Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6
draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6
v6ops V. Kuarsingh, Ed.
Internet-Draft Rogers Communications
Intended status: Informational L. Howard
Expires: March 14, 2013 Time Warner Cable
September 10, 2012
Wireline Incremental IPv6
draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6-06
Abstract
Operators worldwide are in various stages of preparing for, or
deploying IPv6 into their networks. The operators often face
difficult challenges related to both IPv6 introduction along with
those related to IPv4 run out. Operators will need to meet the
simultaneous needs of IPv6 connectivity and continue support for IPv4
connectivity for legacy devices with a stagnant supply of IPv4
addresses. The IPv6 transition will take most networks from an IPv4-
only environment to an IPv6 dominant environment with long transition
period varying by operator. This document helps provide a framework
for wireline providers who are faced with the challenges of
introducing IPv6 along with meeting the legacy needs of IPv4
connectivity utilizing well defined and commercially available IPv6
transition technologies.
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 March 14, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
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.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Operator Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. IPv4 Resource Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. IPv6 Introduction and Operational Maturity . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Service Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. Sub-Optimal Operation of Transition Technologies . . . . . 8
3.6. Future IPv6 Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. Automatic Tunneling using 6to4 and Teredo . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Carrier Grade NAT (NAT444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3. 6RD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. Native Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.5. DS-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.6. NAT64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. IPv6 Transition Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Phase 0 - Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.1. Phase 0 - Foundation: Training . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.2. Phase 0 - Foundation: System Capabilities . . . . . . 14
5.1.3. Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.4. Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security . . 14
5.1.5. Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture . . . . 14
5.1.6. Phase 0- Foundation: Tools and Management . . . . . . 15
5.2. Phase 1 - Tunneled IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.2.1. 6RD Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.3. Phase 2: Native Dual Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.3.1. Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations . . . . . 19
5.4. Intermediate Phase for CGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.4.1. CGN Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.5. Phase 3 - IPv6-Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.5.1. DS-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.5.2. DS-Lite Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.5.3. NAT64 Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
1. Introduction
This draft sets out to help wireline operators in planning their IPv6
deployments while ensuring continued support for IPv6-incapable
consumer devices and applications. This document identifies which
technologies can be used incrementally to transition from IPv4-only
to an IPv6 dominant environment with support for dual stack
operation. The end state goal for most operators will be IPv6-only,
but the path to this final state will heavily depend on the amount of
legacy equipment resident in end networks and management of long tail
IPv4-only content. Although no single plan will work for all
operators, options listed herein provide a baseline which can be
included in many plans.
This draft is intended for wireline environments which include Cable,
DSL and/or fiber as the access method to the end consumer. This
document attempts to follow the principles laid out in [RFC6180]
which provides guidance on using IPv6 transition mechanisms. This
document will focus on technologies which enable and mature IPv6
within the operator's network, but will also include a cursory view
of IPv4 connectivity continuance. The focal transition technologies
include 6RD [RFC5969], DS-Lite [RFC6333], NAT64 [RFC6146] and Dual
Stack operation which may also include a CGN/NAT444 deployment.
Focus on these technologies is based on their inclusion in many off-
the-shelf CPEs and availability in commercially available equipment.
2. Operator Assumptions
For the purposes of this document, the authors assume:
- The operator is considering deploying IPv6 or is in the progress
in deploying IPv6
- The operator has a legacy IPv4 subscriber base that will
continue to exist for a period of time
- The operator will want to minimize the level of disruption to
the existing and new subscribers
- The operator may also want to minimize the number of
technologies and functions that are needed to mediate any given
set of subscribers flows (overall preference for Native IP flows)
- The operator is able to run Dual Stack on their own core network
and is able to transition their own services to support IPv6
Based on these assumptions, an operator will want to utilize
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
technologies that minimize the need to tunnel, translate or mediate
flows to help optimize traffic flow and lower the cost impacts of
transition technologies. Transition technology selections should be
made to mediate the non-dominant IP family flows and allow native
routing (IPv4 and/or IPv6) to forward the dominant traffic whenever
possible. This allows the operator to minimize the cost of IPv6
transition technologies by minimizing the transition technology
deployment size.
An operator may also choose to prefer more IPv6 focused models where
the use of transition technologies are based on an effort to enable
IPv6 at the base layer as soon as possible. Some operators may want
to promote IPv6 early on in the deployment and have IPv6 traffic
perform optimally from the outset. This desire would need to be
weighed against the cost and support impacts of such a choice and the
quality of experience offered to subscribers.
3. Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach
When faced with the challenges described in the introduction,
operators may want to consider a phased approach when adding IPv6 to
an existing subscriber base. A phased approach allows the operator
to add in IPv6 while not ignoring legacy IPv4 connection
requirements. Some of the main challenges the operator will face
include:
- IPv4 exhaustion may occur long before all traffic is able to be
delivered over IPv6, necessitating IPv4 address sharing
- IPv6 will pose operational challenges since some of the software
is quite new and has had short run time in large production
environments and organizations are also not acclimatized to
supporting IPv6 as a service
- Connectivity modes will move from IPv4-only to Dual Stack in the
home, changing functional behaviors in the consumer network and
increasing support requirements for the operator
- Although IPv6 support on CPEs is a newer phenomenon, there is a
strong push by operators and the industry as a whole to enable
IPv6 on devices. As demand grows, IPv6 enablement will no longer
be optional, but necessary on CPEs. Documents like [RFC6540]
provide useful tools in the short term to help vendors and
implementors understand what "IPv6 support" means.
These challenges will occur over a period of time, which means that
the operator's plans need to address the ever changing requirements
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
of the network and subscriber demand. Although phases will be
presented in this document, not all operators may need to enable each
discrete phase. It is possible that characteristics in individual
networks may allow certain operators to skip or jump to various
phases.
