Internet DRAFT - draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps
draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps
6RENUM B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational S. Jiang
Expires: May 13, 2013 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
November 9, 2012
Next Steps for Renumbering IPv6 Sites
draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00
Abstract
This document summarises for the record the next steps proposed
following the completion of chartered work in the 6RENUM WG. It is
not expected to become an RFC.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 13, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Carpenter & Jiang Expires May 13, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Next steps for 6renum November 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Advice to the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IETF work items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Carpenter & Jiang Expires May 13, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Next steps for 6renum November 2012
1. Introduction
The IPv6 Site Renumbering (6RENUM) working group completed its
chartered set of documents by November 2012. The present document
summarises for the record the next steps proposed and discussed in
the final WG meeting. It is posted as a draft for convenience but is
not expected to become an RFC.
The next steps are divided into two categories, after analysis of the
gap analysis documents in particular [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis],
[I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem]. Firstly, there are items that have
been identified as needed for site renumbering but are either not
widely implemented or not widely used. These items need to be
documented in the form of advice to the community, but do not appear
to require specification work in the IETF. Secondly, there are items
that may be useful for site renumbering, and which need specification
work of some kind. The two following sections address these two
areas.
2. Advice to the community
The following items could form part of one or more informational (or
possibly BCP) documents.
1. The long-standing advice that names, rather than numeric
addresses, should be used whenever possible is reiterated. In
general that means DNS names, but in some circumstances it might
mean some other form of parametric name. A specific case is that
IPsec security associations should use names, as allowed since
[RFC2407], whenever possible.
2. Some form of name-based service discovery should be used wherever
possible, rather than configuring service addresses. This could
be DNS-based, mDNS-based or even SLP.
3. Addresses used for internal traffic could be stabilised by
deploying a ULA prefix (as well as a globally routed prefix).
4. Sites should use some sort of configuration management tool.
This could be described as an IP address management (IPAM) tool,
an asset management tool, or more generally as an operational
support system (OSS). Its role is to populate DNS, reverse DNS,
DHCPv6, and router configurations. The tool should use DNS names
or parametric names in configuration files. See
[I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering].
5. Include servers in DHCPv6 to avoid manual configuration.
6. Use Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007] where appropriate
(requires key management in the management tool).
Carpenter & Jiang Expires May 13, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Next steps for 6renum November 2012
7. Plan a renumbering procedure as part of the IPv6 network design.
Handy references include [RFC4192], [RFC5887],
[I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise], [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis],
[I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem].
8. Avoid software license systems that rely on IP addresses.
Finally, it is noted that the management tool mentioned above might
be able to take advantage of certain features that are defined but
apparently not widely used. In particular, these are DHCPv6
RECONFIGURE/RENEW [RFC3315], DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] and ICMPv6 router
renumbering [RFC2894]. There is an open question whether the latter
is in fact usable.
3. IETF work items
These are the items identified in the 6RENUM gap analysis that appear
to need work in the appropriate IETF WGs.
1. Reconcile use of DHCPv6 and RA in an enterprise network.
* The DHCPv6 and ND state machines inside a host influence each
other.
* What should a DHCPv6-configured host do when it receives RA
messages containing a new prefix? Current implementations
just configure the new prefix. Is this OK?
* What should a SLAAC-configured host do when it receives RA
messages with "M" set?
* See analysis in [I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching].
2. Bulk DHVPv6 RECONFIGURE mechanism.
3. Clarify how a MIPv6 host rebinds with its home agent if the
latter is renumbered while mobile is disconnected.
4. Review ICMPv6 router renumbering [RFC2894] to see if it needs
updating and if it is viable as a solution.
4. Security Considerations
This document defines no protocol, so does not introduce any new
security exposures.
5. IANA Considerations
This document requests no action by IANA.
Carpenter & Jiang Expires May 13, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Next steps for 6renum November 2012
6. Acknowledgements
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
Brian Carpenter was a visitor at the Computer Laboratory, Cambridge
University during this work.
7. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00: original version, 2012-11-09.
8. Informative References
[I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering]
Baker, F., "Renumbering using an Operational Support
System", draft-baker-6renum-oss-renumbering-00 (work in
progress), November 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise]
Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise
Network Renumbering Scenarios and Guidelines",
draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-03 (work in progress),
October 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis]
Liu, B., Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Venaas, "IPv6
Site Renumbering Gap Analysis",
draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-04 (work in progress),
October 2012.
[I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem]
Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Problem Statement for
Renumbering IPv6 Hosts with Static Addresses",
draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-02 (work in progress),
September 2012.
[I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching]
Liu, B., Wang, W., and X. Gong, "DHCPv6/SLAAC Address
Configuration Switching for Host Renumbering",
draft-liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching-01 (work in
progress), July 2012.
[RFC2407] Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
Carpenter & Jiang Expires May 13, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Next steps for 6renum November 2012
June 1999.
[RFC2894] Crawford, M., "Router Renumbering for IPv6", RFC 2894,
August 2000.
[RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
September 2005.
[RFC5887] Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering
Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland, 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Sheng Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Q14, Huawei Campus
No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com
Carpenter & Jiang Expires May 13, 2013 [Page 6]
