draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-02.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-03.txt 
IPv6 Operations (v6ops) J. Palet Martinez IPv6 Operations (v6ops) J. Palet Martinez
Internet-Draft The IPv6 Company Internet-Draft The IPv6 Company
Updates: 8026 (if approved) H. M.-H. Liu Intended status: Informational H. M.-H. Liu
Intended status: Informational D-Link Systems, Inc. Expires: December 17, 2018 D-Link Systems, Inc.
Expires: December 15, 2018 M. Kawashima M. Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd. NEC Platforms, Ltd.
June 13, 2018 June 15, 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-02 draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-03
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 December 17, 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 32 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Differences from RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Differences from RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Update of RFC8026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
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 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
option to manually enable/disable each of the supported option to manually enable/disable each of the supported
transition mechanisms. transition mechanisms.
TRANS-3: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 TRANS-3: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46
priority options described in [RFC8026] (Unified IPv4-in- priority options described in [RFC8026] (Unified IPv4-in-
IPv6 Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A IPv6 Softwire Customer Premises Equipment (CPE): A
DHCPv6-Based Prioritization Mechanism). DHCPv6-Based Prioritization Mechanism).
TRANS-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router, following Section 1.4 of TRANS-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router, following Section 1.4 of
[RFC8026], MUST check for a valid match in [RFC8026], MUST check for a valid match in
OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which will allow configuring a OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which will allow enabling/configuring
transition mechanisms. If 464XLAT [RFC6877] is supported, a transition mechanism.
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 TRANS-5: In order to allow the service provider to disable all the
transition mechanisms, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST transition mechanisms, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST
NOT enable any transition mechanisms if no match is found NOT enable any transition mechanisms if no match is found
between the priority list and the candidate list. between the priority list and the candidate list.
The following sections describe the requirements for supporting each The following sections describe the requirements for supporting each
one of the transition mechanisms. one of the transition mechanisms.
3.3.1. 464XLAT 3.3.1. 464XLAT
skipping to change at page 6, line 39 skipping to change at page 6, line 39
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
used to send PCP requests to the server. used to send PCP requests to the server.
464XLAT-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement [RFC7050] 464XLAT-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement [RFC7050]
(Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address (Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address
Synthesis) in order to discover the PLAT-side translation Synthesis) in order to discover the PLAT-side translation
IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es). The IPv6 Transition IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es).
CE Router MUST follow [RFC7225] (Discovering NAT64 IPv6
Prefixes Using the PCP), in order to learn the PLAT-side 464XLAT-5: If PCP is implemented, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST
translation IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es) used by follow [RFC7225] (Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using
an upstream PCP-controlled NAT64 device. the PCP), in order to learn the PLAT-side translation
IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es) used by an upstream
PCP-controlled NAT64 device.
464XLAT-6: A DHCPv6 Option "OPTION_V6_PREFIX64" ([RFC8115]), with
zeroed ASM_mPrefix64 and SSM_mPrefix64, MUST also be
considered as a valid NAT64 prefix (uPrefix64).
464XLAT-7: If a DHCPv6 Option "OPTION_V6_PREFIX64" ([RFC8115]), with
zeroed ASM_mPrefix64 and SSM_mPrefix64 provides a NAT64
prefix, or one or more NAT64 prefixes are learnt by means
of either [RFC7050] or [RFC7225], then 464XLAT MUST be
included in the candidate list of possible S46 mechanism
(Section 1.4.1 of [RFC8026]).
The NAT64 prefix could be discovered by means of [RFC7050] only in
the case the service provider uses DNS64 ([RFC6147]). If DNS64
([RFC6147]) is not used, or not trusted, as the DNS configuration at
the CE (or hosts behind the CE) may be modified by the customer, then
the service provider may opt to configure the NAT64 prefix either by
means of [RFC7225] or [RFC8115], which also can be used if the
service provider uses DNS64 ([RFC6147]).
3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) 3.3.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)
Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] enables both continued support for IPv4 Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] enables both continued support for IPv4
services and incentives for the deployment of IPv6. It also de- services and incentives for the deployment of IPv6. It also de-
couples IPv6 deployment in the service provider network from the rest couples IPv6 deployment in the service provider network from the rest
of the Internet, making incremental deployment easier. Dual-Stack of the Internet, making incremental deployment easier. Dual-Stack
Lite enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4 addresses Lite enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4 addresses
among customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP among customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP
(IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT). It is expected (IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT). It is expected
skipping to change at page 7, line 41 skipping to change at page 8, line 14
MUST assume, by default, that the AFTR is the PCP server. MUST assume, by default, that the AFTR is the PCP server.
A plain IPv6 mode is used to send PCP requests to the A plain IPv6 mode is used to send PCP requests to the
server. server.
