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

Versions: 00 01 02

Internet Engineering Task Force                                P. Savola
Internet-Draft                                                 CSC/FUNET
Expires: July 1, 2004                                           Jan 2004


       Simple IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnel Establishment Procedure (STEP)
                draft-savola-v6ops-conftun-setup-02.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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 July 1, 2004.

Copyright Notice

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

Abstract

   This memo describes a set of operational procedures, a UDP
   encapsulation for configured tunnels, and one implementation
   mechanism to provide a very simple and straightforward way to easily
   manage IPv6-over-IPv4 configured tunnels between an ISP and a
   customer.  The configured tunnels work even if the IPv4 addresses
   change dynamically, or are private addresses; the procedure provides
   at least a /64 prefix per customer and requires no administrative
   set-up. A simple form of NAT traversal is also supported.








Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.1 Non-problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Overview of the Procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  Customer-side Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.1 Possible Prior Agreement with the ISP  . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.2 Learning and Configuring the Tunnel Endpoint . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.3 Tunnel Activation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.4 Providing Connectivity to Other Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  ISP-side Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.1 Possible Prior Agreements with the Customers . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.2 Learning the Customers' Tunnel Endpoint Addresses  . . . . . .  8
   5.3 Prefix Advertisement or Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.4 Tunnel Activation and Maintenance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.5 Secure Operations for Tunnel Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.6 Sufficient Tunnel Service Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  NAT Traversal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   A.  Comparison to Other Mechanisms and Procedures  . . . . . . . . 15
   A.1 Configured Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   A.2 L2TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   A.3 Tunnel Broker Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   A.4 ISATAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   B.  Multiple Users Behind a NATted IPv4 Address  . . . . . . . . . 16
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 17



















Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


1. Introduction

   A need for a simple mechanism to set up IPv6-over-IPv4 configured
   tunnels between a customer and the ISP seems to have been
   demonstrated in 3GPP analysis [17] as well as Unmanaged [18] and ISP
   analysis [19].  Most currently proposed mechanisms (like 6to4 [7] or
   ISATAP [8]) appear to be unnecessarily complex or otherwise
   problematic in these particular scenarios.

   ISPs that already have access infrastructure (L2TP Access
   Concentrator (LAC), L2TP Network Servers (LNS), PPP Termination
   Aggregators (PTA). etc.), IPv6/PPP/L2TP/UDP/IP could be readily
   provided using L2TP [9] and IPv6 over PPP [10] as long as the
   customer operating systems also support these mechanisms. This
   approach, however, is not suitable for 3GPP and Enterprise
   environments.  See Appendix A for a more detailed comparison.

   This memo documents a set of operational procedures which require no
   additional protocol specification to provide a very simple and
   suitably elegant solution to these problems.

   One observation made prior to designing the procedure was that a
   signalling protocol is not really needed if the existing mechanisms
   for e.g., optional prefix delegation are used, and the ISP can
   authenticate the user otherwise; this simplifies the procedure
   significantly.

   The second section gives a brief problem statement which also
   describes the applicability of the solution.  The third section
   explains the overview of the procedure.  The fourth and the fifth
   sections describe the customer- and ISP-side procedures in more
   detail. The sixth section describes issues related to a simple form
   of NAT traversal, and specifies how to optionally encapsulate
   IPv6-over-IPv4 packets over UDP.

   In appendix A, we compare the mechanism to several other proposed
   mechanisms and techniques: pure configured tunnels, the use of Layer
   2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP [9]), use of 6to4 [7], an instance of
   Tunnel Broker concept -- TSP [11], ISATAP [8], and Teredo [12].

2. Problem Statement

   There are ISPs which are willing to provide IPv6 connectivity to
   their customers, but may not be able to do it natively due to a
   number of reasons.  Such ISPs want to find a method to help in
   providing IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels to the customers, with the following
   characteristics:




Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   o  The IPv4 address of the customer may be either static or dynamic,
      and may be a private address [6] as well, if the customer chooses
      to NAT the (public) IP address given by the ISP.

   o  The ISP may want to offer the tunnel service either requiring
      prior agreement with the user, or to every customer who wishes to
      try it.

   o  The customer may have one or more nodes which should obtain IPv6
      connectivity.

   o  The configured tunnel may be set up either from the customer's
      gateway, or if the gateway does not support IPv6, from a node
      inside the customer's network, when NAT traversal is used.  No
      more than one node behind a NAT'ed public IPv4 address needs to
      participate in the IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel service (but many more can
      use the IPv6 service, of course).

   o  The solution should be as simple as possible, requiring no new
      protocols or substantial modifications to IPv6 or IPv4
      implementations either at the ISP or customer side.


