draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-14.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-15.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: July 18, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc. Expires: August 1, 2019 D-Link Systems, Inc.
M. Kawashima M. Kawashima
NEC Platforms, Ltd. NEC Platforms, Ltd.
January 14, 2019 January 28, 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-14 draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas-15
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 July 18, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 1, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
skipping to change at page 2, line 30 skipping to change at page 2, line 30
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
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, -12 and -13 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11, -12, -13 and -14 . . . . . . . . . 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
skipping to change at page 7, line 26 skipping to change at page 7, line 26
CONFIG-1: Request the relevant configuration options for each CONFIG-1: Request the relevant configuration options for each
supported transition mechanisms, which MUST remain supported transition mechanisms, which MUST remain
disabled at this step. disabled at this step.
CONFIG-2: Following Section 1.4 of [RFC8026], MUST check for a valid CONFIG-2: Following Section 1.4 of [RFC8026], MUST check for a valid
match in OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which allows enabling/ match in OPTION_S46_PRIORITY, which allows enabling/
disabling a transition mechanism. disabling a transition mechanism.
CONFIG-3: Keep disabled all the transition mechanisms if no match is CONFIG-3: Keep disabled all the transition mechanisms if no match is
found between the priority list and the candidate list. found between the priority list and the candidate list,
unless a NAT64 prefix has been configured, in which case,
464XLAT MUST be enabled.
Because 464XLAT has not DHCPv6 configuration options, it can't be
included, at the time being, in the OPTION_S46_PRIORITY. In the
future, an update of [RFC8026] or a NAT64 DHCPv6 configuration
option, may enable it. Meanwhile, if an operator provides 464XLAT,
it needs to ensure that OPTION_S46_PRIORITY is not sent for any other
transition mechanism to the relevant customers.
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
skipping to change at page 8, line 33 skipping to change at page 8, line 42
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: The priority for the NAT64 prefix, in case the network 464XLAT-6: 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)
[RFC7050]. [RFC7050].
464XLAT-7: If one or more NAT64 prefixes are learnt by means of
either [RFC7225] or [RFC7050], then 464XLAT MUST be
included in the candidate list of possible S46 mechanism
(Section 1.4.1 of [RFC8026]).
The NAT64 prefix could be discovered by means of [RFC7050] only in The NAT64 prefix could be discovered by means of [RFC7050] only in
the case the service provider uses DNS64 [RFC6147]. It may be the the case the service provider uses DNS64 [RFC6147]. It may be the
case that the service provider does not use or does not trust DNS64 case that the service provider does not use or does not trust DNS64
[RFC6147] because the DNS configuration at the CE (or hosts behind [RFC6147] because the DNS configuration at the CE (or hosts behind
the CE) can be modified by the customer. In that case, the service the CE) can be modified by the customer. In that case, the service
provider may opt to configure the NAT64 prefix by means of [RFC7225]. provider may opt to configure the NAT64 prefix by means of [RFC7225].
This can also be used if the service provider uses DNS64 [RFC6147]. This can also be used if the service provider uses DNS64 [RFC6147].
3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) 3.2.2. Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)
skipping to change at page 12, line 31 skipping to change at page 12, line 44
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
At the time of this writing, one of the apparent main issues for At the time of this writing, one of the apparent main issues for
vendors to include new functionalities, such as support for new vendors to include new functionalities, such as support for new
transition mechanisms, is the lack of space in the flash (or transition mechanisms, is the lack of space in the flash (or
equivalent) memory. However, it has been confirmed from existing equivalent) memory. However, it has been confirmed from existing
open source implementations (OpenWRT/LEDE, Linux, VPP, others), that open source implementations (OpenWRT/LEDE, Linux, VPP, others), that
adding the support for the new transitions mechanisms, requires adding the support for the new transition mechanisms, requires around
around 10-12 Kbytes, because most of the code base is shared among 10-12 Kbytes, because most of the code base is shared among several
several transition mechanisms, which are already supported by transition mechanisms, which are already supported by [RFC7084]. A
[RFC7084]. A single data plane is common to all them, which single data plane is common to all them, which typically means, in
typically means, in popular CEs already in the market [OpenWRT], the popular CEs already in the market [OpenWRT], the new required code is
new required code is only about 0.15% of the total existing code only about 0.15% of the total existing code size.
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, nor 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
should be able to support all them with minimal impact. should be able to 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,
skipping to change at page 13, line 30 skipping to change at page 13, line 40
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 Access network architecture for securing DHCP within the access
network is out of scope of this document. Securing DHCP in the LAN 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 is also not in scope. DHCP packets MUST NOT be forwarded between LAN
and WAN interfaces of an IPv6 Transition CE router. 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 This document does not have any new specific IANA considerations.
Codes permitted in the S46 Priority Option" registry available at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-
parameters.xhtml#option-codes-s46-priority-option, with the following
entry.
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| Option Code | S46 Mechanism | Reference |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
| 113 | 464XLAT | [thisdoc] |
+-------------+--------------------+-----------+
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 Ops-dir this document, as well as to the Last Call reviewers by the Ops-dir
(Dan Romascanu), Sec-dir (Christian Huitema), Rtg-dir (Daniele (Dan Romascanu), Sec-dir (Christian Huitema), Rtg-dir (Daniele
Ceccarelli), Tsv-art (Martin Stiemerling), Gen-art (Matthew Miller) Ceccarelli), Tsv-art (Martin Stiemerling), Gen-art (Matthew Miller)
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, -12 and -13 22. ANNEX L: Changes from -11, -12, -13 and -14
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 Ops-dir, Sec-dir, Rtg-dir, Tsv- 1. Changes related to suggestions by Ops-dir, Sec-dir, Rtg-dir, Tsv-
art and Gen-art, as well as comments from IESG review. art and Gen-art, as well as comments from IESG review.
2. IANA section removed as a consequence of the removal of the
inclusion of 464XLAT in the RFC8026 priority mechanism.
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>.
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines", [RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
35 lines changed or deleted 29 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/