draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-01.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-02.txt 
IPv6 Operations (v6ops) J. Palet Martinez IPv6 Operations (v6ops) J. Palet Martinez
Internet-Draft The IPv6 Company Internet-Draft The IPv6 Company
Intended status: Informational H. M.-H. Liu Updates: 8026 (if approved) H. M.-H. Liu
Expires: November 28, 2018 D-Link Systems, Inc. Intended status: Informational D-Link Systems, Inc.
M. Kawashima Expires: December 15, 2018 M. Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd. NEC Platforms, Ltd.
May 27, 2018 June 13, 2018
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support IPv4 Connectivity Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to Support IPv4 Connectivity
as-a-Service as-a-Service
draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-01 draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-02
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the IPv4 service continuity requirements for This document specifies the IPv4 service continuity requirements for
an IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) router, either provided by the service an IPv6 Customer Edge (CE) router, either provided by the service
provider or thru the retail market. provider or thru the retail market.
Specifically, this document extends the "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Specifically, this document extends the "Basic Requirements for IPv6
Customer Edge Routers" in order to allow the provisioning of IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" in order to allow the provisioning of IPv6
transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS) transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS)
by means of new transition mechanisms. The document only covers by means of new transition mechanisms. The document only covers
transition technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only access transition technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only access
networks, commonly called "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS), as required networks, commonly called "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS), as required
in a world where IPv4 addresses are no longer available, so hosts in in a world where IPv4 addresses are no longer available, so hosts in
the customer LANs with IPv4-only or IPv6-only applications or the customer LANs with IPv4-only or IPv6-only applications or
devices, requiring to communicate with IPv4-only services at the devices, requiring to communicate with IPv4-only services at the
Internet, are still able to do so. Internet, are still able to do so.
In order to be able to prioritize, in a uniform way, among all the
transition mechanisms, and to enable the service provider to enable/
disable them, this document updates RFC8026.
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://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 December 15, 2018.
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 28, 2018.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://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
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 service 3.3. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 service
continuity (IPv4 as-a-Service - IPv4aaS) . . . . . 5 continuity (IPv4 as-a-Service - IPv4aaS) . . . . . 5
3.3.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Differences from RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. Differences from RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Update of RFC8026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 12 12. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 13
14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 14. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 15. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
This document defines IPv4 service continuity features over an This document defines IPv4 service continuity features over an
IPv6-only network, for a residential or small-office router, referred IPv6-only network, for a residential or small-office router, referred
to as an "IPv6 Transition CE Router", in order to establish an to as an "IPv6 Transition CE Router", in order to establish an
industry baseline for transition features to be implemented on such a industry baseline for transition features to be implemented on such a
router. router.
These routers are likely to rely upon "Basic Requirements for IPv6 These routers are likely to rely upon "Basic Requirements for IPv6
skipping to change at page 5, line 24 skipping to change at page 5, line 24
This document takes no position on simultaneous operation of any This document takes no position on simultaneous operation of any
transition mechanism and native IPv4. transition mechanism and native IPv4.
In order to seamlessly provide the IPv4 Service Continuity in In order to seamlessly provide the IPv4 Service Continuity in
Customer LANs, allowing an automated IPv6 transition mechanism Customer LANs, allowing an automated IPv6 transition mechanism
provisioning, general transition requirements are added. provisioning, general transition requirements are added.
General transition requirements: General transition requirements:
TRANS-1: If more than one S46 mechanism is supported, the IPv6 TRANS-1: All the supported transition mechanisms MUST be disabled by
Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 priority default configuration of the IPv6 Transition CE Router.
option described in [RFC8026] (Unified IPv4-in-IPv6
Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A DHCPv6-Based
Prioritization Mechanism).
TRANS-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST verify if the WAN link TRANS-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST have a GUI and/or CLI
supports native IPv4. In that case, transition mechanisms option to manually enable/disable each of the supported
SHOULD NOT be automatically enabled for that interface. transition mechanisms.
