One document matched: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt
IPv6 Operations Working Group
Internet Draft Jim Bound
Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Yanick Pouffary
Obsoletes: ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-01.txt Hewlett-Packard
Expires: December 2005 Steve Klynsma
MITRE
Tim Chown
University of Southhampton
Dave Green
SRI
IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis
<draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt>
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that
any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is
aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she
becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of
BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise
networks. These networks are characterized as a network that has
multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or
more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity. The
analysis will focus on a base set of transition notational networks
and requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios
document. Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition
analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6,
assuming a Dual-IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node
environment, within the enterprise. Then a set of transition
mechanisms are recommended for each notational network.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 1]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction................................................3
2. Terminology.................................................5
3. Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition...................6
4. Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis..................10
4.1 Staged Dual-Stack Deployment...............................10
4.2 Routing Capability Analysis for Dual-IP Deployment.........11
4.2.1 IPv6 Routing Capability..................................11
4.2.2 IPv6 Routing Non-Capability..............................11
4.2.2.1 Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure...............11
4.4.2.2 Deploy a parallel IPv6 infrastructure..................12
4.3 Remote IPv6 access to the enterprise.......................12
4.4 Other considerations.......................................12
5. Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis......................13
5.1 Internal versus External Tunnel End Point..................13
5.2 Manual versus Autoconfigured...............................14
6. IPv6 Dominant Network Deployment Analysis..................15
7. General Issues from Analysis...............................16
7.1 Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment............................16
7.2 Network Infrastructure Requirements........................16
7.3 Stage 1: Initial connectivity steps........................16
7.3.1 Obtaining external connectivity..........................16
7.3.2 Obtaining global IPv6 address space......................16
7.4 Stage 2: Deploying generic basic service components........17
7.4.1 IPv6 DNS.................................................17
7.4.2 IPv6 Routing.............................................17
7.4.3 Configuration of Hosts...................................17
7.4.4 Developing an IPv6 addressing plan.......................18
7.4.5 Security.................................................19
7.5 Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack deployment on-site..........19
8. Applicable Transition Mechanisms...........................21
8.1 Recognizing Incompatible Network touchpoints...............21
8.2 Recognizing Application incompatibilities..................22
8.3 Using Multiple Mechanisms to Support IPv6 Transition.......22
9. Security Considerations....................................23
10. IANA Considerations........................................23
11. References.................................................23
11.1 Normative References......................................23
11.2 Non-Normative References..................................23
Change Log.....................................................25
Document Acknowledgments.......................................25
Author's Addresses.............................................26
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005)......................27
Disclaimer.....................................................27
Acknowledgment.................................................27
Appendix A - Crisis Management Network Scenarios...............28
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 2]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
1. Introduction
This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise
networks. These networks are characterized as a network that has
multiple internal links, one or more router connections, to one or
more Providers, and is managed by a network operations entity. The
analysis will focus on a base set of transition notational networks
and requirements expanded from a previous Enterprise Scenarios
document. Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition
analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6,
assuming a Dual-IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node
environment, within the enterprise. Then a set of transition
mechanisms are recommended for each notational network.
The audience for this document is the enterprise network team
considering deployment of IPv6. The document will be useful for
enterprise teams that will have to determine the IPv6 transition
strategy for their enterprise. It is expected those teams include
members from management, network operations, and engineering. The
analysis and notational networks presented provide an example set
of cases the enterprise can use to build an IPv6 transition
strategy.
The enterprise analysis will begin by describing a matrix as a tool
to be used to portray the different IPv4 and IPv6 possibilities for
deployment. The document will then provide analysis to support a
wide Dual-IP layer deployment strategy across the enterprise, to
provide the reader a view of how that can be planned and what are
the options available. The document will then discuss the
deployment of sparse IPv6 nodes within the enterprise and what
requirements need to be considered and implemented, when the
enterprise will remain with IPv4-only routing infrastructure for
some time. The next discussion focuses on the use of IPv6 when it
is determined to be dominant across or within parts of the
enterprise network.
The document then begins to discuss the the general issues and
applicability from the previous analysis. The document concludes
providing a set of current transistion mechanism recommendations
for the notational network scenarios to support an enterprise
planning to deploy IPv6.
This document, as stated in the introduction, focuses only on the
deployment cases where a Dual-IP layer is supported across the
network and on the nodes in the enterprise. Additional deployment
transition analysis will be required from the effects of IPv6-only
node or Provider deployments, and beyond the scope of this
document. In addition this document does not attempt to define or
discuss any use with network address translation [NATPT, NATDE] or
the use of Provider Independent address space.
The following specific topics are currently out of scope for this
document:
- Multihoming
- Application transition/porting (see [APPS]).
- IPv6 VPN, firewall or intrusion detection deployment
- IPv6 network management and QoS deployment
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 3]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
- Detailed IT Department requirements
- Deployment of novel IPv6 services, e.g. Mobile IPv6
- Requirements or Transtion at the Providers network
- Transport protocol selection for applications with IPv6
- Application layer and configuration issues.
- IPv6 only future deployment scenarios.
We are focusing in this document on IP Layer 3 deployment, in the
same way as the other IPv6 deployment analysis works have done
[UMAN,ISPA, 3GPA]. This document covers deployment of IPv6 "on the
wire", including address management and DNS services.
We are also assuming that the enterprise deployment is one being
undertaken by the network administration team, i.e. this document
is not discussing the case of an individual user gaining IPv6
connectivity (to some external IPv6 provider) from within an
enterprise network. Much of the analysis is applicable to wireless
networks, but there are additional considerations for wireless
networks not contained within this document.
In Section 2 we introduce the terminology used in this document. In
Section 3 we introduce and define a tools matrix and define the IP
layer 3 connectivity requirements. In Section 4 we discuss wide
scale Dual-IP layer use within an enterprise. In section 5 we
discuss sparse Dual-IP layer deployment within an enterprise. In
section 6 we discuss IPv6 dominant network deployment within the
enterprise. In sectioin 7 we discuss general issues and
applicability. In section 8 a set of transition mechanisms are
recommended that can support the deployment of IPv6 with an
enterprise.
This document then provides Appendix A for readers depicting a
Crisis Management enterprise network to demonstrate an enterprise
network example that requires all the properties as analyzed in
Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 4]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
2. Terminology
Enterprise Network - A network that has multiple internal links,
one or more router connections, to one or
more Providers and is actively managed by a
network operations entity.
Provider - An entity that provides services and
connectivity to the Internet or
other private external networks for the
enterprise network.
IPv6-capable - A node or network capable of supporting both
IPv6 and IPv4.
IPv4-only - A node or network capable of supporting only
IPv4.
