Individual Submission E. Jankiewicz (Ed.) Internet Draft SRI International, Inc. Intended status: Informational September 20, 2010 Expires: March 2011 An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Coexistence draft-jankiewicz-v6ops-v4v6biblio-00.txt Abstract The Internet is in the early stages of what may be a protracted period of coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6. Network operators are challenged with the task of activating IPv6 without negative impact on operating IPv4 networks and their customers. This draft is an informational companion to another draft providing basic guidelines and recommendations for network operators. The goal of this document is to survey the current state of RFCs, Internet-Drafts and external reference materials that define the use cases, problem statements, protocols, transition mechanisms and coexistence tools that will be of interest to a network operator planning to turn on IPv6. 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), 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 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 20, 2009. Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................3 2. IPv6 and related Protocol Specifications.......................4 3. Problem Statements and Use Cases...............................4 4. Deployment Scenarios and Architectures.........................5 5. How-to, Whitepapers and FAQs...................................5 6. Transition/Coexistence Tools...................................6 6.1. Address Mapping...........................................7 6.2. Tunneling Mechanisms......................................7 6.2.1. Teredo...............................................8 6.2.2. IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd)and Extensions............8 6.2.3. Tunnel Support Protocol (TSP)........................8 6.2.4. Residual IPv4 Deployment over IPv6-only Infrastructure8 6.3. Translation...............................................9 6.3.1. Historic Approach....................................9 6.3.2. Current Translation Approaches.......................9 6.3.2.1. An IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet...........10 6.3.2.2. The IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network...........10 6.3.2.3. The IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network...........11 6.3.2.4. An IPv4 network to the IPv6 Internet...........11 6.3.2.5. An IPv6 network to an IPv4 network.............11 6.3.2.6. An IPv4 network to an IPv6 network.............11 6.3.2.7. The IPv6 Internet to the IPv4 Internet.........11 6.3.2.8. The IPv4 Internet to the IPv6 Internet.........12 7. Prefix and Address Assignment and Distribution................12 8. Experiments, Trials and Prototypes............................13 9. Implementation Reports........................................13 10. Miscellaneous................................................13 11. Security Considerations......................................14 12. IANA Considerations..........................................14 13. Conclusions..................................................14 14. References...................................................14 14.1. Normative References....................................14 Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 14.2. Informative References..................................14 15. Acknowledgments..............................................14 1. Introduction Since the IPv6 protocol was defined in 1995 as RFC 1883 (replaced in 1998 by RFC 2460) the Internet has been in a long transition from IPv4 to IPv6. In reality, we are still in the early stages of what is likely to be a protracted period of coexistence, where IPv6 penetration in hosts (both servers and clients) will gradually ramp up as networks make IPv6 available through their infrastructures. Network operators face a daunting task to design and implement plans to activate IPv6 without negative impact on large (in some cases very large) operating IPv4 networks with many live customers. Some basic guidelines and recommendations for network operators are being developed (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-01) and this draft is an informational companion to that effort. The goal of this document is to survey the current state of RFCs, active (and expired but still relevant) Internet-Drafts and external reference materials that define the use cases, problem statements, protocols, transition mechanisms and coexistence tools that will be of interest to a network operator planning to turn on IPv6. This is a dynamic and evolving marketplace of ideas. At best, this draft is a blurry snapshot of the landscape near to the time of its publication. The editor intends this compendium to be merely the starting point for an active database or wiki available for community contribution including feedback on the real-world experience of network operators as they turn on IPv6. The following sections comprise an annotated bibliography of the currently available documentation to knowledge of the editor. It is provided as informational guidance only, and any network operator contemplating an IPv6 implementation will of course exercise due diligence in researching all the issues, standards and recommendations and