draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-08.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-09.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 Intended status: Informational H. M.-H. Liu
Expires: February 17, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc. Expires: April 8, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc.
M. Kawashima M. Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd. NEC Platforms, Ltd.
August 16, 2018 October 5, 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-08 draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-09
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 through 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). This is
in a world where IPv4 addresses are no longer available, so hosts in required in a world where public IPv4 addresses are no longer
the customer LANs with IPv4-only or IPv6-only applications or available for every possible customer. However, devices or
devices, requiring to communicate with IPv4-only services at the applications in the customer LANs may be IPv4-only or IPv6-only and
Internet, are still able to do so. still need to communicate with IPv4-only services at the Internet.
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 February 17, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 8, 2019.
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 36 skipping to change at page 2, line 36
3.1. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 Service 3.2. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 Service
Continuity (IPv4 as-a-Service - IPv4aaS) . . . . . 5 Continuity (IPv4 as-a-Service - IPv4aaS) . . . . . 5
3.2.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Differences from RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Comparison to RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
17. ANNEX F: Changes from -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 17. ANNEX G: Changes from -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
18. ANNEX G: Changes from -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18. ANNEX H: Changes from -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
19. ANNEX G: Changes from -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19. ANNEX I: Changes from -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
20. ANNEX G: Changes from -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 20. ANNEX J: Changes from -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
21. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
21.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
21.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
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 rely upon "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge These routers rely upon "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers" ([RFC7084]), so the scope of this document is to ensure the Routers" ([RFC7084]), so the scope of this document is to ensure the
IPv4 "service continuity" support, in the LAN side and the access to IPv4 "service continuity" support, in the LAN side and the access to
IPv4-only Internet services from an IPv6-only access WAN even from IPv4-only Internet services from an IPv6-only access WAN even from
IPv6-only applications or devices in the LAN side. IPv6-only applications or devices in the LAN side.
This document covers a set of IP transition techniques required when This document covers a set of IP transition techniques required when
ISPs have, or want to have, an IPv6-only access network. This is a ISPs have, or want to have, an IPv6-only access network. This is a
common situation in a world where IPv4 addresses are no longer common situation in a world where public IPv4 addresses are no longer
available, so the service providers need to provision IPv6-only WAN available for every possible customer, and become prohibitive
expense, so the service providers need to provision IPv6-only WAN
access. At the same time, they need to ensure that both IPv4-only access. At the same time, they need to ensure that both IPv4-only
and IPv6-only devices or applications in the customer networks, can and IPv6-only devices or applications in the customer networks can
still reach IPv4-only devices and applications in the Internet. still reach IPv4-only devices and applications in the Internet.
This document specifies the IPv4 service continuity mechanisms to be This document specifies the IPv4 service continuity mechanisms to be
supported by an IPv6 Transition CE Router, and relevant provisioning supported by an IPv6 Transition CE Router, and relevant provisioning
or configuration information differences from [RFC7084]. or configuration information differences from [RFC7084].
This document is not a recommendation for service providers to use This document is not a recommendation for service providers to use
any specific transition mechanism. any specific transition mechanism.
Automatic provisioning of more complex topology than a single router Automatic provisioning of more complex topology than a single router
with multiple LAN interfaces may be handled by means of HNCP with multiple LAN interfaces may be handled by means of HNCP
([RFC7788]), which is out of the scope of this document. ([RFC7788]), which is out of the scope of this document.
Service providers who specify feature sets for IPv6 Transition CE Service providers who specify feature sets for IPv6 Transition CE
Router MAY specify a different set of features than those included in Router may specify a different set of features than those included in
this document. Since it is impossible to know prior to sale which this document. Since it is impossible to know prior to sale which
transition mechanism a device will need over the lifetime of the transition mechanism a device will need over the lifetime of the
device, IPv6 Transition CE Router intended for the retail market MUST device, IPv6 Transition CE Router intended for the retail market MUST
support all of them. support all the IPv4aaS transition mechanism supported by this
document.
A complete description of "Usage Scenarios" and "End-User Network A complete description of "Usage Scenarios" and "End-User Network
Architecture" is provided in Annexes A and B, respectively. Architecture" is provided in Annexes A and B, respectively.