3.1. Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4
The delivery of high-quality unencumbered Internet service should be
the primary goal for operators. With the imminent exhaustion of
IPv4, IPv6 will offer the highest quality of experience in the long
term. Even though the operator may be focused on IPv6 delivery, they
should be aware that both IPv4 and IPv6 will play a role in the
Internet experience during transition. The Internet is made of many
interconnecting systems, networks, hardware, software and content
sources - all of which will move to IPv6 at different rates.
Many subscribers use older operating systems and hardware which
support IPv4-only operation. Internet subscribers don't buy IPv4 or
IPv6 connections; they buy Internet connections, which demands the
need to support both IPv4 and IPv6 for as long at the subscriber's
home network demands such support. The operator may be able to
leverage one or the other protocol to help bridge connectivity on the
operator's network, but the home network will likely demand both IPv4
and IPv6 for some time.
3.2. IPv4 Resource Challenges
Since connectivity to IPv4-only endpoints and/or content will remain
common, IPv4 resource challenges are of key concern to operators.
The lack of new IPv4 addresses for additional devices means that
meeting the growth in demand of IPv4 connections in some networks
will require address sharing.
Networks are growing at different rates including those in emerging
markets and established networks based on the proliferation of
Internet based services and devices. IPv4 address constraints will
likely affect many if not most operators at some point, increasing
the benefits of IPv6. IPv4 address exhaustion is a consideration
when selecting technologies which rely on IPv4 to supply IPv6
services, such as 6RD. Additionally, if native Dual Stack is
considered by the operator, challenges related to IPv4 address
exhaustion remain a concern.
Some operators may be able to reclaim small amounts IPv4 addresses
through addressing efficiencies in the network, although this will
have little lasting benefits to the network and not meet longer term
connectivity needs. Secondary markets for IPv4 addresses have also
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
begun to arise, but it's not well understood how this will complement
overall demand for Internet growth. Address transfers will also be
subject to market prices and transfer rules governed by the Regional
Registries.
The lack of new global IPv4 address allocations will therefore force
operators to support some form of IPv4 address sharing and may impact
technological options for transition once the operator runs out of
new IPv4 addresses for assignment.
3.3. IPv6 Introduction and Operational Maturity
The introduction of IPv6 will require new operational practices. The
IPv4 environment we have today was built over many years and matured
by experience. Although many of these experiences are transferable
from IPv4 to IPv6, new experience and practices specific to IPv6 will
be needed.
Engineering and Operational staff will need to develop experience
with IPv6. Inexperience may lead to early IPv6 deployment
instability, and operators should consider this when selecting
technologies for initial transition. Operators may not want to
subject their mature IPv4 service to a "new IPv6" path initially
while it may be going through growing pains. DS-Lite [RFC6333] and
NAT64 [RFC6146] are both technologies which requires IPv6 to support
connectivity to IPv4 endpoints or content over an IPv6-only access
network.
Further, some of these transition technologies are new and require
refinement within running code. Deployment experience is required to
expose bugs and stabilize software in production environments. Many
supporting systems are also under development and have newly
developed IPv6 functionality including vendor implementations of
DHCPv6, management tools, monitoring systems, diagnostic systems,
logging, along with other elements.
Although the base technological capabilities exist to enable and run
IPv6 in most environments, organizational experience is low. Until
such time as each key technical member of an operator's organization
can identify IPv6, understand its relevance to the IP service
offering, how it operates and how to troubleshoot it, the deployment
needs to mature, and may be subject to subscriber-impacting events.
This fact should not incline operators to delay their IPv6
deployment, but should drive them to deploy IPv6 sooner to gain the
much needed experience before IPv6 is the only viable way to connect
new hosts to the network.
It should also be noted that although many transition technologies
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
may be new, and some code related to access environments may be new,
there is a large segment of the networking fabric which has had IPv6
available for a long period of time and has had extended exposure in
production. Operators may use this to their advantage by first
enabling IPv6 in the core of their network then work outward towards
the subscriber edge.
3.4. Service Management
Services are managed within most networks and are often based on the
gleaning and monitoring of IPv4 addresses assigned to endpoints.
Operators will need to address such management tools, troubleshooting
methods and storage facilities (such as databases) to deal with not
just a new address type containing a 128-bit IPv6 address [RFC2460],
but often both IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time. Examination of
address type, and recording delegated prefixes along with single
address assignments, will likely require additional development.
With any Dual Stack service - whether Native, 6RD-based, DS-Lite,
NAT64 or otherwise - two address families may need to be managed
simultaneously to help provide for the full Internet experience.
This would indicate that IPv6 management is not just a simple add in,
but needs to be well integrated into the service management
infrastructure. In the early transition phases, it's quite likely
that many systems will be missed and that IPv6 services will go un-
monitored and impairments undetected.
These issues may be of consideration when selecting technologies that
require IPv6 as the base protocol to deliver IPv4 connectivity.
Instability on the IPv6 service in such a case would impact IPv4
services.
3.5. Sub-Optimal Operation of Transition Technologies
Native delivery of IPv4 and IPv6 provides a solid foundation for
delivery of Internet services to subscribers since native IP paths
are well understood and networks are often optimized to send such
traffic efficiently. Transition technologies however, may alter the
normal path of traffic or reduce the path MTU, removing many network
efficiencies built for native IP flows. Tunneling and translation
devices may not be located on the most optimal path in line with the
natural traffic flow (based on route computation) and therefore may
increase latency. These paths may also add additional points of
failure.