analyze applicability to the particular network operation. Note that as the body of this text includes full reference information for the bibliography entries these are not included in the normal Reference section. [Editor's note to be removed before publication: While this draft is circulating, the editor is interested in any and all pointers to additional useful references. Contributions of Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 capsule summaries and applicability for any of the listed entries would also be appreciated and will be graciously acknowledged. If I have missed anyone who already chipped in, this will be cheerfully rectified upon your reminder via a private e-mail. ] 2. IPv6 and related Protocol Specifications "IPv6 Node Requirements" J. Loughney, Ed. April 2006 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4294 "IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis" E. Jankiewicz, J. Loughney, T. Narten July 12, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05 RFC 4294 and its update draft are included by reference. These provide a comprehensive overview of the IPv6 baseline specifications and the reader is directed to them to avoid a redundant listing here. 3. Problem Statements and Use Cases "Problem Statements of IPv6 Transition of ISP" Y. Lee, Ed. September 4, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-01 This draft is being developed by an ad-hoc group interested in providing guidance to network operators on the IPv6 transition. It will include high level use cases (as contributed by IETF participants with network operator experience) and a problem statement documenting what additional work IETF could do to provide sufficient tools and guidance for the network operators "Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 Deployment" R. Koodli, July 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks-01 "Routing Loop Attack using IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed Mitigations", G. Nakibly and F. Templin, Sept 12, 2010 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-00.txt "Use Case for IPv6 Transition for a Large-Scale Broadband Service" H/ Tian and XY. Li September 15, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tian-v4v6tran-broadband-sp-usecase- 00 [v4v6 drafts to be] Huang: Broadband Use Case Zhou: Mobile Use Case Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 4. Deployment Scenarios and Architectures "Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment", B. Carpenter, S. Jiang April 15, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops- -scenarios-00 "Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios", B. Carpenter, S. Jiang and V. Kuarasingh August 18, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00 5. How-to, Whitepapers and FAQs RFC 5211 "An Internet Transition Plan." J. Curran, July 2008 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5211 "Guidelines for Using Transition Mechanisms During IPv6 Deployment", http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-06 "IPv6 Transition Guide For A Large ISP Providing Broadband Access", G. Yang (Ed.), L. Hu and J. Lin September 15, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yang-v4v6tran-ipv6-transition-guide- 00 http://www.slideshare.net/ocl999/suggestion-for-an-ipv6-roll-out http://everythingsysadmin.com/2010/08/methods-of-converting-to- ipv6.html "Happy Eyeballs: Trending Towards Success (IPv6 and SCTP)", D. Wing, A. Yourtchenko, P. Natarajan. Aug 20, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-http-new-tech-01 This draft makes several recommendations to ensure user satisfaction and a smooth transition from HTTP's pervasive IPv4 to IPv6 and from TCP to SCTP. While the target audience is app developers and content providers, network operators should be aware of techniques needed to maintain peaceful coexistence without negative impact on end-user perception of service level. "IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)", Roque Gagliano, 15-Jul-10 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-v6inixp This draft suggests that in an Internet Exchange Point one might use an address that helps in debugging routing exchanges. One could also look at what other folks do, embedding identifying marks in addresses. For example, Facebook includes "face:b00c" in the IID portion of their address. Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 6. Transition/Coexistence Tools As network operators and end-users independently proceed with transition to IPv6 while others continue to use IPv4, a potentially long period of coexistence will ensue. Variations on terminology have been used since the specification of IPv6; transition implies a process whereby the star of IPv6 rises and the star of IPv4 sets; coexistence implies that both will operate together. Due to thoroughly discussed limits to the growth of an Internet using only IPv4, IPv6 is a necessary technology for the future of the Internet. However, nothing compels the elimination of IPv4; no protocol police will forbid its use in the foreseeable future. IPv4 may disappear due to irrelevance when IPv6 is so pervasive to make it redundant, but network operators should be prepared to operate IPv4 and IPv6 in a mixed deployment for some time. However, the techniques and mechanisms supported by a network operator can be expected to evolve and change over time as a rational goal would be to gradually shift coexistence costs (real operational expense as well as convenience) from "early adopters" of IPv6 to the shrinking pool of IPv4 maintainers. Various techniques are required for coexistence, roughly divided into three categories: 1. Address Mapping: Many situations will require the use of address mapping to maintain scalability in the face of dwindling IPv4 global address space and to support translation and tunneling approaches. 