1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note 1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are not used as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document, are not used as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This
document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of
interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing
industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the document points industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the document points
to several other specifications to provide additional guidance to to several other specifications to provide additional guidance to
implementers regarding any protocol implementation required to implementers regarding any protocol implementation required to
produce a successful IPv6 Transition CE Router that interoperates produce a successful IPv6 Transition CE Router that interoperates
successfully with a particular subset of currently deploying and successfully with a particular subset of currently deploying and
planned common IPv6-only access networks. planned common IPv6-only access networks.
Additionally, the keyword "DEFAULT" is to be interpreted in this Additionally, the keyword "DEFAULT" is to be interpreted in this
skipping to change at page 4, line 34 skipping to change at page 4, line 34
This document uses the same terms as in [RFC7084], with minor This document uses the same terms as in [RFC7084], with minor
clarifications. clarifications.
"IPv4aaS" stands for "IPv4 as-a-Service", meaning transition "IPv4aaS" stands for "IPv4 as-a-Service", meaning transition
technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only connectivity. technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only connectivity.
The term "IPv6 transition Customer Edge Router with IPv4aaS" The term "IPv6 transition Customer Edge Router with IPv4aaS"
(shortened as "IPv6 Transition CE Router") is defined as an "IPv6 (shortened as "IPv6 Transition CE Router") is defined as an "IPv6
Customer Edge Router" that provides features for the delivery of IPv4 Customer Edge Router" that provides features for the delivery of IPv4
services over an IPv6-only WAN network including IPv6-IPv4 services over an IPv6-only WAN network, including IPv6-IPv4
communications. communications.
The "WAN Interface" term used across this document, means that can The "WAN Interface" term used across this document, defines an IPv6
also support link technologies based in Internet-layer (or higher- Transition CE Router attachment to an IPv6-only link used to provide
layers) "tunnels", such as IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels. connectivity to a service provider network, including link Internet-
layer (or higher layers) "tunnels", such as IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels.
3. Requirements 3. Requirements
The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST comply with [RFC7084] (Basic The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST comply with [RFC7084] (Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) and this document add Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) and this document add
new requirements, as described in the following sub-sections. new requirements, as described in the following sub-sections.
3.1. LAN-Side Configuration 3.1. LAN-Side Configuration
A new LAN requirement is added, which in fact is common in regular A new LAN requirement is added, which in fact is common in regular
skipping to change at page 5, line 37 skipping to change at page 5, line 37
TRANS-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support the DHCPv6 S46 TRANS-1: 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-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST have a GUI, CLI and/or TRANS-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST have a GUI, CLI and/or
API option to manually enable/disable each of the supported API option to manually enable/disable each of the supported
transition mechanisms. transition mechanisms.
TRANS-3: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST request the relevant TRANS-3: If an IPv6 Transition CE Router supports more than one LAN
configuration options for each supported transition
mechanisms, which MUST remain disabled at this step.
TRANS-4: The IPv6 Transition CE Router, following Section 1.4 of
[RFC8026], MUST check for a valid match in
OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which allows enabling/disabling a
transition mechanism.
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.
TRANS-6: If an IPv6 Transition CE Router supports more than one LAN
subnet, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST allow subnet, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST allow
appropriate subnetting and configuring the address space appropriate subnetting and configuring the address space
(which may depend on each transition mechanism) among the (which may depend on each transition mechanism) among the
several interfaces. In some transition mechanisms, this several interfaces. In some transition mechanisms, this
may require differentiating mappings/translations per may require differentiating mappings/translations per
interfaces. interfaces.
In order to allow the service provider to disable all the transition
mechanisms and/or choose the most convenient one, the IPv6 Transition
CE Router MUST follow the following configuration steps:
CONFIG-1: Request the relevant configuration options for each
supported transition mechanisms, which MUST remain
disabled at this step.
CONFIG-2: Following Section 1.4 of [RFC8026], MUST check for a valid
match in OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which allows enabling/
disabling a transition mechanism.
CONFIG-3: Keep disabled all the transition mechanisms if no match is
found 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. An IPv6 Transition CE Router one of the transition mechanisms. An IPv6 Transition CE Router
intended for the retail market MUST support all of them. intended for the retail market MUST support all of them.
