


4.  Conclusions


   DNS appears to be the simplest means to achieve end-point discovery;
   DHCP and PPP have drawbacks and due to many scenarios where only one
   of them is used, both the solutions would be needed.  Inter-domain
   anycast model appears to be practically unfeasible even if it could
   work especially if "anycast" was only used for the unicast address
   discovery.


   In the DNS, the records could be stored either in A/AAAA/CNAME or SRV
   records.  The former appears to be slightly advantageous, while the
   latter is provably correct and offers slightly better load-balancing
   features, rather than a simple round-robin (and whatever may be
   obtained using e.g., anycast).  Further analysis is still needed on
   the tradeoffs of these approaches.


   Local anycasting techniques using a shared-unicast address (or
   addresses) appear to be the most practical means for redundancy and
   load-balancing.


5.  Security Considerations


   If the tunnel end-point discovery is done in an insecure fashion, so
   that an attacker could influence the discovery process, the attacker




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



   could be able to hijack all the IPv6 communications.  This must be
   kept in mind when analyzing the different discovery solutions, and
   spelled-out explicitly in the requirements, if the threats are to be
   mitigated in tunneling mechanisms somehow (e.g., using a return
   routability procedures).


   In particular, the potential weaknesses of DNS bear some
   consideration.


6.  IANA Considerations


   This document requests no action for IANA.


   [[note to RFC-editor: this section can be removed upon publication.]]


7.  Acknowledgements


   This memo was written as a consequence of real experience using IPv6
   when traveling, number of talks during IETF meetings and specially
   the work with the unmanaged, ISP and enterprise v6ops design teams.
   The authors would also like to acknowledge inputs from Carl Williams,
   Brian Carpenter, Jeroen Massar and the European Commission support in
   the co-funding of the Euro6IX project, where this work is being
   developed.


8  Informative References


   [1]   Parent, F., "Goals for Registered Assisted Tunneling",
         draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01 (work in
         progress), October 2004.


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


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


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


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


   [6]   Templin, F., Gleeson, T., Talwar, M. and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
         Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)",
         draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22 (work in progress), May 2004.


   [7]   Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in




Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



         IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.


   [8]   Hagino, J. and K. Ettican, "An analysis of IPv6 anycast",
         draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02 (work in progress),
         June 2003.


   [9]   Thaler, D. and L. Vicisano, "IPv4 Automatic Multicast Without
         Explicit Tunnels (AMT)", draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-02
         (work in progress), February 2004.


   [10]  Faltstrom, P. and R. Austein, "Design Choices When Expanding
         DNS", draft-iab-dns-choices-00 (work in progress), October
         2004.


   [11]  Brisco, T., "DNS Support for Load Balancing", RFC 1794, April
         1995.


   [12]  Kim, P. and S. Park, "DHCP Option for Configuring IPv6-in-IPv4
         Tunnels", draft-daniel-dhc-ipv6in4-opt-05 (work in progress),
         October 2004.


   [13]  Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service
         Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.


   [14]  Zhao, W., Schulzrinne, H., Guttman, E., Bisdikian, C. and W.
         Jerome, "Remote Service Discovery in the Service Location
         Protocol (SLP) via DNS SRV", RFC 3832, July 2004.



Authors' Addresses


   Jordi Palet Martinez
   Consulintel
   San Jose Artesano, 1
   Alcobendas - Madrid
   E-28108 - Spain


   Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
   Fax:   +34 91 151 81 98
   EMail: jordi.palet@consulintel.es












Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



   Miguel Angel Diaz Fernandez
   Consulintel
   San Jose Artesano, 1
   Alcobendas - Madrid
   E-28108 - Spain


   Phone: +34 91 151 81 99
   Fax:   +34 91 151 81 98
   EMail: miguelangel.diaz@consulintel.es



   Pekka Savola
   CSC/FUNET
   Espoo
   Finland


   EMail: psavola@funet.fi



































Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Analysis of Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms              October 2004



Intellectual Property Statement


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


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


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



Disclaimer of Validity


   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.



Copyright Statement


   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.



Acknowledgment


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





Palet, et al.            Expires April 24, 2005                [Page 16]


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