2. Tunneling: A method for the encapsulation and transport of one protocol over or through the infrastructure that favors the other, e.g. IPv6 traffic via an IPv4 infrastructure 3. Translation: A mechanism for rewriting packets from one protocol to the other so they can be delivered as native (non- encapsulated) packets typically due to incompatible end nodes, e.g. an IPv6 client to an IPv4 server. These categories are not mutually exclusive, as some scenarios and solutions incorporate aspects of multiple approaches. "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4213.txt Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 6.1. Address Mapping "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter, 18-Jun-10 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-incremental-cgn "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers" Bagnulo, Matthews, van Beijnum, July 10, 2010 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate- stateful/ "Legacy NAT Traversal for IPv6: Simple Address Mapping for Premises Legacy Equipment (SAMPLE)" http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00 "Some Considerations on the Load-Balancer for NAT64" D. Zhang et al. August 25, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wang-behave-nat64-load-balancer-02 "NAT64 for Dual Stack Mobile IPv6" B. Sarikaya and F. Xia June 4, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-behave-mext-nat64-dsmip-00 "NAT64 for Proxy Mobile IPv6" B. Sarikaya and F. Xia June 4, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-behave-netext-nat64-pmip-00 "A Note on NAT64 Interaction with Mobile IPv6" W. Haddad and C. Perkins April 28, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-haddad-mext-nat64-mobility-harmful- 01 "Referrals Across an IPv6/IPv4 Translator" D. Wing, October 19, 2009 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-behave-nat64-referrals-01 While this draft is expired, this issue remains a topic of conversation, including a Bar-BoF at IETF 78. Referrals across disparate address domains may be needed for provision of services such as SIP during transition. 6.2. Tunneling Mechanisms RFC 2473 "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification." A. Conta and S. Deering, December 1998 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2473 Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 RFC 3053 "IPv6 Tunnel Broker" A. Durand, I. Guardini and D. Lento January 2001 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3053 6.2.1. Teredo "Teredo Extensions", D. Thaler, July 12, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-v6ops-teredo-extensions-07 6.2.2. IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd)and Extensions "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)" R. Despres January 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5569 "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd)-Protocol Specification" W. Townsley and O. Troan August 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5969 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus-00 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-02 6.2.3. Tunnel Support Protocol (TSP) RFC 5572 "IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP)" M. Blanchet and F. Parent, February 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5572 TSP is an Experimental RFC defining a method for a tunnel client to negotiate tunnel characteristics with a tunnel broker. It enables tunnels in various deployment architectures including NAT traversal and mobility, and for user authentication it utilizes: RFC 4422 "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)" A. Melikov ad K. Zeilenga(Eds.) June 2006 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4422 6.2.4. Residual IPv4 Deployment over IPv6-only Infrastructure Further down the transition road, operators may desire to retire IPv4 routing support and move their backbone networks to IPv6-only. There may be residual IPv4 legacy customers (clients and servers) still requiring the delivery of IPv4 packets. While the previously proposed Dual-Stack Transition Mechanism (DSTM) approach attempted to satisfy this use case, it was complex and stateful. A stateless approach to IPv4 residual deployment (4rd) is defined in section 3.2 of the Stateless Address Mapping (SAM) draft. At the time of this Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 publication, several network operators in Japan are planning implementation to support residual IPv4 customers. "Stateless Address Mapping (SAM) - a Simplified Mesh-Softwire Model" Despres, R. July 12, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-sam-01 6.3. Translation From the earliest specification of IPv6 IETF contributors have recognized that translation would be a necessary tool for transition and coexistence, as IPv6 was designed as an incompatible replacement rather than an extension of IPv4. The original approach to stateless translation defined in RFC 2765 and its implementation as NA(P)T-PT as described in RFC 2766 had a number of issues that resulting in the approach being deprecated by RFC 4966. Recently the Behave WG has taken on the work of defining a set of scenarios covering the use cases for translation, prioritizing the work and defining new solutions that overcome the deficiencies of the historic approach. 