Internet DRAFT - draft-donley-v6ops-ce-router-design
draft-donley-v6ops-ce-router-design
Network Working Group C. Donley
Internet-Draft CableLabs
Intended status: Informational J. Brzozowski
Expires: September 30, 2012 Comcast
H. Liu
D-Link
V. Kuarsingh
Rogers Communications
J. Weil
Time Warner Cable
March 29, 2012
Design Considerations for an IPv6 CE Router
draft-donley-v6ops-ce-router-design-00
Abstract
This document describes design considerations for IPv6 CE routers.
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 September 30, 2012.
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
Donley, et al. Expires September 30, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ipv6-ce-router-considerations March 2012
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
2. Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Address acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Transition technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Donley, et al. Expires September 30, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ipv6-ce-router-considerations March 2012
1. Introduction
This document descrbes design considerations for IPv6 customer edge
(CE) routers designed for residential/small business use
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6204bis]. These routers may also support IPv4 and
potentially one/more transition technologies. These design
considerations are crafted to ensure a safe and orderly transition to
IPv6 while maintaining a quality IP connection to the customer
premise.
2. Design Considerations
There are two overriding goals for CE routers:
o Offer customers the best possible quality of experience.
o Do not unnecessarily overwhelm ISP resources.
2.1. Address acquisition
The IPv6 CE router needs to support connectivity to one or more
access network architectures. There are generally three IPv6 address
acquisition mechanisms in widespread use today:
o stateful DHCPv6 [RFC3315]
o Stateless Address Autoconfiguraton (SLAAC)[RFC4862]
o unnumbered
Design considerations for address acquisition:
1. IPv6 CE routers should support one or more of the above address
acquisition mechanisms.
2. Only one address acquisition mechanism should be used for a given
protocol (e.g. native IPv4/IPv6) at a given time.
3. Not all access architectures support all address acquisition
mechanisms. When attached to access networks that do not support
certain address acquisition mechanisms, the CE router should not
attempt to use unsupported addressing mechanisms, if it is
possible to identify such a limitation.
4. The CE router should attempt address acquisition gracefully. It
should not overwhelm service provider provisioning servers.
Donley, et al. Expires September 30, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ipv6-ce-router-considerations March 2012
5. If a Service Provider sends a hint to the CE router as to which
addressing mechanism to use, the CE router should honor the hint.
2.2. Transition technologies
CE routers should support technologies for providing ipv4 access over
IPv6 networks and IPv6 access over IPv4 networks. While the IETF has
defined a large number of such protocols, the CE router need not
implement all of them. In particular, it should implement those
technologies required by ISPs. At the time of this writing, such
technologies include:
o Native Dual-Stack
o IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6RD) [RFC5969]
o Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite)[RFC6333]
Design considerations for transition technologies:
1. Native IPv4/IPv6 service should be preferred over tunneled
service.
2. Avoid NAT, when possible. [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
3. While multihoming (supporting both native/tunneled service for a
given protocol) may be a valid approach, it need not be
supported. Singlehoming should also be considered a valid
approach.
3. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. Acknowledgements
Donley, et al. Expires September 30, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ipv6-ce-router-considerations March 2012
6. Informative References
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
Donley, C., Howard, L., Colorado, U., and V. Kuarsingh,
"Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Network
Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-03 (work in
progress), November 2011.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6204bis]
Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
Troan, "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-07 (work in progress),
March 2012.
[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.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, August 2010.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
Authors' Addresses
Chris Donley
CableLabs
Email: c.donley@cablelabs.com
John Brzozowski
Comcast
Hans Liu
D-Link
Donley, et al. Expires September 30, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ipv6-ce-router-considerations March 2012
Victor Kuarsingh
Rogers Communications
Jason Weil
Time Warner Cable
Donley, et al. Expires September 30, 2012 [Page 6]