3.2.1. 464XLAT 3.2.1. 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
skipping to change at page 6, line 42 skipping to change at page 6, line 44
Options for DHCPv6) or by alternative means. 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). Following ([RFC6887]), if no PCP server is the PCP). Following ([RFC6887]), if no PCP server is
configured, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY verify if configured, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY verify if
the default gateway, or the NAT64 is the PCP server. A the default gateway, or the NAT64 is the PCP server.
plain IPv6 mode MUST be used to send PCP requests to the Plain IPv6 mode (i.e., no IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation is
server. used) MUST be 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). IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es).
464XLAT-5: If PCP is implemented, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST 464XLAT-5: If PCP is implemented, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST
follow [RFC7225] (Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using follow [RFC7225] (Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using
the PCP), in order to learn the PLAT-side translation the PCP), in order to learn the PLAT-side translation
IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es) used by an upstream IPv4 and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es) used by an upstream
skipping to change at page 7, line 35 skipping to change at page 7, line 37
The NAT64 prefix could be discovered by means of [RFC7050] only in The NAT64 prefix could be discovered by means of [RFC7050] only in
the case the service provider uses DNS64 ([RFC6147]). If DNS64 the case the service provider uses DNS64 ([RFC6147]). If DNS64
([RFC6147]) is not used, or not trusted, as the DNS configuration at ([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 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 the service provider may opt to configure the NAT64 prefix either by
means of [RFC7225] or [RFC8115], which also can be used if the means of [RFC7225] or [RFC8115], which also can be used if the
service provider uses DNS64 ([RFC6147]). service provider uses DNS64 ([RFC6147]).
3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) 3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)
Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] enables both continued support for IPv4 Dual-Stack Lite [RFC6333] enables continued support for IPv4
services. Dual-Stack Lite enables a broadband service provider to services. Dual-Stack Lite enables a broadband service provider to
share IPv4 addresses among customers by combining two well-known share IPv4 addresses among customers by combining two well-known
technologies: IP in IP (IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation technologies: IP in IP (IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation
(NAT). It is expected that DS-Lite traffic is forwarded over the (NAT). It is expected that DS-Lite traffic is forwarded over the
IPv6 Transition CE Router's native IPv6 WAN interface, and not IPv6 Transition CE Router's native IPv6 WAN interface, and not
encapsulated in another tunnel. encapsulated in another tunnel.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD implement DS-Lite B4 The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD implement DS-Lite B4
functionality [RFC6333]. If DS-Lite is supported, it MUST be functionality [RFC6333]. If DS-Lite is supported, it MUST be
implemented according to [RFC6333]. The following IPv6 Transition CE implemented according to [RFC6333]. The following IPv6 Transition CE
skipping to change at page 8, line 17 skipping to change at page 8, line 18
document. document.
DSLITE-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support IGD-PCP IWF DSLITE-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).
DSLITE-3: If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented, the IPv6 Transition CE DSLITE-3: If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented, the IPv6 Transition CE
Router SHOULD implement [RFC7291] (DHCP Options for the Router SHOULD implement [RFC7291] (DHCP Options for the
PCP). If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented and a PCP server PCP). If PCP ([RFC6887]) is implemented and a PCP server
is not configured, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST is not configured, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST
assume, by DEFAULT, that the AFTR is the PCP server. A assume, by DEFAULT, that the AFTR is the PCP server.
plain IPv6 mode MUST be used to send PCP requests to the Plain IPv6 mode (i.e., no IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation is
server. used) MUST be used to send PCP requests to the 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]).
3.2.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) 3.2.3. 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 lwB4 functionality The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD implement lwB4 functionality
[RFC7596]. If DS-Lite is implemented, lw4o6 SHOULD be supported as [RFC7596]. If DS-Lite is implemented, lw4o6 SHOULD be implemented as
well. If lw4o6 is supported, it MUST be implemented according to well. If lw4o6 is supported, it MUST be implemented according to
[RFC7596]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also [RFC7596]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also
apply: 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
skipping to change at page 9, line 13 skipping to change at page 9, line 13
over-DHCPv6 Transport). over-DHCPv6 Transport).
LW4O6-3: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY support Dynamic LW4O6-3: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY support Dynamic
Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses as described in Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses as described in
[RFC7618] (Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses). [RFC7618] (Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses).
