Internet Area Working Group                                    W. George
Internet-Draft                                         Time Warner Cable
Updates: 1812, 1122, 4084                                      C. Donley
(if approved)                                                  Cablelabs
Intended status: Standards Track                         C. Liljenstolpe
Expires: December 18, 2011 January 12, 2012                                        Telstra
                                                               L. Howard
                                                       Time Warner Cable
                                                           June 16,
                                                           July 11, 2011

             IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes
                  draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-00
                  draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01

Abstract

   Given the global lack of available IPv4 space, and limitations in
   IPv4 extension and transition technologies, this document deprecates
   the concept that an IP-capable node MAY support IPv4 _only_, and
   redefines an IP-capable node as one which supports either IPv6 _only_
   or IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack.  This document updates RFC1812, RFC1122 and
   RFC4084 to reflect the change in requirements.

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 December 18, 2011. January 12, 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
   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.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   2.  Requirements and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7

1.  Introduction

   IP version 4 (IPv4) has served to connect public and private hosts
   all over the world for over 30 years.  However, due to the success of
   the Internet in finding new and innovative uses for IP networking,
   billions of hosts are now connected via the Internet and requiring
   unique addressing.  This demand has led to the exhaustion of the IANA
   global pool of unique IPv4 addresses [IANA-exhaust], and will be
   followed by the exhaustion of the free pools for each Regional
   Internet Registry (RIR), the first of which is APNIC [APNIC-exhaust].
   While transition technologies and other means to extend the lifespan
   of IPv4 do exist, nearly all of them come with tradeoffs that prevent
   them from being optimal long-term solutions when compared with
   deployment of IP version 6 (IPv6) as a means to allow continued
   growth on the Internet.  See
   [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] and
   [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] for some discussion on this topic.

   IPv6 [RFC1883] was proposed in 1995 as, among other things, a
   solution to the limitations on globally unique addressing that IPv4's
   32-bit addressing space represented, and has been under continuous
   refinement and deployment ever since.  [RFC2460].  The exhaustion of
   IPv4 and the continued growth of the internet worldwide has created
   the driver for widespread IPv6 deployment.

   However, the IPv6 deployment necessary to reduce reliance on IPv4 has
   been hampered by a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support
   throughout the industry.  Many vendors, especially in the consumer
   space have continued to view IPv6 support as optional.  Even today
   they are still selling "IP capable" or "Internet Capable" devices
   which are not IPv6-capable, which has continued to push out the point
   at which the natural hardware refresh cycle will significantly
   increase IPv6 support in the average home or enterprise network.
   They are also choosing not to update existing software to enable IPv6
   support on software-updatable devices, which is a problem because it
   is not realistic to expect that the hardware refresh cycle will
   single-handedly purge IPv4-only devices from the active network in a
   reasonable amount of time.  This is a significant problem, especially
   in the consumer space, where the network operator often has no
   control over the hardware the consumer chooses to use.  For the same
   reason that the average consumer is not making a purchasing decision
   based on the presence of IPv6 support in their Internet-capable
   devices and services, consumers are unlikely to replace their still-
   functional Internet-capable devices simply to add IPv6 support - they
   don't know or don't care about IPv6, they simply want their devices
   to work as advertised.

   This lack of support is making the eventual IPv6 transition
   considerably more difficult, and drives the need for expensive and
   complicated transition technologies to extend the life of IPv4-only
   devices as well as eventually to interwork IPv4-only and IPv6-only
   hosts.  While IPv4 is expected to coexist on the Internet with IPv6
   for many years, a transition from IPv4 as the dominant Internet
   Protocol towards IPv6 as the dominant Internet Protocol will need to
   occur.  The sooner the majority of devices support IPv6, the less
   protracted this transition period will be.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Requirements and Recommendation

   This draft updates the following documents:

   Updates [RFC1812] to note that [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4 which use the
   generic "IP" synonymously with the more specific "IPv4."  Since
   RFC1812 is an IPv4 router specification, the generic use of IP nodes SHOULD no longer support in
   this standard may cause confusion as IP is redefined to mean IPv4
   only. +
   IPv6.  This proposed update is not intended to change the existing
   technical interpretation of RFC1812 to include IPv6 in its
   implementation details.  Rather, it is intended to ensure that those
   using it RFC1812 as a guideline for IP implementations understand that
   IP nodes SHOULD NOT support IPv4 only, and that they should use the
   other informative references in this document as a companion
   guideline for proper IPv6 implementations.

