Internet Engineering Task Force J. Palet Internet-Draft M. Diaz Expires: January 17, 2005 Consulintel July 19, 2004 Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition Algorithm draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans-01.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions of section 3 of RFC 3667. By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. 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 January 17, 2005. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This memo evaluates a method called "auto-transition" to ensure that any device can obtain IPv6 connectivity at any time and whatever network is attached to, even if such network is connected to Internet only with IPv4 or already offers IPv6 but with poor performance. The algorithm looks for the best possible transition mechanism according to performance criteria information available as well as Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 the scenario where the device is located. By implementing such auto-transition algorithm in either or both end nodes or middle boxes (CPEs), users could always obtain IPv6 connectivity with no human intervention. The document doesn't actually provides a complete solution, just an evaluation of the problem and the requirements towards a future documented solution. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Auto-Transition Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Auto-Transition Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Selection of the proper transition mechanism . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Change of transition mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3 New transition mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.1 Layer 2 tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3.2 Layer 3 tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3.3 Layer 4 tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 Discovery of the IPv6 End Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Nomadicity Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5. Network Managed Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 19 Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 1. Introduction This document evaluates a method called "auto-transition" to ensure that any device can obtain IPv6 connectivity at any time and whatever network is attached to, even if such network is connected to Internet only with IPv4 or already offers IPv6 but with poor performance. The main goal is to facilitate the IPv6 deployment in a seamless way for devices, users and applications. Lots of devices and applications around us will benefit obtaining IPv6 connectivity everywhere: home automation, wearable devices, cars, PDAs, mobile phones, peer-to-peer applications, remote control applications, etc. IPv6 is suitable to solve the network requirements that those devices/applications will need: addressing space, end-to-end secure peer-to-peer communication, autoconfiguration features and so on. IPv6 provides autoconfiguration features, enabling devices to work according to the plug-and-play philosophy, that is with no manual intervention. However they only can be applied once the device has obtained IPv6 connectivity. On the other hand, while native IPv6 connectivity is not available everywhere, there is not a good "auto-transition" algorithm to ensure this connectivity. While devices are located in a native IPv6 environment, no manual intervention is required, so non technical users can take advantage of IPv6. However until all or most of the networks are IPv6 native, we need to ensure that the same devices and users can use a transition mechanism that ensures the best possible IPv6 connectivity, without any or low technical knowledge. Is not acceptable require to the users to make manual configurations in order to get the IPv6 connectivity, but is also possible that in the early IPv6 deployment stage, administrators of small and medium size networks (tipically SOHO, SME), will not have the knowledge neither the service from their ISPs. The algorithm will deal with all the tasks required to configure automatically the best IPv6 connectivity at anytime, in any network scenario, which include native IPv6 connectivity detection and transition mechanism selection if required. It can be implemented either in stand-alone devices (hosts, PDA, etc.) or middle boxes like CPE routers. 2. Auto-Transition Overview When the device is attached to the network, either or both stateless [1] or stateful autoconfiguration [2] mechanism are automatically performed by default. The auto-transition algorithm then must check if native IPv6 connectivity is available. Otherwise, the algorithm Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 should try to obtain IPv6 connectivity by using the best transition mechanism according to the network where the devices is attached. Later, the conditions of the network can change, even the user/device can change the location while moving. Consequently the attachment point to the network can be different and the previous transition mechanism no longer be so well-performing or available at all. The auto-transition algorithm has to monitor periodically the network parameters (i.e. IPv4 address, loss, delays, etc.) in order to detect those changes and decide if another transition mechanism different to the one currently being used is convenient and provides better performance to activate it. All this process should be ideally automatic in order to avoid the user to make any manual configuration. At the most, users only should introduce some parameters by means of a wizard during