DSLITE-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST NOT perform IPv4 DSLITE-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST NOT perform IPv4
Network Address Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic Network Address Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic
encapsulated using DS-Lite ([RFC6333]). encapsulated using DS-Lite ([RFC6333]).
3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) 3.3.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6)
Lw4o6 [RFC7596] specifies an extension to DS-Lite, which moves the lw4o6 [RFC7596] specifies an extension to DS-Lite, which moves the
NAPT function from the DS-Lite tunnel concentrator to the tunnel NAPT function from the DS-Lite tunnel concentrator to the tunnel
client located in the IPv6 Transition CE Router, removing the client located in the IPv6 Transition CE Router, removing the
requirement for a CGN function in the tunnel concentrator and requirement for a CGN function in the tunnel concentrator and
reducing the amount of centralized state. reducing the amount of centralized state.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD implement lw4o6 functionality. The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD implement lw4o6 functionality.
If DS-Lite is implemented, lw4o6 SHOULD be supported as well. If If DS-Lite is implemented, lw4o6 SHOULD be supported as well. If
lw4o6 is supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7596]. lw4o6 is supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7596].
The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also apply: The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also apply:
Lw4o6 requirements: lw4o6 requirements:
LW4O6-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration of LW4O6-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration of
lw4o6 via the lw4o6 DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 lw4o6 via the lw4o6 DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6
Options for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port- Options for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-
Mapped Clients). The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY use Mapped Clients). The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY use
other mechanisms to configure lw4o6 parameters. Such other mechanisms to configure lw4o6 parameters. Such
mechanisms are outside the scope of this document. mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
LW4O6-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv4-over- LW4O6-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv4-over-
DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) transport described in [RFC7341] (DHCPv4- DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) transport described in [RFC7341] (DHCPv4-
skipping to change at page 10, line 14 skipping to change at page 10, line 34
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. Update of RFC8026 7. Code Considerations
[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 11, line 9 skipping to change at page 11, line 10
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.
9. Security Considerations 8. 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.
10. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
IANA is instructed, by means of this document, to create a new Option 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 Code for 464XLAT in the registry "Option Codes permitted in the S46
Priority Option" as follows. Priority Option", with a referente to this document, as follows.
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+ +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Option Code | S46 Mechanism | Reference | | Option Code | S46 Mechanism | Reference |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+ +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| 46 | 464XLAT | [RFC6877] | | 113 | 464XLAT | [thisdoc] |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+ +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 1: DHCPv6 Option Code for 464XLAT Table 1: DHCPv6 Option Code for 464XLAT
11. Acknowledgements 10. 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, Ian Farrer, Lee Howard, Richard Patterson, Barbara Stark,
James Woodyatt, and "TBD", for their review and comments in this and Ole Troan, James Woodyatt and ..., for their review and comments in
previous versions of this document. this and/or previous versions of this document.
12. Annex A: Usage Scenarios 11. 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 13, line 36 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.
13. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture 12. 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 16, 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.
14. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 13. 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.
15. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. TRANS requirements reworked in order to increase operator control 1. TRANS requirements reworked in order to increase operator control
and allow gradual transitioning from dual-stack to IPv6-only on and allow gradual transitioning from dual-stack to IPv6-only on
specific customers. specific customers.
2. New TRANS requirement so all the supported transition mechanisms 2. New TRANS requirement so all the supported transition mechanisms
are disabled by default, in order to facilitate the operator are disabled by default, in order to facilitate the operator
management. management.
3. New TRANS requirement in order to allow turning on/off each 3. New TRANS requirement in order to allow turning on/off each
transition mechanism by the user. transition mechanism by the user.
4. Clarification on how to obtain multiple /64 for 464XLAT. 4. Clarification on how to obtain multiple /64 for 464XLAT.
5. S46 priority update to RFC8026 for including 464XLAT and related 5. S46 priority update to RFC8026 for including 464XLAT and related
changes in several sections. changes in several sections.
15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. RFC8026 update removed, not needed with new approach.
2. TRANS and 464XLAT requirements reworded in order to match new
approach to allow operator control on each/all the transition
mechanisms.
3. Added text in 464XLAT to clarify the usage.
16. References 16. References
16.1. Normative 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
skipping to change at page 17, line 24 skipping to change at page 17, line 35
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 [RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification", Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, DOI 10.17487/RFC5969, August 2010, RFC 5969, DOI 10.17487/RFC5969, August 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5969>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5969>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful [RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146, Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>. April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual- [RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011, Exhaustion", RFC 6333, DOI 10.17487/RFC6333, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6333>.
[RFC6334] Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration [RFC6334] Hankins, D. and T. Mrugalski, "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite", Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Option for Dual-Stack Lite",
RFC 6334, DOI 10.17487/RFC6334, August 2011, RFC 6334, DOI 10.17487/RFC6334, August 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6334>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6334>.
 End of changes. 27 change blocks. 
70 lines changed or deleted 84 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/