draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-11.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12.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: June 3, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc. Expires: June 30, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc.
M. Kawashima M. Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd. NEC Platforms, Ltd.
November 30, 2018 December 27, 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-11 draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12
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 through the retail market. provider or by vendors who sell 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" (RFC7084) in order to allow the provisioning
transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS) of IPv6 transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service"
by means of new transition mechanisms. The document only covers (IPv4aaS) by means of new transition mechanisms. The document only
transition technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only access covers transition technologies for delivering IPv4 in IPv6-only
networks, commonly called "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS). This is access networks, commonly called "IPv4 as-a-Service" (IPv4aaS). This
necessary because there aren't sufficient IPv4 addresses available is necessary because there aren't sufficient IPv4 addresses available
for every possible customer/device. However, devices or applications for every possible customer/device. However, devices or applications
in the customer LANs may be IPv4-only or IPv6-only and still need to in the customer LANs (Local Area Networks) may be IPv4-only or
communicate with IPv4-only services at the Internet. IPv6-only and 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 June 3, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 30, 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
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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) . . . . . 6
3.2.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.2.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Comparison to RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6. Comparison to RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
17. ANNEX G: Changes from -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 17. ANNEX G: Changes from -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
18. ANNEX H: Changes from -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18. ANNEX H: Changes from -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
19. ANNEX I: Changes from -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19. ANNEX I: Changes from -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
20. ANNEX J: Changes from -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 20. ANNEX J: Changes from -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08, -09 and -10 . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08, -09 and -10 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
22. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
22.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 23. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
22.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 23.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 23.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
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, ensuring that
IPv4-only Internet services from an IPv6-only access WAN even from remote IPv4-only services are accessible, from an IPv6-only Internet
IPv6-only applications or devices in the LAN side. Service Provider access network (typically referred as WAN - Wide
Area Network, even in some cases it may be metropolitan, regional,
etc.) even from IPv6-only applications or devices in the LAN side.
+------------+ +------------+ \
| IPv4-only | | IPv4/IPv6 | \
| Remote | | Remote | |
| Host | | Host | | Internet
+--------+---+ +---+--------+ |
| | /
| | /
+-+-----------+-+ \
| Service | \
| Provider | \
| Router | | Service
+-------+-------+ | Provider
| IPv6-only | Network
| Customer /
| Internet Connection /
| /
+------+--------+ \
| IPv6 | \
| Customer Edge | \
| Router | |
+---+-------+---+ |
LAN A | | LAN B | End-User
-+----------------+- -+-----+-------------+- | Network(s)
| | | |
+---+------+ +----+-----+ +-----+----+ |
| IPv6-only| | IPv4-only| |IPv4/IPv6 | /
| Host | | Host | | Host | /
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ /
Figure 1: Simplified Typical IPv6-only Access Network
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 (Internet Service Providers) have, or want to have, an IPv6-only
common situation in when sufficient IPv4 addresses are no longer access network. This is a common situation when sufficient IPv4
available for every possible customer and device, causing IPv4 addresses are no longer available for every possible customer and
addresses to become prohibitive expense. This, in turn, may result device, causing IPv4 addresses to become prohibitive expense. This,
in service providers provisioning IPv6-only WAN access. At the same in turn, may result in service providers provisioning IPv6-only WAN
time, they need to ensure that both IPv4-only and IPv6-only devices access. At the same time, they need to ensure that both IPv4-only
or applications in the customer networks can still reach IPv4-only and IPv6-only devices or applications in the customer networks can
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] (Home Networking Control Protocol), which is out of the
scope of this document.
Service providers who specify feature sets for IPv6 Transition CE Since it is impossible to know prior to sale which transition
Router may specify a different set of features than those included in mechanism a device will need over its lifetime, IPv6 Transition CE
this document. Since it is impossible to know prior to sale which Router intended for the retail market MUST support all the IPv4aaS
transition mechanism a device will need over the lifetime of the transition mechanisms supported by this document. Service providers
device, IPv6 Transition CE Router intended for the retail market MUST who specify feature sets for IPv6 Transition CE Router may specify a
support all the IPv4aaS transition mechanism supported by this different set of features than those included in this document, for
document. example supporting only some of the transition mechanisms enumerated
in 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, which
together with [RFC7084], will facilitate the reader to have a clearer
understanding of this document.
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
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 44
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
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 MUST support CLAT functionality
464XLAT is supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6877]. [RFC6877] if intended for the retail market. If 464XLAT is
The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also apply: supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6877]. 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, either using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] (IPv6 Prefix acquired, either using DHCPv6-PD [RFC8415] (IPv6 Prefix
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. the default gateway, or the NAT64 is the PCP server.
Plain IPv6 mode (i.e., no IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation is Plain IPv6 mode (i.e., no IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation is
used) MUST be used to send PCP requests to the 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
PCP-controlled NAT64 device. PCP-controlled NAT64 device.
464XLAT-6: [RFC8115] MUST be implemented and a DHCPv6 Option 464XLAT-6: [RFC8115] MUST be implemented and a DHCPv6 Option
"OPTION_V6_PREFIX64" ([RFC8115]), with zeroed "OPTION_V6_PREFIX64" [RFC8115], with zeroed ASM_mPrefix64
ASM_mPrefix64 and SSM_mPrefix64, MUST also be considered and SSM_mPrefix64, MUST also be considered as a valid
as a valid NAT64 prefix (uPrefix64). NAT64 prefix (uPrefix64).
464XLAT-7: The priority for the NAT64 prefix, in case the network 464XLAT-7: The priority for the NAT64 prefix, in case the network
provides several choices, MUST be: 1) [RFC7225], 2) provides several choices, MUST be: 1) [RFC7225], 2)
[RFC8115], and 3) [RFC7050]. [RFC8115], and 3) [RFC7050].
464XLAT-8: If a DHCPv6 Option "OPTION_V6_PREFIX64" ([RFC8115]), with 464XLAT-8: If a DHCPv6 Option "OPTION_V6_PREFIX64" [RFC8115], with
zeroed ASM_mPrefix64 and SSM_mPrefix64 provides a NAT64 zeroed ASM_mPrefix64 and SSM_mPrefix64 provides a NAT64
prefix, or one or more NAT64 prefixes are learnt by means prefix, or one or more NAT64 prefixes are learnt by means
of either [RFC7050] or [RFC7225], then 464XLAT MUST be of either [RFC7050] or [RFC7225], then 464XLAT MUST be
included in the candidate list of possible S46 mechanism included in the candidate list of possible S46 mechanism
(Section 1.4.1 of [RFC8026]). (Section 1.4.1 of [RFC8026]).
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 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 MUST implement DS-Lite B4 functionality
functionality [RFC6333]. If DS-Lite is supported, it MUST be [RFC6333] if intended for the retail market. If DS-Lite is
implemented according to [RFC6333]. The following IPv6 Transition CE supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC6333]. The
Router requirements also apply: following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also apply:
DS-Lite requirements: DS-Lite requirements:
DSLITE-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration DSLITE-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support configuration
of DS-Lite via the DS-Lite DHCPv6 option [RFC6334] (DHCPv6 of DS-Lite via the DS-Lite DHCPv6 option [RFC6334] (DHCPv6
Option for Dual-Stack Lite). The IPv6 Transition CE Option for Dual-Stack Lite). The IPv6 Transition CE
Router MAY use other mechanisms to configure DS-Lite Router MAY use other mechanisms to configure DS-Lite
parameters. Such mechanisms are outside the scope of this parameters. Such mechanisms are outside the scope of this
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
is not configured, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST not configured, the IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST assume,
assume, by DEFAULT, that the AFTR is the PCP server. by DEFAULT, that the AFTR is the PCP server. Plain IPv6
Plain IPv6 mode (i.e., no IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation is mode (i.e., no IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation is used) MUST be
used) MUST be used to send PCP requests to the server. 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 (Carrier Grade NAT, AFTR - Address Family
reducing the amount of centralized state. Transition Router) function in the tunnel concentrator and reducing
the amount of centralized state.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD implement lwB4 functionality The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement lwB4 functionality
[RFC7596]. If DS-Lite is implemented, lw4o6 SHOULD be implemented as [RFC7596] if intended for the retail market. If DS-Lite is
well. If lw4o6 is supported, it MUST be implemented according to implemented, lw4o6 SHOULD be implemented as well. If lw4o6 is
[RFC7596]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements also supported, it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7596]. The
apply: 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.
skipping to change at page 9, line 20 skipping to change at page 10, line 37
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 and IPv4 addresses. mechanism for mapping between IPv6 and IPv4 addresses.
The IPv6 Transition CE Router SHOULD support MAP-E CE functionality The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST support MAP-E CE functionality
[RFC7597]. If MAP-E is supported, it MUST be implemented according [RFC7597] if intended for the retail market. If MAP-E is supported,
to [RFC7597]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7597]. The following IPv6
also apply: Transition CE Router requirements 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
for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped
Clients). The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY use other Clients). The IPv6 Transition CE Router MAY use other
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, instead of 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 MUST support MAP-T CE functionality
[RFC7599]. If MAP-T is supported, it MUST be implemented according [RFC7599] if intended for the retail market. If MAP-T is supported,
to [RFC7599]. The following IPv6 Transition CE Router requirements it MUST be implemented according to [RFC7599]. The following IPv6
also apply: Transition CE Router requirements 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
MAP-T via the MAP-T DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 Options MAP-T via the MAP-T DHCPv6 options [RFC7598] (DHCPv6 Options
for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped for Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped
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.
skipping to change at page 11, line 7 skipping to change at page 12, line 19
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. Comparison to RFC7084 6. Comparison to RFC7084
This document doesn't include support for 6rd ([RFC5969]), because as This document doesn't include support for 6rd [RFC5969], because it
in an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling. is an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling.
Regarding DS-LITE [RFC6333], this document includes slightly Regarding DS-LITE [RFC6333], this document includes slightly
different requirements, because the PCP ([RFC6887]) support and the different requirements, related to the support of PCP [RFC6887], IGD-
prioritization of the transition mechanisms, including dual-stack. PCP IWF [RFC6970] 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
skipping to change at page 11, line 40 skipping to change at page 13, line 5
supports them with minimal impact. 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 all the new transition mechanisms, the required code for supporting all the new transition mechanisms,
and several vendors already have implementations and provide it to and several vendors already have implementations and provide it to
ISPs, so the development cost is negligible, and only integration and ISPs, so the development cost is negligible, and only integration and
testing cost may become a minor issue. testing cost may become a minor issue.
Finally, in some cases, operators supporting several transition
mechanisms may need to consider training costs for staff in all those
techniques for their operation and management, even if this is not
directly caused by supporting this document, but because the business
decisions behind that.
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.
As described in [RFC8026] and [RFC8026] Security Consideration
sections, there are generic DHCP security issues, which in the case
of this document means that malicious nodes may alter the priority of
the transition mechanisms.
9. IANA Considerations 9. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested, by means of this document, to update the "Option IANA is requested, by means of this document, to update the "Option
Codes permitted in the S46 Priority Option" registry available at Codes permitted in the S46 Priority Option" registry available at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6- https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-
parameters.xhtml#option-codes-s46-priority-option, with the following parameters.xhtml#option-codes-s46-priority-option, with the following
entry. entry.
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+ +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Option Code | S46 Mechanism | Reference | | Option Code | S46 Mechanism | Reference |
skipping to change at page 12, line 20 skipping to change at page 13, line 45
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+ +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
Table 1: DHCPv6 Option Code for 464XLAT Table 1: DHCPv6 Option Code for 464XLAT
10. Acknowledgements 10. Acknowledgements
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, as well as to the Last Call reviewers by the Opsdir
(Dan Romascanu), Secdir (Christian Huitema), Rtgdir (Daniele
Ceccarelli) and Tsvdir (Martin Stiemerling).
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 in 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;
the global transition timings cannot be estimated. the global transition timings cannot be estimated.
skipping to change at page 13, line 39 skipping to change at page 15, line 21
complex manual configuration such as setting up a DMZ, virtual complex manual configuration such as setting up a DMZ, virtual
servers, or port/protocol forwarding. In general, IPv4 CE Routers servers, or port/protocol forwarding. In general, IPv4 CE Routers
already provide a GUI and/or a CLI to manually configure them, or the already provide a GUI and/or a CLI to manually configure them, or the
possibility to setup the CE in bridge mode, so another CE behind it, possibility to setup the CE in bridge mode, so another CE behind it,
takes care of that. The requirements for that support are out of the takes care of that. The requirements for that support are out of the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
It is not relevant who provides the IPv6 Transition CE Router. In It is not relevant who provides the IPv6 Transition CE 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. Commonly, the user has access to configure the LAN interfaces,
interfaces, firewall, DMZ, and many other features. However, in many firewall, DMZ, and many other features. However, in many cases, the
cases, the user must supply or may replace the IPv6 Transition CE user must supply or may replace the IPv6 Transition CE Router. This
Router. This underscores the importance of the IPv6 Transition CE underscores the importance of the IPv6 Transition CE Routers
Routers supporting the same requirements defined in this document. supporting 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
skipping to change at page 14, line 50 skipping to change at page 16, line 30
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.
The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not
providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP providing transit to other external networks. However, HNCP
([RFC7788]) allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream [RFC7788] allows support for automatic provisioning of downstream
routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user
network. network.
+---------------+ \ +---------------+ \
| Service | \ | Service | \
| Provider | | Service | Provider | \
| Router | | Provider | Router | | Service
+-------+-------+ | Network +-------+-------+ | Provider
| / | IPv6-only | Network
| Customer / | Customer /
| Internet Connection / | Internet Connection /
| | /
+------+--------+ \ +------+--------+ \
| IPv6 | \ | IPv6 | \
| Customer Edge | \ | Customer Edge | \
| Router | / | Router | |
+---+-------+---+ / +---+-------+---+ |
Network A | | Network B | Network A | | Network B |
---+----------------+-+- --+---+-------------+-- | -+----------------+-+- -+---+-------------+- |
| | | | \ | | | | |
+---+------+ | +----+-----+ +-----+----+ \ +---+------+ | +----+-----+ +-----+----+ |
|IPv6 Host | | | IPv4 Host| |IPv4/IPv6 | / | IPv6 | | | IPv4 | |IPv4/IPv6 | |
| | | | | | Host | / | Host | | | Host | | Host | |
+----------+ | +----------+ +----------+ / +----------+ | +----------+ +----------+ | End-User
| | | | Network(s)
+------+--------+ | End-User +------+--------+ |
| IPv6 | | Network(s) | IPv6 | |
| Router | \ | Router | |
+------+--------+ \ +------+--------+ |
Network C | \ Network C | |
---+-------------+--+--- | -+-------------+--+- |
| | | | | |
+---+------+ +----+-----+ | +---+------+ +----+-----+ |
|IPv6 Host | |IPv6 Host | / | IPv6 | | IPv6 | /
| | | | / | Host | | Host | /
+----------+ +----------+ / +----------+ +----------+ /
Figure 1: An Example of a Typical End-User Network Figure 2: An Example of a Typical End-User Network
This architecture describes the: This architecture describes the:
o Basic capabilities of the IPv6 Transition CE Router o Basic capabilities of the IPv6 Transition CE Router
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
for a single IPv6 Transition CE Router only. a single IPv6 Transition CE Router only.
13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. 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. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. 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 15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. Significant updates are:
1. RFC8026 update removed, not needed with new approach. 1. RFC8026 update removed, not needed with new approach.
2. TRANS and 464XLAT requirements reworded in order to match new 2. TRANS and 464XLAT requirements reworded in order to match new
approach to allow operator control on each/all the transition approach to allow operator control on each/all the transition
mechanisms. mechanisms.
3. Added text in 464XLAT to clarify the usage. 3. Added text in 464XLAT to clarify the usage.
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 by RFC Editor. 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 G: Changes from -04 17. ANNEX G: Changes from -04
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. 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 H: Changes from -05 18. ANNEX H: Changes from -05
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. 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 I: Changes from -06 19. ANNEX I: Changes from -06
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. 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 J: Changes from -07 20. ANNEX J: Changes from -07
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. Significant updates are:
1. Added text to UPnP section. 1. Added text to UPnP section.
21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08, -09 and -10 21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08, -09 and -10
Section to be removed for WGLC. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. Significant updates are:
1. Editorial edits. 1. Editorial edits.
22. References 22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11
22.1. Normative References Section to be removed by RFC Editor. Significant updates are:
1. Changes related to suggestions by Opsdir, Secdir, Rtgdir and
Tsvdir.
23. References
23.1. 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
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines", [RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
BCP 152, RFC 5625, DOI 10.17487/RFC5625, August 2009, BCP 152, RFC 5625, DOI 10.17487/RFC5625, August 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5625>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5625>.
[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
skipping to change at page 20, line 48 skipping to change at page 22, 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>.
22.2. Informative References [RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
23.2. 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, [OpenWRT] OpenWRT, "OpenWRT Packages", January 2018,
<https://openwrt.org/packages/start>. <https://openwrt.org/packages/start>.
 End of changes. 53 change blocks. 
169 lines changed or deleted 232 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/