TRANS-3: If native IPv4 is not available and 464XLAT [RFC6877] is TRANS-3: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46
supported, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST enable the priority options described in [RFC8026] (Unified IPv4-in-
CLAT (in order to automatically configure 464XLAT IPv6 Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A
[RFC6877]). If 464XLAT [RFC6877] is not supported, and DHCPv6-Based Prioritization Mechanism).
more than one S46 mechanism is supported, following
Section 1.4 of [RFC8026], MUST check for a valid match in
OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which will allow configuring any of
the other transition mechanisms.
The following sections describe the requirements for supporting TRANS-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router, following Section 1.4 of
transition mechanisms. [RFC8026], MUST check for a valid match in
OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which will allow configuring a
transition mechanisms. If 464XLAT [RFC6877] is supported,
it MUST be included in the candidate list of possible S46
mechanism, if one or more NAT64 prefixes are learnt by
means of either [RFC7050] or [RFC7225].
TRANS-5: In order to allow the service provider to disable all the
transition mechanisms, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST
NOT enable any transition mechanisms if no match is found
between the priority list and the candidate list.
The following sections describe the requirements for supporting each
one of the transition mechanisms.
3.3.1. 464XLAT 3.3.1. 464XLAT
464XLAT [RFC6877] is a technique to provide IPv4 service over an 464XLAT [RFC6877] is a technique to provide IPv4 service over an
IPv6-only access network without encapsulation. This architecture IPv6-only access network without encapsulation. This architecture
assumes a NAT64 [RFC6146] (Stateful NAT64: Network Address and assumes a NAT64 [RFC6146] (Stateful NAT64: Network Address and
Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers) function Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers) function
deployed at the service provider or a third-party network. deployed at the service provider or a third-party network.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support CLAT functionality. If The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support CLAT functionality. If
464XLAT is supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6877]. 464XLAT is supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6877].
The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also apply: The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also apply:
464XLAT requirements: 464XLAT requirements:
464XLAT-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST perform IPv4 Network 464XLAT-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST perform IPv4 Network
Address Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic translated Address Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic translated
using the CLAT, unless a dedicated /64 prefix has been using the CLAT, unless a dedicated /64 prefix has been
acquired using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] (IPv6 Prefix Options acquired, either using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] (IPv6 Prefix
for DHCPv6). Options for DHCPv6) or by alternative means.
464XLAT-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support IGD-PCP IWF 464XLAT-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support IGD-PCP IWF
[RFC6970] (UPnP Internet Gateway Device - Port Control [RFC6970] (UPnP Internet Gateway Device - Port Control
Protocol Interworking Function). Protocol Interworking Function).
464XLAT-3: If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented, the IPv6 Transition CE 464XLAT-3: If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented, the IPv6 Transition CE
Router MUST also implement [RFC7291] (DHCP Options for Router MUST also implement [RFC7291] (DHCP Options for
the PCP). If no PCP server is configured, the IPv6 the PCP). If no PCP server is configured, the IPv6
Transition CE Router MAY verify if the default gateway, Transition CE Router MAY verify if the default gateway,
or the NAT64 is the PCP server. A plain IPv6 mode is or the NAT64 is the PCP server. A plain IPv6 mode is
skipping to change at page 9, line 30 skipping to change at page 9, line 39
[RFC8115] (DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 [RFC8115] (DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6
Prefixes). Prefixes).
5. UPnP Support 5. UPnP Support
UPnP SHOULD be disabled by default on the IPv6 Transition CE Router UPnP SHOULD be disabled by default on the IPv6 Transition CE Router
when using an IPv4aaS transition mechanism. when using an IPv4aaS transition mechanism.
UPnP MAY be enabled when a IPv6 Transition CE Router is configured to UPnP MAY be enabled when a IPv6 Transition CE Router is configured to
use a stateless mechanism that allows unsolicited inbound packets use a stateless mechanism that allows unsolicited inbound packets
through to the CE, such as MAP or LW4o6, or when configured with an a through to the CE, such as MAP or lw4o6, or when configured with 4 a
port set containing all 65535 ports, e.g. with an IPv4 address port set containing all 65535 ports, e.g. with an IPv4 address
sharing ratio of 1. sharing ratio of 1.