IPv6-only - A node or network capable of supporting only
IPv6. This does not imply an IPv6 only
stack, in this document.
Dual-IP - References a network or node that supports both
IPv4 and IPv6.
IP-capability - The ability to support IPv6 only, IPv4 only,
or Dual IP Layer
IPv6-dominant - A network or link that uses only IPv6 routing.
Transition - The network strategy the enterprise uses to
Implementation transition to IPv6.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 5]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
3. Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition
To provide context for an analysis of the transitioning enterprise
at layer 3 we have provided a matrix which describes various
scenarios which might be encountered during an IPv6 transition.
The notional enterprise network is comprised of hosts attached to
an enterprise-owned intranet(s) at two different global locations
separated by the Internet. The enterprise owns, operates and
maintains its own intranetworks, but relies on an external provider
organization that offers Internet Service. Both local and
destination intranetworks are operated by different organizations
within the same enterprise and consequently could have different
IP-capability, than other intranetworks, at certain times in the
transition period.
Addressing every possible combination of network IP-capability in
this notional enterprise network is impractical, therefore trivial
(i.e. pure IPv4, pure IPv6, and ubiquitous Dual-IP) are not
considered. In addition, the authors could not conceive of any
scenarios involving IPv6-only ISPs or IPv6-only nodes in the near-
term and consequently have not addressed scenarios with IPv6-only
ISPs or IPv6-only nodes. We assume all nodes that host IPv6
applications are Dual IP. The matrix does not assume or suggest
that network address translation is used. The authors recommend
that network address translation not be used in these notional
cases.
Future enterprise transitions that support IPv6-only nodes and
IPv6-only ISPs will require separate analysis, that is beyond the
scope of this document.
Table 1 scenarios below is a matrix of ten possible Transition
Implementations that, being encountered in an enterprise, may
require analysis and the selection of an IPv6 transition mechanism
for that notional network. Each possible implementation is
represented by the rows of the matrix. The matrix describes a set
of notional networks as follows:
- The first column represents the protocol used by the
application and below, the IP-capability of the node
originating the IP packets.
(Application/Host 1 OS).
- The second column represents the IP-capability of the
host network wherein the node originated the packet.
(Host 1 Network)
- The third column represents the IP-capability of the
service provider network.
(Service Provider)
- The fourth column represents the IP-capability of the
destination network wherein the originating IP packets
are received.
(Host 2 Network)
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 6]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
- The fifth column represents the protocol used by the
application and, below, the IP-capability of the
destination node receiving the originating IP packets.
(Application/Host 2 OS).
As an example, notional network 1 is an IPv6 application residing
on a Dual-IP layer host trying to establish a communications
exchange with a destination IPv6 application. To complete the
information exchange the packets must first traverse the host's
originating IPv4 network (intranet), then the service provider's,
and destination hosts Dual-IP network.
Obviously Table 1 does not describe every possible scenario.
Trivial notional networks (such as pure IPv4, pure IPv6, and
ubiquitous Dual-IP) are not addressed. However, the authors feel
these ten represent the vast majority of transitional situations
likely to be encountered in today's enterprise. Therefore, we will
use these ten to address the analysis for enterprise deployment.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 7]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Table 1 - Enteprise Scenario Deployment Matrix
===================================================== |Application |Host 1 |Service |Host 2 |Application |
|----------- |Network|Provider|Network|---------- |
| Host 1 OS | | | | Host 2 OS |
=====================================+=============== | IPv6 | |Dual IP | | IPv6 |
A | ---- | IPv4 | or |Dual IP| ---- |
| Dual IP | | IPv4 | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv6 | | | | IPv6 |
B | ---- | IPv6 | IPv4 | IPv4 | ---- |
| Dual IP | | | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv4 | | | | IPv4 |
C | ---- | IPv4 |Dual IP | IPv6 | ---- |
| Dual IP | | | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv4 |Dual IP| | | IPv4 |
D | ---- | or | IPv4 | IPv6 | ---- |
| Dual IP | IPv6 | | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv6 |Dual IP| |Dual IP| IPv4 |
E | ---- | or |Dual IP | or | ---- |
| Dual IP | IPv6 | | IPv6 | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv6 | | | | IPv4 |
F | ---- | IPv6 | IPv4 | IPv4 | ---- |
| Dual IP | | | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv4 | | | | IPv6 |
G | ---- | IPv6 | Dual IP| IPv6 | ---- |
| Dual IP | | | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv4 | | | | IPv6 |
H | ---- | IPv6 |Dual IP | IPv4 | ---- |
| IPv4 | | | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv4 | | | | IPv6 |
I | ---- | IPv6 | IPv4 | IPv6 | ---- |
| IPv4 | | | | Dual IP |
===================================================== | IPv6 | | | | IPv4 |
J | ---- | IPv4 | IPv4 | IPv6 | ---- |
| Dual IP | | | | Dual IP |
==================================================== The reader should note that scenarios A-C in Table 1 are variations
of compatible hosts communicating across largely (but not entirely)
homogenous networks. In each of the first three scenarios, the
packet must traverse at least one incompatible network component.
For example, scenario B represents an enterprise which wishes to
use IPv6 applications, but has yet to transition its internal
networks and it's Service Provider also lags, offering only a v4
IP-service. Conversely, Scenario C represents an enterprise which
has completed transition to IPv6 in its core networks (as has its
Service Provider), but continues to require a legacy IPv4-based
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 8]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
application.
Scenario D represents the unusual situation where the enterprise
has transitioned its core intranetworks to IPv6, but (like scenario
B) it's ISP provider has yet to transition. In addition, this
Enterprise continues to retain critical legacy IPv4-based
applications which must communicate over this heterogenous network
environment.
Scenarios E-J represent transitional situations wherein the
Enterprise has both v4- and v6-based instantiations of the same
application that must continue to interoperate. In addition, these
scenarios show that the Enterprise has not completed transition to
IPv6 in all its organic and/or Service Provider networks. Instead,
it maintains a variety of heterogenous network segments between the
communicating applications. Scenarios E and J represent distinctly
different extremes on either end of the spectrum. In scenario E,
the enterprise has largely transitioned to IPv6 in both its
applications and networks. However, scenario E shows that a few
legacy IPv4-based applications may still be found in the
enterprise. On the other hand, scenario J shows an Enterprise that
has begun its transition in a very disjointed manner and, in which
IPv6-based applications and network segments are relatively rare.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005 [Page 9]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
4. Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis
In this section we address Scenario 1 as described in Section 3.1
of [BSCN]. The scenario, assumptions and requirements are driven
from the [BSCN] text. This analysis further corresponds to
Scenario A in Section 3 above (although Scenario A shows a
transitional situation wherein the enterprise has one network
segment still lagging on transition to dual-IP).