2.1 Non-problems

   The problem statement explicitly excludes:

   o  Support for third party ISPs: the methods described here work to
      an extent with a lower amount of security even if the ISP
      providing the service is not the user's own ISP.  Typically, the
      third party ISP would have to be able to authenticate the user
      somehow; this could be done using a static IPv4 address (rather
      insecure), IPsec Security Association, or an unspecified
      mechanism. However, third party ISPs are not considered an
      important scenario for the IPv6 deployment, and are considered out
      of scope.

   o  More complex forms of NAT traversal: the case where the tunnel
      endpoint is visible (from the ISP point of view) behind a public
      IPv4 address, and no other tunnel endpoints are using that address
      is in scope.  However, the case where multiple nodes would want to
      initiate a tunnel from behind a "big" NAT, which maps them all to
      a single address, is defined out of scope. The customer which has
      multiple nodes can still use IPv6 behind such a NAT by selecting
      one of the nodes to provide IPv6 access through the tunnel, and
      have IPv6 connectivity routed or proxied as normal by the tunnel
      endpoint node. The case where the ISP has deployed a single "big"
      NAT affecting many customers can be addressed by the ISP deploying



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


      the tunnel router inside the privately addressed infrastructure
      (remember that third party ISPs were out-of-scope as well), so
      that no NAT traversal is needed in the first place, as the
      connectivity to the ISP's tunnel router is native IPv6 or a
      configured tunnel with a static public IPv4 address.

   o  Short-cut paths between the users (e.g, like 6to4 [7] or ISATAP
      [8]): all the IPv6-over-IPv4 traffic flows through the tunnel
      router; short-cut mechanisms are believed to be non-essential in
      this environment of "short" tunnels, and add to complexity and
      security risks.  If the load on the tunnel router rises too high,
      one could switch to offering native service instead, or deploying
      additional tunnel routers.


3. Overview of the Procedure

   Throughout this memo, two major operational modes, "managed" and
   "ad-hoc" are described.  It's expected that some ISPs would like to
   use one, and some the other, and both approaches are described.

   The procedure can be summarized as follows:

   1.  If the ISP requires prior agreement ("managed mode"), the
       customer contacts the ISP off-band and registers as an IPv6 user.

   2.  The customer discovers (using one of a number of mechanisms) the
       IPv4 tunnel end-point address of the ISP, and creates a
       configured tunnel (encapsulating in either IP (protocol 41)
       tunnel [1] or UDP (Section 6)) to the address, and sends a normal
       Neighbor Discovery [2] (ND) Route Solicitation (RS) or a DHCPv6
       [4] SOLICIT or prefix delegation request [5] message over the
       tunnel.

   3.  The ISP's tunnel router sets up a configured tunnel towards the
       customer's IPv4 address; the address may be obtained using a
       number of mechanisms, or created ad-hoc ("ad-hoc mode") when
       tunnel packets arrive.  In the managed more, the tunnel interface
       is typically pre-configured prior to receiving any packets from
       the customer.

   4.  The ISP's tunnel router sends a normal ND Route Advertisement
       (RA) or a further DHCPv6 message over the tunnel to the customer;
       the prefix advertised is obtained using one of a number of
       mechanisms.  The customer automatically configures the prefix and
       the addresses and uses them normally.

   Note that the description includes DHCPv6, prefix delegation etc.



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   just for completeness.  It is assumed than in most cases a simple ND
   RS/RA exchange will suffice.  However, as the procedure is agnostic
   of the prefix assignment methods used, any other mechanism can be
   used as well.

   No new protocols are needed.  Both in the managed and ad-hoc modes,
   the customer can learn the tunnel address off-band.

