wdiff draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-02.txt

Internet Area Working Group W. George
Internet-Draft Time Warner Cable
Updates: 1812, 1122, 4084 C. Donley
(if approved) Cablelabs
Intended status: Standards Track BCP C. Liljenstolpe Donley
Expires: January 12, June 10, 2012 Cablelabs
C. Liljenstolpe
Telstra
L. Howard
Time Warner Cable
July 11,
December 8, 2011

IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01 Nodes
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-02

Abstract

Given the global lack of available IPv4 space, and limitations in
IPv4 extension and transition technologies, this document deprecates
the concept advises
that an IP-capable node MAY IPv6 support IPv4 _only_, and
redefines an IP-capable node is no longer considered optional. It also cautions
that there are places in existing IETF documents where the term "IP"
is used in a way that could be misunderstood by implementers as one the
term "IP" becomes a generic which supports either IPv6 _only_ can mean IPv4 + IPv6, IPv6-only, or IPv4/IPv6 dual-stack. This document updates RFC1812, RFC1122
IPv4-only, depending on context and
RFC4084 to reflect the change in requirements. application.

Status of this Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, June 10, 2012.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Requirements Clarifications and Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6

1. Introduction

IP version 4 (IPv4) has served to connect public and private hosts
all over the world for over 30 years. However, due to the success of
the Internet in finding new and innovative uses for IP networking,
billions of hosts are now connected via the Internet and requiring
unique addressing. This demand has led to the exhaustion of the IANA
global pool of unique IPv4 addresses [IANA-exhaust], and will be
followed by the exhaustion of the free pools for each Regional
Internet Registry (RIR), the first of which is APNIC [APNIC-exhaust].
While transition technologies and other means to extend the lifespan
of IPv4 do exist, nearly all of them come with tradeoffs that prevent
them from being optimal long-term solutions when compared with
deployment of IP version 6 (IPv6) as a means to allow continued
growth on the Internet. See
[I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues] [RFC6269] and
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] for some discussion on this topic.

IPv6 [RFC1883] was proposed in 1995 as, among other things, a
solution to the limitations on globally unique addressing that IPv4's
32-bit addressing space represented, and has been under continuous
refinement (e.g., [RFC2460]) and deployment ever since. [RFC2460]. The
exhaustion of IPv4 and the continued growth of the internet worldwide
has created the driver for widespread IPv6 deployment.

However, the IPv6 deployment necessary to reduce reliance on IPv4 has
been hampered by a lack of ubiquitous hardware and software support
throughout the industry. Many vendors, especially in the consumer
space have continued to view IPv6 support as optional. Even today
they are still selling "IP capable" or "Internet Capable" devices
which are not IPv6-capable, which has continued to push out the point
at which the natural hardware refresh cycle will significantly
increase IPv6 support in the average home or enterprise network.
They are also choosing not to update existing software to enable IPv6
support on software-updatable devices, which is a problem because it
is not realistic to expect that the hardware refresh cycle will
single-handedly purge IPv4-only devices from the active network in a
reasonable amount of time. This is a significant problem, especially
in the consumer space, where the network operator often has no
control over the hardware the consumer chooses to use. For the same
reason that the average consumer is not making a purchasing decision
based on the presence of IPv6 support in their Internet-capable
devices and services, consumers are unlikely to replace their still-
functional Internet-capable devices simply to add IPv6 support - they
don't know or don't care about IPv6, they simply want their devices
to work as advertised.

This lack of support is making the eventual IPv6 transition
considerably more difficult, and drives the need for expensive and
complicated transition technologies to extend the life of IPv4-only
devices as well as eventually to interwork IPv4-only and IPv6-only
hosts. While IPv4 is expected to coexist on the Internet with IPv6
for many years, a transition from IPv4 as the dominant Internet
Protocol towards IPv6 as the dominant Internet Protocol will need to
occur. The sooner the majority of devices support IPv6, the less
protracted this transition period will be.

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2. Requirements Clarifications and Recommendation

This draft updates the following documents:

Updates [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2,

To ensure interoperability and 4 which use the
generic "IP" synonymously with the more specific "IPv4." Since
RFC1812 is an proper function after IPv4 router specification, the generic use of IP in
this standard may cause confusion as IP exhaustion,
support for IPv6 is redefined to mean IPv4 +
IPv6. This proposed virtually a requirement. Rather than update is not intended to change the
existing
technical interpretation of RFC1812 IPv4 protocol specification standards to include IPv6, IETF
has defined a completely separate set of standalone documents which
cover IPv6. Therefore, implementers are cautioned that a distinction
must be made between IPv4 and IPv6 in its
implementation details. Rather, it some IETF documents where IP is intended to ensure that those
using RFC1812 as a guideline
used generically. Current requirements for IP implementations understand that
IP nodes SHOULD NOT IPv6 support IPv4 only, can be found
in [RFC4294], soon to be updated by [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] and that they should use the
other informative references
in this document as a companion
guideline for proper IPv6 implementations.

Updates [RFC1122] [RFC6204]. Each of these documents contains specific information,
requirements, and references to clarify that other draft and proposed standards
governing many aspects of IPv6 implementation.