Within these IPv6 deployment scenarios the enterprise network
administrator would introduce IPv6 by enabling IPv6 on the wire
(i.e. within the network infrastructure) in a structured fashion
with the existing IPv4 infrastructure. In such scenarios, a number
of the existing IPv4 routers (and thus subnets) will be made dual-
IP, such that communications can run over either protocol.
Nodes on the dual-IP links may themselves be IPv4-only or IPv6-
capable. The driver for deploying IPv6 on the wire may not be for
immediate wide-scale usage of IPv6, but rather to prepare an
existing IPv4 infrastructure to support IPv6-capable nodes. Thus,
while IPv6 is not used, dual-IP nodes exist, and the enterprise can
be transitioned to IPv6 on demand.
Analyzing this scenario against existing transition mechanisms for
their applicability, suggests a staged approach for IPv6 deployment
in the enterprise.
4.1 Staged Dual-Stack Deployment
Under these scenarios (as well as most others), the site
administrator should formulate a staged plan for the introduction
of a dual-IP IPv6 network. We suggest that the generic plan of
Section 7 of this document provides a good basis for such a plan.
In an enterprise network, the administrator will generally seek to
deploy IPv6 in a structured, controlled manner, such that IPv6 can
be enabled on specific links at various stages of deployment. There
may be a requirement that some links remain IPv4 only, or some that
specifically should not have IPv6 connectivity (e.g. Scenario A of
Table 1). There may also be a requirement that aggregatable global
IPv6 addresses, assigned by the enterprise's upstream provider from
the address space allocated to them by the Regional Internet
Registries (RIRs), be assigned.
In this document we do not discuss the deployment of Unique Local
IPv6 Unicast Addresses [ULA] because the address type and scope
selected is orthogonal to the the layer 3 analysis of this
document.
A typical deployment would initially involve the establishment of a
single "testbed" Dual-IP subnet at the enterprise site prior to
wider deployment. Such a testbed not only allows the IPv6
capability of specific platforms and applications to be evaluated
and verified, but also permits the steps in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of
this document to be undertaken without (potential) adverse impact
on the production elements of the enterprise.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 10]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Section 7.5 describes the stages for the widespread deployment in
the enterprise, which could be undertaken after the basic building
blocks for IPv6 deployment are in place.
4.2 Routing Capability Analysis for Dual-IP Deployment
A critical part of Dual-IP deployment is the selection of the
IPv6-capable routing infrastructure to be implemented. The path
taken will depend on whether the enterprise has existing Layer 2/3
switch/router equipment that has an IPv6 (routing) capability, or
that can be upgraded to have such capability.
In Section 4, we are not considering sparse IPv6 deployment; the
goal of Dual-IP deployment is widespread use in the enterprise.
4.2.1 IPv6 Routing Capability
Where IPv6 routing capability exists within the infrastructure, the
network administrator can enable IPv6 on the same physical hardware
as the existing IPv4 service. This is the end goal of any
enterprise to support Dual-IP deployment, when the capability,
performance, and robustness of the Dual-IP operational deployment
has been verified.
Ideally, the IPv6 capability will span the entire enterprise,
allowing deployment on any link or subnet. If not, techniques from
Section 4.4 below may be required.
4.2.2 IPv6 Routing Non-Capability
If the enterperise cannot provide IPv6 routing initially there are
alternative methods for transition. In this case the enterprise
administrator faces two basic choices, either to tunnel IPv6 over
some or all of the existing IPv4 infrastructure, or to deploy a
parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure providing IPv6 connectivity
into existing IPv4 subnets.
It may thus be the case that a nodes IPv4 and IPv6 default routes
to reach other links (subnets) are through different routing
platforms.
4.2.2.1 Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure
Consider the situation where there exists IPv6 edge routers which
are IPv6-capable, while others,and perhaps the enterprise backbone
itself, are not IPv6-capable (Scenario B of Table 1). Tunneling,
as described in [BCNF] would be established between the Dual-IP
capable routers on the enterprise, thus "bypassing" existing non
IPv6-capable routers and platforms.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 11]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
In the widespread dual-IP scenario, a more structured, manageable
method is required, where the administrator has control of the
deployment per-link and (ideally) long-term, aggregatable global
IPv6 addressing is obtained, planned and used from the outset.
4.4.2.2 Deploy a parallel IPv6 infrastructure
Alternatively,the administrator may deploy a new, separate IPv6-
capable router (or set of routers). It is quite possible that such
a parallel infrastructure would be IPv6-dominant.
Such an approach would likely require additional hardware, but it
has the advantage that the existing IPv4 routing platforms are not
disturbed by the introduction of IPv6.
To distribute IPv6 to existing IPv4 enterprise subnets, either
dedicated physical infrastructure can be employed or, if available,
IEEE 802.1q VLANs could be used, as described in [VLAN]. The
latter has the significant advantage of not requiring any
additional physical cabling/wiring and also offers all the
advantages of VLANs for the new dual-IP environment. Many router
platforms can tag multiple VLAN IDs on a single physical interface
based on the subnet/link the packet is destined for; thus multiple
IPv6 links can be collapsed for delivery on a single (or small
number of) physical IPv6 router interfaces in the early stages of
deployment.
The parallel infrastructure should only be seen as an interim step
towards full Dual-IP deployment on a unified infrastructure. The
parallel infrastructure however allows all other aspects of the
IPv6 enterprise services to be deployed, including IPv6 addressing,
thus making the enterprise ready for that unifying step at a later
date.
4.3 Remote IPv6 access to the enterprise
When the enterprise's users are off-site, and using an ISP that
does not support any native IPv6 service or IPv6 transition aids,
the enterprise may consider deploying it's own remote IPv6 access
support, as described in Section 7.5.2 below.
4.4 Other considerations
There are some issues associated with turning IPv6 on by default,
including application connection delays, poor connectivity, and
network insecurity, as discussed in [V6DEF]. The issues can be
worked around or mitigated by following the advice in [V6DEF]
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 12]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
5. Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis
This section covers the Scenario 2 as described in Section 3.1 of
[BSCN]. This scenario assumes the requirements defined within the
[BSCN] text.
IPv6 deployment within the enterprise network, with an existing
IPv4 infrastructure, could be motivated by mission critical or
business applications or services that require IPv6. In this case
the prerequisite is that only the nodes using those IPv6
applications need to be upgraded to be IPv6-capable. The routing
infrastructure will not be upgraded to support IPv6, nor does the
enterprise wish to deploy a parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure at
this point, since this is an option in section 4.
There is a need for end-to-end communication with IPv6, but the
infrastructure only supports IPv4 routing. Thus, the only viable
method for end-to-end communication with IPv6 is to tunnel the
traffic over the existing IPv4 infrastructure, within this analysis
documents boundaries defined.