   In the managed mode, the ISP has to know the IPv4 address assigned to
   the customer, configure a new IPv6 tunnel interface for the customer,
   and reserve the IPv6 prefix that will be assigned; these have to be
   configured on the tunnel router using operator-specific management
   techniques (e.g, RADIUS).

   In the ad-hoc mode, on the other hand, the tunnel router has to
   implement a simple mechanism to allocate a new configured tunnel,
   after successful validation (or authentication) procedures as
   discussed in Section 5.5, for tunnel packets received from different
   customers, and algorithmically derive an IPv6 prefix to be assigned
   to the customer.

4. Customer-side Procedures

4.1 Possible Prior Agreement with the ISP

   The ISP may require prior agreement or notification before a customer
   is allowed to use their tunnel service.  In that case, the customer
   must contact the ISP using off-band mechanisms.  Even if not
   required, special requirements (e.g., a static IPv6 prefix when IPv4
   address is dynamic, or a need for an IPv6 /48 prefix) may be easier
   to fulfill if the user has contacted the ISP beforehand and the ISP
   has made arrangements; only a /64 prefix (which will be dynamic if
   the IPv4 address is dynamic) will be available in ad-hoc mode.

4.2 Learning and Configuring the Tunnel Endpoint

   To get started, the customer has to learn the IPv4 address of the
   ISP's tunnel router somehow.  Possibilities include, for example:

   o  Using off-band mechanisms, e.g., from the ISP's web page.

   o  Using DNS to look up a service name by appending it to the DNS
      search path provided by DHCPv4 (e.g.
      "tunnel-service.example.com").

   o  Using a (yet unspecified) DHCPv4 option.

   o  Using a pre-configured or pre-determined IPv4 anycast address,



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


      whether in the private or public space; however, note the
      considerations about embedding addresses in the nodes [14].

   o  Using other, unspecified methods.

   This memo does not (at least yet) take a stance on the selection of
   the mechanism even though some are more problematic than others, but
   it is assumed that the first or the second option should be enough
   for everyone considering that the customer's own ISP is providing
   IPv6 service.

   Once the IPv4 address has been learned, it is configured as the
   tunnel end-point for the configured IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel.  Unless
   the user has a private IPv4 address, implying being behind a NAT, IP
   encapsulation must be used; otherwise, the encapsulation can be
   selected as described in Section 6. Note that this configuration can
   even be done transparently to the user, with very little or no
   configuration.

4.3 Tunnel Activation

   Next, IPv6 is activated over the tunnel as normal; this could be done
   either by a Neighbor Discovery RS, DHCPv6 Solicitation message,
   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation request message, or by simple manual
   configuration (note: manual configuration does not work in the
   "ad-hoc" operation, because there is no trigger to bring up the ISP's
   interface).

   The tunnel router responds to this query as normal by sending a Route
   Advertisement or continuing with DHCP message exchanges.

4.4 Providing Connectivity to Other Nodes

   If the customer has multiple nodes, they can each obtain their own
   tunnel in the same manner as long as the nodes are not behind a NAT.
   However, this is unoptimal especially if such nodes have internal
   communications.

   Instead, the customer may want to set up one node to as a Neighbor
   Discovery proxy [15] for the /64 route advertisement received, or if
   a less specific prefix (e.g., a /48) is being used, as a router for
   the internal network(s). This does not need to be any more
   complicated than just setting up the tunnel on one node.

5. ISP-side Procedures






Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


5.1 Possible Prior Agreements with the Customers

   The ISP may operate in either or both "managed" and "ad-hoc" modes.
   In only the managed mode, a prior agreement with the customer is
   needed to allow the customer to use IPv6 using this procedure.  In
   only the ad-hoc mode, no agreements with the customers are needed. In
   both modes, "basic service" (a /64 prefix which will be dynamic if
   the customer's IPv4 address is dynamic) can be offered, but more
   advanced services (e.g., prefix delegation or a static prefix) are
   offered to those with a prior agreement.

   ISPs which operate in the managed mode must configure (e.g., manually
   or using a script or configuration tool) the configured tunnels on
   the tunnel router; also, they may want to create a link between the
   stable customer identification and their IPv6 properties (e.g., a
   prefix) especially if the IPv4 address is dynamic, to maintain the
   stability of IPv6 properties even when the IPv4 address may change.

