One document matched: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt
INTERNET DRAFT C. Huitema
<draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt> Microsoft
January 10, 2003 R. Austein
Expires July 10, 2003 Bourgeois Dilettant
R. van der Pol
NLnet Labs
Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios
Status of this memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
This document is an Internet-Draft. 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/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Abstract
In order to evaluate the suitability of transition mechanisms, we
need to define the scenarios in which these mechanisms have to be
used. One specific scope is the "unmanaged networks", which
typically correspond to home networks or small office networks.
1 Introduction
In order to evaluate the suitability of transition mechanisms, we
need to define the environment or scope in which these mechanisms
have to be used. One specific scope is the "unmanaged networks",
which typically correspond to home networks or small office
networks.
2 Topology
The typical unmanaged network is composed of a single subnet,
connected to the Internet through a single Internet Service Provider
(ISP)connection. Several hosts are connected to the subnet:
Huitema et al. [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
+------+
| Host +--+
+------+ |
|
+------+ |
| Host +--+ +--------------
+------+ | |
: +-----+
: +---------+ | |
+--+ Gateway +------| ISP | Internet
: +---------+ | |
: +-----+
+------+ | |
| Host +--+ +--------------
+------+ |
|
+------+ |
| Host +--+
+------+
Between the subnet and the ISP access link is a gateway, which may
or may not perform NAT and firewall function. A key point of this
configuration is that the gateway is typically not "managed". In
most cases, it is a simple "appliance", which incorporates some
static policies. There are however many cases in which the gateway
is procured and configured by the ISP, and there are also some
common cases in which we find two back to back gateways, one managed
by the ISP and the other added by the owner of the unmanaged
network.
The access link between the unmanaged network and the ISP can be
either static, i.e. a permanent connection, or dynamically
established, i.e. a dial-up or ISDN connection.
In a degenerate case, an unmanaged network can be constituted of a
single host, directly connected to an ISP.
3 Applications
Users may use or wish to use the unmanaged network services in four
types of applications: local, client, servers and peer-to-peers.
These applications may or may not run easily on today's network:
their status vary.
3.1 Local applications
Local applications are meant to only involve the hosts that are part
of the unmanaged network. Typical examples are the sharing of file
or printers.
Local applications work effectively in IPv4 unmanaged networks, even
Huitema et al. [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
when the gateway performs NAT or firewall function. In fact,
firewall services at the gateway are often deemed desirable, as they
isolate the local applications from interference by Internet users.
3.2 Client applications
Client applications are those that involve a client on the unmanaged
network and a server at a remote location. A typical example is
accessing a web server from a client inside the unmanaged network,
or reading and sending e-mail with the help of a server outside the
unmanaged network.
Local applications tend to work correctly in IPv4 unmanaged
networks, even when the gateway performs NAT or firewall function:
these translation and firewall functions are precisely designed to
enable client applications.
3.3 Peer-to-peer applications
There are two kinds of peer-to-peer applications, the "local peer-
to-peer" that only involve hosts on the unmanaged network, and the
"remote peer-to-peer" that involve both hosts on the unmanaged
network and hosts outside the network. We will only consider here
the "remote peer-to-peer" applications, as the local peer-to-peer
applications are a subset of the "local applications."
Peer-to-peer applications are a restricted subset of the server
applications, in which the services are only meant to be used by
well identified peers outside the unmanaged network. These
applications are often facilitated by a server outside the unmanaged
networks. Examples of a peer-to-peer application would be a video-
conference over IP, facilitated by a SIP server, or a distributed
game application, facilitated by a "game lobby".
Peer-to-peer applications often don't work well in unmanaged IPv4
networks. Application developers often have to enlist the help of a
"relay server", to effectively restructure the peer-to-peer
connection in two back-to-back client/server connections.
3.4 Server applications
Server applications involve running a server in the unmanaged
network, for use by other parties outside the network. Examples
would be running a web server or an e-mail server on one of the
hosts inside the unmanaged network.