The network team needs to decide which are the most efficient the
available transition tunneling mechanisms to deploy, so they can be
used without disrupting the existing IPv4 infrastructure. Several
conditions require analysis, as introduced in the following sub
sections.
5.1 Internal versus External Tunnel End Point
Let's assume the upstream provider has deployed some IPv6 services,
either native IPv6 in its backbone or in the access network, or
some combination of both (Scenario B of Table 1). In this case, the
provider will likely also deploy one or more transition mechanisms
to support their IPv6 subscribers. Obviously, the enterprise could
decide to take advantage of those transition services offered from
the Provider. However, this will usually mean that individual nodes
in the network will require their own IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel. The end
result is somewhat inefficient IPv6 intranetworks communication,
because all IPv6 traffic must be forwarded by the Enterprise's IPv4
infrastructure to the Tunnel End-Point offered by the Provider.
Nevertheless, this may be acceptable paticularly if the IPv6
applications do not require intranetworks communication at all. For
example when an application's server is located outside of the
enterprise network, or on other intranetworks of the same
enterprise.
Alternatively, the enterprise could decide to deploy its own
transition mechanism node, possibly collocating it adjacent to the
border router that connects to the upstream Provider. In this case,
intranetnetworks communication using this tunnel end point is also
possible.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 13]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
5.2 Manual versus Autoconfigured
If the number of nodes to be using IPv6 is reduced, another option
is to use statically configured tunnels. However automatically
configured tunnels are generally preferred.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 14]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
6. IPv6 Dominant Network Deployment Analysis
In this section we are covering Scenario 3 as described in Section
3.1 of [BSCN]. The scenario, assumptions and requirements are
driven from the [BSCN] text. Within this document, this situation
is captured in Scenario C of Table 1.
Some enterprise networks may wish to employ an IPv6-dominant
network deployment strategy. What this means essentially is that
the network or specific sites within the enterprise network will
transition to IPv6 using only IPv6 routing to transfer both IPv4
and IPv6 packets over the network, even though the network may be
Dual-IP capable. IPv4 routing would not be turned on within an
IPv6-dominant network, except if required at to support edge IPv4
networks.
Under this scenario, communications between IPv6 nodes will use
IPv6. When IPv6-capable nodes in the IPv6-dominant network need to
communicate with IPv4 nodes, the IPv6 nodes will use their Dual-IP
implementation to tunnel IPv4 packets in IPv6 [6TUN]. An edge
router within the IPv6-dominant network will decapsulate the IPv4
packet and route to the path of the IPv4 node on the network. This
permits Dual-IP layer nodes to communicate with legacy IPv4 nodes
within an IPv6-dominant network.
From Table 1 scenarios E and F depict additional cases where an
IPv6- dominant deployment strategy could be in place. In scenario
E the entire network could be IPv6-dominant, but the Host OS 2
system is running an IPv4 application. In scenario F the Host OS 1
system network could be IPv6-dominant, but the rest of the networks
are all IPv4.
In each case, communicating with an IPv4 end host or over an IPv4
network requires a transition point exist within the network to
support that operation. Furthermore, the node in the IPv6 dominant
network must aquire an IPv4 address (to interoperate with the IPv4
end host), and locate a tunnel endpoint on their network which
permits the IPv4 packet to be tunneled to the next hop IPv6 router
and eventually to a destination Dual IP router.
While retaining interoperability with IPv4 is a noble goal for
Enterprise architects, it is an unfortunate fact that maintaining
IPv4 services in an IPv6 dominant networks slows and may even
impede your ability to reap the maximum benefits of IPv6.
The decision whether or not to use an IPv6-dominant network
deployment strategy is completely driven by the Enterprise's
business and operational objectives and guided by the Enterprise's
transition plan.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 15]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
7. General Issues from Analysis
In this section we describe generic enterprise IPv6 deployment
issues, applicable to the analysis sections 4-6 in this document.
7.1 Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment
The enterprise network administrator will need to follow a staged
plan for IPv6 deployment. What this means is that a strategic
identification of the enterprise network must be performed for all
points and components of the transition.
7.2 Network Infrastructure Requirements
The considerations for the enterprise components are detailed in
Section 3.2 of [BSCN]. We do not go into detail of all aspects of
such components in this document. In this document we focus on
Layer 3 issues.
7.3 Stage 1: Initial connectivity steps
The first steps for IPv6 deployment do not involve technical
aspects per se; the enterprise needs to select an external IPv6
provider, and obtain globally routable IPv6 address space from that
provider.
7.3.1 Obtaining external connectivity
The enterprise service provider would typically be a
topographically close IPv6 provider that is able to provide an IPv6
upstream link. It would be expected that the enterprise would use
either native IPv6 upstream connectivity or, in its absence, a
manually configured tunnel [BCNF] to the upstream provider.
It is not recommended to use 6to4 [6TO4] for an enterprise
deployment. The enterprise has a requirement for long-term, stable
IPv6 connectivity. 6to4 is more appropriate for small business,
home use, or single node environments. Use of 6to4 also prevents
the enterprise adopting aggregatable global IPv6 addressing from
the outset.
7.3.2 Obtaining global IPv6 address space
The enterprise will obtain global IPv6 address space from its
selected upstream provider, as provider assigned (PA) address
space.
The enterprise should receive at least a /48 allocation from its
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 16]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
provider, as described in [ALLOC].
The procedure for enterprise renumbering between providers is
described in [RENUM].
7.4 Stage 2: Deploying generic basic service components
Most of these are discussed in Section 4 of [BSCN]. Here we comment
on those aspects that we believe are in scope for this analysis
document. Thus we have not included network management,
multihoming, multicast or application transition analysis here, but
these aspects should be addressed in Stage 2.
7.4.1 IPv6 DNS
The enterprise site should deploy a DNS service that is capable of
both serving IPv6 DNS records using the AAAA format [DNSV6REC] and
of communicating over IPv6 transport.
Specific IPv6 DNS issues are reported in [DNSV6].
7.4.2 IPv6 Routing
The enterprise network will need to support methods for internal
and external routing.
For a single-homed single-site network, a static route to a single
upstream provider may be sufficient, although the site may choose
to use an exterior routing protocol, especially where it has
multiple upstream providers.
For internal routing, an appropriate interior routing protocol may
be deployed. IPv6 routing protocols that can be used are as
follows: BGP4+ [BGP4], IS-IS [ISIS], OSPFv3 [OSPF] and RIPng
[RIPng].
7.4.3 Configuration of Hosts
An enterprise network will have a number of tools available for
IPv4 address and other configuration information delegation and
management, including manual configuration, NIS [NIS] or DHCP
[DHCPv4].