3.2.4. MAP-E 3.2.4. MAP-E
MAP-E [RFC7597] is a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets across MAP-E [RFC7597] is a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets across
an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, including an algorithmic an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, including an algorithmic
mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses as mechanism for mapping between IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.
well as transport-layer ports.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support MAP-E CE functionality The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support MAP-E CE functionality
[RFC7597]. If MAP-E is supported, it MUST be implemented according [RFC7597]. If MAP-E is supported, it MUST be implemented according
to [RFC7597]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements to [RFC7597]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements
also apply: also apply:
MAP-E requirements: MAP-E requirements:
MAPE-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration of MAPE-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration of
MAP-E via the MAP-E DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 Options MAP-E via the MAP-E DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 Options
skipping to change at page 9, line 37 skipping to change at page 9, line 36
mechanisms to configure MAP-E parameters. Such mechanisms mechanisms to configure MAP-E parameters. Such mechanisms
are outside the scope of this document. are outside the scope of this document.
MAPE-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY support Dynamic Allocation MAPE-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY support Dynamic Allocation
of Shared IPv4 Addresses as described in [RFC7618] (Dynamic of Shared IPv4 Addresses as described in [RFC7618] (Dynamic
Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses). Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses).
3.2.5. MAP-T 3.2.5. MAP-T
MAP-T [RFC7599] is a mechanism similar to MAP-E, differing from it in MAP-T [RFC7599] is a mechanism similar to MAP-E, differing from it in
that MAP-T uses IPv4-IPv6 translation, rather than encapsulation, as that MAP-T uses IPv4-IPv6 translation, instead of encapsulation, as
the form of IPv6 domain transport. the form of IPv6 domain transport.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support MAP-T CE functionality The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support MAP-T CE functionality
[RFC7599]. If MAP-T is supported, it MUST be implemented according [RFC7599]. If MAP-T is supported, it MUST be implemented according
to [RFC7599]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements to [RFC7599]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements
also apply: also apply:
MAP-T requirements: MAP-T requirements:
MAPT-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration of MAPT-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration of
skipping to change at page 10, line 11 skipping to change at page 10, line 11
Clients). The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY use other Clients). The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY use other
mechanisms to configure MAP-T parameters. Such mechanisms mechanisms to configure MAP-T parameters. Such mechanisms
are outside the scope of this document. are outside the scope of this document.
MAPT-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY support Dynamic Allocation MAPT-2: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY support Dynamic Allocation
of Shared IPv4 Addresses as described in [RFC7618] (Dynamic of Shared IPv4 Addresses as described in [RFC7618] (Dynamic
Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses). Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses).
4. IPv4 Multicast Support 4. IPv4 Multicast Support
Actual deployments support IPv4 multicast for services such as IPTV. Existing IPv4 deployments support IPv4 multicast for services such as
In the transition phase it is expected that multicast services will IPTV. In the transition phase, it is expected that multicast
still be provided using IPv4 to the customer LANs. services will still be provided using IPv4 to the customer LANs.
If the IPv6 Transition CE Router supports delivery of IPv4 multicast If the IPv6 Transition CE Router supports delivery of IPv4 multicast
services, then it MUST support [RFC8114] (Delivery of IPv4 Multicast services, then it MUST support [RFC8114] (Delivery of IPv4 Multicast
Services to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network) and Services to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network) and
[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
If the UPnP WANIPConnection:2 service [UPnP-WANIPC] is enabled on a If the UPnP WANIPConnection:2 service [UPnP-WANIPC] is enabled on a
CE router, but cannot be associated with an IPv4 interface CE router, but cannot be associated with an IPv4 interface
established by an IPv4aaS mechanism or cannot determine which ports established by an IPv4aaS mechanism or cannot determine which ports
are available (through PCP or access to a configured port set, if the are available, an AddPortMapping() or AddAnyPortMapping() action MUST
IPv4aaS mechanism limits the available ports), an AddPortMapping() or be rejected with error code 729 "ConflictWithOtherMechanisms". Port
AddAnyPortMapping() action MUST be rejected with error code 729 availability could be determined through PCP or access to a
"ConflictWithOtherMechanisms". configured port set (if the IPv4aaS mechanism limits the available
ports).