Generally, the operator will want to deliver native IPv6 as soon as
possible and utilize transition technologies only when required.
Transition technologies may be used to provide continued access to
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
IPv4 via tunneling and/or translation or may be used to deliver IPv6
connectivity. The delivery of Internet or internal services should
be considered by the operator, since supplying connections using a
transition technology will reduce the overall performance for the
subscriber.
When choosing between various transition technologies, operators
should consider the benefits and drawbacks of each option. Some
technologies like CGN/NAT444 utilize many existing addressing and
management practices. Other options such as DS-Lite and NAT64 remove
the IPv4 addressing requirement to the subscriber premise device but
require IPv6 to be operational and well supported.
3.6. Future IPv6 Network
An operator should also be aware that longer-term plans may include
IPv6-only operation in all or much of the network. The IPv6-only
operation may be complemented by technologies such as NAT64 for long-
tail IPv4 content reach. This longer term view may be distant to
some, but should be considered when planning out networks, addressing
and services. The needs and costs of maintaining two IP stacks will
eventually become burdensome and simplification will be desirable.
The operators should plan for this state and not make IPv6 inherently
dependent on IPv4 as this would unnecessarily constrain the network.
Other design considerations and guidelines for running an IPv6
network should also be considered by the operator. Guidance on
designing an IPv6 network can be found in
[draft-matthews-v6ops-design-guidelines] and
[draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance].
4. IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis
Operators should understand the main transition technologies for IPv6
deployment and IPv4 run out. This draft provides a brief description
of some of the mainstream and commercially available options. This
analysis is focused on the applicability of technologies to deliver
residential services and less focused on commercial access, wireless,
or infrastructure support.
The technologies in focus for this document are targeted on those
commercially available and in deployment.
4.1. Automatic Tunneling using 6to4 and Teredo
Even when operators may not be actively deploying IPv6, automatic
mechanisms exist on subscriber operating systems and CPE hardware.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
Such technologies include 6to4 [RFC3056], which is most commonly used
with anycast relays [RFC3068]. Teredo [RFC4380] is also used widely
by many Internet hosts.
Documents such as [RFC6343] have been written to help operators
understand observed problems with 6to4 deployments and provides
guidelines on how to improve its performance. An operator may want
to provide local relays for 6to4 and/or Teredo to help improve the
protocol's performance for ambient traffic utilizing these IPv6
connectivity methods. Experiences such as those described in
[I-D.jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences] show that local relays have
proved beneficial to 6to4 protocol performance.
Operators should also be aware of breakage cases for 6to4 if non-
RFC1918 addresses are used within CGN/NAT444 zones. Many off-the-
shelf CPEs and operating systems may turn on 6to4 without a valid
return path to the originating (local) host. This particular use
case can occur if any space other than [RFC1918] is used, including
Shared Address Space [RFC6598] or space registered to another
organization (squat space). The operator can use 6to4-PMT
[I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] or attempt to
block 6to4 operation entirely by blocking the anycast ranges
associated with [RFC3068].
4.2. Carrier Grade NAT (NAT444)
Carrier Grade NAT (CGN), specifically as deployed in a NAT444
scenario [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements], may prove beneficial for
those operators who offer Dual Stack services to subscriber endpoints
once they exhaust their pools of IPv4 addresses. CGNs, and address
sharing overall, are known to cause certain challenges for the IPv4
service [RFC6269][I-D.donley-nat444-impacts], but may be necessary
depending on how an operator has chosen to deal with IPv6 transition
and legacy IPv4 connectivity requirements.
In a network where IPv4 address availability is low, CGN/NAT444, may
provide continued access to IPv4 endpoints. Some of the advantages
of using CGN/NAT444 include the similarities in provisioning and
activation models. IPv4 hosts in a CGN/NAT444 deployment will likely
inherit the same addressing and management procedures as legacy IPv4,
globally addressed hosts (i.e. DHCPv4, DNSv4, TFTP, TR-069 etc).
4.3. 6RD
6RD [RFC5969] provides a way of offering IPv6 connectivity to
subscriber endpoints when native IPv6 addressing on the access
network is not yet possible. 6RD provides tunneled connectivity for
IPv6 over the existing IPv4 path. As the access edge is upgraded and
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
subscriber premise equipment is replaced, 6RD can be replace by
native IPv6 connectivity. 6RD can be delivered over top a CGN/NAT444
deployment, but this would cause all traffic to be subject to some
type of transition technology.
6RD may also be advantageous during the early transition while IPv6
traffic volumes are low. During this period, the operator can gain
experience with IPv6 on the core and improve their peering framework
to match those of the IPv4 service. 6RD scales by adding relays to
the operator's network. Another advantage for 6RD is that the
operator does not need a DHCPv6 address assignment infrastructure and
does not need to support IPv6 routing to the CPE to support a
delegated prefix (as it's derived from the IPv4 address and other
configuration parameters).
Client support is required for 6RD operation and may not be available
on deployed hardware. 6RD deployments may require the subscriber or
operator to replace the CPE. 6RD will also require parameter
configuration which can be powered by the operator through DHCPv4,
manually provisioned on the CPE or automatically through some other
means. Manual provisioning would likely limit deployment scale.
4.4. Native Dual Stack
Native Dual Stack is often referred to as the "gold standard" of IPv6
and IPv4 delivery. It is a method of service delivery that is
already used in many existing IPv6 deployments. Native Dual Stack
does, however, require that Native IPv6 be delivered through the
access network to the subscriber premise. This technology option is
desirable in many cases and can be used immediately if the access
network and subscriber premise equipment supports native IPv6.