5.2 Learning the Customers' Tunnel Endpoint Addresses

   The ISP must somehow obtain the tunnel endpoint address to be
   configured for a configured tunnel.  Every active customer has its
   own configured tunnel interface on the tunnel router.

   When operating in the managed mode, this could be done from e.g.
   DHCPv4 leases, RADIUS or Diameter databases, other databases or some
   other means.  This information will be used to update the tunnel
   end-point address on the configured tunnel interface when changing or
   as appropriate; the updates can be done e.g. using management tools,
   scripting, etc. -- because a change of IPv4 address must be reflected
   without delay to the tunnel end-point address, this configuration
   update should be immediately triggered by changes in the used
   database or lease.

   When operating in the ad-hoc mode, the tunnel server should create a
   new configured tunnel interface for each IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel with a
   different IPv4 source address.  The ISP should be aware of a
   potential for a resource exhaustion if the number of customers rises
   too high, but actual DoS attacks are not possible if the ISP has
   secured its network as described in Section 5.5.  Automatic creation
   of configured tunnel interfaces requires only rather trivial
   implementation [XXX: does this need elaboration?].   Performing
   "garbage collection" on such tunnels, e.g. in a Least-Recently-Used
   (LRU) manner may be called for if the number of tunnels rises too
   high.  However, this should only be done after sufficiently long
   period has passed, as not to disturb the existing (but maybe dormant)
   IPv6 connections over the tunnels.




Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   If the ISP wants to support NAT traversal when protocol 41 forwarding
   [16] is not implemented in all the NAT boxes used by the customers,
   the ISP must also provide the support for UDP decapsulation at UDP
   port TBD. The users should default to use protocol 41, but if the
   initiating packet is encapsulated in UDP, the configured tunnel type
   may be changed if supported. NAT traversal is further discussed in
   Section 6.

5.3 Prefix Advertisement or Delegation

   Each customer should be provided with at least a /64 prefix; this is
   both practical (because /64 is required by Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration [3]), and architecturally correct (providing the
   possibility to connect more than one node without an IPv6 NAT).

   In the managed mode, the ISP may advertise a static or dynamic  IPv6
   /64 prefix using RAs, provide a prefix delegation, or something else
   (e.g., manual configuration if the IPv4 address is static).

   In the ad-hoc mode, the ISP must ensure that a sufficiently large
   pool of /64 prefixes are available.  The prefixes can be allocated
   either in a sequential fashion and advertised in RA's, or
   automatically calculated, with some assumptions, from the used IPv4
   addresses.  For example, if the ISP uses IPv4 network 10.0.0.0/8 for
   its customers, it needs 24 bits to uniquely identify each customer --
   this calls for assigning an IPv6 /40 prefix to be used for
   advertising /64's; in this example, a customer with address
   "10.1.2.3" might get advertised an IPv6 prefix "2001:db8:FF01:0203::/
   64", where "01:0203" corresponds to the client address and
   "2001:db8:FF00::" the /40 allocated to the ad-hoc tunneling
   operations by the ISP.  Mapping the most interesting bits (for the
   ISP) of an IPv4 address to the IPv6 prefix allows even large ISPs to
   easily give each user an algorithmically derived IPv6 prefix.

5.4 Tunnel Activation and Maintenance

   When the router receives e.g. ND RS, DHCPv6 SOLICIT or prefix
   delegation request from the configured tunnel, it responds normally,
   as on any other interface. (When in ad-hoc mode, setting up the
   tunnel from the received IPv6-over-IPv4 packet may take a while, but
   the processing continues when set up.)

   The ISP should avoid sending periodic messages (e.g., unsolicited
   route advertisements) to the tunnel, or decrease the interval used
   for sending them: if the customer disconnects for some time, and
   someone else gets the same address, it might be disturbing to the
   new, potentially non-IPv6 aware customer to receive "weird" protocol
   41 or UDP packets meant to the previous customer. The similar effect



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   occurs if someone in the Internet is trying to communicate with an
   IPv6 user, but the user has changed its address in the meantime, and
   packets may go to someone else's IPv4 address. However, this is no
   different to the situation with IPv4 today, except that the packets
   may be discarded by the operating system and never even be noticed;
   but if they are noticed, e.g., by a personal firewall, they may not
   be recognized and may cause more alarm.