In an IPv6 enterprise, Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
[ADDRCONF] may be used to configure a host with a global IPv6
address, a default router, and an on-link prefix information.
For secure autoconfiguration, the IPsec [IPSEC] or SEND method
[SEND] can be used.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 17]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
A stateless configured node wishing to gain other configuration
information (e.g. DNS, NTP servers) will likely need a Stateful
DHCPv6 [DHCPv6] service available.
For nodes configuring using DHCPv6, where DHCPv6 servers are
offlink, a DHCPv6 Relay Agent function will be required.
Hosts may also generate or request IPv6 Privacy Addresses [PRIVv6];
there is support for DHCPv6 to assign privacy addresses to nodes in
managed environments.
7.4.4 Developing an IPv6 addressing plan
A site will need to formulate an IPv6 addressing plan, utilising
the globally aggregatable public IPv6 prefix allocated to it by its
upstream connectivity provider.
In a Dual-IP deployment, the site will need to decide whether it
wishes to deploy IPv6 links to be congruent with existing IPv4
subnets. In this case, nodes will fall into the same links or
subnets for both protocols. Such a scheme could be followed, with
IPv6 prefix allocations being made such that room for topological
growth is provisioned (reducing the potential requirement for
future renumbering due to restructuring).
A beneficial property of IPv6 is that an administrator will not
need to invest as much effort in address conservation. With IPv4,
a site will likely allocate IPv4 subnets to be as small as possible
for the number of hosts currently in the subnet (e.g. a /26 for 50
nodes), because IPv4 address conservation is required. This creates
problems when the number of nodes on a subnet grows, larger IPv4
prefixes are then required, and potentially time-consuming and
disruptive renumbering events will follow.
With IPv6, a link can in effect have any number of nodes, allowing
link growth without the need to adjust prefix allocations with the
associated renumbering requirement. The size of the initial site
allocation (currently recommended to be a /48) also is likely to
allow room for site growth without a need to return to the
connectivity provider to obtain more, potentially non-sequential,
address space (as is the case for IPv4 today, with the associated
paperwork and probable delays).
At the time of writing, best practice in IPv6 site address planning
is restricted due to limited wide-scale deployments. Administrators
should allocate /64 size prefixes for subnets, and do so in a way
that has scope for growth within a site. The site should utilise a
plan that reserves space for topological growth in the site, given
that its initial IPv6 prefix allocation (currently recommended to
be a /48) is likely to include such room for growth.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 18]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
7.4.5 Security
When deploying IPv6 within a Dual-IP network, a site will need to
implement its site security policy for IPv6-capable nodes as it
does for IPv4-capable nodes. For example, a border firewall
should be capable of filtering and controlling IPv6 traffic by
enforcing the same policy as it already does for IPv4.
However, a site will also need to review its security policy in
light of IPv6 specific functionality that will be deployed in the
site, e.g. Mobile IPv6, stateless autoconfiguration (and SEND),
IPv6 Privacy Extensions, end-to-end IPSEC, and, not least, the use
of globally aggregatable public address space where for IPv4
private addressing and NAT may have been used.
An overview of how Network Architecture Protection (NAP) using IPv6
can provide the same or more benefits without the need for NAT can
be found in [NAP]. This describes how the perceived security with
IPv4 NAT can be achieved and surpassed with IPv6, i.e. how IPv6
technology can be used to provide the market-perceived benefits of
IPv4 NAT.
Where deployed, intrusion detection systems will need to be
enhanced to both check IPv6 transport for known application layer
attack patterns and also to check for new potential IPv6 threats,
e.g. excessive hop-by-hop headers, or errant IPv6 header options.
The deployment of specific transition mechanisms may also introduce
threats, e.g. carrying IPv6 data tunnelled in IPv4. The site
security policy should embrace the transition mechanisms that are
deployed.
An overview of IPv6 security issues can be found in [V6SEC]. This
includes discussion of issues specific to the IPv6 protocol, to
transition mechanisms, and to IPv6 deployment itself.
7.5 Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack deployment on-site
With the basic building blocks of external connectivity, interior
IPv6 routing, an IPv6 DNS service and address allocation management
in place, the IPv6 capability can be rolled out to the wider
enterprise. This involves putting IPv6 on the wire in the desired
links, and enabling applications and other services to begin using
an IPv6 transport.
In the Dual-IP deployment case, this means enabling IPv6 on
existing IPv4 subnets. As described in Section 7.4.4 above, it is
likely that IPv6 links will be congruent with IPv4 subnets, because
IPv4 subnets tend to be created for geographic, policy or
administrative reasons that would be IP version-independent.
While the use of IPv6 by some applications can be administratively
controlled (e.g. in the case of open source software by compiling
the application without IPv6 support enabled), the use of IPv6
transport, and preference over IPv4 transport, will vary per
application based on the developer/author's implementation.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 19]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
A Dual-IP deployment will often be made by sites wishing to support
use of IPv6 within a site, even if IPv6 transport is not preferred
by all applications. Putting support for IPv6 in all site
infrastructure (DNS, email transport, etc) allows IPv6 usage to be
phased in over time. As nodes become IPv6 capable, and
applications and services IPv6 enabled, the IPv6 capable
infrastructure can be leveraged. For most networks, Dual-IP will
be at the very least a medium-term transition towards an IPv6
dominant future. However, the introduction of IPv6 support, with
the potential benefits of globally aggregatable public address
usage (with [NAP]), and other new IPv6 capabilities, can bring more
immediate benefits for the site.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 20]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
8. Applicable Transition Mechanisms
This section will provide general guidance for the use of specific
transition mechanisms which in turn can be used by the enterprise
to support the enterprise matrix notional networks (rows) in
Section 3, and within the context of the analysis discussed in
Sections 4, 5, and 6.
Table 1 provides a number of common scenarios that an enterprise
architect might encounter as they consider how and where they
should consider deploying transition mechanisms to support the
network transition to IPv6. Selecting the most appropriate
mechanism for each scenario is more of an art than a science and
consequently making recommendations against each of the ten
scenarios would be simply fodder for sharpshooters touting their
favored product. However we can provide some high-level guidance
that should benefit the architect's decision making process.
8.1 Recognizing Incompatible Network touchpoints
Mapping your specific situation into one of the ten scenarios of
Table 1 is far less important than recognizing the critical
touchpoints within the enterprise networks where incompatible
networks interface. Unless a transition mechanism is being offered
by the enterprise as a service, it is at these touchpoints that a
mechanism must be considered.
A quick review of Table 1 reveals that the ten scenarios can be
boiled down to variations of four major themes. The simplest, but
also most favored (due to its flexibility), is wide spread Dual IP
with compatible hosts at either end. This situation is illustrated
in Scenario A and transition mechanism considerations have already
been described in some detail in Section 4.