Deploying these servers in most unmanaged IPv4 networks requires
some special programming of the NAT or firewall, and is more complex
when the NAT only publishes a small number of global IP addresses
and relies on "port translation". In the common case in which the
NAT manages exactly one global IP address and relies on "port
translation", a given external port can only be used by one internal
Huitema et al. [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
server.
Deploying servers usually requires providing the servers with a
stable DNS name, and associating the global IPv4 address of the
nat/firewall with that name. Since updating DNS is a management
task, it somewhat falls outside the scope of an unmanaged network.
On the other hand, it is also possible to use out-of-band
techniques, such as cut-and-paste into an instant message system, to
pass around the address of the target server.
4 Application requirements of an IPv6 unmanaged network
As we transition to IPv6, we must meet the requirements of the
various applications, which we can summarize in the following way:
the applications that used to work well with IPv4 should continue
working well during the transition; it should be possible to use
IPv6 to deploy new applications that are currently hard to deploy in
IPv4 networks; the deployment of these IPv6 applications should be
simple and easy to manage.
The application requirements are expressed in mostly three
dimensions: connectivity, naming, and security. Connectivity issues
include the provision of IPv6 addresses and their quality: do host
need a global scope address, should this address be stable, or more
precisely what should be the expected lifetime of the address.
Naming issues include the management of names for the hosts: do
hosts need a DNS-name, is inverse name resolution a requirement.
Security issues include possible restriction to connectivity,
privacy concerns, and generally speaking the security of the
applications.
4.1 Requirements of local applications
Local applications require local connectivity. They must continue
working even if the unmanaged network is isolated from the Internet.
Local applications typically use ad hoc naming systems. Many of
these systems are proprietary; an example of standard system is the
service location protocol (SLP).
The security of local applications is enhanced if these applications
can be effectively isolated from the global Internet.
4.2 Requirements of client applications
Client applications require global connectivity. In an IPv6 network,
we would expect the client to use a global IPv6 address, which will
have to remain stable for the duration of the client-server session.
Client applications typically use the domain name system to locate
servers. In an IPv6 network, the client must be able to locate a DNS
server.
Huitema et al. [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
Many servers try to look up a DNS name associated to the IP address
of the client. In an IPv4 network, this IP address will often be
allocated by the Internet service provider to the gateway, and the
corresponding PTR record will be maintained by the ISP. In most
cases, these PTR records are perfunctory, derived in an algorithmic
fashion from the IPv4 address; the main information that they
contain is the domain name of the ISP. Whether or not an equivalent
function should be provided in an IPv6 network is unclear.
4.2.1 Privacy requirement of client applications
We may debate whether the IPv6 networking service should be
engineered to enhance the privacy of the clients, and specifically
whether the support of RFC 3041 should be required. RFC 3041 enables
hosts to pick IPv6 addresses in which the host identifier is
randomized; this was designed to make sure that the IPv6 addresses
and the host identifier cannot be used to track the Internet
connections of a device's owner.
Many observe that randomizing the host identifier portion of the
address is only a half measure. If the unmanaged network address
prefix remains constant, the randomization only hides which host in
the unmanaged network originates a given connection, e.g. the
children's computer versus their parents'. This would place the
privacy rating of such connections on a par with that of IPv4
connections originating from an unmanaged network in which a NAT
manages a static IPv4 address; in both case, the IPv4 address or the
IPv6 prefix can be used to identify the unmanaged network, e.g. the
specific home from which the connection originated.
Randomization of the host identifier does however provide benefits.
First, if some of the hosts in the unmanaged network are mobile, the
randomization destroys any correlation between the addresses used at
various locations: the addresses alone could not be used to
determine whether a given connection originates from the same laptop
moving from work to home, or used on the road. Second, the
randomization removes any information that could be extracted from a
hardwired host identifier; for example, it will prevent outsiders to
correlate a serial number with a specific brand of expensive
electronic equipment, and to use this information for planning
marketing campaigns or possibly burglary attempts.
