Internet DRAFT - draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition
draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition
Internet Engineering Task Force H. Lord
Internet-Draft M. O'Reirdan
Intended status: Informational J. Rosenwald
Expires: March 15, 2012 Comcast
September 12, 2011
Recommendations for the transition of email services from IPv4 to IPv6
for Internet Service Providers
draft-oreirdan-rosenwald-ipv6mail-transition-01
Abstract
This document contains a phased plan for how providers of email
services can effect and manage the transition of email services from
IPv4 to IPv6. It is expected that this will be effected over a
period of years and it is unlikely that any transition will
completely exclude the ongoing possibility of using IPv4 as a
transport mechanism for email. This provides one possible
implementation plan for transitioning email services on the Internet
from a predominantly IPv4-based connectivity model that suports 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). 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 March 15, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
Table of Contents
1. Key Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Introduction and Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Important Notice of Limitations and Scope . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Transition and a phased model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Phase 1: Preparation Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Phase 2: Transition Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Phase 3: Post Transition Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. SMTP Issues raised by transition to IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Webmail issues raised by transition to IPv6 . . . . . . . . . 8
10. POP3 issues raised by transition to IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11. IMAP issues raised by transition to IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . 8
12. Abuse Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
13. Inbound email issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
14. Outbound email issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
16. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
17. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
18. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
19. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix B. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
1. Key Terminology
This section defines the key terms used in this document.
1.1. Email
Email is a method of exchanging digital messages from an author to
one or more recipients.
1.2. Web mail
A service which offers web based access to email services which would
otherwise be accessed by dedicated email programs running on the
device used to access the email.
1.3. Host
An end user's host, or computer, as used in the context of this
document, is intended to refer to a computing device that connects to
the Internet. This encompasses devices used by Internet users such
as personal computers, including laptops, desktops, and netbooks, as
well as mobile phones, smart phones, home gateway devices, and other
end user computing devices which are connected or can connect to the
public Internet and/or private IP networks.
Increasingly, other household systems and devices contain embedded
hosts which are connected to or can connect to the public Internet
and/or private IP networks. However, these devices may not be under
interactive control of the Internet user, such as may be the case
with various smart home and smart grid devices.
1.4. SMTP
As defined in RFC2821
1.5. POP
As defined in RFC1939 and updated by RFCs 1957, 2449 and 6186
1.6. IMAP
As defined in RFC3501
1.7. Internet Customer
An end user who leverages a connection to the Internet via an ISP and
is provisioned with a public IP to communicate on the Internet.
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
1.8. Internet facing server
A server which is addressed with a public IP address that is able to
communicate with other publically addressed servers. A server
typically hosts a service that can be utilized by the Internet
community.
1.9. Internal users
Known corporate users of the ISP entity.
2. Introduction and Problem Statement
With the depletion of IPv4 address space and the transition of
Internet infrastructure to IPv6, it is necessary to address the way
in which email services can be transitioned from an IPv4 transport to
that of IPv6. It is anticipated that IPv4 will continue for a long
time as a major transport mechanism for email services of all sorts.
There are significant issues to be addressed around the matter of
abuse in an IPv6 based environment which have been addressed and
largely resolved when operating using IPv4 as a transport mechanism.
The successful resolution of abuse issues may well be a key
limitation on the transition of email to an IPv6 environment from the
point of view of Internet Service providers.
3. Important Notice of Limitations and Scope
The issues of abuse specific to IPv6 are not yet fully resolved and
will need much additional work. The consideration given to abuse
issues here should be considered as preliminary and incomplete.
4. Transition and a phased model
It is not reasonable to specify the changes that each and every email
system connected to the Internet must undergo in order to achieve the
desired transition, as the number of connected systems precludes
creating one plan that contains such a level of detail. Further,
while there are common scenarios that may be specified for
transitioning individual email systems, the specific timeline and
mechanisms utilized for a given email system will be unique. Despite
these challenges, it is necessary to coordinate expectations on an
overall basis so that Internet-wide email services are maintained
throughout the transition. This document specifies a three-phase
transition plan that includes preparation, transition, and post-
transition phases, and delineates the necessary activities within
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
each phase based on the role that an organization plays in the
provision and use of email services.
An important distinction made in this transition plan is identifying
the explicit requirement for existing end-site organizations to add
IPv6-based connectivity to their email servers during a transition
phase. An accelerated adoption of IPv6 for email servers enables new
organizations in the post-transition phase to be connected to the
Internet only via IPv6 and still have access to the overall set of
email servers.
