Internet DRAFT - draft-horley-v6ops-lab
draft-horley-v6ops-lab
V6OPS N. Buraglio
Internet-Draft C. Cummings
Intended status: Standards Track Energy Sciences Network
Expires: 25 January 2024 K. Myers
IP ArchiTechs
R. White
Akamai Technologies
E. Horley
Hexabuild
24 July 2023
Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space
draft-horley-v6ops-lab-03
Abstract
To reduce the likelihood of addressing conflicts and confusion
between lab deployments and non-lab (i.e., production) deployments,
an IPv6 unicast address prefix is reserved for use in lab, proof-of-
concept, and validation networks as well as for any similar use case.
This document describes the use of the IPv6 address prefix 0200::/7
as a prefix reserved for this purpose (repurposing the deprecated OSI
NSAP-mapped prefix).
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 https://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 25 January 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Buraglio, et al. Expires 25 January 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space July 2023
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Assignment of address space for use in large-scale lab and
prototyping environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Operational Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1.1. Resource utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The address architecture for IPv6 [RFC4291] does not explicitly
define any prefixes allocated exclusively for lab use, nor is such
address space allocated in [RFC6890] or in [RFC8200]. While lab
deployments could potentially use IPv6 address prefixes typically
assigned and configured in non-lab network, the use of such
addressing in lab environments may create addressing conflicts and
unnecessary operational confusion. For instance, designing labs
utilizing ULA fc00::/7 [RFC4193] is problematic due to the random
global ID requirement preventing hierarchical network prefix design
possibilities. Further, default address selection behavior [RFC6724]
by end nodes may result in a de-preference of such addresses and
prevent lab deployments from accurately modeling their desired non-
lab equivalents, especially in the testing of devices that are
incapable of adjusting the global source selection table. To resolve
these problems involved in building large-scale lab networks, and
pre-staging, or automating large-scale networks for deployment, this
document allocates the IPv6 address prefix 0200::/7 for these
purposes. The goal is to allow organization to share working lab
configuration files (with little or no need of modification) to be
deployed in a third party lab environment, public and private
Buraglio, et al. Expires 25 January 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space July 2023
externally managed services, virtualization or hosting environments
as well as in other networks such as Service Providers, Enterprise,
Government, IoT, and Energy, all with the knowledge that the lab GUA
address space will perform the same as any GUA but with the added
knowledge that filtering will be used to protect accidental leaks to
the Internet. The following criteria is for selecting the lab
prefix:
* Address space should reside outside of IANA allocated GUA block of
2000::/3
* The precedence for the lab prefix should not be lower than the GUA
prefix as defined in [RFC6724] (unlike ULA).
* Reduce the operational impacts to IANA and the RIR's in selecting
lab prefix space.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Assignment of address space for use in large-scale lab and
prototyping environments
The prefix reserved for large scale lab and testing purposes is
0200::/7.
3.1. Operational Implications
This space SHOULD NOT be employed for addressing use cases which are
already defined in other RFCs, such as addresses set apart for
documentation, testing, etc. Enterprise and large-scale networks
have some specific criteria around building and validating prior to
deployment. The issues with ULA for infrastructure modeling, lab
creation, configuration and behavior testing at the host level are
notably impactful in large enterprises as well as continental and
global scale networks. This is primarily, but not exclusively, due
to the increased focus on large-scale hosts, servers, and application
testing. Additionally, it is likely that both GUA and ULA may co-
exist or are planned to co-exist, and reconfiguring lab hosts,
network elements, operational technology systems, and IoT hardware
isn't practical or desirable due to inconsistent results for host
preference due to [RFC6724] behavior. Most large-scale enterprises
strive to build lab, dev, and QA environments that reflect production
Buraglio, et al. Expires 25 January 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space July 2023
as accurately as possible. This is a fairly straightforward way to
avoid disparity between production and non-production. Enterprise
environments are an area that need increased IPv6 adoption. In an
effort to enable a more approachable mechanism to model a global
scale network, and to avoid the pitfalls of ULA de-preferenced host
behavior or mis-use (i.e. address space squatting) on other IPv6
space, a specific IPv6 lab prefix is being assigned.
3.1.1. Resource utilization
The prefix in question, (0200::/7) has previously been used for the
OSI NSAP-mapped prefix set in [RFC4048] and [RFC4548], and
deprecated, this address prefix is already limited in its usability
and has not been officially re-purposed. The address prefix was
returned to IANA and is available to be marked for other purposes.
This assignment implies that IPv6 network operators SHOULD add this
address prefix to the list of non-routable IPv6 address space, and if
packet filters are deployed, then this address prefix SHOULD be added
to packet filters. This is not a local-use address prefix so these
filters may be used in both local and public contexts.
As noted here (https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-address-space/
ipv6-address-space.xhtml) by the IANA Internet Protocol Version 6
Address Space allocation reference, 0200::/7 was deprecated as of
December 2004 by [RFC4048]. This space is outside of the 2000::/3
address block, making it significantly easier to filter and providing
straightforward visual and programmatic identification. Because the
resource has been previously allocated, no new resources are
required. Additionally, as noted by the IANA allocation list,
approximately 85% of the IPv6 address space is reserved for future
definition and use, and is not assigned by IANA at this time, leaving
ample room for growth over the coming decades.
4. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable input and
contributions of the v6ops WG. The authors further acknowledge the
work of Bob Hinden and Stephen Deering, in authoring the protocol
standard and the addressing architecture for IPv6. The authors would
also like to recognize the valuable input, suggestions, and insight
by Tom Coffeen, Scott Hogg, and Jay Stewart.
Buraglio, et al. Expires 25 January 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space July 2023
5. Security Considerations
The addresses assigned for lab and staging use SHOULD be filtered as
noted above. Setting aside address space for lab and staging use,
and adding this address space to common filters to prevent
destinations in this space from being routed in production networks
(including the global Internet) improves security by preventing the
leakage of prefixes used for testing into production environments.
As such, setting aside this space improves the overall security
posture of the Internet.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA to allocate and record the reservation of the IPv6 global
unicast address prefix 0200::/7 as a lab-only prefix in the IPv6
address registry. No end party is to be assigned this address.
7. Appendix A.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8200>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4048] Carpenter, B., "RFC 1888 Is Obsolete", RFC 4048,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4048, April 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4048>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4193>.
Buraglio, et al. Expires 25 January 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Expanding the IPv6 Lab Use Space July 2023
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4291>.
[RFC4548] Gray, E., Rutemiller, J., and G. Swallow, "Internet Code
Point (ICP) Assignments for NSAP Addresses", RFC 4548,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4548, May 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4548>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6724>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6890>.
Authors' Addresses
Nick Buraglio
Energy Sciences Network
Email: buraglio@forwardingplane.net
Chris Cummings
Energy Sciences Network
Email: chriscummings@es.net
Kevin Myers
IP ArchiTechs
Email: kevin.myers@iparchitechs.com
Russ White
Akamai Technologies
Email: russ@riw.us
Ed Horley
Hexabuild
Email: ed@hexabuild.io
Buraglio, et al. Expires 25 January 2024 [Page 6]