Randomization of the addresses is indeed not sufficient to guarantee
privacy. Usage can be tracked by a variety of other means, from
application level "cookies" to complex techniques involving data
mining and traffic analysis. However, just because privacy can be
breached by other means is not a sufficient reason to enable
additional tracking through IPv6 addresses.
Randomization of the host identifier has some cost: the address
management in hosts is more complex for the hosts and the gateway
Huitema et al. [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
may have to maintain a larger cache of neighbor addresses; however,
experience from existing implementation shows that these costs are
not overwhelming. Given the limited benefits, it would be
unreasonable to require that all hosts use privacy addresses;
however, given the limited costs, it is reasonable to require that
all unmanaged network allow use of privacy addresses by those hosts
who so choose.
4.3 Requirements of peer-to-peer applications
Peer-to-peer applications require global connectivity. In an IPv6
network, we would expect the peers to use a global IPv6 address,
which will have to remain stable for the duration of the peer-to-
peer between client and server.
Peer-to-peer applications often use ad hoc naming systems, sometimes
derived from an "instant messaging" service. Many of these systems
are proprietary; an example of standard system is the session
initiation protocol (SIP). In these systems, the peers register
their presence to a "rendezvous" server, using a name specific to
the service; the case of SIP, they would use a SIP URL, of the form
"sip:user@example.com". A peer to peer session typically starts by
an exchange of synchronization messages through the rendezvous
servers, during which the peers exchange the addresses that will be
used for the session.
There are multiple aspects to the security of peer-to-peer
applications, many of which relate to the security of the rendezvous
system. If we assume that the peers have been able to safely
exchange their IPv6 addresses, the main security requirement is the
capability to safely exchange data between the peers, without
interference by third parties.
Private conversations with developers of peer-to-peer applications
showed that many would be willing to consider an "IPv6-only" model
if they can get two guarantees:
1) That there is no regression from IPv4, i.e. that all customers
that could participate in a peer-to-peer application using IPv4 can
also be reached by IPv6.
2) That IPv6 provides a solution for at least some of their hard
problems, i.e. enabling peers located behind an IPv4 NAT to
participate in a peer-to-peer application.
Requiring IPv6 connectivity for a popular peer-to-peer application
could create what economists refer to as a "network effect", which
in turn could significantly speed up the deployment of IPv6.
4.4 Requirements of server applications
Server applications require global connectivity, which in an IPv6
Huitema et al. [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
network implies global addresses.
Server applications normally rely on the publication of the server's
address in the DNS. This, in turns, requires that the server be
provisioned with a "global DNS name".
The DNS entries for the server will have to be updated, preferably
in real time, if the server's address changes. In practice, updating
the DNS is slow, which implies that server applications will have a
better chance of being deployed if the IPv6 addresses remain stable
for a long period.
The security of server applications depends mostly on the
correctness of the server, and also on the absence of collateral
effects: many incidents occur when the opening of a server on the
Internet inadvertently enables remote access to some other services
on the same host.
5 Stages of IPv6 deployment
The deployment of IPv6 over time is expected to proceed from an
initial state in which there is little or no deployment, to a final
stage in which we might retire the IPv4 infrastructure. We expect
this process to stretch over several years; we also expect it to not
be synchronized, as different parties involved will deploy IPv6 at
different pace. In order to get some clarity, we distinguish three
entities involved in the transition of an unmanaged network: the ISP
(possibly including ISP CPE), the home gateway and the hosts
(computers and appliances). Each can support IPv4-only, both IPv4
and IPv6 or IPv6-only. That gives us 27 possibilities. We describe
the most important cases. We will consider that in all cases the
hosts are a combination of IPv4-only, dual stack and IPv6-only
hosts.
The cases we will consider are:
A) Gateway does not provide IPv6
B) ISP and gateway are dual stack
C) Gateway is IPv6 capable, dual stack, ISP is not
D) ISP is IPv6-only
The case where the ISP is IPv6 capable but the gateway is not is
similar to case A.