For nearly every organization, the task of IPv6-enabling their email
servers is far easier than undertaking an organization-wide adoption
of IPv6. Still, the requirement for existing Internet-connected
organizations to add IPv6 connectivity (even to a small number of
email systems) will be a significant hurdle and require a level of
effort that may not be achievable given the lack of compelling
additional benefits to these organizations [RFC1669]. This
transition plan presumes that "connectivity is its own reward"
[RFC1958] and that there still exists a sufficient level of
cooperation among Internet participants to make this evolution
possible. The adoption of a slow rollout and phased approach will
reduce risk and provide additional insight to abuse issues so that
further understanding can be gained and solutions developed.
The three proposed phases are: Preparation Phase, Transition Phase,
and Post-Transition Phase.
5. Phase 1: Preparation Phase
In the Preparation Phase, Service Providers pilot their IPv6 email
services, and end-site organizations prepare to provide email
services via IPv6-based connectivity while continuing to provide
email services via IPv4 connectivity. During the Preparation Phase,
the following principles apply:
PREP1: Service Providers SHOULD offer pilot IPv6-based email service
to their Internet customers for outbound email submission to the
Service Providers outbound mail servers. IPv6-based email services
MAY be provided via IPv6 transition mechanisms (such as those
described in [RFC4213], for example) or via native IPv6 network
service. This SHOULD be on an infrastructure separate from the IPv4
infrastructure and on a unique service names from that used for
production IPv4 traffic.
PREP2: Organizations SHOULD arrange for IPv6-based Internet
connectivity for any Internet facing email servers sending, outbound
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
servers (smtp) or receiving email, inbound servers (mx). Internet-
facing email servers in this phase SHOULD use separate service names
per [RFC4472] to avoid impact to production IPv4-based services
unless the organization supports production IPv6 connectivity.
PREP3: Organizations MAY provide IPv6-based email services to
internal user communities. This would be connectivity from IPv6
addressed employee computers to the corporate mail servers.
6. Phase 2: Transition Phase
In the Transition Phase, Service Providers offer production IPv6 and
IPv4 services to their Internet customers. End-site organizations
provide Internet-facing services in a production manner via IPv6-
based connectivity in addition to IPv4-based connectivity. During
the Transition Phase, the following principles apply:
TRANS1: Service Providers MUST offer IPv6-based email service to
their Internet customers. IPv6-based email service SHOULD be via
native IPv6 network service but MAY be via IPv6 transition mechanisms
if necessary.
TRANS2: Organizations MUST arrange for IPv6-based Internet
connectivity for any Internet-facing servers (e.g., web, email, and
domain name servers). Internet-facing IPv6 servers SHOULD be treated
as production by the organization, and SHOULD be treated as
production by other Internet organizations.
TRANS3: Organizations SHOULD provide IPv6-based email service to
their internal user communities.
7. Phase 3: Post Transition Phase
In the Post-Transition Phase, end-site organizations MUST provide all
email services via IPv6-based connectivity, thus allowing for new
Internet customers connected solely by IPv6. During the Post-
Transition Phase, the following principles apply:
POST1: Service Providers MUST offer IPv6-based email service to their
Internet customers. IPv6-based email service SHOULD be via native
IPv6 network service.
POST2: Organizations MUST arrange for IPv6-based Internet
connectivity for any Internet-facing email servers. Internet-facing
IPv6 email servers MUST be treated as production by the organization,
and SHOULD be treated as production by other Internet organizations.
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
POST3: Organizations SHOULD provide IPv6-based email service to
internal user communities and send email via IPv6.
POST4: Service Providers MAY continue to offer IPv4-based email
service to their Internet customers. Organizations MAY continue to
use IPv4-based email service. However, IPv6 SHOULD be preferred when
the option exists to use both services.
8. SMTP Issues raised by transition to IPv6
This section will cover issues around the use of SMTP in an IPv6
based infrastructure.
9. Webmail issues raised by transition to IPv6
This section will cover issues around the use of Webmail in an IPv6
based infrastructure.
10. POP3 issues raised by transition to IPv6
This section will cover issues around the use of POP3 in an IPv6
based infrastructure.
11. IMAP issues raised by transition to IPv6
This section will cover issues around the use of IMAP in an IPv6
based infrastructure.
12. Abuse Issues
The lack of a full understanding of all abuse threats SHOULD NOT
preclude the adoption of IPv6 for mail. A comprehensive
understanding of threats will not be available until implementation.