5.5 Secure Operations for Tunnel Service

   The ISP should perform IPv4 ingress filtering at its borders towards
   peers and upstreams, by disallowing packets with the source addresses
   belonging to its own site or its customers.  In particular, the ISP
   must block the tunnel router's address from being used as a source
   address from the outside; blocking the use of the customer prefixes
   would be preferred as well.

   The ISP must perform IPv4 ingress filtering towards the customers, in
   particular those that use the tunnel service, so that they will not
   be able to forge the IPv4 source address of the packets.  In
   particular, they must not be able to spoof the address of the tunnel
   router to the other customers.

   Both of these are very simple operations especially in the minimal
   case of blocking only the abuse of the tunnel router address.

   Naturally, the ISP should perform IPv6 ingress filtering as well, but
   that is orthogonal to the security of this procedure.

   In addition, the ISP must ensure, especially if in ad-hoc mode, that
   only a selected subset of source addresses is able to communicate
   with the tunnel router's designated tunnel address.  For example,
   creating dynamic interfaces with packets from outside of the ISP's
   network could easily be used in a resource exhaustion attack.  In
   addition, to curtail internal resource exhaustion attacks, it makes
   very much sense to ingress filter all the customers which are allowed
   to use the ad-hoc tunnel service. With these precautions, resources
   may only be exhausted by a real resource starvation, not through an
   attack; on the other hand, if the ISP does not bother to add such
   checks, it only harms itself for being susceptible to various forms
   of attacks!

5.6 Sufficient Tunnel Service Provisioning

   The ISP must naturally ensure that the tunnel router is capable to
   handle the amount of users and the traffic that goes through it.  It
   should also be noted that all the traffic between the users of the
   ISP go through the same router; "shortcuts" routes are not deemed



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   necessary.  The increases in the latency are not significant as the
   tunnel router is deployed close to the IPv4 access router (or even
   co-located with it) topology-wise.

   Typically, these are not believed to be problems.  If the number of
   users or the amount of traffic generated increases, starting
   deploying native IPv6 access instead eliminates the problem, or the
   ISP could deploy more tunnel routers in a load-balancing
   configuration -- depending on the mechanism used to find the tunnel
   service, this could be e.g., through DNS load-balancing, anycasting
   the tunnel service address, etc.

6. NAT Traversal

   NAT traversal may be desirable especially in the case when the
   customer gets one IPv4 address from the ISP, which is assigned on the
   IPv4 gateway, and NAT'ed access is provided to the customer's nodes.
   If the gateway cannot be IPv6-enabled, the customer may want to
   obtain the access from an internal node to bypass the gateway and the
   NAT.

   There are two ways to do this: (1) ensuring that the NAT forwards
   protocol 41 packets [16], or (2) providing a minimal UDP
   encapsulation to the tunnel packets.

   Forwarding protocol 41 packets is simple if implemented by the NAT
   gateway; this requires no administrative set-up. This works
   (basically) for one node behind the NAT at the time -- however,
   multiple nodes behind a single public IPv4 address was considered out
   of scope.

   If protocol 41 packets are not forwarded, a minimal UDP encapsulation
   may be needed: instead of using protocol 41, UDP is used with the
   minimal headers.  This adds 8 bytes to the packets, and should be
   taken into consideration with configured tunnel MTU calculations [1].
   The routers should use a UDP port TBD by default to de-multiplex UDP
   configured tunnels.  The tunnels are identified in SNMP by udp(8)
   IANAtunnelType [20].

   The customer using private addresses behind a NAT must select which
   method to use.  It is recommended to try protocol 41 first; if no
   response is received, UDP encapsulation may be tried instead.  Note
   that this choice of the encapsulation may be completely transparent
   to the user as well.

   With UDP encapsulation, the algorithmically derived prefix assignment
   is kept simple with the assumption that every tunnel service user can
   be identified with a public IPv4 address; whether the tunnel



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   originates inside a NAT does not matter.  That way, for
   UDP-encapsulated configured tunnels, the tunnel router only
   additionally needs to keep a record of the source UDP port each
   customer uses.