6.3.1. Historic Approach RFC 2765 "Stateless IP/ICMP Translation (SIIT)." E. Nordmark, February 2000 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2765 RFC 2766 "Network Address Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT- PT)." G. Tsirtsis and P. Srisresh, February 2000 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2766 6.3.2. Current Translation Approaches A renewed effort to define new translation mechanisms started with discussions in the Internet Area (intarea) meeting and the Technical Plenary at IETF 71 in Dublin, and contined at a special meeting in Montreal in October 2008. This led to a commitment by contributors in the Behave WG to take on the work. A set of scenarios were defined along with a framework for the translation solutions. "A Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation" F. Baker et al. August 17, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10 This draft (Framework) is the place to start to understand the historic context for translation, the definition and rationale for the set of translation scenarios and canonical definitions for some of the terminology that arises when talking about translation and coexistence in general. Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 The 4 deployment modes for these scenarios are: 1. Connecting between the IPv4 Internet and the IPv6 Internet 2. Connecting an IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet 3. Connecting an IPv4 network to the IPv6 Internet 4. Connecting between an IPv4 network and an IPv6 network As solutions may differ with respect to the initiating end of the conversation, 8 scenarios are defined in the Framework draft, as recapped in the following sections along with specifications that fit each scenario. Some general specifications that are cited in the various solution specifications are: "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators" C. Bao et al. August 16, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10 "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo et al. July 5, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10 6.3.2.1. An IPv6 network to the IPv4 Internet The Framework defines Scenario 1 for an early adopter (end user or network operator) which establishes an IPv6 network and needs to maintain access to the global IPv4 Internet, preferably without assigning IPv4 addresses to the nodes of the IPv6 network. Either the Stateful or Stateless solutions proposed may satisfy this deployment scenario. "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo, P. Matthews and I. van Beijnum July 10, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm" X. Li, C. Bao and F. Baker August 21, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-22 6.3.2.2. The IPv4 Internet to an IPv6 network The Framework defines Scenario 2 for a node on the IPv4 Internet initiating a transmission to a node on an IPv6 network. The original approach to this deployment was SIIT (in RFC 2765) which has been Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 deprecated (by RFC 4966). The Stateless Translation solution for Scenario 1 also would work for this case as it does support IPv4- initiated communication with a subset of IPv6 addresses. 6.3.2.3. The IPv6 Internet to an IPv4 network The Framework defines Scenario 3 where a legacy IPv4 network has a requirement to provide services to users in the IPv6 Internet. Stateful Translation with static AAAA records in DNS to represent the IPv4-only hosts will work. "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo, P. Matthews and I. van Beijnum July 10, 2010. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers" M. Bagnulo et al. July 5, 2010 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10 6.3.2.4. An IPv4 network to the IPv6 Internet Scenario 4 is not easy to solve but fortunately will not arise until significant IPv6 uptake. In-network translation is not viable, and other techniques should be considered. 6.3.2.5. An IPv6 network to an IPv4 network Scenario 5 describes a configuration where both the IPv6 network and IPv4 network are within the administrative control of the same organization. It appears amenable to the same solutions proposed for Scenario 1. 6.3.2.6. An IPv4 network to an IPv6 network Scenario 6 is the mirror image of Scenario 5, with communication initiated from the IPv4 side. It appears amenable to the same solution proposed for Scenario 2. 6.3.2.7. The IPv6 Internet to the IPv4 Internet The Framework indicates that Scenario 7, the interconnection of the IPv4 Internet with the IPv6 Internet may appear to be an ideal case for an in-network translator (such as the deprecated NAT-PT), but there is no viable way to map the immense IPv6 address space onto IPv4. This situation would not entail until significant IPv6 adoption, and has not been a priority for solution. Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 6.3.2.8. The IPv4 Internet to the IPv6 Internet Scenario 8 presents a challenge similar to Scenario 7. 7. Prefix and Address Assignment and Distribution RFC 4291 "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture." R. Hinden, S. Deering. February 2006. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4291.txt "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators" C. Bao et al. Aug 16, 2010 (Status: Standards Track, updates 4291) http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-address-format/ RFC 3177 "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to Sites." IAB, IESG. September 2001. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3177.txt "IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites", T. Narten, G. Huston, R. Roberts, 12-Jul-10 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary RFC 5942 "IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes." H. Singh, W. Beebee, E. Nordmark. July 2010. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5942.txt RFC 4862 "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration." S. Thomson, T. Narten, T. Jinmei. September 2007. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4862.txt RFC 4941 "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6." T. Narten, R. Draves, S. Krishnan. September 2007. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4941.txt The IPv6 addressing architecture presumes that the remaining 64 bits are an endpoint interface identifier. This could be the MAC Address (EUI-64 Address) in an appropriate encoding, or it could be what is called a "privacy address", which is a random number. You will find the most common approach to that, for hosts, in this RFC. RFC 3315 "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)." R. Droms (Ed.), J. Bound, B. Volz, T. Lemon, C. Perkins, M. Carney. July 2003. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3315.txt Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 8. Experiments, Trials and Prototypes 6bone (concluded) http://go6.net/ipv6-6bone/ Hurricane Electric (ongoing) http://www.he.net/ T-Mobile USA (ongoing) http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta Comcast (ongoing) http://www.comcast6.net/ Internode ADSL (Ongoing) http://ipv6.internode.on.net/access/adsl/ Verizon FiOS (small scale test - concluded) http://newscenter.verizon.com/press-releases/verizon/2010/verizon- begins-testing-ipv6.html 9. Implementation Reports IPv6 Rapid Deployment http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5569 10. Miscellaneous See the Dancing Turtle, but only if you have native IPv6! http://www.kame.net/ Eric Vyncke is collecting some statistics on IPv6 penetration. http://www.vyncke.org/ipv6status/ A reasonable estimation of how fast the sky is falling. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ A graphical representation of IPv4 depletion. http://www.ipv4depletion.com/old.html "IPv6 Adoption Remains Slow, Survey Says" W. Jackson, GCN Sept. 5, 2101 http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/14/adoption-of-ipv6-is-slow.aspx http://www.nro.net/documents/GlobalIPv6SurveySummaryv2.pdf Some troubling, yet interesting news about what operators and end- user organizations are thinking about IPv6 adoption at this time. Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 11. Security Considerations This draft does not introduce any security considerations. 12. IANA Considerations This draft does not require any action from IANA. [Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed.] 13. Conclusions This draft is merely the starting point for a network operator planning an IPv6 rollout. The intention of the editor was to document the great work that is already available that can help in the process and to perhaps save a few hours of redundant effort for someone to find this information. Of course, this will be out of date before it is published as active research continues in coexistence and transition tools. The editor hopes it is at least a useful "You Are Here" map to help navigate the thrill rides available in the IPv6 theme park. This compendium could serve as an initial set of data to populate an active database or wiki. This would allow continuing community contribution including feedback on the real-world experience of network operators as they turn on IPv6. 14. References 14.1. Normative References None. 14.2. Informative References Complete reference information is included in the body of the draft. 15. Acknowledgments In addition to the authors of the cited RFCs, drafts, websites and other publications and many folks on the v6ops and v4v6transition mailing lists, the editor wishes to acknowledge significant contributions from Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Remi Despres, Tina Tsou, Yiu Lee, Marc Blanchet and many contributors on the v4v6trans mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 September 2010 Author's Address Edward J. Jankiewicz SRI International, Inc. 333 Ravenswood Ave Menlo Park, CA USA Phone: 732-389-1003 or 650-859-2000 Email: edward.jankiewicz@sri.com Jankiewicz (Ed.) Expires March 20, 2011 [Page 15]