An operator who runs out of IPv4 addresses to assign to subscribers
will not be able to provide traditional native Dual Stack
connectivity for new subscribers. In Dual Stack deployments where
sufficient IPv4 addresses are not available, CGN/NAT444 can be used
on the IPv4 path.
Delivering native Dual Stack would require the operator's core and
access network to support IPv6. Other systems like DHCP, DNS, and
diagnostic/management facilities need to be upgraded to support IPv6
as well. The upgrade of such systems may often be non-trivial and
costly.
4.5. DS-Lite
Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite, [RFC6333]) is based on a native IPv6
connection model where IPv4 services are supported. DS-Lite provides
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
tunneled connectivity for IPv4 over the IPv6 path between the
subscriber's network device and a provider managed gateway (AFTR).
DS-Lite can only be used where there is a native IPv6 connection
between the AFTR and the CPE. This may mean that the technology's
use may not be viable during early transition if the core or access
network lacks IPv6 support. During the early transition period, a
significant amount of content and services may by IPv4-only.
Operators may be sensitive to this and may not want the newer IPv6
path to be the only bridge to IPv4 at that time given the potential
impact. The operator may also want to make sure that most of its
internal services and a significant amount of external content is
available over IPv6 before deploying DS-Lite. The availability of
services on IPv6 would help lower the demand on the AFTRs.
By sharing IPv4 addresses among multiple endpoints, like CGN/NAT444,
DS-Lite can facilitate continued support of legacy IPv4 services even
after IPv4 address run out. There are some functional considerations
to take into account with DS-Lite, such as those described in
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]and in [I-D.ietf-softwire-dslite-
deployment].
DS-Lite requires client support on the CPE to function. The ability
to utilize DS-Lite will be dependent on the operator providing DS-
Lite capable CPEs or retail availability of the supported client for
subscriber-acquired endpoints.
4.6. NAT64
NAT64 [RFC6146] provides the ability to connect IPv6-only connected
clients and hosts to IPv4 servers without any tunneling. NAT64
requires that the host and home network support IPv6-only modes of
operation. Home networks do not commonly contain equipment that is
100% IPv6-capable. It is also not anticipated that common home
networks will be ready for IPv6-only operation for a number of years.
However, IPv6-only networking can be deployed by early adopters or
highly controlled networks [RFC6586].
Viability of NAT64 will increase in wireline networks as consumer
equipment is replaced by IPv6 capable versions. There are incentives
for operators to move to IPv6-only operation, when feasible, which
includes the simplicity of a single stack access network.
5. IPv6 Transition Phases
The Phases described in this document are not provided as a rigid set
of steps, but are considered a guideline which should be analyzed by
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
operators planning their IPv6 transition. Operators may choose to
skip steps based on technological capabilities within their specific
networks, (residential/corporate, fixed/mobile), their business
development perspectives (which may affect the pace of migration
towards full IPv6), or a combination thereof.
The phases are based on the expectation that IPv6 traffic volume may
initially be low, and operator staff will gain experience with IPv6
over time. As traffic volumes of IPv6 increase, IPv4 traffic volumes
will decline (in percentage relative to IPv6), until IPv6 is the
dominant address family used. Operators may want to keep the traffic
flow for the dominant traffic class (IPv4 vs. IPv6) native to help
manage costs related to transition technologies. The cost of using
multiple technologies in succession to optimize each stage of the
transition should also be compared against the cost of changing and
upgrading subscriber connections.
Additional guidance and information on utilizing IPv6 transition
mechanisms can be found in [RFC6180]. Also, guidance on incremental
CGN for IPv6 transition can also be found in [RFC6264].
5.1. Phase 0 - Foundation
5.1.1. Phase 0 - Foundation: Training
Training is one of the most important steps in preparing an
organization to support IPv6. Most people have little experience
with IPv6, and many do not even have a solid grounding in IPv4. The
implementation of IPv6 will likely produce many challenges due to
immature code on hardware, and the evolution of many applications and
systems to support IPv6. To properly deal with these impending or
current challenges, organizations must train their staff on IPv6.
Training should also be provided within reasonable timelines from the
actual IPv6 deployment. This means the operator needs to plan in
advance as it trains the various parts of its organization. New
Technology and Engineering staff often receive little training
because of their depth of knowledge, but must at least be provided
opportunities to read documentation, architectural white papers, and
RFCs. Operations personnel who support the network and other systems
need to be trained closer to the deployment timeframes, so they
immediately use their new-found knowledge before forgetting.
Subscriber support staff would require much more basic but large
scale training since many organizations have massive call centers to
support the subscriber base. Tailored training will also be required
for marketing and sales staff to help them understand IPv6 and build
it into the product development and sales process.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
5.1.2. Phase 0 - Foundation: System Capabilities
An important component with any IPv6 network architecture and
implementation is the assessment of the hardware and operating
capabilities of the deployed equipment (and software). The
assessment needs to be conducted irrespective of how the operator
plans to transition their network. The capabilities of the install
base will however impact what technologies and modes of operation may
be supported and therefore what technologies can be considered for
the transition. If some systems do not meet the needs of the
operator's IPv6 deployment and/or transition plan, the operator may
need to plan for replacement and/or upgrade.
5.1.3. Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing
The network infrastructure will need to be in place to support IPv6.
This includes the routed infrastructure along with addressing
principles, routing principles, peering policy and related network
functions. Since IPv6 is quite different from IPv4 in several ways
including the number of addresses which are made available, careful
attention to a scalable and manageable architecture needs to be made.
One such change is the notion of a delegated prefix, which deviates
from the common single address phenomenon in IPv4-only deployments.