5.1 Case A, host deployment of IPv6 applications
In this case the gateway doesn't provide IPv6; the ISP may or may
not provide IPv6, but this is not relevant, since the non-upgraded
gateway would prevent the hosts from using the ISP service. Some
hosts will try to get IPv6 connectivity, in order to run
applications that require IPv6, or work better with IPv6.
Huitema et al. [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
5.1.1 Application support in Case A
The focus of Case A is to enable communication between a host on the
unmanaged network and some IPv6-only hosts outside of the network.
The primary focus in the immediate future, i.e. for the early
adopters of IPv6, will be peer-to-peer applications. However, as
IPv6 deployment progresses, we will likely find a situation where
some networks have IPv6-only services deployed, at which point we
would like case A client applications to be able to access those
services.
Local applications are not a primary focus of Case A. At this stage,
we expect all clients in the unmanaged network to have either IPv4
only or dual stack support. Local applications can continue working
using IPv4.
Server applications are also not a primary focus of Case A. Server
applications require DNS support, which is difficult to engineer for
clients located behind a NAT. Besides, server applications, at this
stage, cater mostly to IPv4 clients; putting up an IPv6-only server
is not very attractive.
In contrast, peer-to-peer applications are both attractive and easy
to deploy: they are deployed in a coordinated fashion as part of a
peer-to-peer network, which means that hosts can all receive some
form of IPv6 upgrade; they often provide their own naming
infrastructure, in which case they are not dependent on DNS
services.
5.1.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case A
We saw in 5.1.1 that a primary motivation for the deployment of IPv6
connectivity in hosts is participation to peer-to-peer applications,
and also to IPv6-only client applications. These applications
require that all participating nodes get some form of IPv6
connectivity, i.e. at least one globally reachable IPv6 address. The
mechanism to provide connectivity to peers behind NAT should be easy
to deploy, and light weight; it will have to involve tunneling over
UDP, as this is the practical way to traverse a NAT. If servers are
needed, these servers will in practice have to be deployed as part
of the "support infrastructure" for the peer-to-peer network or for
an IPv6 based service; economic reality implies that the cost of
running these servers should be as low as possible.
5.1.3 Naming services in Case A
At this phase of IPv6 deployment, hosts in the unmanaged domain have
access to DNS services over IPv4, through the existing gateway. DNS
resolvers are supposed to serve AAAA records, even if they only
implement IPv4; the local hosts should thus be able to obtain the
IPv6 addresses of IPv6-only servers.
Huitema et al. [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
Reverse lookup is hard to provide if the gateway is not upgraded.
This is a potential issue for client applications. Some servers
require a reverse lookup as part of accepting a client's connection,
and may require that the direct lookup of the corresponding name
matches the IPv6 address of the client. There is thus a requirement
to either provide a reverse lookup solution, or make sure that IPv6
servers do not require reverse lookup.
5.2 Case B, IPv6 connectivity with provider support
In this case the ISP and gateway are dual stack. The gateway can use
native IPv6 connectivity to the ISP and use an IPv6 prefix allocated
by the ISP.
5.2.1 Application support in Case B
If the ISP and the gateway are dual-stack, client applications,
peer-to-peer applications and server applications can all be enabled
easily on the unmanaged network.
We expect the unmanaged network to include three kinds of hosts:
IPv4 only, IPv6-only, and dual stack. Obviously, dual stack hosts
can interact easily with either IPv4 only hosts or IPv6-only hosts,
but an IPv4 only host and an IPv6-only host cannot communicate
without a third party performing some kind of translation service.
Our analysis concludes that unmanaged networks should not have to
provide such translation services.
The argument for providing translation services is that their
availability would accelerate the deployment of IPv6-only devices,
and thus the transition to IPv6. This is however a dubious argument,
since it can also be argued that the availability of these
translation services will reduce the pressure to provide IPv6 at
all, and to just continue fielding IPv6-only devices. The remaining
pressure to provide IPv6 connectivity would just be the difference
in "quality of service" between a translated exchange and a native
interconnect.