An AddPortMapping() request for a port that is not available MUST An AddPortMapping() request for a port that is not available MUST
result in "ConflictInMappingEntry". result in "ConflictInMappingEntry".
An AddAnyPortMapping() request for a port that is not available An AddAnyPortMapping() request for a port that is not available
SHOULD result in a successful mapping with an alternative SHOULD result in a successful mapping with an alternative
"NewReservedPort" value from within the configured port set range, or "NewReservedPort" value from within the configured port set range, or
as assigned by PCP as per [RFC6970], Section 5.6.1. as assigned by PCP as per [RFC6970], Section 5.6.1.
Note that IGD:1 and its WANIPConnection:1 service have been Note that IGD:1 and its WANIPConnection:1 service have been
deprecated by OCF. deprecated by OCF.
6. Differences from RFC7084 6. Comparison to RFC7084
This document no longer considers the need to support 6rd ([RFC5969]) This document doesn't include support for 6rd ([RFC5969]), because as
and includes slightly different requirements for DS-LITE [RFC6333]. in an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling.
Regarding DS-LITE [RFC6333], this document includes slightly
different requirements, because the PCP ([RFC6887]) support and the
prioritization of the transition mechanisms, including dual-stack.
7. Code Considerations 7. 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
popular CEs already in the market. popular CEs already in the market [OpenWRT].
It is also clear that the new requirements don't have extra cost in In general, the new requirements don't have extra cost in terms of
terms of RAM memory, neither other hardware requirements such as more RAM memory, neither other hardware requirements such as more powerful
powerful CPUs. CPUs, if compared to the cost of NAT44 code so, existing hardware
supports them with minimal impact.
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 all the new transition mechanisms,
even several vendors already have implementations and provide it to and even several vendors already have implementations and provide it
ISPs, so the development cost is negligent, and only integration and to ISPs, so the development cost is negligible, and only integration
testing cost may become a minor issue. and testing cost may become a minor issue.
8. 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.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
skipping to change at page 12, line 10 skipping to change at page 12, line 17
Thanks to Mikael Abrahamsson, Fred Baker, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian Thanks to Mikael Abrahamsson, Fred Baker, Mohamed Boucadair, Brian
Carpenter, Ian Farrer, Lee Howard, Richard Patterson, Barbara Stark, Carpenter, Ian Farrer, Lee Howard, Richard Patterson, Barbara Stark,
Ole Troan, James Woodyatt, Lorenzo Colitti and Alejandro D'Egidio, Ole Troan, James Woodyatt, Lorenzo Colitti and Alejandro D'Egidio,
for their review and comments in this and/or previous versions of for their review and comments in this and/or previous versions of
this document. this document.
11. 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 in 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 of the global
transition timings.
Different studies (for example [IPv6Survey]) also show that this is a Different studies (for example [IPv6Survey]) also show that the IPv6
changing situation, because in a single country, it may be that not deployment is a changing situation. In a single country, it may
all operators provide IPv6 support, and consumers may switch ISPs and happen that not all operators provide IPv6 support, and consumers may
use the same IPv6 Transition CE Router with an ISP that provides switch ISPs and use the same IPv6 Transition CE Router with an ISP
IPv4-only and an ISP that provides IPv6 plus IPv4aaS. that provides IPv4-only and an ISP that provides IPv6 with IPv4aaS.
So, it is clear that, to cover all those evolving situations, an IPv6 So, it is clear that, to cover all those evolving situations, an IPv6
Transition CE Router is required, at least from the perspective of Transition CE Router is required, at least from the perspective of
the transition support, which can accommodate those changes. the transition support, which can accommodate those changes.
Moreover, because some services will remain IPv4-only for an Moreover, because some services will remain IPv4-only for an
undetermined time, and some service providers will remain IPv4-only undetermined time, and some service providers will remain IPv4-only
for an undetermined period of time, IPv4 will be needed for an for an undetermined period of time, IPv4 will be needed for an
undetermined period of time. There will be a need for CEs with undetermined period of time. There will be a need for CEs with
support "IPv4 as-a-Service" for an undetermined period of time. support "IPv4 as-a-Service" for an undetermined period of time.