If UPnP is enabled on a IPv6 Transition CE Router, the UPnP agent If UPnP is enabled on a IPv6 Transition CE Router, the UPnP agent
MUST reject any port mapping requests for ports outside of the port MUST reject any port mapping requests for ports outside of the port
set allocated to the IPv6 Transition CE Router. set allocated to the IPv6 Transition CE Router.
UPnP MAY also be enabled on a IPv6 Transition CE Router configured UPnP MAY also be enabled on a IPv6 Transition CE Router configured
for IPv4aaS mechanisms that support PCP [RFC6887], if implemented in for IPv4aaS mechanisms that support PCP [RFC6887], if implemented in
conjunction with a method to control the external port mapping, such conjunction with a method to control the external port mapping, such
skipping to change at page 10, line 5 skipping to change at page 10, line 14
A IPv6 Transition CE Router that implements a UPnP agent, SHOULD A IPv6 Transition CE Router that implements a UPnP agent, SHOULD
support the Open Connectivity Foundation's IGD:2 specification, support the Open Connectivity Foundation's IGD:2 specification,
including the AddAnyPortMapping() function. including the AddAnyPortMapping() function.
6. Differences from RFC7084 6. Differences from RFC7084
This document no longer consider the need to support 6rd ([RFC5969]) This document no longer consider the need to support 6rd ([RFC5969])
and includes slightly different requirements for DS-LITE [RFC6333]. and includes slightly different requirements for DS-LITE [RFC6333].
7. Code Considerations 7. Update of RFC8026
[RFC8026] (Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE: A DHCPv6-Based
Prioritization Mechanism) specifies a DHCPv6 option in order to
priorize among different transition mechanism, all them covered by
this document, with the exception of 464XLAT [RFC6877].
This document updates [RFC8026] in order to specify a new option code
for 464XLAT [RFC6877], so the IPv6 Transition CE Router can use that
as a simple mechanism for detecting if the CLAT need to be enabled/
disabled and what priority 464XLAT has versus other transition
mechanism included in the S46 Priority Option.
In addition to that, as 464XLAT [RFC6877] doesn't have an specific
DHCPv6 message for configuration options, this document changes the
behaviour of Section 1.4.1 of [RFC8026], so 464XLAT is included in
the candidate list of possible S46 mechanism, if one or more NAT64
prefixes are learnt by means of either [RFC7050] or [RFC7225].
8. Code Considerations
One of the apparent main issues for vendors to include new One of the apparent main issues for vendors to include new
functionalities, such as support for new transition mechanisms, is functionalities, such as support for new transition mechanisms, is
the lack of space in the flash (or equivalent) memory. However, it the lack of space in the flash (or equivalent) memory. However, it
has been confirmed from existing open source implementations has been confirmed from existing open source implementations
(OpenWRT/LEDE, Linux, others), that adding the support for the new (OpenWRT/LEDE, Linux, others), that adding the support for the new
transitions mechanisms, requires around 10-12 Kbytes (because most of transitions mechanisms, requires around 10-12 Kbytes (because most of
the code base is shared among several transition mechanisms already the code base is shared among several transition mechanisms already
supported by [RFC7084]), as a single data plane is common to all supported by [RFC7084]), as a single data plane is common to all
them, which typically means about 0,15% of the existing code size in them, which typically means about 0,15% of the existing code size in
skipping to change at page 10, line 30 skipping to change at page 11, line 9
powerful CPUs. powerful CPUs.
The other issue seems to be the cost of developing the code for those The other issue seems to be the cost of developing the code for those
new functionalities. However, at the time of writing this document, new functionalities. However, at the time of writing this document,
it has been confirmed that there are several open source versions of it has been confirmed that there are several open source versions of
the required code for supporting the new transition mechanisms, and the required code for supporting the new transition mechanisms, and
even several vendors already have implementations and provide it to even several vendors already have implementations and provide it to
ISPs, so the development cost is negligent, and only integration and ISPs, so the development cost is negligent, and only integration and
testing cost may become a minor issue. testing cost may become a minor issue.
8. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
The IPv6 Transition CE Router must comply with the Security The IPv6 Transition CE Router must comply with the Security
Considerations as stated in [RFC7084], as well as those stated by Considerations as stated in [RFC7084], as well as those stated by
each transition mechanism implemented by the IPv6 Transition CE each transition mechanism implemented by the IPv6 Transition CE
Router. Router.
9. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. IANA is instructed, by means of this document, to create a new Option
Code for 464XLAT in the registry "Option Codes permitted in the S46
Priority Option" as follows.
10. Acknowledgements +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Option Code | S46 Mechanism | Reference |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| 46 | 464XLAT | [RFC6877] |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 1: DHCPv6 Option Code for 464XLAT
11. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mikael Abrahamsson, Fred Baker, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian Thanks to Mikael Abrahamsson, Fred Baker, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian
Carpenter, Lee Howard, Richard Patterson, Barbara Stark, Ole Troan, Carpenter, Lee Howard, Richard Patterson, Barbara Stark, Ole Troan,
James Woodyatt, and "TBD", for their review and comments in this and James Woodyatt, and "TBD", for their review and comments in this and
previous versions of this document. previous versions of this document.
11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios 12. Annex A: Usage Scenarios
The situation previously described, where there is ongoing IPv6 The situation previously described, where there is ongoing IPv6
deployment and lack of IPv4 addresses, is not happening at the same deployment and lack of IPv4 addresses, is not happening at the same
pace at every country, and even within every country, every ISP. For pace at every country, and even within every country, every ISP. For
different technical, financial, commercial/marketing and socio- different technical, financial, commercial/marketing and socio-
economic reasons, each network is transitioning at their own pace, economic reasons, each network is transitioning at their own pace,
and nobody has a magic crystal ball, to make a guess. and nobody has a magic crystal ball, to make a guess.
Different studies (for example [IPv6Survey]) also show that this is a Different studies (for example [IPv6Survey]) also show that this is a
changing situation, because in a single country, it may be that not changing situation, because in a single country, it may be that not
skipping to change at page 12, line 45 skipping to change at page 13, line 36
cases, the user must supply or may replace the CE Router; this makes cases, the user must supply or may replace the CE Router; this makes
even more relevant that all the CE Routers, support the same even more relevant that all the CE Routers, support the same
requirements defined in this document. requirements defined in this document.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router described in this document is not The IPv6 Transition CE Router described in this document is not
intended for usage in other scenarios such as large Enterprises, Data intended for usage in other scenarios such as large Enterprises, Data
Centers, Content Providers, etc. So, even if the documented Centers, Content Providers, etc. So, even if the documented
requirements meet their needs, they may have additional requirements, requirements meet their needs, they may have additional requirements,
which are out of the scope of this document. which are out of the scope of this document.
12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture 13. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture
According to the descriptions in the preceding sections, an end-user According to the descriptions in the preceding sections, an end-user
network will likely support both IPv4 and IPv6. It is not expected network will likely support both IPv4 and IPv6. It is not expected
that an end user will change their existing network topology with the that an end user will change their existing network topology with the
introduction of IPv6. There are some differences in how IPv6 works introduction of IPv6. There are some differences in how IPv6 works
and is provisioned; these differences have implications for the and is provisioned; these differences have implications for the
network architecture. network architecture.
A typical IPv4 end-user network consists of a "plug and play" router A typical IPv4 end-user network consists of a "plug and play" router
with NAT functionality and a single link upstream, connected to the with NAT functionality and a single link upstream, connected to the
skipping to change at page 15, line 6 skipping to change at page 16, line 6
o Provisioning of the WAN interface connecting to the service o Provisioning of the WAN interface connecting to the service
provider provider
o Provisioning of the LAN interfaces o Provisioning of the LAN interfaces
The IPv6 Transition CE Router may be manually configured in an The IPv6 Transition CE Router may be manually configured in an
arbitrary topology with a dynamic routing protocol or using HNCP arbitrary topology with a dynamic routing protocol or using HNCP
([RFC7788]). Automatic provisioning and configuration is described ([RFC7788]). Automatic provisioning and configuration is described
for a single IPv6 Transition CE Router only. for a single IPv6 Transition CE Router only.