The argument against translation service is the difficulty of
providing these services for all applications, compared to the
relative ease of installing dual stack solutions in an unmanaged
network. Translation services can be provided either by application
relays such as HTTP proxies, or by network level services such as
NAT-PT. Application relays pose several operational problems: first,
one must develop relays for all applications; second, one must
develop a management infrastructure to provision the host with the
addresses of the relays; in addition, the application may have to be
modified if one wants to use the relay selectively, e.g. only when
direct connection is not available. Network level translation poses
similar problems: in practice, network level actions must be
complemented by "application layer gateways" that will rewrite
references to IP addresses in the protocol, and these relays tend to
Huitema et al. [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
be necessary for every application; hosts may need to be
parameterized to use the translation service; and designing the
right algorithm to decide when to translate DNS requests has proven
very difficult.
Not assuming translation services in the network appears both more
practical and more robust. If the market requirement for a new
device requires that it interacts with both IPv4 and IPv6 hosts, we
may expect the manufacturers of these devices to program them with a
dual stack capability; in particular, we expect general purpose
systems such as personal computers to be effectively dual-stack. The
only devices that are expected to be capable of only supporting IPv6
are those who are designed for specific applications, which do not
require interoperation with antique IPv4-only systems. We also
observe that providing both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity in an
unmanaged network is not particularly difficult; indeed there is a
well established experience of using IPv4 in these networks in
parallel with other protocols such as for example IPX.
5.2.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case B
In Case B, the upgraded gateway will behave as an IPv6 router; it
will continue providing the IPv4 connectivity of a non-upgraded NAT.
Nodes in the local network will obtain:
- IPv4 natted addresses,
- IPv6 link local addresses,
- IPv6 global addresses.
The hosts could also obtain IPv6 site local addresses, if the
gateway advertises a site local prefix. This is as debatable: site
local addresses provide some isolation to site local application
from network connectivity events and network based attacks; however,
managing non unique addresses can be problematic if some local hosts
are multi-homed, as is common with VPN connections.
To enable this scenario, the gateway need to use a mechanism obtain
a global address prefix from the ISP, and advertise this address
prefix to the hosts in the unmanaged network; several solutions will
be assessed in a companion memo [EVAL].
5.2.3 Naming services in Case B
At this phase of IPv6 deployment, hosts in the unmanaged domain have
access to DNS services through the gateway. As the gateway and the
ISP both support IPv4 and IPv6, these services may be accessible by
the IPv4 only hosts using IPv4, by the IPv6-only hosts using IPv6,
and by the dual stack hosts using either. Currently, IPv4 only hosts
discover the IPv4 address of the local DNS server using DHCP; there
must be a way for IPv6-only hosts to discover the IPv6 address of
the DNS server.
Huitema et al. [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
There must be a way to resolve the name of local hosts to their IPv4
or IPv6 addresses. Typing auto-configured IPv6 addresses in a
configuration file is impractical; this implies either some form of
dynamic registration of IPv6 addresses in the local service, or a
dynamic address discovery mechanism. Possible solutions will be
compared in the evaluation draft.
The requirement to support server applications in the unmanaged
network implies a requirement to publish the IPv6 addresses of local
servers in the DNS. There are multiple solutions, including
variations of domain name delegation. If we want to provide
efficient reverse lookup functions, delegation of a fraction of the
ip6.arpa tree is also required.
The response to a DNS request should not depend of the protocol with
which the request is transported: dual-stack hosts may indifferently
use IPv4 or IPv6 to contact the local resolver; the choice of IPv4
or IPv6 will be random; the value of the response should not depend
of a random event.
5.3 Case C, IPv6 connectivity without provider support
In this case the gateway is IPv6 capable, dual stack, the ISP is
not. The gateway has been upgraded and offers both IPv4 and IPv6
connectivity the hosts. It cannot rely on the ISP for IPv6
connectivity, because the ISP does not offer ISP connectivity yet.
5.3.1 Application support in Case C
Application support in case C should be identical to that of case B.