Deploying prefixes per CPE can load the routing tables and require a
routing protocol or route gleaning to manage connectivity to the
subscriber's network. Delegating prefixes can be of specific
importance in access network environments where downstream
subscribers often move between access nodes, raising the concern of
frequent renumbering and/or managing movement of routed prefixes
within the network (common in cable based networks).
5.1.4. Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security
Many, but not all, security policies will map easily from IPv4 to
IPv6. Some new policies may be required for issues specific to IPv6
operation. This document does not highlight these specific issues,
but raises the awareness they are of consideration and should be
addressed when delivering IPv6 services. Other IETF documents such
as [RFC4942], [RFC6092], and [RFC6169] are excellent resources.
5.1.5. Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture
The operators should plan out their transition architecture in
advance (with room for flexibility) to help optimize how they will
build out and scale their networks. Should the operator consider
multiple technologies like CGN/NAT444, DS-Lite, NAT64 and 6RD, they
may want to plan out where network resident equipment may be located
and potentially choose locations which can be used for all functional
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
roles (i.e. Placement of NAT44 translator, AFTR, NAT64 gateway and
6RD relays). Although these functions are not inherently connected,
additional management, diagnostic and monitoring functions can be
deployed along side the transition hardware without the need to
distribute these to an excessive or divergent number of locations.
This approach may also prove beneficial if traffic patterns change
rapidly in the future as the operators may need to evolve their
transition infrastructure faster than originally anticipated. One
such example may be the movement from a CGN/NAT44 model (dual stack)
to DS-Lite. Since both traffic sets require a translation function
(NAT44), synchronized pool management, routing and management system
positioning can allow rapid movement (notwithstanding the
technological means to re-provision the subscriber).
Operators should inform their vendors of what technologies they plan
to support over the course of the transition to make sure the
equipment is suited to support those modes of operation. This is
important for both network gear and subscriber premise equipment.
The operator should also plan their overall strategy to meet the
target needs of an IPv6-only deployment. As traffic moves to IPv6,
the benefits of only a single stack on the access network may
eventually justify the removal of IPv4 for simplicity. Planning for
this eventual model, no matter how far off this may be, will help the
operator embrace this end state when needed.
5.1.6. Phase 0- Foundation: Tools and Management
The operator should thoroughly analyze all provisioning and
management systems to develop requirements for each phase. This will
include concepts related to the 128-bit IPv6 address, the notation of
an assigned IPv6 prefix (Prefix Delegation) and the ability to detect
either or both address families when determining if a subscriber has
full Internet service.
If an operator stores usage information, this would need to be
aggregated to include both the IPv4 and IPv6 as both address families
are assigned to the same subscriber. Tools that verify connectivity
may need to query the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
5.2. Phase 1 - Tunneled IPv6
Tunneled access to IPv6 can be regarded as an early stage transition
option by operators. Many network operators can deploy native IPv6
from the access edge to the peering edge fairly quickly but may not
be able to offer IPv6 natively to the subscriber edge device. During
this period of time, tunneled access to IPv6 is a viable alternative
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
to native IPv6. It is also possible that operators may be rolling
out IPv6 natively to the subscriber edge but the time involved may be
long due to logistics and other factors. Even while carefully
rolling out native IPv6, operators can deploy relays for automatic
tunneling technologies like 6to4 and Teredo. Where native IPv6 to
the access edge is a longer-term project, operators can consider 6RD
[RFC5969] as an option to offer in-home IPv6 access. Note that 6to4
and Teredo have different address selection behaviors than 6RD
[RFC3484]. Additional guidelines on deploying and supporting 6to4
can be found in [RFC6343].
The operator can deploy 6RD relays into the network and scale them as
needed to meet the early subscriber needs of IPv6. Since 6RD
requires the upgrade or replacement of CPE devices, the operator may
want to ensure that the CPE devices support not just 6RD but native
Dual Stack and other tunneling technologies if possible such as DS-
Lite [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6204bis]. 6RD clients are becoming available in
some retail channel products and within the OEM market. Retail
availability of 6RD is important since not all operators control or
have influence over what equipment is deployed in the consumer home
network. The operator can support 6RD access with unmanaged devices
using DHCPv4 option 212 (OPTION_6RD) [RFC5969].
+--------+ -----
| | / \
Encap IPv6 Flow | 6RD | | IPv6 |
- - -> | BR | <- > | Net |
+---------+ / | | \ /
| | / +--------+ -----
| 6RD + <----- -----
| | / \
| Client | IPv4 Flow | IPv4 |
| + < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> | Net |
| | \ /
+---------+ -----
Figure 1: 6RD Basic Model
6RD used as an initial transition technology also provides the added
benefit of a deterministic IPv6 prefix based on the IPv4 assigned
address. Many operational tools are available or have been built to
identify what IPv4 (often dynamic) address was assigned to a
subscriber CPE. So, a simple tool and/or method can be built to help
identify the IPv6 prefix using the knowledge of the assigned IPv4
address.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
An operator may choose to not offer internal services over IPv6 if
tunneled access to IPv6 is used since some services generate a large
amount of traffic. Such traffic may include Video content like IPTV.
By limiting how much traffic is delivered over the 6RD connection (if
possible), the operator can avoid costly and complex scaling of the
relay infrastructure.
5.2.1. 6RD Deployment Considerations
Deploying 6RD can greatly speed up an operator's ability to support
IPv6 to the subscriber network if native IPv6 connectivity cannot be
supplied. The speed at which 6RD can be deployed is highlighted in
[RFC5569].