the installation process of the application that implements the auto-transition algorithm, but once it is up and running, all the tasks should be made by the system and no manual intervention required. This approach should be available at least in two kind of platforms. o End devices: Devices that do not intend to provide IPv6 connectivity to others. They are typically devices that would get IPv6 connectivity by means of Router Advertisement if they were attached to a native IPv6 scenario. Examples are hosts, PDAs, mobile phones, cameras, home automation devices, white goods, consumer electronics, etc. o CPE devices: Devices that are located between two different networks or networks segments. Typically routers, IPv4 NAT boxes, etc. They should provide native IPv6 connectivity to the whole network(s) located behind them by announcing an IPv6 prefix. With this approach this kind of devices will be plug-and-play, so users only have to attach them to the network and they will deal with all the tasks to get IPv6 connectivity. A few applications include home networks, hotels, hot-spots and so on. 3. Auto-Transition Requirements The best IPv6 connectivity, in principle, is obviously the native one if available, since it should not add extra delays in the communication neither introduce more complexity to the networks. Consequently the auto-transition algorithm first must check if IPv6 native connectivity is available. However it strongly depends on the ISP support and can be expected that in the early IPv6 deployment Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 stage, only a few ISPs will provide it. If native connectivity is not available the auto-transition algorithm must choose the right transition mechanism to be used to ensure the IPv6 connectivity. A number of transition mechanisms have been defined already: Teredo, TB/TS, TSP, STEP, ISATAP, 6to4, tunnels, DSTM, etc. All of them work when the host willing to get IPv6 connectivity has a public IPv4 address. Even some of them also work when the host is located behind a NAT box that allows proto-41 forwarding [3]. However there are other kind of NAT boxes that prevent the current transition mechanisms to work, so there is a gap that could be filled with new kind of solutions, possibly layer 2 or layer 4 tunnels. The adequate selection of the proper transition mechanism is one of the keys of the auto-transition concept. We should understand that the auto-transition goal is to facilitate an adecuate transition to IPv6. Towards that, it tries to automatically decide the most optimal transition solution in every given scenario, which may be not the perfect one. Actualy implementing a perfect auto-transition solution could be a very complicated, overloading and slow algorithm (in addition to the delay in its specification and development); in the case it happens, could bring us the paradigm that there is no anymore an incentive for native IPv6 connectivity, which clearly is in contradiction with this memo goal and in general the IPv6 deployment one. 3.1 Selection of the proper transition mechanism A few scenarios with particular network requirements had been defined already ([4], [5], [6], [7]). Not all the transition scenarios fit in such network scenarios, as being evaluated at [8], which is trying to make the best fit to each scenario. The auto-transition algorithm may take into account not only the results shown in [8], because it is also possible a wider focus to select the best transition mechanism to be used. What the end user always demands is the best performance on the IPv6 connectivity, so it should be the main criteria to choose the right transition mechanism. Distance, delays, loss and bandwidth, are some of the related parameters that could be used as metrics to be measured for knowing the link performance. A device can present different values of such metrics according to the transition mechanism that is being used even when attached to the same network. Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 A combination of all the metrics could provide a fine evaluation of the connection performance. However in order to make the mechanism as simple as possible only delay and loss should be considered. According to this philosophy the auto-transition algorithm could operate by means of the following simple algorithm: loop detect_scenario if (native_IPv6_available and native_priority) use_native_IPv6_connectivity else if (first_check or performance_check_allowed) check_performance use_best_mechanism endif endif configure_connectivity wait (link_check_timeout) endloop Figure 1: Simple Auto-transition algorithm It is important to note what each task or parameter means: o detect_scenario: This task deals with detecting the scenario where the device willing to have IPv6 connectivity is located. It could check if native IPv6 is available, if a public IPv4 address is available, if a NAT is being used and what type, if there is a proxy or firewall, or if other protocols can be operated. o native_IPv6_available: Detects if native IPv6 is available. o native_priority: Detects if native IPv6 has priority, for instance, even in the case the performance is lower than the one that could be obtained with alternative transition mechanism that may be used (i.e. a native IPv6 network with is attached to a non-native WAN link with IPv6 tunneled over IPv4 to and end-point which offers a bad performance while there is a much better TB/ TS). This condition could be set by the OS, or even under user or applications control. o use_native_IPv6_connectivity: Configure the interface to use native IPv6 connectivity, using stateless or stateful