5.3.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case C
The upgraded gateway will behave as an IPv6 router; it will continue
providing the IPv4 connectivity of non-upgraded NAT. Nodes in the
local network will obtain:
- IPv4 natted addresses,
- IPv6 link local addresses,
- IPv6 global addresses.
The clients could also obtain IPv6 site local addresses, if the
gateway advertises a site local prefix; this raises the same issues
already discussed in case B.
There are two ways to bring immediate IPv6 connectivity on top of an
IPv4 only infrastructure: automatic tunnels provided by the [6TO4]
technology, or configured tunnels. Both technologies have advantages
and limitations, which will be studied in a companion document.
5.3.3 Naming services in Case C
Huitema et al. [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
The local naming requirements in case C are identical to the local
naming requirements of case B, with two differences: delegation of
domain names, and management of reverse lookup queries.
A delegation of some domain name is required in order to publish the
IPv6 addresses of servers in the DNS. As the ISP does not provide
support for IPv6 in case C, the delegation mechanism will have to be
provided independently of the IP connectivity mechanism.
A specific mechanism for handling reverse lookup queries will be
required if the gateway uses a dynamic mechanism such as 6to4 to
obtain a prefix independently of any IPv6 ISP.
5.4 Case D, ISP stops providing native IPv4 connectivity
In this case the ISP is IPv6-only, so the gateway looses IPv4
connectivity, and is faced with an IPv6-only service provider. The
gateway itself is dual stack, and the unmanaged network includes
IPv4 only, IPv6-only and dual stack hosts. Any interaction between
hosts in the unmanaged network and IPv4 hosts on the Internet will
require the provision of some inter-protocol services by the ISP.
5.4.1 Application support in Case D
At this phase of the transition, IPv6 hosts can perform all types of
applications with other IPv6 hosts. IPv4 hosts in the unmanaged
network will be able to perform local applications with IPv4 or dual
stack local hosts.
As in case B, we will assume that IPv6-only hosts will not interact
with IPv4-only hosts, either local or remote. We must however assume
that IPv4-only hosts and dual stack hosts will desire to interact
with IPv4 services available on the Internet: the inability to do so
would place the IPv6-only provider at a great commercial
disadvantage compared to other Internet service providers.
There are three possible ways that an ISP can provide hosts in the
unmanaged network with access to IPv4 application: by using a set of
application relays, by providing an address translation service, or
by providing IPv4-over-IPv6 tunnels. Our analysis concludes that a
tunnel service will be vastly preferable.
We already mentioned the drawbacks of the application gateway
approach when analyzing case B: it is necessary to provide relays
for all applications, to develop a way to provision the hosts with
the addresses of these relays, and to modify the applications so
that they will only use the relays when needed. We also observe that
in an IPv6-only ISP the application relays would only be accessible
over IPv6, and would thus not be accessible by the "legacy" IPv4-
only hosts. The application relay approach is thus not very
attractive.
Huitema et al. [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
Providing a network address and protocol translation service between
IPv6 and IPv4 would also have many drawbacks. As in case B, it will
have to be complemented by "application layer gateways" that will
rewrite references to IP addresses in the protocol; hosts may need
to be parameterized to use the translation service; and we would
have to solve DNS issues. In addition, in an IPv6-only ISP, an IPv6-
to-IPv4 translation service would not be accessible by legacy IPv4-
only hosts through the IPv6 only ISP service. The network level
protocol translation service appears to not be very desirable.
The proper alternative to application relays and network address
translation is the provision of an IPv4-over-IPv6 service.
5.4.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case D
The ISP assigns an IPv6 prefix to the unmanaged network, so hosts
have a global IPv6 address and use it for global IPv6 connectivity.
This will require delegation of an IPv6 address prefix, as
investigated in case C.
To enable IPv4 hosts and dual stack host to access remote IPv4
services, the ISP must provide the gateway with at least one IPv4
address, using some form of IPv4-over-IPv6 tunneling. Once such
addresses have been provided, the gateway effectively acquires dual-
stack connectivity; for hosts inside the unmanaged network, this
will be indistinguishable from the connectivity obtained in case B
or C.
