This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co-existence of the two protocols.
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 August 6, 2011.
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 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.
2. Document Topics
3. Security Considerations
4. IANA Considerations
6. Change log
7. Informative References
§ Authors' Addresses
This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co-existence of the two protocols. A general "call to arms" for transition is found in [RFC5211] (Curran, J., “An Internet Transition Plan,” July 2008.), and a recommendation for four principal scenarios is given in [I‑D.arkko‑ipv6‑transition‑guidelines] (Arkko, J. and F. Baker, “Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment,” December 2010.). A report on experience and plans of various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is given in [RFC6036] (Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, “Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment,” October 2010.). However, it is clear that operators require more detailed technical recommendations than are available so far. Unfortunately, the number of different combinations of existing IPv4 deployment models, customer profiles and requirements, and possible coexistence and transition models, is enormous, so it is quite impracticable to produce either a set of recommendations for each case, or a recommended "one size fits all" model. That is why this document proposes a set of topics or dimensions, as a framework for a reasonable number of recommendation documents.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with IPv6. The IETF's view of core IPv6 requirements is to be found in [RFC4294] (Loughney, J., “IPv6 Node Requirements,” April 2006.) (currently being updated as [I‑D.ietf‑6man‑node‑req‑bis] (Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, “IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis,” December 2010.)). However, this does not give a complete view of mechanisms an ISP may need to deploy, since it considers the requirements for an individual node, not for a network or service infrastructure as a whole.
[RFC4029] (Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P. Savola, “Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks,” March 2005.) discussed scenarios for introducing IPv6 into ISP networks, as the problem was viewed some years ago. Its end goal was simply a dual-stack ISP backbone. Today's view is that this is insufficient, as it does not allow for prolonged interworking between IPv6-only and legacy (IPv4-only) hosts. Indeed, the end goal today might be an IPv6-only ISP backbone, with some form of legacy IPv4 support [I‑D.arkko‑ipv6‑transition‑guidelines] (Arkko, J. and F. Baker, “Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment,” December 2010.).
Although the basic IPv6 standards are stable, considerable work continues in several IETF working groups, on issues such as multihoming, tunneling, and IP layer interworking between IPv6-only and IPv4-only hosts. However, operators faced with IPv4 address exhaustion in the coming few years need immediate guidance. These operators cannot avoid the need for general skills acquisition, or the need to write their own detailed deployment plan, but they also need guidance for generic scenarios similar to their actual situation. They cannot obtain such guidance from individual protocol specifications developed by the IETF, so there is a need for additional documents.
On the assumption that a series of documents are produced describing and recommending transition scenarios, there are two basic conditions:
The documents should describe scenarios for real transition to IPv6, not life extensions to IPv4 or other matters best handled in other working groups. They should each cover some or all of the following aspects or dimensions:
A desirable outcome would be a set of Best Current Practice (BCP) or advisory (Informational) documents for a range of generic deployment models and how they fit into a network, including key services such as subscriber authentication, DHCP, and DNS. However, it must not be forgotten that every service provider is different and such documents can never replace specific deployment plans drawn up by each individual service provider.
Service providers will insist on having security for IPv6 services, and for all transition technologies, that is at least as good as for IPv4 services in all respects. Particular attention must be paid to security exposures that are specific to transition and coexistence mechanisms. Thus, all recommendations for transition scenarios must include any security aspects that are specific to that scenario.
This document makes no request of the IANA.
Useful comments and contributions were made by Randy Bush and other members of the V6OPS WG.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629] (Rose, M., “Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML,” June 1999.).
draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01: small addition following WGLC, 2011-02-02
draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-00: adopted by WG at IETF 79, 2010-12-01
draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00: original version, 2010-08-18
|[I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]||Arkko, J. and F. Baker, “Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment,” draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-14 (work in progress), December 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]||Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, “IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis,” draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07 (work in progress), December 2010 (TXT).|
|[RFC2629]||Rose, M., “Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML,” RFC 2629, June 1999 (TXT, HTML, XML).|
|[RFC4029]||Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P. Savola, “Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks,” RFC 4029, March 2005 (TXT).|
|[RFC4294]||Loughney, J., “IPv6 Node Requirements,” RFC 4294, April 2006 (TXT).|
|[RFC5211]||Curran, J., “An Internet Transition Plan,” RFC 5211, July 2008 (TXT).|
|[RFC6036]||Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, “Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment,” RFC 6036, October 2010 (TXT).|
|Department of Computer Science|
|University of Auckland|
|Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd|
|Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd.,|
|Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing|