draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-12.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-13.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 30, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc. Expires: July 14, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc.
M. Kawashima M. Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd. NEC Platforms, Ltd.
December 27, 2018 January 10, 2019
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-12 draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-13
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 by vendors who sell 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" (RFC7084) in order to allow the provisioning Customer Edge Routers" (RFC7084) in order to allow the provisioning
of IPv6 transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service" of IPv6 transition services for the support of "IPv4 as-a-Service"
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
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 30, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on July 14, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 31 skipping to change at page 2, line 31
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Requirements Language - Special Note . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 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) . . . . . 6 Continuity (IPv4 as-a-Service - IPv4aaS) . . . . . 6
3.2.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2.1. 464XLAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.3. Lightweight 4over6 (lw4o6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2.4. MAP-E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2.5. MAP-T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. IPv4 Multicast Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. UPnP Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Comparison to RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6. Comparison to RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7. Code Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11. Annex A: Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 15 12. Annex B: End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 13. ANNEX C: Changes from -00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 14. ANNEX D: Changes from -01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15. ANNEX E: Changes from -02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 16. ANNEX F: Changes from -03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
17. ANNEX G: Changes from -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 17. ANNEX G: Changes from -04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
18. ANNEX H: Changes from -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 18. ANNEX H: Changes from -05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
19. ANNEX I: Changes from -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19. ANNEX I: Changes from -06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
20. ANNEX J: Changes from -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20. ANNEX J: Changes from -07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08, -09 and -10 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21. ANNEX K: Changes from -08, -09 and -10 . . . . . . . . . . . 20
22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11 and -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
23. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 23. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
23.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 23.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
23.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 23.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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]. The scope of this document is to ensure the IPv4
IPv4 "service continuity" support, in the LAN side, ensuring that "service continuity" support, for devices in the LAN side. This
remote IPv4-only services are accessible, from an IPv6-only Internet ensures that remote IPv4-only services continue to be accessible,
Service Provider access network (typically referred as WAN - Wide from an IPv6-only Internet Service Provider access network (typically
Area Network, even in some cases it may be metropolitan, regional, referred as WAN - Wide Area Network, even if in some cases it may be
etc.) even from IPv6-only applications or devices in the LAN side. metropolitan, regional, etc.), from both, IPv4-only and IPv6-only
applications or devices in the LAN side.
+------------+ +------------+ \ +------------+ +------------+ \
| IPv4-only | | IPv4/IPv6 | \ | IPv4-only | | IPv4/IPv6 | \
| Remote | | Remote | | | Remote | | Remote | |
| Host | | Host | | Internet | Host | | Host | | Internet
+--------+---+ +---+--------+ | +--------+---+ +---+--------+ |
| | / | | /
| | / | | /
+-+-----------+-+ \ +-+-----------+-+ \
| Service | \ | Service | \
skipping to change at page 4, line 40 skipping to change at page 4, line 40
| IPv6-only| | IPv4-only| |IPv4/IPv6 | / | IPv6-only| | IPv4-only| |IPv4/IPv6 | /
| Host | | Host | | Host | / | Host | | Host | | Host | /
+----------+ +----------+ +----------+ / +----------+ +----------+ +----------+ /
Figure 1: Simplified Typical IPv6-only Access Network 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 (Internet Service Providers) have, or want to have, an IPv6-only ISPs (Internet Service Providers) have, or want to have, an IPv6-only
access network. This is a common situation when sufficient IPv4 access network. This is a common situation when sufficient IPv4
addresses are no longer available for every possible customer and addresses are no longer available for every possible customer and
device, causing IPv4 addresses to become prohibitive expense. This, device, causing IPv4 addresses to become prohibitively expensive.
in turn, may result in service providers provisioning IPv6-only WAN This, in turn, may result in service providers provisioning IPv6-only
access. At the same time, they need to ensure that both IPv4-only WAN access. At the same time, they need to ensure that both
and IPv6-only devices or applications in the customer networks can IPv4-only and IPv6-only devices or applications in the customer
still reach IPv4-only devices and applications in the Internet. networks can 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] (Home Networking Control Protocol), which is out of the [RFC7788] (Home Networking Control Protocol), which is out of the
scope of this document. scope of this document.
Since it is impossible to know prior to sale which transition Since it is impossible to know prior to sale which transition
mechanism a device will need over its lifetime, IPv6 Transition CE mechanism a device will need over its lifetime, an IPv6 Transition CE
Router intended for the retail market MUST support all the IPv4aaS Router intended for the retail market MUST support all the IPv4aaS
transition mechanisms supported by this document. Service providers transition mechanisms supported by this document. Service providers
who specify feature sets for IPv6 Transition CE Router may specify a who specify feature sets for the IPv6 Transition CE Router, may
different set of features than those included in this document, for define a different set of features than those included in this
example supporting only some of the transition mechanisms enumerated document, for example supporting only some of the transition
in this document. 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, which Architecture" is provided in Annexes A and B, respectively, which
together with [RFC7084], will facilitate the reader to have a clearer together with [RFC7084], will facilitate the reader to have a clearer
understanding of this document. 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 [RFC2119]. When these words
document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of aren't capitalized, they have their normal English meaning, as per
interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing [RFC8174]. This document uses these keywords not strictly for the
industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the document points purpose of interoperability, but rather for the purpose of
to several other specifications to provide additional guidance to establishing industry-common baseline functionality. As such, the
implementers regarding any protocol implementation required to document points to several other specifications to provide additional
produce a successful IPv6 Transition CE Router that interoperates guidance to implementers regarding any protocol implementation
successfully with a particular subset of currently deploying and required to produce a successful IPv6 Transition CE Router that
planned common IPv6-only access networks. interoperates successfully with a particular subset of currently
deploying and 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
document as pertaining to a configuration as applied by a vendor, document as pertaining to a configuration as applied by a vendor,
prior to the administrator changing it for its initial activation. prior to the administrator changing it for its initial activation.
2. Terminology 2. Terminology
This document uses the same terms as in [RFC7084], with minor This document uses the same terms as in [RFC7084], with minor
clarifications. clarifications.
skipping to change at page 6, line 21 skipping to change at page 6, line 22
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 adds Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers) and this document adds
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
IPv6 Transition CE Router, and it is required by most of the IPv6 Transition CE Routers, and it is required by most of the
transition mechanisms: transition mechanisms:
L-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement a DNS proxy as L-1: The IPv6 Transition CE Router MUST implement a DNS proxy as
described in [RFC5625] (DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines). described in [RFC5625] (DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines).
3.2. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 Service Continuity (IPv4 3.2. Transition Technologies Support for IPv4 Service Continuity (IPv4
as-a-Service - IPv4aaS) as-a-Service - IPv4aaS)
The main target of this document is the support of IPv6-only WAN The main target of this document is the support of IPv6-only WAN
access. To enable legacy IPv4 functionality, this document also access. To enable legacy IPv4 functionality, this document also
includes the support of IPv4-only devices and applications in the includes the support of IPv4-only devices and applications in the
customers LANs, as well as IPv4-only services on the Internet. Thus, customers LANs, as well as IPv4-only services on the Internet. Thus,
both IPv4-only and the IPv6-only devices in the customer-side LANs of both IPv4-only and the IPv6-only devices in the customer-side LANs of
the IPv6 Transition CE Router are able to reach the IPv4-only the IPv6 Transition CE Router are able to reach the IPv4-only
services. services.
Note that this document is only configuring the IPv4aaS in the IPv6
Transition CE Router itself, and not forwarding such information to
devices attached to the LANs, so the WAN configuration, availability
of native IPv4 or IPv4aaS, is transparent for them.
This document takes no position on simultaneous operation of one or This document takes no position on simultaneous operation of one or
several transition mechanisms and/or native IPv4. several transition mechanisms and/or native IPv4.
In order to seamlessly provide the IPv4 Service Continuity in In order to seamlessly provide IPv4 service continuity in the
Customer LANs, allowing an automated IPv6 transition mechanism customer LANs, and allow an automated IPv6 transition mechanism
provisioning, general transition requirements are defined. provisioning, the following general transition requirements are
defined.
General transition requirements: General transition requirements:
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
skipping to change at page 12, line 15 skipping to change at page 12, line 25
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 (Open Connectivity Foundation).
6. Comparison to RFC7084 6. Comparison to RFC7084
This document doesn't include support for 6rd [RFC5969], because it This document doesn't include support for 6rd [RFC5969], because it
is 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, related to the support of PCP [RFC6887], IGD- different requirements, related to the support of PCP [RFC6887], IGD-
PCP IWF [RFC6970] and the prioritization of the transition PCP IWF [RFC6970] and the prioritization of the transition
mechanisms, including dual-stack. 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, VPP, others), that adding the support for the
transitions mechanisms, requires around 10-12 Kbytes (because most of new transitions mechanisms, requires around 10-12 Kbytes, because
the code base is shared among several transition mechanisms already most of the code base is shared among several transition mechanisms,
supported by [RFC7084]), as a single data plane is common to all which are already supported by [RFC7084]. A single data plane is
them, which typically means about 0,15% of the existing code size in common to all them, which typically means, in popular CEs already in
popular CEs already in the market [OpenWRT]. the market [OpenWRT], about 0,15% of the existing code size.
In general, the new requirements don't have extra cost in terms of In general, the new requirements don't have extra cost in terms of
RAM memory, neither other hardware requirements such as more powerful RAM memory, nor other hardware requirements such as more powerful
CPUs, if compared to the cost of NAT44 code so, existing hardware CPUs, if compared to the cost of NAT44 code, so existing hardware
supports them with minimal impact. should support all 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 an issue.
Finally, in some cases, operators supporting several transition Finally, in some cases, operators supporting several transition
mechanisms may need to consider training costs for staff in all those mechanisms may need to consider training costs for staff in all those
techniques for their operation and management, even if this is not techniques for their operation and management, even if this is not
directly caused by supporting this document, but because the business directly caused by supporting this document, but because the business
decisions behind that. 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 As described in [RFC8026] and [RFC8415] Security Consideration
sections, there are generic DHCP security issues, which in the case sections, there are generic DHCP security issues, which in the case
of this document means that malicious nodes may alter the priority of of this document means that malicious nodes may alter the priority of
the transition mechanisms. the transition mechanisms.
Access network architecture for securing DHCP within the access
network is out of scope of this document. Securing DHCP in the LAN
is also not in scope. DHCP packets MUST NOT be forwarded between LAN
and WAN interfaces of an IPv6 Transition CE router.
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 13, line 45 skipping to change at page 14, line 11
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+ +-------------+--------------------+-----------+
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, as well as to the Last Call reviewers by the Opsdir this document, as well as to the Last Call reviewers by the Ops-dir
(Dan Romascanu), Secdir (Christian Huitema), Rtgdir (Daniele (Dan Romascanu), Sec-dir (Christian Huitema), Rtg-dir (Daniele
Ceccarelli) and Tsvdir (Martin Stiemerling). Ceccarelli), Tsv-art (Martin Stiemerling) and Gen-art (Matthew
Miller).
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 15, line 14 skipping to change at page 15, line 25
available in any IPv6 router, when using GUA (IPv6 Global Unicast available in any IPv6 router, when using GUA (IPv6 Global Unicast
Addresses), unless they are blocked by firewall rules, which may Addresses), unless they are blocked by firewall rules, which may
require some manual 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, inbound connections typically require some degree of more mechanism, inbound connections typically require some degree of more
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. Commonly, the user has access to configure the LAN interfaces, side. Commonly, the user has access to configure the LAN interfaces,
firewall, DMZ, and many other features. However, in many cases, the firewall, DMZ, and many other features. However, in many cases, the
user must supply or may replace the IPv6 Transition CE Router. This user must supply or may replace the IPv6 Transition CE Router. This
underscores the importance of the IPv6 Transition CE Routers underscores the importance of the IPv6 Transition CE Routers
skipping to change at page 15, line 37 skipping to change at page 15, line 48
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
network architecture. network architecture.
A typical IPv4 end-user network consists of a "plug and play" router A typical IPv4 end-user network consists of a "plug and play" router
with NAT functionality and a single link upstream, connected to the with NAT functionality and a single link upstream, connected to the
service provider network. service provider network.
From the perspective of an "IPv4 user" behind an IPv6 transition From the perspective of an "IPv4 user" behind an IPv6 transition
Customer Edge Router with IPv4aaS, this doesn't change. Customer Edge Router with IPv4aaS, this doesn't change.
skipping to change at page 20, line 11 skipping to change at page 20, line 11
Section to be removed by RFC Editor. 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 by RFC Editor. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. Significant updates are:
1. Editorial edits. 1. Editorial edits.
22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11 22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11 and -12
Section to be removed by RFC Editor. Significant updates are: Section to be removed by RFC Editor. Significant updates are:
1. Changes related to suggestions by Opsdir, Secdir, Rtgdir and 1. Changes related to suggestions by Ops-dir, Sec-dir, Rtg-dir, Tsv-
Tsvdir. art and Gen-art, as well as comments from IESG review.
23. References 23. References
23.1. Normative 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>.
skipping to change at page 22, 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>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., [RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018, RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
23.2. Informative References 23.2. Informative References
[IPv6Survey] [IPv6Survey]
Palet Martinez, J., "IPv6 Deployment Survey", January Palet Martinez, J., "IPv6 Deployment Survey", January
 End of changes. 29 change blocks. 
58 lines changed or deleted 77 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/