This document is consequently, based on those premises, in order to This document, based on those premises, ensures that the IPv6
ensure the continued transition from networks that today may provide Transition CE Router allows the continued transition from networks
access with dual-stack or IPv6-in-IPv4, as described in [RFC7084], that today may provide access with dual-stack or IPv6-in-IPv4, as
and as an "extension" to it, evolving to an IPv6-only access with described in [RFC7084], and as an "extension" to it, evolve to an
IPv4-as-a-Service. IPv6-only access with IPv4-as-a-Service.
Considering that situation and different possible usage cases, the Considering that situation and different possible usage cases, the
IPv6 Transition CE Router described in this document is expected to IPv6 Transition CE Router described in this document is expected to
be used typically, in the following scenarios: be used typically, in residential/household, Small Office/Home Office
(SOHO) and Small/Medium Enterprise (SME). Common usage is any kind
1. Residential/household, Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) and Small/ of Internet access (web, email, streaming, online gaming, etc.) and
Medium Enterprise (SME). Common usage is any kind of Internet even more advanced requirements including inbound connections (IP
access (web, email, streaming, online gaming, etc.). cameras, web, DNS, email, VPN, etc.).
2. Residential/household and Small/Medium Enterprise (SME) with
advanced requirements. Same basic usage as for the previous
case, however there may be requirements for allowing inbound
connections (IP cameras, web, DNS, email, VPN, etc.).
The above list is not intended to be comprehensive of all the The above is not intended to be comprehensive list of all the
possible usage scenarios, just an overall view. In fact, possible usage cases, just an overall view. In fact, combinations of
combinations of the above usages are also possible, as well as the above usages are also possible, as well as situations where the
situations where the same CE is used at different times in different same CE is used at different times in different scenarios or even
scenarios or even different services providers that may use a different services providers that may use a different transition
different transition mechanism. mechanism.
The mechanisms for allowing inbound connections are "naturally" The mechanisms for allowing inbound connections are "naturally"
available in any IPv6 router, as when using GUA, unless they are available in any IPv6 router, when using GUA (IPv6 Global Unicast
blocked by firewall rules, which may require some manual Addresses), unless they are blocked by firewall rules, which may
configuration by means of a GUI, CLI and/or API. require some manual configuration by means of a GUI, CLI and/or API.
However, in the case of IPv4aaS, because the usage of private However, in the case of IPv4aaS, because the usage of private
addresses and NAT and even depending on the specific transition addresses and NAT and even depending on the specific transition
mechanism, it typically requires some degree of more complex manual mechanism, inbound connections typically require some degree of more
configuration such as setting up a DMZ, virtual servers, or port/ complex manual configuration such as setting up a DMZ, virtual
protocol forwarding. In general, IPv4 CE Routers already provide GUI servers, or port/protocol forwarding. In general, IPv4 CE Routers
and/or CLI to manually configure them, or the possibility to setup already provide a GUI and/or a CLI to manually configure them, or the
the CE in bridge mode, so another CE behind it, takes care of that. possibility to setup the CE in bridge mode, so another CE behind it,
It is out of the scope of this document the definition of any takes care of that. The requirements for that support are out of the
requirements for that. scope of this document.
The main difference for a CE Router to support the above indicated
scenarios and number of users, is related to the packet processing
capabilities, performance, even other details such as the number of
WAN/LAN interfaces, their maximum speed, memory for keeping tables or
tracking connections, etc. It is out of the scope of this document
to classify them.
The actual bandwidth capabilities of access technologies such as
FTTH, cable and even 3GPP/LTE, allows the support of such scenarios,
and indeed, is a very common situation that access networks and CE
Router provided by the service provider are the same for SMEs and
residential users.