   However, NAT mappings must be maintained whether UDP or protocol 41
   is being used.  It is recommended to do this by the customer
   activating ND Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) on the
   configured tunnel; the default value for DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME is 5
   seconds [2]; this is enough, and could even be increased to e.g., 60
   seconds for this link type.  Increasing it further may have adverse
   effects as the NAT UDP/proto-41 mapping lifetimes typically vary from
   60..200 seconds.  No protocol is proposed to discover and use the
   most optimal lifetimes for the particular NAT; this is not believed
   to be worth the robustness losses.

7. Acknowledgements

   This procedure was inspired by a need to severely simplify ISATAP
   [8].  Suresh Satapati coined up the name, and provided useful
   feedback. Gert Doering, Marc Blanchet and Janos Mohacsi participated
   in the discussion clarifying the applicability.

8. IANA Considerations

   This memo requests an allocation of a "privileged" UDP port (TBD).

9. Security Considerations

   The requirements for reasonably secure operations within an ISP are
   described in Section 5.5; with these in place, it is difficult to
   imagine a case where stronger mechanisms such as IPsec for
   IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnels would be needed.

   A particular case occurs when an IPv4 address of the user changes,
   and the user's IPv6 prefix changes as well; this may be allocated to
   a different IPv6 user.  However, this is no different than IPv4
   address re-use threats. [XXX: can be considered more if really
   needed.]

   When the ISP operates in the ad-hoc mode, and there is an event where
   all the IPv4 addresses change simultaneously, there may be a large
   number of simultaneous updates to update the tunnel point addresses
   in the tunnel router.  This situation should be taken into
   consideration e.g. if renumbering.

   The case where a third party ISP provides the service was decreed out
   of scope, because it is impractical and economically unfeasible, and



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   has a number of security problems as well.  Similarly, multiple users
   behind a single NAT'ted public IPv4 address seems to be only relevant
   in the third party case and is equally out of scope; this would have
   security implications as well, as it would be relatively easy to
   hijack someone else's IPv6 prefix.

Normative References

   [1]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for
        IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01 (work in
        progress), October 2003.

   [2]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for
        IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.

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

   [4]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M.
        Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
        RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [5]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host
        Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December
        2003.

Informative References

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

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

   [8]   Templin, F., Gleeson, T., Talwar, M. and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
         Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)",
         draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-17 (work in progress), January 2004.

   [9]   Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G. and
         B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC 2661,
         August 1999.

   [10]  Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472,
         December 1998.

   [11]  Blanchet, M., "Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP)A Control Protocol to
         Setup IPv6 or IPv4  Tunnels", draft-vg-ngtrans-tsp-01 (work in



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


         progress), July 2002.

   [12]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through NATs",
         draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-00 (work in progress), June 2003.

   [13]  Massar, J., "SixXS Heartbeat Protocol",
         draft-massar-v6ops-heartbeat-00 (work in progress), January
         2004.

   [14]  Plonka, D., "Embedding Globally Routable Internet Addresses
         Considered Harmful", draft-ietf-grow-embed-addr-00 (work in
         progress), December 2003.

   [15]  Thaler, D. and M. Talwar, "Bridge-like Neighbor Discovery
         Proxies (ND Proxy)", draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01 (work in
         progress), October 2003.

   [16]  Palet, J., "Forwarding Protocol 41 in NAT Boxes",
         draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 (work in progress), October
         2003.

   [17]  Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in 3GPP Networks",
         draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-07 (work in progress), October
         2003.

   [18]  Huitema, C., "Evaluation of Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged
         Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-00 (work in progress),
         June 2003.

   [19]  Lind, M., "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP
         Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-00 (work in
         progress), December 2003.

   [20]  Thaler, D., "IP Tunnel MIB", draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00
         (work in progress), October 2003.


Author's Address

   Pekka Savola
   CSC/FUNET

   Espoo
   Finland

   EMail: psavola@funet.fi





Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


Appendix A. Comparison to Other Mechanisms and Procedures

   This mechanism can be compared to several other proposed mechanisms
   and proposals: pure configured tunnels, the use of Layer 2 Tunneling
   Protocol (L2TP [9]), use of 6to4 [7], an instance of Tunnel Broker
   concept -- TSP [11], ISATAP [8], and Teredo [12].