   Updates [RFC1122] to clarify that this document, especially in
   section 3, primarily discusses IPv4 where it uses the more generic
   term "IP" and is no longer a complete definition of "IP" or the
   Internet Protocol suite by itself.  For example, section 3.1 does not
   contain references to the IPv6 equivalent standards for the Internet
   layer, section 3.2 is a protocol walk-through for IPv4 only; section
   3.2.1.1 explicitly requires an IP datagram whose version number is
   not 4 to be discarded, which would be detrimental to IPv6 forwarding.
   However, portions of RFC1122 refer to the Internet Layer and IP more
   in terms of its function and are less version-specific, such as
   Section 1.1.3.  In these cases, it is possible to redefine generic
   "IP" support to include and require IPv6 for IP-capable nodes and
   routers.

   Updates [RFC4084] to move "Version Support" from Section 4,
   "Additional Terminology" to Section 2, "General Terminology."  This
   is to reflect the idea that version support is now critical to
   defining the types of IP service, especially with respect to Full
   Internet Connectivity.

   Rather than update the existing IPv4 protocol specification standards
   to include IPv6, IETF has defined a completely separate set of
   standalone documents which cover IPv6.  Therefore, the above-listed
   standards are not being updated to include the complete technical
   details of IPv6, but to identify that a distinction must be made
   between IPv4 and IPv6 in some places where IP is used generically.
   Current requirements for IPv6 support can be found in [RFC4294], soon
   to be updated by [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] and in [RFC6204].  Each
   of these documents contains specific information, requirements, and
   references to other draft and proposed standards governing many
   aspects of IPv6 implementation.

   From a practical perspective, the requirements proposed by this draft
   mean that:

      New IP implementations MUST support IPv6.

      Current IP implementations SHOULD support IPv6.

      IPv6 support MUST be equivalent or better in quality and
      functionality when compared to IPv4 support in an IP
      implementation.

      Helpful informative references can be found in [RFC4294], soon to
      be updated by [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] and in [RFC6204]

      Current and new IP Networking implementations SHOULD support IPv4
      and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but MUST NOT require IPv4 for
      proper and complete function.

      It is expected that many existing devices and implementations will
      not be able to support IPv6 for one or more valid technical
      reasons, but for maximum flexibility and compatibility, a best
      effort SHOULD be made to update existing hardware and software to
      enable IPv6 support.

3.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following people for their reviews and comments: Marla
   Azinger, Brian Carpenter, Victor Kuarsingh, Jari Arkko, Scott Brim,
   Margaret Wasserman, Joe Touch Touch, Fred Baker, Benson Schliesser

4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.

5.  Security Considerations

   There are no direct security considerations generated by this
   document, but existing documented security considerations for
   implementing IPv6 will apply.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, June 1995.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4084]  Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet
              Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, May 2005.

6.2.  Informative References

   [APNIC-exhaust]
              APNIC, "APNIC Press Release", 2011, <http://www.apnic.net/
              __data/assets/pdf_file/0018/33246/
              Key-Turning-Point-in-Asia-Pacific-IPv4-
              Exhaustion_English.pdf >.

   [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-6man-node-req-bis]
              Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
              Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11 (work in
              progress), May 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]
              Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing",
              draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-05 (work in
              progress), March 2011.

   [IANA-exhaust]
              IANA, "IANA address allocation", 2011, <http://
              www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
              ipv4-address-space.xml>.

   [RFC1883]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, December 1995.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC4294]  Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
              April 2006.

   [RFC6204]  Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
              Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
              Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Wesley George
   Time Warner Cable
   13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Phone: +1 703-561-2540
   Email: wesley.george@twcable.com

   Chris Donley
   Cablelabs
   858 Coal Creek Circle
   Louisville, CO  80027
   US

   Phone: +1-303-661-9100
   Email: C.Donley@cablelabs.com
   Christopher Liljenstolpe
   Telstra
   Level 32/242 Exhibition Street
   Melbourne, VIC  3000
   AU

   Phone: +61-3-8647-6389
   Email: cdl@asgaard.org

   Lee Howard
   Time Warner Cable
   13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Herndon, VA  20171
   US

   Phone: +1-703-345-3513
   Email: lee.howard@twcable.com