There is also no difference in terms of who actually provides the CE It is not relevant who provides the IPv6 Transition CE Router. In
Router. In most of the cases is the service provider, and in fact is most of the cases is the service provider, and in fact is
responsible, typically, of provisioning/managing at least the WAN responsible, typically, of provisioning/managing at least the WAN
side. However, commonly the user has access to configure the LAN side. However, commonly the user has access to configure the LAN
interfaces, firewall, DMZ, and many other features. In fact, in many interfaces, firewall, DMZ, and many other features. However, in
cases, the user must supply or may replace the CE Router; this makes fact, in many cases, the user must supply or may replace the IPv6
even more relevant that all the CE Routers, support the same Transition CE Router. This makes even more relevant that all the
requirements defined in this document. IPv6 Transition CE Routers support the same 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 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
skipping to change at page 14, line 30 skipping to change at page 14, line 19
However, while a typical IPv4 NAT deployment by default blocks all However, while a typical IPv4 NAT deployment by default blocks all
incoming connections and may allow opening of ports using a Universal incoming connections and may allow opening of ports using a Universal
Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device (UPnP IGD) [UPnP-IGD] or some Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device (UPnP IGD) [UPnP-IGD] or some
other firewall control protocol, in the case of an IPv6-only access other firewall control protocol, in the case of an IPv6-only access
and IPv4aaS, that may not be feasible depending on specific and IPv4aaS, that may not be feasible depending on specific
transition mechanism details. PCP (Port Control Protocol, [RFC6887]) transition mechanism details. PCP (Port Control Protocol, [RFC6887])
may be an alternative solution. may be an alternative solution.
Another consequence of using IPv4 private address space in the end- Another consequence of using IPv4 private address space in the end-
user network is that it provides stable addressing; that is, it never user network is that it provides stable addressing; that is, it
changes even when you change service providers, and the addresses are doesn't change, even when you change service providers, and the
always there even when the WAN interface is down or the customer edge addresses are always usable even when the WAN interface is down or
router has not yet been provisioned. In the case of an IPv6-only the customer edge router has not yet been provisioned. In the case
access, there is no change on that if the transition mechanism keeps of an IPv6-only access, private IPv4 addresses are also available if
running the NAT interface towards the LAN side. the IPv4aaS transition mechanism keeps running the NAT interface
towards the LAN side when the WAN interface is down.
More advanced routers support dynamic routing (which learns routes More advanced routers support dynamic routing (which learns routes
from other routers), and advanced end-users can build arbitrary, from other routers), and advanced end-users can build arbitrary,
complex networks using manual configuration of address prefixes complex networks using manual configuration of address prefixes
combined with a dynamic routing protocol. Once again, this is true combined with a dynamic routing protocol. Once again, this is true
for both, IPv4 and IPv6. for both, IPv4 and IPv6.
In general, the end-user network architecture for IPv6 should provide In general, the end-user network architecture for IPv6 should provide
equivalent or better capabilities and functionality than the current equivalent or better capabilities and functionality than the current
IPv4 architecture. IPv4 architecture.
skipping to change at page 17, line 16 skipping to change at page 17, line 16
16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03 16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. Several editorial changes across the document, specially TRANS 1. Several editorial changes across the document, specially TRANS
requirements. requirements.
2. DNS proxy MUST instead of SHOULD. 2. DNS proxy MUST instead of SHOULD.
17. ANNEX F: Changes from -04 17. ANNEX G: Changes from -04
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. Removed G-1. 1. Removed G-1.
2. Added support for draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64. 2. Added support for draft-pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64.
3. General text clarifications. 3. General text clarifications.
18. ANNEX G: Changes from -05 18. ANNEX H: Changes from -05
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. Reworded and shorter UPnP section and new informative reference. 1. Reworded and shorter UPnP section and new informative reference.
2. New general transition requirement in case multiple public IPv4 2. New general transition requirement in case multiple public IPv4
prefixes are provided, so to run multiple instances according to prefixes are provided, so to run multiple instances according to
each specific transition mechanism. each specific transition mechanism.
3. General text clarifications. 3. General text clarifications.
19. ANNEX G: Changes from -06 19. ANNEX I: Changes from -06
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. Removed reference and text related to pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64. 1. Removed reference and text related to pref64folks-6man-ra-pref64.
2. General text clarifications. 2. General text clarifications.
20. ANNEX G: Changes from -07 20. ANNEX J: Changes from -07
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. Added text to UPnP section. 1. Added text to UPnP section.
21. References 21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08
21.1. Normative References Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are:
1. Editorial edits.
22. References
22.1. 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 20, line 37 skipping to change at page 20, line 48
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>.
21.2. Informative References 22.2. 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>.
[OpenWRT] OpenWRT, "OpenWRT Packages", January 2018,
<https://openwrt.org/packages/start>.
[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/>.
[UPnP-WANIPC] [UPnP-WANIPC]
 End of changes. 53 change blocks. 
147 lines changed or deleted 151 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/