autoconfiguration, upon their availability. o first_check: Defines if this is the first time this check is being Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 done after an interface reset. o performance_check_allowed: Defines if the performance of the selected mechanism can be measured after selected, for instance, to avoid traffic being generated in non-flat rate links (3GPP, ISDN, ...). o check_performance: According to the detected scenario, a number of mechanisms could be used. This task checks the performance that each of such transition mechanism provides, including native IPv6 if available, by measuring delays and losses. The mechanisms subset will be defined by taking into account [8], but others could be considered. o use_best_mechanism: According to the measurement results, the best mechanism is selected. o configure_connectivity: Either native IPv6 connectivity or the best available transition mechanism is configured. o link_check_timeout: Once the IPv6 connectivity is obtained, the auto-transition algorithm periodically monitors the link status. The delay between consecutive checks is defined by this variable. A possible list of mechanisms to be checked, ordered by preference could be: 1. Native IPv6 Connectivity 2. TS with proto-41 ([3]) 3. TS with UDP 4. ISATAP 5. STEP 6. 6to4 7. DSTM 8. Teredo 3.2 Change of transition mechanism Change of transition mechanism refers to the task to abandon the transition mechanism that is actually being used and start to use Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 another one that presents better performance. This is not an easy task at all, since it involves at least two important issues: 1. To maintain the current IPv6 address. This is very important in some situations, since otherwise applications with communications opened will not work. Specially important is the case when the auto-transition algorithm is implemented in border devices that provide native IPv6 connectivity to the whole network. Either the prefix network (i.e. RA), or the IPv6 addresses (i.e. DHCPv6) that they provide, should try to keep the IPv6 addressing parameters. If the auto-transition algorithm has to include the possibility of changing the transition mechanism used without discarding the current connection state, it is necessary to define a method that solves this issue. MIPv6 concepts/solutions could be applied and possibly also those related to multihoming. 2. User authentication without human intervention. The philosophy of the auto-transition algorithm is that all the processes are done automatically, with no human intervention. So, for instance, if the device running the auto-transition algorithm needs to contact with a TB different to the actual one and it requires user authentication, the process should be transparent to the user. It could be based on parameters (login and password) configured through the wizard during the installation process. AAA mechanisms should be used. In order to simplify the solution (i.e. not relying on MIPv6, multihoming or others), it could be decided to keep using the initially selected transitio mechanism, even when not providing the optimal connectivity, but instead ensuring that the IPv6 address is stable. 3.3 New transition mechanisms A number of devices do not allow tunnel-based transition mechanisms to work properly. They are both NAT boxes, proxies or firewalls. Even building IPv6 tunnels over UDP is not always possible since some middle boxes do not forward those packets. When this happens it is required that the auto-transition algorithm uses a method that cannot be rejected by the middle box. The following solutions could be considered: 3.3.1 Layer 2 tunnels By using layer 2 encapsulating methods (L2TP [9], PPTP [10], PPPoE [11]), the middle boxes barriers can be easily overcome since this kind of protocols are very used when building layer 2 VPN. Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 Consequently, one of the following protocol stacks might be used. +--------+ +--------+ | IPv6 | | IPv6 | +--------+ +--------+ | PPP | | PPP | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | L2TP | | PPTP | | IPv6 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | UDP | | TCP | | PPP | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | IPv4 | | IPv4 | | IPv4 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ L2TP tunnel PPTP tunnel PPPoE tunnel Figure 2: Layer 2 tunnels This kind of solution does not seem to be efficient due to the following drawbacks: o It requires that the TS is configured as VPN L2 server. o Overloaded stack. IPv6 connection will have low performance. o Complicated deployment and management due to the control plane for L2TP and PPTP. o Authentication is a must with PPP. It means added complexity. 3.3.2 Layer 3 tunnels VPN's built by mean of layer 3 tunnels can be a solution to allow IPv6 connections cross NAT boxes with no proto-41 forwarding capabilities as well as proxies and firewalls. Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 +--------+ +--------+ | IPv6 | | IPv6 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | IPv4 | | IPv4 | | IPv6 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | PPP | | IPsec | | IPv4 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | IPv4 | | IPv4 | | IPv4 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ PPP-IPv4 IPsec IPv4-IPv4 Figure 3: Layer 3 tunnels Compared to the Layer 2 tunnels, the layer 3 tunnels have the following advantages: o Less overloaded stacks. o Tunnel management simpler. o There are some implementations (VTun, cIPE, TINC). However it also have important drawbacks: o It requires that the TS is configured as VPN L2 server. o Some NAT's could not support those. 