Many of IETF's early documents use the generic term "IP" synonymously
with the more specific "IPv4." Some examples of this document, especially potential
confusion can be found in
section 3, primarily discusses [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4.
Since RFC1812 is an IPv4 where it uses router specification, the more generic use of IP
in this standard may cause confusion as the term "IP" and can now be
interpreted to mean: IPv4 + IPv6, IPv6-only, or IPv4-only.
Additionally, [RFC1122], is no longer a complete definition of "IP"
or the Internet Protocol suite by itself. itself, because it does not include
IPv6. For example, section 3.1 does not contain references to the
IPv6 equivalent standards for the Internet layer, section 3.2 is a
protocol walk-through for IPv4 only; only, and section 3.2.1.1 explicitly
requires an IP datagram whose version number is not 4 to be
discarded, which would be detrimental to IPv6 forwarding.
However, portions Additional
instances of RFC1122 refer to the Internet Layer and IP more
in terms this type of its function and problem exist that are less version-specific, such as
Section 1.1.3. In these cases, it is possible to redefine generic not discussed here.
Since existing RFCs say "IP" support to include and require IPv6 for IP-capable nodes and
routers.

Updates [RFC4084] to move "Version Support" from Section 4,
"Additional Terminology" to Section 2, "General Terminology." This
is in places where they may mean IPv4,
implementers are cautioned to reflect the idea ensure that version support they know whether a given
standard is now critical to
defining the types inclusive or exclusive of IPv6. To ensure
interoperability, implementers building IP service, especially with respect nodes will need to Full
Internet Connectivity.

Rather than update the existing support
both IPv4 protocol specification standards
to include IPv6, IETF has defined a completely separate set of
standalone documents which cover and IPv6. Therefore, If the above-listed
standards are standard does not being updated to include the complete technical
details an integral
definition of IPv6, but to identify that a distinction must be made
between both IPv4 and IPv6 IPv6, implementers need to use the other
informative references in some places where IP is used generically.
Current requirements this document as a companion guideline for
proper IPv6 support can be found in [RFC4294], soon
to be updated by [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] and in [RFC6204]. Each
of these documents contains specific information, requirements, and
references to other draft implementations.

To ensure interoperability and proposed standards governing many
aspects of IPv6 implementation.

From a practical perspective, flexibility, the requirements proposed by this draft
mean that: best practice is:

New IP implementations MUST must support IPv6.

Current

Updates to current IP implementations SHOULD should support IPv6.

IPv6 support MUST must be equivalent or better in quality and
functionality when compared to IPv4 support in an a new or updated IP
implementation.

Current

New and new updated IP Networking implementations SHOULD should support IPv4
and IPv6 coexistence (dual-stack), but MUST NOT must not require IPv4 for
proper and complete function.

It is expected that many existing devices and implementations will
not be able to support IPv6 for one or more valid technical
reasons, but for maximum flexibility and compatibility, a best
effort SHOULD be made

Implementers are encouraged to update existing hardware and
software to enable IPv6 support. wherever technically feasible.

3. Acknowledgements

Thanks to the following people for their reviews and comments: Marla
Azinger, Brian Carpenter, Victor Kuarsingh, Jari Arkko, Scott Brim,
Margaret Wasserman, Joe Touch, Fred Baker, Benson Schliesser Schliesser, Eric
Rosen, David Harrington, Wesley Eddy.

4. IANA Considerations

This memo includes no request to IANA.

5. Security Considerations

There are no direct security considerations generated by this
document, but existing documented security considerations for
implementing IPv6 will apply.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC4084] Klensin, J., "Terminology for Describing Internet
Connectivity", BCP 104, RFC 4084, May 2005.

6.2. Informative References

[APNIC-exhaust]
APNIC, "APNIC Press Release", 2011, <http://www.apnic.net/
__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/33246/
Key-Turning-Point-in-Asia-Pacific-IPv4-
Exhaustion_English.pdf >.

[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Chandrasekaran, A., Berg, J., and V. Ganti, U.
Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 Carrier-Grade NAT on
Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03
(work in progress), October 2010. November 2011.

[I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]
Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-11 (work in
progress), May 2011.

[I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]
Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing",
draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-05 (work in
progress), March 2011.

[IANA-exhaust]
IANA, "IANA address allocation", 2011, <http://
www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
ipv4-address-space.xml>.

[RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, June 1995.

[RFC1883] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, December 1995.

[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

[RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
April 2006.

[RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", RFC 6204, April 2011.

[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.

Authors' Addresses

Wesley George
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
US

Phone: +1 703-561-2540
Email: wesley.george@twcable.com
Chris Donley
Cablelabs
858 Coal Creek Circle
Louisville, CO 80027
US

Phone: +1-303-661-9100
Email: C.Donley@cablelabs.com

Christopher Liljenstolpe
Telstra
Level 32/242 Exhibition Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000
AU

Phone: +61-3-8647-6389
Email: cdl@asgaard.org

Lee Howard
Time Warner Cable
13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
US

Phone: +1-703-345-3513
Email: lee.howard@twcable.com