The first core consideration is deployment models. 6RD requires the
CPE (6RD client) to send traffic to a 6RD relay. These relays can
share a common anycast address, or can use unique addresses. Using
an anycast model, the operator can deploy all the 6RD relays using
the same IPv4 interior service address. As the load increases on the
deployed relays, the operator can deploy more relays into the
network. The one drawback is that it may be difficult to manage the
traffic volume among additional relays, since all 6RD traffic will
find the nearest (in terms of IGP cost) relay. Use of multiple relay
addresses can help provide more control but has the disadvantage of
being more complex to provision. Subsets of CPEs across the network
will require and contain different relay information. An alternative
approach is to use a hybrid model using multiple anycast service IP
Addresses for clusters of 6RD relays, should the operator anticipate
massive scaling of the environment. Thus, the operator has multiple
vectors by which to scale the service.
+--------+
| |
IPv4 Addr.X | 6RD |
- - - > | BR |
+-----------+ / | |
| Client A | <- - - +--------+
+-----------+
Separate IPv4 Service Addresses
+-----------+
| Client B | < - - +--------+
+-----------+ \ | |
- - - > | 6RD |
IPv4 Addr.Y | BR |
| |
+--------+
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
Figure 2: 6RD Multiple IPv4 Service Address Model
+--------+
| |
IPv4 Addr.X | 6RD |
- - - > | BR |
+-----------+ / | |
| Client A |- - - - +--------+
+-----------+
Common (Anycast) IPv4 Service Addresses
+-----------+
| Client B | - - - +--------+
+-----------+ \ | |
- - - > | 6RD |
IPv4 Addr.X | BR |
| |
+--------+
Figure 3: 6RD Anycast IPv4 Service Address Model
Provisioning of the 6RD endpoints is affected by the deployment model
chosen (i.e. anycast vs. specific service IP Addresses). Using
multiple IP Addresses may require more planning and management, as
subscriber equipment will have different sets of data to be
provisioned into the devices. The operator may use DHCPv4, manual
provisioning or other mechanisms to provide parameters to subscriber
equipment.
If the operator manages the CPE, support personnel will need tools
able to report the status of the 6RD tunnel. Usage information can
be counted on the operator edge, but if it requires source/
destination flow details, data must be collected after the 6RD relay
(IPv6 side of connection).
6RD [RFC5969], as any tunneling option, is subject to a reduced MTU
so operators need to plan to manage this environment.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
+---------+ IPv4 Encapsulation +------------+
| +- - - - - - - - - - - + |
| 6RD +----------------------+ 6RD +---------
| | IPv6 Packet | Relay | IPv6 Packet
| Client +----------------------+ +---------
| +- - - - - - - - - - - + | ^
+---------+ ^ +------------+ |
| |
| |
IPv4 IP (Tools/Mgmt) IPv6 Flow Analysis
Figure 4: 6RD Tools and Flow Management
5.3. Phase 2: Native Dual Stack
Either as a follow-up phase to "Tunneled IPv6" or as an initial step,
the operator may deploy native IPv6 down to the CPEs. This phase
would then allow for both IPv6 and IPv4 to be natively accessed by
the subscriber home network without translation or tunneling. The
native Dual Stack phase can be rolled out across the network while
the tunneled IPv6 service remains operational, if used. As areas
begin to support native IPv6, subscriber home equipment will
generally prefer using the IPv6 addresses derived from the delegated
IPv6 prefix versus tunneling options such as 6to4 and Teredo as
defined in [RFC3484]. Specific care is needed when moving to native
Dual Stack from 6RD as documented in
[I-D.townsley-v6ops-6rd-sunsetting].
Native Dual Stack is the best option at this point in the transition,
and should be sought as soon as possible. During this phase, the
operator can confidently move both internal and external services to
IPv6. Since there are no translation devices needed for this mode of
operation, it transports both protocols (IPv6 and IPv4) efficiently
within the network.
5.3.1. Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations
Native Dual Stack is a very desirable option for the IPv6 transition,
if feasible. The operator must enable IPv6 on the network core and
peering edge before they attempt to turn on native IPv6 services.
Additionally, provisioning and support systems such as DHCPv6, DNS
and other functions that support the subscriber's IPv6 Internet
connection need to be in place.
The operator must treat IPv6 connectivity with the same operational
importance as IPv4. A poor IPv6 service may be worse than not
offering an IPv6 service at all as it will negatively impact the
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
subscriber's Internet experience. This may cause users or support
personnel to disable IPv6, limiting the subscriber from the benefits
of IPv6 connectivity as the network performance improves. New code
and IPv6 functionality may cause instability at first. The operator
will need to monitor, troubleshoot and resolve issues promptly.
Prefix assignment and routing are new for common residential
services. Prefix assignment is straightforward (DHCPv6 using
IA_PDs), but installation and propagation of routing information for
the prefix, especially during access layer instability, is often
poorly understood. The operator should develop processes for
renumbering subscribers who move to new access nodes.
Operators need to keep track of both the dynamically assigned IPv4
address along with the IPv6 address and prefix. Any additional
dynamic elements, such as auto-generated host names, need to be
considered and planned for.
5.4. Intermediate Phase for CGN
Acquiring more IPv4 addresses is already challenging, if not
impossible; therefore address sharing may be required on the IPv4
path of a Dual Stack deployment. The operator may have a preference
to move directly to a transition technology such as DS-Lite [RFC6333]
or may use Dual Stack with CGN/NAT444 to facilitate IPv4 connections.
CGN/NAT444 requires IPv4 addressing between the subscriber premise
equipment and the operator's translator which may be facilitated by
shared address [RFC6598], private address [RFC1918] or other address
space. CGN/NAT444 is only recommended to be used along side IPv6 in
a Dual Stack deployment and not on it's own. Figure 5 provides a
comparative view of a traditional IPv4 path versus one which uses
CGN/NAT444.