In the second common theme (depicted in Scenarios B-D of Table 1),
the enterprise is comprised of compatible hosts, with one or more
incompatible network touchpoints in between. As described in
Section 4.2.2.1, tunneling can be used to "bypass" the incompatible
network segments. One tunneling option, Manual Configured Tunnels
[BCNF] could be used by the enterprise, but as the name implies,
this mechanism provides no automated tunnnel configuration.
6to4 [6to4] can be used to support enterprises that do not have an
assigned IPv6 prefix address.
Identifying the responsible device to perform the tunneling is
driven by the position of the incompatible touchpoint. If a local
network is incompatible than host tunneling is appropriate. If the
backbone (provider) network is incompatible then gateway-to-gateway
tunneling might be a better choice. By working to ensure tunnel
endpoints are always configured at dual-IP devices, end-to-end
communication or services (IPv4 or IPv6) can be preserved.
Having IPv6 applications on a Dual-IP host on a v4-only network
lets you use ISATAP [ISTP] or Teredo to tunnel to a v6 end service.
ISATAP [ISTP] can be used to provide end node IPv6 connectivity
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 21]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
from nodes on an isolated IPv4 network, through the use of
automatic tunneling of IPv6 in IPv4.
Enterprise architects should consider providing a tunnel broker
[TBRK] as a cost effective service to local users or applications.
Tunnel Brokers can be used to provide tunnel setup for an
enterprise using manual configured tunnels, 6to4, or DSTM. Tunnel
Brokers can automate the use of tunnels across an enterprise
deploying IPv6.
Later in the transition process, after the enterprise has
transitioned to a predominately IPv6 infrastructure, the architect
should implement the Dual-IP Transition Mechanism [DSTM, DSTM+]. Or
in the case of early deployment of IPv6-dominant networks DSTM can
be used too.
8.2 Recognizing Application incompatibilities
Having recognized incompatible network touchpoints, it is also
incumbent on the architect to identify application
incompatibilities. During the transition period, particularly for
large enterprises, it is to be expected that applications hosted at
one location may lead (or lag) the IPv6-compability of its peer (or
server) at some other location.
This leads us to the third theme represented by Scenario E and G,
i.e. incompatible applications communicating across a homogenous
network. Translation is an obvious solution, but not recommended
except for legacy devices at the network edge which cannot or never
will be upgraded to IPv6. A more scaleable solution would be to
use an Application Layer Gateways (ALG) between the incompatible
hosts.
8.3 Using Multiple Mechanisms to Support IPv6 Transition
Inevitably, during the course of transitioning a large enterprise
to IPv6, the architect will be faced with both incompatible hosts
and simulataneously (at different parts of the enterprise)
incompatible networks. These highly complex situations represent
the fourth common theme in Table 1 and are specifically depicted by
Scenarios F, H, I and J. Maintaining IP interoperability in these
situations requires additional planning and may require multiple or
even nested use of diverse transition mechanisms. For example, an
ALG co-located with the application server may be required to
service both IPv4 and IPv6 data streams that are simulataneously
tunneled through incompatible network segment(s).
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 22]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
9. Security Considerations
Security considerations for IPv6 deployment in a Dual-IP
environment are discussed above in section 7.4.5, where external
references to overview documents [V6SEC] [NAP] are also included.
10. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
11. References
11.1 Normative References
There are no normative references in this document to depict
correct protocol operation. This document is an analysis technical
effort not a operative or protocol specification.
11.2 Non-Normative References
[DNSV6] Durand, A., Ihren, J. and P. Savola, "Operational
Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS", Work in
Progress.
[CONF] Thomson, S., Narten, T., "IPv6 Stateless Autoconfiguration"
RFC 2462 December 1998.
[DHCPF] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., et al. "Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" RFC 3315 July
2003.
[DHCPL] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6" RFC 3756 April 2004.
[APPS] Shin, M-K., Hong, Y-G., Haigino, J., Savola, P., Castro, E.,
"Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition" RFC 3038 March 2005.
[BSCN] Bound, J., (Ed) et al. "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios"
Work in Pogress.
[6TO4] Carpenter, B., Moore, K., "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
IPv4 Clouds" RFC 3056 February 2001.
[TRDO] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
NATs" Work in Progress.
[BCNF] Nordmark, E., Gilligan, R., "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" Work in Progress from RFC 2893.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 23]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
[DSTM] Bound, J., (Ed) et al. "Dual Stack Transition Mechanim"
Work in Progress.
[DSTM+] DSTM Industry Design Team web site www.dstm.info
[ISTP] Templin, F., et al "Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel
Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)". Work in Progress.
[6TUN] Conta, A., Deering, S., "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6" RFC 2473 December 1998.
[TBRK] Durand, A., et al "IPv6 Tunnel Broker"
RFC 3053 January 2001.
[SEC1] Savola, P. and Patel, C. "Security Considerations for 6to4"
RFC3964 December 2004.
[ULA] Hinden, B., Haberman, B., "Unique Local IPv6
Addresses". Work in Progress.
[RENUM] Baker, F., Lear, E., Droms, R., "Procedures for Renumbering
an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day". Work in Progress.
[ALLOC] IAB, IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address
Allocations to Sites" RFC 3177 September 2001.
[NATPT] Tsirtsis, G., Srisuresh, P., "Network Address Translation -
Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)" RFC 2766 February 2000
[NATDE] Aoun, C., Davies, E., "Reasons to move NAT-PT to Experimental"
Work in Progress.
[UMAN] Huitema, C.,. et al "Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms
for Unmanaged Networks". RFC 3904 September 2004.
[ISPA] Lind, M., et al "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6
into ISP Networks". RFC 4029 March 2005.
[3GPA] Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in 3GPP Networks"
Work in Progress.
[V6SEC] Davies, E. et al "IPv6 Transition/Co-existence Security
Considerations". Work in Progress.
[NAP] Van de Velde, G. et al "IPv6 Network Architecture Protection",
Work in Progress.
[OSPF] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J. "OSPF for IPv6"
RFC2740 December 1999.
BGP4] Bates, T., Rekhter, Y. et. al. "Multiprotocol Extensions for
BGP-4", RFC2283 June 2000.
[ISIS] Oran, D. EDITOR, "OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol",
RFC1142 February 1990.
[RIPng] Malkin, G., Minnear, R. "RIPng for IPv6"
RFC2080 January 1997
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 24]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Change Log
March 2005 to June 2005
ID 01 to 02
- Fixed IETF id-nits.
- Updated Section 3 Table 1 and added discussion of intent and
scenario analysis per WG input.
- Completed sections 6, 7, and 8.
- Completed required Security Section.
- Fixed normative vs. non-normative references.