3.3.3 Layer 4 tunnels The last resort is to try to overcome the middle barriers by means of the use of frequently used application protocols. There are two well known possibilities that frequently will not create difficulties with neither proxies nor firewalls: TLS/SSL, HTTP and SSH. Furthermore, they neither have problems with NAT boxes. The protocol stack for this solution is as follows: Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | IPv6 | | IPv6 | | IPv6 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | HTTP | | HTTP | | SSH | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | TCP | | TCP | | TCP | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ | IPv4 | | IPv4 | | IPv4 | +--------+ +--------+ +--------+ TLS/SSL tunnel HTTP tunnel SSH tunnel Figure 4: Layer 4 tunnels The main advantage of this approach is the simplicity for the configuration of the tunnel. Furthermore the tunnels can be secured by means of either SSL (using HTTPS instead of HTTP) or SSH. Of course, this solutions are sub-optimal and consequently discouraged. According to the different alternatives, it sounds reasonable that the better solution could be Layer 4-based tunnels, since it is simpler than the others and always will work, but the performance will not be optimal. Instead Layer 3 and Layer 2-based tunnels should be taken into account in implementations of the auto-transition algorithm in order to guarantee the IPv6 connectivity by covering all the possible alternatives. The usage of those new mechanisms is discouraged, unless there is no other choice. In any case, the standardization of those different tunnel options is out of the scope of this document. 3.4 Discovery of the IPv6 End Point Devices running the auto-transition algorithm need to know where to find the IPv6 (tunnel) end point or tunnel server (TS) that provides them the IPv6 connectivity. If native IPv6 connectivity is provided by the ISP and used, this TS will be obviously the link end point and no further work is required. This is slightly more complex when a transition mechanism is required to obtain the IPv6 connectivity. Having in mind that users want plug-and-play devices/services and that most of them do not have any knowledge about how the transition mechanism works or where the nearest Tunnel Broker/Tunnel Sever, 6to4 relay, etc. are located, it is required considering the auto-discovery of the IPv6 TS, so the device can find it automatically. Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 Different transition mechanisms have different IPv6 type of end points. For example, the Tunnel Broker/Tunnel Server uses mainly 6in4 tunnels; TSP can used either 6in4 or IPv6 over UDP tunnels; Teredo uses IPv6 over UDP tunnel, etc. Furthermore, each transition mechanism has its own tunnel setup handshake, so it is not only important to know where the nearest IPv6 TS is located but also what type of transition mechanism/s is able to manage. On the other hand, there are situations where people are crowded, i.e. either conferences, airports, urban areas with high population density, etc. In this scenario is very likely that most of the users choose a particular IPv6 TS, usually because it is nearer or more well known. It is possible that while there exist a few IPv6 TS attending many connections, there can exist a lot of them that are not being used. In this way, most of the users have poor performance in their connections while users using TS without congestion will have good performance. It would be desirable that there were some kind of load balancing in order to uniformly distribute the IPv6 tunnel requests among all available IPv6 TS. The different approaches to cope with this issue are analysed in [12]. 4. Nomadicity Considerations When users move across networks, several situations are possible. From the network point of view, users can or cannot maintain the IPv6 address assigned from their home TS. From the transition mechanism point of view, the new one can or cannot require an authentication process. So clearly some considerations are required regarding the auto-transition algorithm behavior while user is moving. 1. Nodes that do not need to maintain the IPv6 address assigned from their home TS. They are typically nomadic users who get connectivity to "passive" Internet users (browsing, emailing, etc.), but do not need to be "identified" from Internet (nevertheless this situation is changing with next generation p2p applications, VoIP, etc.). Looking for the best IPv6 connectivity can lead the auto-transition algorithm to define as the best TS one of the following: * TSs that do not require authentication process. They are TSs that provide IPv6 connectivity and they do not make any authentication process (TEREDO, 6to4, etc.). This approach does not represent any innovation, so the auto-transition algorithm just contact to the TS and the IPv6 connectivity is obtained. Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 * TSs that require authentication process. They are TSs that only provide IPv6 connectivity to authenticated users (users that previously were somehow registered in the entity providing the IPv6 TS service or some related entity). Automatic AAA mechanism must be defined, in order to ensure the no-human intervention requirement. The TS can or cannot belong to the entity which the user was registered. If so, authentication process is simpler. However, a global authentication only will be possible if there are roaming agreements between the entity that is selected to obtain IPv6 connectivity and the "home" entity which the user is registered. These roaming agreements could be used for billing purposes among others. If there are not such agreements, automatic connectivity is not possible and the auto-transition algorithm has to options: + To choose an alternative transition mechanism, even although it does not offer the best performance. + To inform to the user that the best IPv6 connection is only possible if a new manual registration/authentication process is done. * The behavior should be defined during the wizard installation process of the auto-transition implementation. 