   Since obtaining IPv6 connectivity without the support of your own ISP
   is out-of-scope, we exclude 6to4 and Teredo from the comparison.
   Now's let's take a look at the rest.

A.1 Configured Tunnels

   Configured tunnels are preferable in every case where they can be
   used.  However, it's difficult to manage them especially in the cases
   where dynamic (but public) IPv4 addresses are being used, when the
   user needs IPv6 connectivity to nodes behind the user's own NAT
   gateway (which doesn't implement protocol-41 forwarding), or when the
   amount of configuration must be kept to the minimum.

A.2 L2TP

   L2TP could be leveraged by using UDP (passes NATs) to encapsulate PPP
   frames toward the customers.  The customers would have to have an
   L2TP client and IPv6-capable PPP, and the ISP would have to have an
   L2TP server, a management system for the IPv6 attributes (e.g.,
   RADIUS), and a configured address pool.  Additionally, as IPV6CP PPP
   negotiation does not allow prefix delegation, DNS resolver
   configuration, etc., one might have to run (especially if more than
   one address is required) an additional protocol, e.g. DHCPv6 for
   prefix delegation, on the link.

   The ISPs which already have L2TP, PPP and RADIUS infrastructures
   (e.g., for dial-up IPv6 users, or certain classes of xDSL users), the
   additional set-up complexity would not be high; for those which do
   not, this would be a rather complicated set of operations. Naturally,
   the customer operating systems would have to support L2TP and PPP as
   well.

   L2TP clearly has its strenghts, but some ISPs might see it as too
   complicated to set up.   Also, if the ISP wishes to offer an "ad-hoc"
   operations (as seems to be the case in 3GPP at least), the amount of
   infrastructure required might be too high.

A.3 Tunnel Broker Solutions

   A large number of custom tunnel brokering solutions have been used.
   For example, many (open-source) VPN products offer the capabilities



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   of providing IPv6 service through the VPN.  Multiple tunnel brokers
   have also been deployed, e.g. by SixXS [13], Viagenie, and others.
   We'll look at Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP) as an instance of this
   model.

   TSP provides a similar set of functions as STEP.  However, TSP has an
   overhead of a signalling protocol, which is not needed in STEP.  TSP
   offers a custom way of prefix delegation, while STEP relies on
   standard mechanisms like DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation, or the use of ND
   proxying.  TSP works also for tunnel configuration across ISPs, which
   was out of scope for STEP.  STEP is transparent to the user, but TSP
   requires a client software and some form of set-up.

A.4 ISATAP

   ISATAP provides many features, like automatic tunneling between
   ISATAP nodes in the same ISATAP site, which was decreed insecure and
   out of scope for STEP.  The insecurity rises from the applying ISATAP
   in scenarios where the bounds of an ISATAP site are larger than the
   bounds of an administrative domain, leading to e.g., issues with the
   trust of the pseudo-interface when a packet with Hop Limit=255 and a
   link-local address is received. STEP has no such assumptions, and
   it's security properties are about the same as using bidirectional
   configured tunnels.

Appendix B. Multiple Users Behind a NATted IPv4 Address

   The scenario where multiple users are behind a single NAT'ed IPv4
   address (e.g., when using a third party ISP) was decreed out of
   scope. However, the possibility to achieve that is shown, even though
   it is not considered to be useful.

   Providing service to multiple users would require nothing more than a
   change in the algorithm used to derive the customer's prefix.  Of
   course, at first glance this appears to be problematic, as mapping 16
   additional bits to the IPv6 address may seem like a challenge.
   However, this is not the case; such support is only needed for
   (out-of-scope) third party ISP case, which must operate in the
   managed mode, and the prefix assignment cannot be done based on the
   address anyway, so there is no real problem with this approach.











Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property 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; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication 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 implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

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


Full Copyright Statement

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

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft    Simple Tunnel Establishment Procedure         Jan 2004


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgment

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











































Savola                    Expires July 1, 2004                 [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/