+--------+ -----
| | / \
IPv4 Flow | CGN | | |
- - -> + + < -> | |
+---------+ / | | | |
| CPE | <- - - / +--------+ | IPv4 |
|---------+ | Net |
| |
+---------+ IPv4 Flow | |
| CPE | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > | |
|---------+ \ /
-----
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
Figure 5: Overlay CGN Deployment
In the case of native Dual Stack, CGN/NAT444 can be used to assist in
extending connectivity for the IPv4 path while the IPv6 path remains
native. For endpoints operating in a IPv6+CGN/NAT444 model, the
native IPv6 path is available for higher quality connectivity,
helping host operation over the network. At the same time, the CGN
path may offer a less than optimal performance. These points are
also true for DS-Lite.
+--------+ -----
| | / \
IPv4 Flow | CGN | | IPv4 |
- - -> + + < -> | Net |
+---------+ / | | \ /
| | <- - - / +--------+ -------
| Dual |
| Stack | -----
| CPE | IPv6 Flow / IPv6 \
| | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > | Net |
|---------+ \ /
-----
Figure 6: Dual Stack with CGN
CGN/NAT444 deployments may make use of a number of address options,
which include [RFC1918] or Shared Address Space [RFC6598]. It is
also possible that operators may use part of their own RIR assigned
address space for CGN zone addressing if [RFC1918] addresses pose
technical challenges in their network. It is not recommended that
operators use 'squat space', as it may pose additional challenges
with filtering and policy control [RFC6598].
5.4.1. CGN Deployment Considerations
CGN is often considered undesirable by operators but required in many
cases. An operator who needs to deploy CGN capabilities should
consider the impacts of the function to the network. CGN is often
deployed in addition to running IPv4 services and should not
negatively impact the already working Native IPv4 service. CGNs will
be needed at low scale at first and grow to meet the demands based on
traffic and connection dynamics of the subscriber, content and
network peers.
The operator may want to deploy CGNs more centrally at first and then
scale the system as needed. This approach can help conserve costs of
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
the system limiting the deployed base and scaling it based on actual
traffic demand. The operator should use a deployment model and
architecture which allows the system to scale as needed.
+--------+ -----
| | / \
| CGN | | |
- - -> + + < -> | |
+---------+ / | | | |
| CPE | <- - - / +--------+ | IPv4 |
| | ^ | |
|---------+ | | Net |
+--------+ Centralized | |
+---------+ | | CGN | |
| | | CGN | | |
| CPE | <- > + + <- - - - - - - > | |
|---------+ | | \ /
+--------+ -----
^
|
Distributed CGN
Figure 7: CGN Deployment: Centralized vs. Distributed
The operator may be required to log translation information
[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]. This logging may require
significant investment in external systems which ingest, aggregate
and report on such information [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn].
Since CGN has noticeable impacts on certain applications [I-D.donley-
nat444-impacts], operators may deploy CGN only for those subscribers
who may be less affected by CGN (if possible).
5.5. Phase 3 - IPv6-Only
Once Native IPv6 is widely deployed in the network and well-supported
by tools, staff, and processes, an operator may consider supporting
only IPv6 to all or some subscriber endpoints. During this final
phase, IPv4 connectivity may or may not need to be supported,
depending on the conditions of the network, subscriber demand and
legacy device requirements. If legacy IPv4 connectivity is still
demanded (e.g. for older nodes), DS-Lite [RFC6333] may be used to
tunnel the traffic. If IPv4 connectivity is not required, but access
to legacy IPv4 content is, then NAT64 [RFC6144][RFC6146] can be used.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
5.5.1. DS-Lite
DS-Lite allows continued access for the IPv4 subscriber base using
address sharing for IPv4 Internet connectivity, but with only a
single layer of translation, compared to CGN/NAT444. This mode of
operation also removes the need to directly supply subscriber
endpoints with an IPv4 address, potentially simplifying the
connectivity to the customer (single address family) and supporting
IPv6 only addressing to the CPE.
The operator can also move Dual Stack endpoints to DS-Lite
retroactively to help optimize the IPv4 address sharing deployment by
removing the IPv4 address assignment and routing component. To
minimize traffic needing translation, the operator should have
already moved most content to IPv6 before the IPv6-only phase is
implemented.
+--------+ -----
| | / \
Encap IPv4 Flow | AFTR | | IPv4 |
-------+ +---+ Net |
+---------+ / | | \ /
| | / +--------+ -----
| DS-Lite +------- -----
| | / \
| Client | IPv6 Flow | IPv6 |
| +-------------------------------| Net |
| | \ /
+---------+ -----
Figure 8: DS-Lite Basic Model
If the operator had previously decided to enable a CGN/NAT444
deployment, it may be able to co-locate the AFTR and CGN/NAT444
processing functions within a common network location to simplify
capacity management and the engineering of flows. This case may be
evident in a later transition stages when an operator chooses to
optimize its network and IPv6-only operation is feasible.
5.5.2. DS-Lite Deployment Considerations
The same deployment considerations associated with Native IPv6
deployments apply to DS-Lite and NAT64. IPv4 will now be dependent
on IPv6 service quality, so the IPv6 network and services must be
running well to ensure a quality experience for the end subscriber.
