Internet DRAFT - draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps

draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps






6RENUM                                                      B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                                  S. Jiang
Expires: May 13, 2013                       Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                        November 9, 2012


                 Next Steps for Renumbering IPv6 Sites
                  draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00

Abstract

   This document summarises for the record the next steps proposed
   following the completion of chartered work in the 6RENUM WG.  It is
   not expected to become an RFC.

Status of this Memo

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 13, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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




Carpenter & Jiang         Expires May 13, 2013                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft            Next steps for 6renum            November 2012


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Advice to the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  IETF work items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   8.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6








































Carpenter & Jiang         Expires May 13, 2013                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft            Next steps for 6renum            November 2012


1.  Introduction

   The IPv6 Site Renumbering (6RENUM) working group completed its
   chartered set of documents by November 2012.  The present document
   summarises for the record the next steps proposed and discussed in
   the final WG meeting.  It is posted as a draft for convenience but is
   not expected to become an RFC.

   The next steps are divided into two categories, after analysis of the
   gap analysis documents in particular [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis],
   [I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem].  Firstly, there are items that have
   been identified as needed for site renumbering but are either not
   widely implemented or not widely used.  These items need to be
   documented in the form of advice to the community, but do not appear
   to require specification work in the IETF.  Secondly, there are items
   that may be useful for site renumbering, and which need specification
   work of some kind.  The two following sections address these two
   areas.


2.  Advice to the community

   The following items could form part of one or more informational (or
   possibly BCP) documents.

   1.  The long-standing advice that names, rather than numeric
       addresses, should be used whenever possible is reiterated.  In
       general that means DNS names, but in some circumstances it might
       mean some other form of parametric name.  A specific case is that
       IPsec security associations should use names, as allowed since
       [RFC2407], whenever possible.
   2.  Some form of name-based service discovery should be used wherever
       possible, rather than configuring service addresses.  This could
       be DNS-based, mDNS-based or even SLP.
   3.  Addresses used for internal traffic could be stabilised by
       deploying a ULA prefix (as well as a globally routed prefix).
   4.  Sites should use some sort of configuration management tool.
       This could be described as an IP address management (IPAM) tool,
       an asset management tool, or more generally as an operational
       support system (OSS).  Its role is to populate DNS, reverse DNS,
       DHCPv6, and router configurations.  The tool should use DNS names
       or parametric names in configuration files.  See
       [I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering].
   5.  Include servers in DHCPv6 to avoid manual configuration.
   6.  Use Secure Dynamic DNS Update [RFC3007] where appropriate
       (requires key management in the management tool).





Carpenter & Jiang         Expires May 13, 2013                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft            Next steps for 6renum            November 2012


   7.  Plan a renumbering procedure as part of the IPv6 network design.
       Handy references include [RFC4192], [RFC5887],
       [I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise], [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis],
       [I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem].
   8.  Avoid software license systems that rely on IP addresses.

   Finally, it is noted that the management tool mentioned above might
   be able to take advantage of certain features that are defined but
   apparently not widely used.  In particular, these are DHCPv6
   RECONFIGURE/RENEW [RFC3315], DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] and ICMPv6 router
   renumbering [RFC2894].  There is an open question whether the latter
   is in fact usable.


3.  IETF work items

   These are the items identified in the 6RENUM gap analysis that appear
   to need work in the appropriate IETF WGs.

   1.  Reconcile use of DHCPv6 and RA in an enterprise network.
       *  The DHCPv6 and ND state machines inside a host influence each
          other.
       *  What should a DHCPv6-configured host do when it receives RA
          messages containing a new prefix?  Current implementations
          just configure the new prefix.  Is this OK?
       *  What should a SLAAC-configured host do when it receives RA
          messages with "M" set?
       *  See analysis in [I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching].
   2.  Bulk DHVPv6 RECONFIGURE mechanism.
   3.  Clarify how a MIPv6 host rebinds with its home agent if the
       latter is renumbered while mobile is disconnected.
   4.  Review ICMPv6 router renumbering [RFC2894] to see if it needs
       updating and if it is viable as a solution.


4.  Security Considerations

   This document defines no protocol, so does not introduce any new
   security exposures.


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.







Carpenter & Jiang         Expires May 13, 2013                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft            Next steps for 6renum            November 2012


6.  Acknowledgements

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

   Brian Carpenter was a visitor at the Computer Laboratory, Cambridge
   University during this work.


7.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-carpenter-6renum-next-steps-00: original version, 2012-11-09.


8.  Informative References

   [I-D.baker-6renum-oss-renumbering]
              Baker, F., "Renumbering using an Operational Support
              System", draft-baker-6renum-oss-renumbering-00 (work in
              progress), November 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-6renum-enterprise]
              Jiang, S., Liu, B., and B. Carpenter, "IPv6 Enterprise
              Network Renumbering Scenarios and Guidelines",
              draft-ietf-6renum-enterprise-03 (work in progress),
              October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-6renum-gap-analysis]
              Liu, B., Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and S. Venaas, "IPv6
              Site Renumbering Gap Analysis",
              draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-04 (work in progress),
              October 2012.

   [I-D.ietf-6renum-static-problem]
              Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Problem Statement for
              Renumbering IPv6 Hosts with Static Addresses",
              draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem-02 (work in progress),
              September 2012.

   [I-D.liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching]
              Liu, B., Wang, W., and X. Gong, "DHCPv6/SLAAC Address
              Configuration Switching for Host Renumbering",
              draft-liu-6renum-dhcpv6-slaac-switching-01 (work in
              progress), July 2012.

   [RFC2407]  Piper, D., "The Internet IP Security Domain of
              Interpretation for ISAKMP", RFC 2407, November 1998.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,



Carpenter & Jiang         Expires May 13, 2013                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft            Next steps for 6renum            November 2012


              June 1999.

   [RFC2894]  Crawford, M., "Router Renumbering for IPv6", RFC 2894,
              August 2000.

   [RFC3007]  Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
              Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

   [RFC4192]  Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
              Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
              September 2005.

   [RFC5887]  Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering
              Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland,   1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus
   No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com







Carpenter & Jiang         Expires May 13, 2013                  [Page 6]