2. Nodes that need to maintain the IPv6 address assigned from their home TS. Users belonging to this group are typically users with either server or peer-to-peer applications, devices that need to be tracked (cars, suitcases, etc.), etc. MIPv6 should be applied to this kind of nodes, but the following considerations must to taken into account by the auto-transition algorithm: * Mobility capability should be an option that should be configured by means of the installation wizard. If chosen, the first time that the auto-transition algorithm is run, it must check if a Home Agent (HA) exists either in the current IPv6 network or in the TS. In fact, this option should condition the order of searching for the best transition mechanism to get IPv6 connectivity. In this way, only mechanisms compatible with the presence of HA should be taken into account (mechanisms providing static IPv6 network prefix like TB, TSP, ISATAP, etc.). The auto-transition algorithm should record the mechanism used to get IPv6 connectivity. Some transition mechanisms like ISATAP, allow the HA deployment into the home network which the nomadic device is initially attached. Others, like TB, could be deployed in different networks from the one where the device is physically Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 attached, but the HA could be implemented into the TS that provides the IPv6 connectivity. On the other hand, the auto-transition algorithm should discard transition mechanisms that build the IPv6 network prefix from the IPv4 address (6to4, TEREDO, etc.). This is required because it is no possible the deployment of the HA into the same IPv6 network, so no mobility features would be possible. If no HA is discovered the first time that the auto-transition algorithm is run, then no MIPv6 support is possible, so the user should be informed and the usual auto-transition algorithm must be applied to get IPv6 connectivity. * Once the node is away from home network, it needs to get IPv6 connectivity. The auto-transition algorithm should first check if it possible to maintain the same IPv6 home address, according to the mechanism used, before moving for getting the home address. There are some kinds of transition mechanisms that allow this operation like a TB with several TS associated. In this scenario, the node first gets the IPv6 home address from a TS. After the node move to other location, it could get IPv6 connectivity from a different TS that is associated to the same TB. It is possible that either the new TS has the same /64 network prefix that the old TS or it can be configured by the TB to forward/send tunneled packets coming/going from/to the nomadic node. In this way the nomadic device could maintain the IPv6 home address. Even if the new TS does not belong to the same TB but there are roaming agreements between the involved entities, the maintenance of the IPv6 address/prefix could be possible. How to do this configuration is out of scope of this document. * If the IPv6 home address can not be maintained, then once the nomadic device has a new IPv6 address by means of any transition mechanism, it must contact to the HA to communicate the care of address following MIPv6. Other considerations pointed out in [12] should be taken into account. 5. Network Managed Transition The algorithm described in this memo to get automatically the best possible IPv6 connectivity follows an approach based on the role of the user device Operating System. However the algorithm and in general the transition, could be improved and/or even more easily managed from the ISP point of view, if the network presents services that could help the auto-transition Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 algorithm. Following this approach, Policy Based Networks (PBN) [14] can offer a candidate solution (not an exclusive one) to offer facilities to the auto-transition algorithm. Policies stored on the network repository might include information about the type of transition mechanisms implemented into the network to which the user device is attached to, so the auto-transition algorithm implemented into the user device would have more information to choose a better one or directly those possible in that network, or those suggested by the ISP, or those enabled by the ISP policy. In a more advanced behaviour the auto-transition algorithm implemented into the user device would inform to the Policy Decision Point (PDP), about features such as type of connection, date/time, user privileges and/or whatever other relevant information. Then, the PDP might interact with other policies stored on the repository such as QoS Policies, Security Policies and so on, in order to propose the more adequate transition mechanism to be used by the device willing to get IPv6 connectivity. In accordance with [14], based on this approach the user device will act as a Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) as well as implementing the auto-transition algorithm. Considering that most of the ISP will not necessarily deploy transition mechanisms in the early stage, advanced IPv6 Internet Exchanges could