13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 14. ANNEX C: Changes from -00
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. ID-Nits: IANA section. 1. ID-Nits: IANA section.
2. ID-Nits: RFC7084 reference removed from Abstract. 2. ID-Nits: RFC7084 reference removed from Abstract.
3. This document no longer updates RFC7084. 3. This document no longer updates RFC7084.
4. UPnP section reworded. 4. UPnP section reworded.
5. "CE Router" changed to "IPv6 Transition CE Router". 5. "CE Router" changed to "IPv6 Transition CE Router".
6. Reduced text in Annex A. 6. Reduced text in Annex A.
14. References 15. ANNEX D: Changes from -01
14.1. Normative References Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. TRANS requirements reworked in order to increase operator control
and allow gradual transitioning from dual-stack to IPv6-only on
specific customers.
2. New TRANS requirement so all the supported transition mechanisms
are disabled by default, in order to facilitate the operator
management.
3. New TRANS requirement in order to allow turning on/off each
transition mechanism by the user.
4. Clarification on how to obtain multiple /64 for 464XLAT.
5. S46 priority update to RFC8026 for including 464XLAT and related
changes in several sections.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
skipping to change at page 18, line 10 skipping to change at page 19, line 31
Wang, "Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients Wang, "Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients
over an IPv6 Multicast Network", RFC 8114, over an IPv6 Multicast Network", RFC 8114,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8114, March 2017, DOI 10.17487/RFC8114, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8114>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8114>.
[RFC8115] Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Tsou, T., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6 [RFC8115] Boucadair, M., Qin, J., Tsou, T., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6
Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6
Prefixes", RFC 8115, DOI 10.17487/RFC8115, March 2017, Prefixes", RFC 8115, DOI 10.17487/RFC8115, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8115>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8115>.
14.2. Informative References 16.2. Informative References
[IPv6Survey] [IPv6Survey]
Palet Martinez, J., "IPv6 Deployment Survey", January Palet Martinez, J., "IPv6 Deployment Survey", January
2018, 2018,
<https://indico.uknof.org.uk/event/41/contribution/5/ <https://indico.uknof.org.uk/event/41/contribution/5/
material/slides/0.pdf>. material/slides/0.pdf>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking [RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
skipping to change at page 18, line 28 skipping to change at page 20, line 4
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking [RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
[UPnP-IGD] [UPnP-IGD]
UPnP Forum, "InternetGatewayDevice:2 Device Template UPnP Forum, "InternetGatewayDevice:2 Device Template
Version 1.01", December 2010, Version 1.01", December 2010,
<http://upnp.org/specs/gw/igd2/>. <http://upnp.org/specs/gw/igd2/>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Jordi Palet Martinez Jordi Palet Martinez
The IPv6 Company The IPv6 Company
Molino de la Navata, 75 Molino de la Navata, 75
La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420 La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420
Spain Spain
EMail: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
URI: http://www.theipv6company.com/ URI: http://www.theipv6company.com/
Hans M.-H. Liu Hans M.-H. Liu
D-Link Systems, Inc. D-Link Systems, Inc.
17595 Mount Herrmann St. 17595 Mount Herrmann St.
Fountain Valley, California 92708 Fountain Valley, California 92708
US US
EMail: hans.liu@dlinkcorp.com Email: hans.liu@dlinkcorp.com
URI: http://www.dlink.com/ URI: http://www.dlink.com/
Masanobu Kawashima Masanobu Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd. NEC Platforms, Ltd.
800, Shimomata 800, Shimomata
Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka 436-8501 Kakegawa-shi, Shizuoka 436-8501
Japan Japan
EMail: kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com Email: kawashimam@vx.jp.nec.com
URI: https://www.necplatforms.co.jp/en/ URI: https://www.necplatforms.co.jp/en/
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
56 lines changed or deleted 116 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.46. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/