13. Inbound email issues
Domain Authentication SHOULD be required and MUST utilize the
mechanisms outlined in RFC4871, RFC5585 and RFC5617
Consideration should be given to a "known sender list" for a limited
number of email servers which are verified as belonging to authorized
sources of email which will be given volume allowance commensurate
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
with their expected behavior and exempt from the restrictive
throttles applied to unknown senders. It is likely that these would
be the email servers of large ISPs, well known email senders such as
major Email service providers and other verified sources
Given the scale of the IPv6 address space, the possibility that a
connection exhaustion scenario may develop where the number of
attempted connections to an individual email service may overwhelm
its ability to provide service. This may occur either deliberately
as part of an abusive scenario or inadvertently due to
misconfiguration.
Common filtering techniques that are critical for early decision
making such as real-time blocklists and IP reputation will need to be
amended for practical use in an IPv6 environment. Other reputation
keys such as CIDR reputation and domain reputation should be
considered.
14. Outbound email issues
Submitting of unauthenticated port 25 mail to outbound IPv6 email
servers MUST be prohibited. User authentication MUST be required to
allow users to submit email for delivery. Users MUST therefore be
required to authenticate on port 587 or 465 for outbound email
submission.
In environments where IP reputation is tracked for outbound
customers, this is likely to occur for ISPs that do not require
authentication for sending email outbound. Single IP reputation will
become obsolete. Consideration will have to be made for tracking
reputation per CIDR. CIDR reputation would continue to track
reputation at the lowest unit currently maintained which is the
customer residence. The ISP will know this allocation for their
customers and therefore can rely on this information for reputation
tracking.
Public announcement and aggregation of IPv6 addresses into the
delegated CIDR blocks will be required for the purpose of
identification and tracking of a single entity. CIDR reputation can
then be applied to the whole entity. There will need to be a
mechanism to infer or accurately lookup the CIDR allocation.
Throttling, particularly when off-net sending is allowed, should be
considered.
Utilization of 6to4 conversion (modem to server (6) and server to
external server (4)) can be an intermediate step as described above.
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
Utilization of NAT technologies may also obscure the source IP
address.
Given the scale of the IPv6 address space, the possibility that a
connection exhaustion scenario may develop where the number of
attempted connections to an individual email service may overwhelm
its ability to provide service. This may occur either deliberately
as part of an abusive scenario or inadvertently due to
misconfiguration.
15. Security Considerations
This document does not address any security issues inherent in IPv6
itself. It acknowledges that there are as yet unresolved abuse
issues specific to deploying email infrastructures based on an IPv6
transport. Abuse issues includes spam, phishing and spoofing of
email addresses.
16. Privacy Considerations
This document describes at a high level activities that ISPs should
be sensitive to, where the collection or communication of PII may be
possible. In addition, when performing this transition, ISPs should
be careful to protect any PII collected whether deliberately or
inadvertently.
As noted, any sharing of data from the user to the ISP and/or
authorized third parties should be done on an opt-in basis.
Additionally the ISP and or authorized third parties should clearly
state what data will be shared and with whom the data will be shared
with.
Lastly,there my be legal requirements in particular legal
jurisdictions concerning how long any subscriber-related or other
data is retained, of which an ISP operating in such a jurisdiction
should be aware and with which an ISP should comply.
17. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document.
18. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the following individuals and groups
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
for performing a detailed review of this document and/or providing
comments and feedback that helped to improve and evolve this
document:
None as yet
Large section of this document are based on RFC5211 "An Internet
Transition Plan" authored by John Curran which outlines an overall
transition plan for the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6.
19. Informative references
[RFC1669] Curran, J., "Market Viability as a IPng Criteria",
RFC 1669, August 1994.
[RFC1939] Myers, J. and M. Rose, "Post Office Protocol - Version 3",
STD 53, RFC 1939, May 1996.
[RFC1957] Nelson, R., "Some Observations on Implementations of the
Post Office Protocol (POP3)", RFC 1957, June 1996.
[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet",
RFC 1958, June 1996.
[RFC2449] Gellens, R., Newman, C., and L. Lundblade, "POP3 Extension
Mechanism", RFC 2449, November 1998.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC5211] Curran, J., "An Internet Transition Plan", RFC 5211,
July 2008.
[RFC6186] Daboo, C., "Use of SRV Records for Locating Email
Submission/Access Services", RFC 6186, March 2011.
Appendix A. Document Change Log
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
-01 version:
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Transition of email services to IPv6 September 2011
o -01 version published
Appendix B. Open Issues
[RFC Editor: This section is to be removed before publication]
No open issues to date
Authors' Addresses
Heather Lord
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: heather_lord@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Michael O'Reirdan
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: michael_oreirdan@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Jordan Rosenwald
Comcast Cable Communications
One Comcast Center
1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19103
US
Email: jordan_rosenwald@cable.comcast.com
URI: http://www.comcast.com
Lord, et al. Expires March 15, 2012 [Page 12]