- Changed abstract and context of document to only deal with dual
IP layer networks and nodes.
- Removed Table of Content Campus VLAN appendix place holder.
November 2004 to March 2005
ID 00 to 01
- Changed introduction, Section 1-3 to reflect authors and IETF WG
discussions to attempt consensus on these initial sections.
- Added explanation of why Appendix A is in the document to
introduction.
- Expanded what topics are out of scope for this document.
- Updated terminology section.
- Updated section 3 matrix and description to simplify and focus
on dual IP layer.
- Edited base text of Sections 4-7 but all three require extensive
additional test for descriptions.
- Edited section 8 and removed table and will reference table in
section 3. This section still needs to be written.
Document Acknowledgments
The Author's would like to acknowledge contributions from the
following: IETF v6ops Working Group members, Pekka Savola, and
Jordi Palet.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 25]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Author's Addresses
Jim Bound
HP
110 Spitbrook Road
Nashua, NH 03062
USA
Phone: 603.465.3130
Email: jim.bound@hp.com
Yanick Pouffary
HP Competency Center
950, Route des Colles, BP027,
06901 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX
FRANCE
Phone: + 33492956285
Email: Yanick.pouffary@hp.com
Tim Chown
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom
Email: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
David Green
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Ave
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3493
USA
Phone: 732 532-6715
Email: david.green@sri.com
Steve Klynsma
The MITRE Corporation
7515 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22102-5708
USA
703-883-6469
Email: sklynsma@mitre.org
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 26]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005)
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
Disclaimer
This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 27]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Appendix A - Crisis Management Network Scenarios
Introduction:
This appendix first describes different scenarios for the
introduction of IPv6 into a crisis management network for emergency
services, defense, or security forces that are currently running
IPv4 service. Then, the scenarios for introducing IPv6 are analyzed
and the relevance of already defined transition mechanisms are
evaluated. Known challenges are also identified.
When a crisis management enterprise deploys IPv6, its goal is to
provide IPv6 connectivity on it's institutional fixed networks and
on the mobile wireless services that are deployed to a crisis area.
The new IPv6 service must be added to an already existing IPv4
service, the introduction of IPv6 must not interrupt this IPv4
service, and the IPv6 services must be interoperable with existing
IPv4 services.
Crisis management enterprises accessing IPv4 service across mobile
ground networks, airborne networks, and satellites will find
different ways to add IPv6 to this service based on their network
architecture, funding, and institutional goals. This document
discusses a small set of scenarios representing the architectures
for IPv6 expected to be dominant in crisis management networks
during the next decade. It evaluates the relevance of the existing
transition mechanisms in the context of these deployment scenarios,
and points out the lack of essential functionality in these methods
to the ISP's operation of an IPv6 service.
The document is focused on services that include both IPv6 and IPv4
and does cover issues surrounding accessing IPv4 services across
IPv6-only networks. It is outside the scope of this document to
describe detailed implementation plans for IPv6 in defense networks
Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment in Crisis Management Networks:
Scenario 1: Limited IPv6 Deployment Network.....................
Sparse IPv6 dual-stack deployment in an existing IPv4 network
infrastructure. Enterprise with an existing IPv4 network wants to
deploy a set of particular IPv6 "applications" and have some
ability to interoperate with other institutions that are using IPv6
services. The IPv6 deployment is limited to the minimum required to
operate this set of applications.
Assumptions: IPv6 software/hardware components for the application
are available, and platforms for the application are IPv6 capable.
Requirements: Do not disrupt IPv4 infrastructure.
Scenario 2: Dual Stack Network
Wide-scale/total dual-stack deployment of IPv4 and IPv6 capable
hosts and network infrastructure. Enterprise with an existing IPv4
network wants to deploy IPv6 in conjunction with their IPv4 network
in order to take advantage of emerging IPv6 network-centric
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 28]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
capabilities and to be interoperable with other agencies,
international partners, and commercial enterprises that are
deploying an IPv6 architecture.
Assumptions: The IPv4 network infrastructure used has an
equivalent capability in IPv6.
Requirements: Do not disrupt existing IPv4 network infrastructure
with IPv6. IPv6 should be equivalent or "better" than the network
infrastructure in IPv4. It may not be feasible to deploy IPv6 on
all parts of the network immediately. Dual stacked defense
enterprise network must be interoperable with both IPv4 and IPv6
networks and applications.
Scenario 3: ..............................IPv6 Dominant Network
Enterprise has some limited IPv4-capable/only nodes/applications
needing to communicate over the IPv6 infrastructure. Crisis
management enterprise re-structuring an existing network, decides
to pursue aggressive IPv6 transition as an enabler for network-
centric services and wants to run some native IPv6-only networks to
eliminate cost/complexity of supporting a dual stack. Some legacy
IPv4 capable nodes/applications within the enterprise will have
slow technical refresh/replacement path and will need to
communicate over the IPv6 dominant infrastructure for years until
they are replaced. The IPv6 dominant enterprise network will need
to be interoperable with it's own legacy networks, commercial
networks, and the legacy networks of similar organizations that
will remain IPv4 dominant during a long transition period. Reserve
units, contractors, other agencies, and international partners may
need IPv4 service across this enterprise's IPv6 dominant backbone.
Assumptions: Required IPv6 network infrastructure is available, or
available over some defined timeline, supporting the aggressive
transition plan.
Requirements:Reduce operation and maintenance requirements and
increase
net-centricity through aggressive IPv6 transition. Interoperation
and coexistence with legacy IPv4 networks and applications is
required. Legacy IPv4 nodes/applications/networks will need to be
able to operate across the IPv6 backbone and need to be able to
interoperate with the IPv6-dominant network's nodes/applications.
Description of a Generic Crisis Management Network
A generic network topology for a crisis management reflects the
various ways a crisis management network can connect customers
through their network infrastructure. Because the institution's
existing wired and fixed site wireless infrastructure can be
destroyed or unavailable in a crisis, the crisis management network
must be able to deploy it's own mobile wireless network or connect
through external wired and wireless networks provided by ISPs or
partner organizations. This infrastructure lets us divide the
basic areas for IPv4/IPv6 interoperability into three main areas:
the customer applications, the local network, and the network
backbone.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 29]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
The basic components in a crisis management network are depicted in
Figure 1.
------------ ---------- ---- Wired Connection
| Network and| | | .... Wireless Connection
| Service |--| Backbone |
| Operation | | |
------------ ----------
/ | ---------------------
/ : _|Connection to |
/ : |Commercial Internet |
/ : --------------------- Network
Backbone
--------------
/------|-------------|--------------------------------
---------- / ---------- ----------
| Home |/ | Wireless | External |.............
| Base | | Mobile | |Untrusted |+--------- :
| Network | | Network | |Network | | :
---------- ---------- ---------- | :
| : : | : Local
Network
-----:------------:---------------------------------------------------
| : : | : Customer
Apps
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | :
| | | | | | | :
|Customer| |Customer| |Customer|+----------- :....
| | | | | |..............