provide this kind of services [15] and in general policy-based capabilities. The IX is not just a central peering point which facilitates any new service deployment, but also a place where lots useful information (routes, QoS, link conditions, etc.) about several domains is available. With this philosophy, the transition policies will be one more facility provided by this type of IXs. Whether the network provides this type of transition facilities or not, the auto-transition algorithm, when present, must always work and it will provide the best possible IPv6 connectivity. We can envisage the following alternatives: o Only auto-transition algorithm present. Depending on the network, the transition could not be "optimal", but the auto-transition algorithm in the user device must be capable of provide IPv6 connectivity. o Only network managed transition present. The user device doesn't incorporate the auto-transition algorithm, but just a set of transition mechanisms and the network will be capable of offering Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 possibly a good alternative for the IPv6 connectivity, not necessarily the optimal one. o Both, auto-transition algorithm and network managed transition are present. The user device possibly will get working the more optimal transition mechanism in such scenario. o None of both is present. This is the case of a user device with the operating system has not been upgraded, but already includes some transition mechanisms. The network is also not offering managed transition. Consequently if the operating system is not capable of offering an automatic transition mechanism selection, could require manual user intervention or even not be able to offer IPv6 connectivity at all. [This section needs more text in order to explain how the communication between PDP and PEPs will be done, interaction among policies, how the different parameters like link, user identity and so on can influence the transition mechanism chosen. Also other options rather than just PBN, such as SNMP, can be further described.] TBD. 6. Conclusions TBD. 7. Security Considerations The auto-transition algorithm should secure at least the following points: 1. Communication with TS for administrative purposes. 2. Communication with TS for authentication purposes. 3. Tunnel building is according to the chosen TS. 4. General tunnel security consideration pointed at [13]. 8. Acknowledgements This memo was written as a consequence of real experience using IPv6 when traveling, number of talks during IETF meetings and specially the work with the unmanaged, ISP and enterprise v6ops design teams. The authors would also like to acknowledge inputs from Brian Carpenter, Alvaro Vives, Cesar Olvera, Jim Bound, Michael Mackay and the European Commission support in the co-funding of the Euro6IX Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 project, where this work is being developed. 9. References 9.1 Normative References 9.2 Informative References [1] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. [2] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [3] Palet, J., "Forwarding Protocol 41 in NAT Boxes", draft-palet-v6ops-proto41-nat-03 (work in progress), October 2003. [4] Huitema, C., "Evaluation of Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-03 (work in progress), June 2004. [5] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A. and P. Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios-analysis-03 (work in progress), June 2004. [6] Wiljakka, J., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in 3GPP Networks", draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-analysis-10 (work in progress), May 2004. [7] Bound, J., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios", draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-scenarios-04 (work in progress), July 2004. [8] Savola, P. and J. Soininen, "Evaluation of v6ops Tunneling Scenarios and Mechanisms", draft-savola-v6ops-tunneling-01 (work in progress), April 2004. [9] Townsley, W., Valencia, A., Rubens, A., Pall, G., Zorn, G. and B. Palter, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol "L2TP"", RFC 2661, August 1999. [10] Hamzeh, K., Pall, G., Verthein, W., Taarud, J., Little, W. and G. Zorn, "Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol", RFC 2637, July 1999. [11] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D. and Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999. [12] Palet, J. and M. Diaz, "Evaluation of v6ops Auto-discovery for Tunneling Mechanisms", draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-01 (work in progress), June 2004. [13] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-03 (work in progress), June 2004. [14] Yavatkar, R., Pendarakis, D. and R. Guerin, "A Framework for Policy-based Admission Control", RFC 2753, January 2000. [15] Morelli, M., "Advanced IPv6 Internet Exchange model", draft-morelli-v6ops-ipv6-ix-00 (work in progress), July 2004. Authors' Addresses Jordi Palet Martinez Consulintel San Jose Artesano, 1 Alcobendas - Madrid E-28108 - Spain Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 EMail: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Miguel Angel Diaz Fernandez Consulintel San Jose Artesano, 1 Alcobendas - Madrid E-28108 - Spain Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 EMail: miguelangel.diaz@consulintel.es Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Evaluation of IPv6 Auto-Transition July 2004 Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Disclaimer of Validity This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Palet & Diaz Expires January 17, 2005 [Page 19]