draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt   draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-02.txt 
Internet Area Working Group W. George Internet Area Working Group W. George
Internet-Draft Time Warner Cable Internet-Draft Time Warner Cable
Updates: 1812, 1122, 4084 C. Donley Intended status: BCP C. Donley
(if approved) Cablelabs Expires: June 10, 2012 Cablelabs
Intended status: Standards Track C. Liljenstolpe C. Liljenstolpe
Expires: January 12, 2012 Telstra Telstra
L. Howard L. Howard
Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable
July 11, 2011 December 8, 2011
IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable Nodes
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01 draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-02
Abstract Abstract
Given the global lack of available IPv4 space, and limitations in Given the global lack of available IPv4 space, and limitations in
IPv4 extension and transition technologies, this document deprecates IPv4 extension and transition technologies, this document advises
the concept that an IP-capable node MAY support IPv4 _only_, and that IPv6 support is no longer considered optional. It also cautions
redefines an IP-capable node as one which supports either IPv6 _only_ that there are places in existing IETF documents where the term "IP"
or IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack. This document updates RFC1812, RFC1122 and is used in a way that could be misunderstood by implementers as the
RFC4084 to reflect the change in requirements. term "IP" becomes a generic which can mean IPv4 + IPv6, IPv6-only, or
IPv4-only, depending on context and application.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 10, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Clarifications and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
IP version 4 (IPv4) has served to connect public and private hosts 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 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, the Internet in finding new and innovative uses for IP networking,
billions of hosts are now connected via the Internet and requiring billions of hosts are now connected via the Internet and requiring
unique addressing. This demand has led to the exhaustion of the IANA unique addressing. This demand has led to the exhaustion of the IANA
global pool of unique IPv4 addresses [IANA-exhaust], and will be global pool of unique IPv4 addresses [IANA-exhaust], and will be
followed by the exhaustion of the free pools for each Regional followed by the exhaustion of the free pools for each Regional
Internet Registry (RIR), the first of which is APNIC [APNIC-exhaust]. Internet Registry (RIR), the first of which is APNIC [APNIC-exhaust].
While transition technologies and other means to extend the lifespan While transition technologies and other means to extend the lifespan
of IPv4 do exist, nearly all of them come with tradeoffs that prevent of IPv4 do exist, nearly all of them come with tradeoffs that prevent
them from being optimal long-term solutions when compared with them from being optimal long-term solutions when compared with
deployment of IP version 6 (IPv6) as a means to allow continued deployment of IP version 6 (IPv6) as a means to allow continued
growth on the Internet. See growth on the Internet. See [RFC6269] and
[I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] and
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] for some discussion on this topic. [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] for some discussion on this topic.
IPv6 [RFC1883] was proposed in 1995 as, among other things, a IPv6 [RFC1883] was proposed in 1995 as, among other things, a
solution to the limitations on globally unique addressing that IPv4's solution to the limitations on globally unique addressing that IPv4's
32-bit addressing space represented, and has been under continuous 32-bit addressing space represented, and has been under continuous
refinement and deployment ever since. [RFC2460]. The exhaustion of refinement (e.g., [RFC2460]) and deployment ever since. The
IPv4 and the continued growth of the internet worldwide has created exhaustion of IPv4 and the continued growth of the internet worldwide
the driver for widespread IPv6 deployment. has created the driver for widespread IPv6 deployment.
However, the IPv6 deployment necessary to reduce reliance on IPv4 has However, the IPv6 deployment necessary to reduce reliance on IPv4 has
been hampered by a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support been hampered by a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support
throughout the industry. Many vendors, especially in the consumer throughout the industry. Many vendors, especially in the consumer
space have continued to view IPv6 support as optional. Even today space have continued to view IPv6 support as optional. Even today
they are still selling "IP capable" or "Internet Capable" devices they are still selling "IP capable" or "Internet Capable" devices
which are not IPv6-capable, which has continued to push out the point which are not IPv6-capable, which has continued to push out the point
at which the natural hardware refresh cycle will significantly at which the natural hardware refresh cycle will significantly
increase IPv6 support in the average home or enterprise network. increase IPv6 support in the average home or enterprise network.
They are also choosing not to update existing software to enable IPv6 They are also choosing not to update existing software to enable IPv6
skipping to change at page 4, line 13 skipping to change at page 4, line 12
This lack of support is making the eventual IPv6 transition This lack of support is making the eventual IPv6 transition
considerably more difficult, and drives the need for expensive and considerably more difficult, and drives the need for expensive and
complicated transition technologies to extend the life of IPv4-only complicated transition technologies to extend the life of IPv4-only
devices as well as eventually to interwork IPv4-only and IPv6-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 hosts. While IPv4 is expected to coexist on the Internet with IPv6
for many years, a transition from IPv4 as the dominant Internet for many years, a transition from IPv4 as the dominant Internet
Protocol towards IPv6 as the dominant Internet Protocol will need to Protocol towards IPv6 as the dominant Internet Protocol will need to
occur. The sooner the majority of devices support IPv6, the less occur. The sooner the majority of devices support IPv6, the less
protracted this transition period will be. protracted this transition period will be.