+--------+ +--------+ +--------+
Figure 1: Crisis Management Network Topology.
Stages of IPv6 Deployment:
The stages are derived from the generic description of scenarios
for crisis management networks in Section 2. Combinations of
different building blocks that constitute an crisis network
environment lead to a number of scenarios from which the network
engineers can choose. The scenarios most relevant to this document
are those that maximize the network's ability to offer IPv6 to its
customers in the most efficient and feasible way. The assumption in
the first three stages the goal is to offer both IPv4 and IPv6 to
the customer, and that in the distant future all IPv4 services will
be eventually switched to IPv6. This document will cover
engineering the first four stages.
The four most probable stages are:
o Stage 1 Limited Launch
o Stage 2 Dual Stack Dominance
o Stage 3 IPv6 Dominance
o Stage 4 IPv6 Transition Complete
Generally, a crisis management network is able to entirely upgrade
a current IPv4 network to provide IPv6 services via a dual-stack
network in Stage 2 and then slowly progress to stages 3 and 4 as
indicted in Figure 2. During stage 2, When most applications are
IPv6 dominant, operational and maintenance costs can be reduced on
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 30]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
some networks by moving to stage 3 and running backbone networks
entirely on IPv6 while adding IPv4 backwards compatibility via v4
in v6 tunneling or translation mechanisms to the existing
configuration from stage 2. When designing a new network, if a new
IPv6-only service is required, it can be implemented at a lower
cost jumping directly to stage 3/4 if there are only limited/no
legacy concerns.
Tunnels Dominant dual Full dual Stack
IPv4-only --> or limited --> stacking with --> everywhere, mostly -->
V6
dual stacks transition v6 apps, some
Only
Limited v6 mechanisms in v6 only nets with
Applications backbone transition mechanisms
pushed to legacy v4
nets
Figure 2: Transition Path.
Stage 1 Scenario: Limited Launch
The first stage begins with an IPv4-only network and IPv4
customers. This is the most common case today and the natural
starting point for the introduction of IPv6. During this stage the
enterprise begins to connect individual IPv6 applications run on
dual stacked hosts through host based tunneling using Tunnel
Broker, ISATAP, Teredo. Some early adopter networks are created for
pilot studies and networked together through configured tunnels and
6to4.
The immediate first step consists of obtaining a prefix allocation
typically a /32) from the appropriate RIR (e.g. AfriNIC, APNIC,
ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE, ...) according to allocation procedures.
The crisis management enterprise will also need to establish IPv6
connectivity between its home base networks and mobile wireless
networks over it's backbone and negotiate IPv6 service with its
service providers and with peer organizations; it is of utmost
importance to require IPv6 capability or an upgrade plan when
negotiating purchases of network applications and infrastructure.
In the short term, network connections, especially legacy wireless
networks, that cannot provide IPv6 services can provide IPv6
services through the use of tunnels. However, the longer-term goal
must be requiring and obtaining IPv6 native connectivity from the
transit networks, because otherwise the quality of IPv6
connectivity will likely be poor and the transition to stage 2 will
be delayed.
Stage 2 Scenario: Dual Stack Dominance
Stage 2 occurs when most applications, local networks, and network
backbones become dual-stacked so that native IPv6 connections are
enabled. At this point there is a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 applications
and services in use across the enterprise. The enterprise may be
made IPv6-capable through either software upgrades, hardware
upgrades, or a combination of both. Generally IPv6 is added during
normal technical refresh as the enterprise buys new equipment that
is IPv6 ready.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 31]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
Specialty legacy applications and wireless/satellite networks may
be especially slow to transition to IPv6 capability due to upgrade
costs so plans must be made for backwards compatibility for these
systems. Since some new IPv6 services cannot be provided through
IPv4, and some legacy network connections may not yet be upgraded,
tunneling mechanisms have to be provided on the backbone to provide
IPv6 connectivity through to customer IPv6 applications still
relying on legacy IPv4-only networks. The tunnels may provide
host-based tunneling for individual customers or site-to-site
tunnels to connect small IPv6 domains through IPv4 only networks.
If any new applications are IPv6-only rather than dual-stacked, and
need to interact with IPv4-only legacy applications, translators
will be used as a transition mechanism of last resort during this
stage.
Stage 3 Scenario: IPv6 Dominance
Stage 3 occurs when the majority of network services are being
provided by IPv6 so that most network traffic is dominantly IPv6
and the net-centric benefits of IPv6 end-to-end communications,
IPSEC based security, QOS, mobility, and autoconfiguration are
realized. During this stage, some networks and applications will
become native IPv6-only and will have to rely on transition
mechanism for backwards compatibility with IPv4. The switch to
native IPv6 may be pursued to lower the operations and maintenance
cost of network operations and lower the performance overhead
associated with running two stacks on networked systems. During
this stage, IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels are used to provide IPv4 services
to the remaining customers needing these services across IPv6 only
backbones. At this stage requirements for IPv4 compatibility can be
pushed out of the network backbone and to IPv4 end-user networks.
DSTM, with or without tunnel brokers, can be used to provide host-
based tunnels for IPv4 service on local networks that only support
IPv6. Remaining IPv4 dominant networks requiring IPv4 service
across IPv6-only backbones will have to connect through site-to-
site tunnels. Since many new applications are IPv6-only rather than
dual-stacked, legacy IPv4 applications may require translators for
interoperability.
Stage 4 Scenario: IPv6 Only In the future, if IPv6 becomes the only
service required, IPv4 service can be dropped. This transition may
be hastened by the desire to save operational and maintenance costs
by dropping IPv4 services and only supporting one IP family.
Security Concerns
Adding security to IPv6 services requires developing new customer
applications for IPSEC, new firewalls, guards, VPN/encrypters, and
end-user security such as host-based firewalls and virus checkers
for IPv6 attacks. Police, homeland defense, and military crisis
management networks require especially high levels of security and
should begin creation and implementation of their specialized
security architectures as soon as they begin planning for IPv6
transition. New IPv6 features such as MIPv6, stateless address
auto-assignment, and ubiquitous end-user IPSEC will likely not be
compatible with current information-assurance tools that are simply
ported from IPv4 to a minimal IPv6 capability. A complete new
security policy, architecture, and tools will most likely be
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 32]
Internet Draft IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis June 2005
required to realize the true net-centric benefits of IPv6 in crisis
networks requiring high security.
draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-02.txt Expires December 2005[Page 33]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 19:16:30 |