5.4.3 Naming services in Case D
The loss of IPv4 connectivity has a direct impact on the provision
of naming services. An obvious consequence is the gateway will have
to be provisioned with the address of a DNS server and with other
DNS parameters, and that this provisioning will have to use IPv6
mechanisms. Another consequence is that the DNS service in the
gateway will only be able to use IPv6 connectivity to resolve
queries; if local hosts perform DNS resolution autonomously, they
will have the same restriction.
On the surface, this seems to indicate that the local hosts will
only be able to resolve names if the domain servers are accessible
through an IPv6 address documented in a AAAA record. However, the
DNS services are just one case of "IPv4 servers accessed by IPv6
hosts": it should be possible to simply send queries through the
address translation services to reach the IPv4 only servers.
The gateway should be able to act as a "DNS proxy" for the remaining
IPv4 only hosts.
6 Security Considerations
Huitema et al. [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
Security considerations are discussed as part of the applications'
requirements. They include:
- the guarantee that local applications are only used locally,
- the protection of the privacy of clients
- the requirement that peer-to-peer connections are only used by
authorized peers.
7 IANA Considerations
This memo does not include any request to IANA.
8 Copyright
The following copyright notice is copied from RFC 2026 [Bradner,
1996], Section 10.4, and describes the applicable copyright for this
document.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society July 12, 2001. All Rights
Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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.
9 Intellectual Property
The following notice is copied from RFC 2026 [Bradner, 1996],
Section 10.4, and describes the position of the IETF concerning
intellectual property claims made against this document.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Huitema et al. [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use other technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances
of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made
to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification
can be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director.
10 Acknowledgements
This draft has benefited from extensive reviews by Tony Hain, Suresh
K Satapati, and Margaret Wasserman.
11 References
[EVAL] Evaluation of Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks,
work in progress.
12 Authors' Addresses
Christian Huitema
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
Email: huitema@microsoft.com
Rob Austein
Email: sra@hactrn.net
Ronald van der Pol
Email: Ronald.vanderPol@surfnet.nl
Huitema et al. [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT Unmanaged Networks IPv6 scenarios January 10, 2003
Table of Contents:
1 Introduction .................................................... 1
2 Topology ........................................................ 1
3 Applications .................................................... 2
3.1 Local applications ............................................ 2
3.2 Client applications ........................................... 3
3.3 Peer-to-peer applications ..................................... 3
3.4 Server applications ........................................... 3
4 Application requirements of an IPv6 unmanaged network ........... 4
4.1 Requirements of local applications ............................ 4
4.2 Requirements of client applications ........................... 4
4.2.1 Privacy requirement of client applications .................. 5
4.3 Requirements of peer-to-peer applications ..................... 6
4.4 Requirements of server applications ........................... 6
5 Stages of IPv6 deployment ....................................... 7
5.1 Case A, host deployment of IPv6 applications .................. 7
5.1.1 Application support in Case A ............................... 8
5.1.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case A ........................ 8
5.1.3 Naming services in Case A ................................... 8
5.2 Case B, IPv6 connectivity with provider support ............... 9
5.2.1 Application support in Case B ............................... 9
5.2.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case B ........................ 10
5.2.3 Naming services in Case B ................................... 10
5.3 Case C, IPv6 connectivity without provider support ............ 11
5.3.1 Application support in Case C ............................... 11
5.3.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case C ........................ 11
5.3.3 Naming services in Case C ................................... 11
5.4 Case D, ISP stops providing native IPv4 connectivity .......... 12
5.4.1 Application support in Case D ............................... 12
5.4.2 Addresses and connectivity in Case D ........................ 13
5.4.3 Naming services in Case D ................................... 13
6 Security Considerations ......................................... 13
7 IANA Considerations ............................................. 14
8 Copyright ....................................................... 14
9 Intellectual Property ........................................... 14
10 Acknowledgements ............................................... 15
11 References ..................................................... 15
12 Authors' Addresses ............................................. 15
Huitema et al. [Page 16]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 05:53:27 |