1.1. Requirements Language 2. Clarifications and Recommendation
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], 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 in
this standard may cause confusion as IP is redefined to mean IPv4 +
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 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, To ensure interoperability and proper function after IPv4 exhaustion,
"Additional Terminology" to Section 2, "General Terminology." This support for IPv6 is virtually a requirement. Rather than update the
is to reflect the idea that version support is now critical to existing IPv4 protocol specification standards to include IPv6, IETF
defining the types of IP service, especially with respect to Full has defined a completely separate set of standalone documents which
Internet Connectivity. cover IPv6. Therefore, implementers are cautioned that a distinction
must be made between IPv4 and IPv6 in some IETF documents 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.
Rather than update the existing IPv4 protocol specification standards Many of IETF's early documents use the generic term "IP" synonymously
to include IPv6, IETF has defined a completely separate set of with the more specific "IPv4." Some examples of this potential
standalone documents which cover IPv6. Therefore, the above-listed confusion can be found in [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4.
standards are not being updated to include the complete technical Since RFC1812 is an IPv4 router specification, the generic use of IP
details of IPv6, but to identify that a distinction must be made in this standard may cause confusion as the term "IP" can now be
between IPv4 and IPv6 in some places where IP is used generically. interpreted to mean: IPv4 + IPv6, IPv6-only, or IPv4-only.
Current requirements for IPv6 support can be found in [RFC4294], soon Additionally, [RFC1122], is no longer a complete definition of "IP"
to be updated by [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] and in [RFC6204]. Each or the Internet Protocol suite by itself, because it does not include
of these documents contains specific information, requirements, and IPv6. For example, section 3.1 does not contain references to the
references to other draft and proposed standards governing many IPv6 equivalent standards for the Internet layer, section 3.2 is a
aspects of IPv6 implementation. protocol walk-through for IPv4 only, and 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. Additional
instances of this type of problem exist that are not discussed here.
Since existing RFCs say "IP" in places where they may mean IPv4,
implementers are cautioned to ensure that they know whether a given
standard is inclusive or exclusive of IPv6. To ensure
interoperability, implementers building IP nodes will need to support
both IPv4 and IPv6. If the standard does not include an integral
definition of both IPv4 and IPv6, implementers need to use the other
informative references in this document as a companion guideline for
proper IPv6 implementations.
From a practical perspective, the requirements proposed by this draft To ensure interoperability and flexibility, the best practice is:
mean that:
New IP implementations MUST support IPv6. New IP implementations must support IPv6.
Current IP implementations SHOULD support IPv6. Updates to current IP implementations should support IPv6.
IPv6 support MUST be equivalent or better in quality and IPv6 support must be equivalent or better in quality and
functionality when compared to IPv4 support in an IP functionality when compared to IPv4 support in a new or updated IP
implementation. implementation.
Current and new IP Networking implementations SHOULD support IPv4 New and updated IP Networking implementations should support IPv4
and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but MUST NOT require IPv4 for and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but must not require IPv4 for
proper and complete function. proper and complete function.
It is expected that many existing devices and implementations will Implementers are encouraged to update existing hardware and
not be able to support IPv6 for one or more valid technical software to enable IPv6 wherever technically feasible.
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 3. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people for their reviews and comments: Marla Thanks to the following people for their reviews and comments: Marla
Azinger, Brian Carpenter, Victor Kuarsingh, Jari Arkko, Scott Brim, Azinger, Brian Carpenter, Victor Kuarsingh, Jari Arkko, Scott Brim,
Margaret Wasserman, Joe Touch, Fred Baker, Benson Schliesser Margaret Wasserman, Joe Touch, Fred Baker, Benson Schliesser, Eric
Rosen, David Harrington, Wesley Eddy.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA. This memo includes no request to IANA.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
There are no direct security considerations generated by this There are no direct security considerations generated by this
document, but existing documented security considerations for document, but existing documented security considerations for
implementing IPv6 will apply. implementing IPv6 will apply.
6. References 6. Informative 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-exhaust]
APNIC, "APNIC Press Release", 2011, <http://www.apnic.net/ APNIC, "APNIC Press Release", 2011, <http://www.apnic.net/
__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/33246/ __data/assets/pdf_file/0018/33246/
Key-Turning-Point-in-Asia-Pacific-IPv4- Key-Turning-Point-in-Asia-Pacific-IPv4-
Exhaustion_English.pdf >. Exhaustion_English.pdf >.
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Chandrasekaran, A., Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U.
and V. Ganti, "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on
Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 (work in Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03
progress), October 2010. (work in progress), November 2011.
[I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]
Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11 (work in Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11 (work in
progress), May 2011. 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-exhaust]
IANA, "IANA address allocation", 2011, <http:// IANA, "IANA address allocation", 2011, <http://
www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
ipv4-address-space.xml>. ipv4-address-space.xml>.
[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.
[RFC1883] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC1883] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, December 1995. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, December 1995.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294, [RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
April 2006. April 2006.
[RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O. [RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011. Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Wesley George Wesley George
Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive 13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171 Herndon, VA 20171
US US
Phone: +1 703-561-2540 Phone: +1 703-561-2540
Email: wesley.george@twcable.com Email: wesley.george@twcable.com
 End of changes. 24 change blocks. 
117 lines changed or deleted 82 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/