Tools and processes will be needed to manage the encapsulated IPv4
service. If flow analysis is required for IPv4 traffic, this may be
enabled at a point beyond the AFTR (after de-capsulation) or DS-Lite
[RFC6333] aware equipment is used to process traffic midstream.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
+---------+ IPv6 Encapsulation +------------+
| + - - - - - - - - - - -+ |
| AFTR +----------------------+ AFTR +---------
| | IPv4 Packet | | IPv4 Packet
| Client +----------------------+ +---------
| + - - - - - - - - - - -+ | ^
+---------+ ^ ^ +------------+ |
| | |
| | |
IPv6 IP (Tools/Mgmt) | IPv4 Packet Flow Analysis
|
Midstream IPv4 Packet Flow Analysis (Encapsulation Aware)
Figure 9: DS-Lite Tools and Flow Analysis
DS-Lite [RFC6333] also requires client support on the subscriber
premises device. The operator must clearly articulate to vendors
which technologies will be used at which points, how they interact
with each other at the CPE, and how they will be provisioned. As an
example, an operator may use 6RD in the outset of the transition,
then move to Native Dual Stack followed by DS-Lite.
DS-Lite [RFC6333], as any tunneling option, is subject to a reduced
MTU so operators need to plan to manage this environment. Additional
considerations for DS-Lite deployments can be found in.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment]
5.5.3. NAT64 Deployment Considerations
The deployment of NAT64 assumes the network assigns an IPv6 address
to a network endpoint that is translated to an IPv4 address to
provide connectivity to IPv4 Internet services and content.
Experiments such as the one described in [RFC6586] highlight issues
related to IPv6-only deployments due to legacy IPv4 APIs and IPv4
literals. Many of these issues will be resolved by the eventual
removal of this undesired legacy behavior. Operational deployment
models, considerations and experiences related to NAT64 have been
documented in [I-D.chen-v6ops-nat64-experience].
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
+--------+ -----
| | / \
IPv6 Flow | NAT64 | | IPv4 |
-------+ DNS64 +---+ Net |
+---------+ / | | \ /
| | / +--------+ -----
| IPv6 +------- -----
| | / \
| Only | IPv6 Flow | IPv6 |
| +-------------------------------| Net |
| | \ /
+---------+ -----
Figure 10: NAT64/DNS64 Basic Model
To navigate around some of the limitations of NAT64 when dealing with
legacy IPv4 applications, the operator may choose to implement
464XLAT [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat] if possible. As support for IPv6 on
subscriber equipment and content increases, the efficiency of NAT64
increases by reducing the need to translate traffic. The NAT64
deployment would see an overall decline in usage as more traffic is
promoted to IPv6-to-IPv6 native communication. NAT64 may play an
important part of an operator's late stage transition, as it removes
the need to support IPv4 on the access network and provides a solid
go-forward networking model.
It should be noted, as with any technology which utilizes address
sharing, that the IPv4 public pool sizes (IPv4 transport addresses
per [RFC6146]) can pose limits to IPv4 server connectivity for the
subscriber base. Operators should be aware that some IPv4 growth in
the near term is possible, so IPv4 translation pools need to be
monitored.
6. IANA Considerations
No IANA considerations are defined at this time.
7. Security Considerations
Operators should review the documentation related to the technologies
selected for IPv6 transition. In those reviews, operators should
understand what security considerations are applicable to the chosen
technologies. As an example, [RFC6169] should be reviewed to
understand security considerations around tunnelling technologies.
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
8. Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Wes George, Chris Donley, Christian Jacquenet and
John Brzozowski for their extensive review and comments.
Thanks to the following people for their textual contributions,
guidance and comments: Jason Weil, Gang Chen, Nik Lavorato, John
Cianfarani, Chris Donley, Tina TSOU, Fred Baker and Randy Bush.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC6180] Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6
Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180,
May 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.chen-v6ops-nat64-experience]
Chen, G., Cao, Z., Byrne, C., Xie, C., and D. Binet,
"NAT64 Operational Experiences",
draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-03 (work in progress),
July 2012.
[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]
Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., and K.
Sundaresan, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments",
draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-04 (work in
progress), June 2012.
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U.
Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on
Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-04
(work in progress), May 2012.
[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs
(CGNs)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-09 (work in
progress), June 2012.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment]
Lee, Y., Maglione, R., Williams, C., Jacquenet, C., and M.
Boucadair, "Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
Lite", draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]
Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-07 (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6204bis]
Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers",
draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-10 (work in progress), May 2012.
[I-D.jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences]
Brzozowski, J. and C. Griffiths, "Comcast IPv6 Trial/
Deployment Experiences",
draft-jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences-02 (work in
progress), October 2011.
[I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel]
Kuarsingh, V., Lee, Y., and O. Vautrin, "6to4 Provider
Managed Tunnels",
draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-07
(work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.townsley-v6ops-6rd-sunsetting]
Cassen, A. and M. Townsley, "6rd Sunsetting",
draft-townsley-v6ops-6rd-sunsetting-00 (work in progress),
November 2011.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3068] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
RFC 3068, June 2001.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
February 2006.
[RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/
Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942,
September 2007.
[RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, January 2010.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, August 2010.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
January 2011.
[RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.
[RFC6169] Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security
Concerns with IP Tunneling", RFC 6169, April 2011.
[RFC6264] Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental
Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264,
June 2011.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6343] Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment",
RFC 6343, August 2011.
[RFC6540] George, W., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and L. Howard,
"IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes", BCP 177,
RFC 6540, April 2012.
[RFC6586] Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Wireline Incremental IPv6 September 2012
Network", RFC 6586, April 2012.
[RFC6598] Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address
Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, April 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Victor Kuarsingh (editor)
Rogers Communications
8200 Dixie Road
Brampton, Ontario L6T 0C1
Canada
Email: victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com
URI: http://www.rogers.com
Lee Howard
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: lee.howard@twcable.com
URI: http://www.timewarnercable.com
Kuarsingh & Howard Expires March 14, 2013 [Page 29]
