WDIFF

draft-jcurran-v6transitionplan-03.txt --> rfc5211.txt

Network Working Group J. Curran
Expires: November 1, 2008 May 19,
Request for Comments: 5211 July 2008
Intended status:
Category: Informational

An Internet Transition Plan
draft-jcurran-v6transitionplan-03

Status of this This Memo

By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any
applicable patent or other IPR claims kind. Distribution of which he or she this
memo is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and unlimited.

IESG Note

This RFC is not a candidate for any level of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents Internet Standard. The
IETF disclaims any knowledge 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 fitness of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at this RFC for any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or
purpose and notes that the decision 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 publish is not based on November 1, 2008.

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work. RFC
Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion. See
RFC 3932 for more information.

Abstract

This memo provides one possible plan for transitioning the Internet
from a predominantly IPv4-based connectivity model to a predominantly
IPv6-based connectivity model.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent
of standards track documents as clear as possible. While not a
standards track document, the same key words are used in this
document only for sake of clarity in describing the proposed
transition plan.

J. Curran Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft An Internet Transition Plan May 2008

Table of Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ....................................................2
1.1. Requirements Language ......................................2
2. A Phased Transition Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 .......................................2
2.1. Preparation Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Phase - Present to December 2009 ...............3
2.2. Transition Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Phase - January 2010 to December 2011 ...........4
2.3. Post-Transition Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Phase - January 2012 to the Future .........4
3. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .........................................................5
4. IANA Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .........................................5
5. Security IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .............................................5
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Acknowledgments .................................................6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ......................................................6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .......................................6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 8 .....................................6

Curran Informational [Page 1]

RFC 5211 An Internet Transition Plan July 2008

1. Introduction

This memo provides one possible plan for transitioning the Internet
from a predominantly IPv4-based connectivity model to a predominantly
IPv6-based connectivity model.

Other transition plans are possible and this purely informational
document does not create an obligation on any party to undertake any
of the actions specified herein, and the use of requirements language
per RFC 2119 is only for the purpose of clearly describing the
proposed transition plan in unambiguous terms.

The motivation for an Internet-wide transition plan is to facilitate
coordination of expectations among innumerable, highly decentralized
entities during a period of significant change, thus reducing risk to
the defining Internet property of universal connectivity.

The purpose of specifying this particular transition plan is to allow
for overall assessment of the challenges of accomplishing the desired
transition and to continue the discussion of Internet-wide transition
plans in general.
plans in general.

1.1. Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
RFC 2119 defines the use of these key words to help make the intent
of Standards Track documents as clear as possible. While not a
Standards Track document, the same key words are used in this
document only for sake of clarity in describing the proposed
transition plan.

2. A Phased Transition Model

It is not reasonable to specify the changes that each and every
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 networks (refer to [RFC3750] [RFC4057] and [CAMPUS]), [RFC4057]
for examples), the specific timeline and mechanisms utilized for a
given network will be unique. Despite these challenges, it is
necessary to coordinate expectations on an overall basis so that
Internet-wide connectivity is maintained throughout the transition.

Curran Expires November 1, 2008 Informational [Page 3]

Internet-Draft 2]

RFC 5211 An Internet Transition Plan May July 2008

This document specifies a three phase three-phase transition plan that includes
preparation, transition, and post-transition phases, and delineates
the necessary activities within each phase based on the role that an
organization plays in the provision and use of Internet 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 public-facing servers during a
transition phase. An accelerated adoption of IPv6 for public-facing
servers enables new organizations in the post-transition phase to be
connected to the Internet only via IPv6 and still have access to a
substantial representative base of publicly available servers.

For nearly every organization, the task of IPv6-enabling their public
facing
public-facing servers is far easier than undertaking an
organization-wide adoption of IPv6. Still, the requirement for
existing Internet
connected Internet-connected organizations to add IPv6 connectivity
(even to a small number of systems) will be a significant hurdle and
require a level of effort which 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 three proposed phases are: Preparation Phase, Transition Phase,
and Post-Transition Phase. The timeline for the phases has been set
to allow entry to the Post-Transition Phase prior to the projected
IPv4 address pool exhaustion date [IPUSAGE].

2.1

2.1. Preparation Phase - Present to December 2009

In the Preparation Phase, Service Providers pilot test their IPv6
network services, and end-site organizations prepare to provide Internet facing
Internet-facing services via IPv6-based connectivity while continuing
to provide Internet-facing services via IPv4 connectivity.

During the Preparation Phase, the following principles apply:

2.1.1

PREP1: Service Providers SHOULD offer pilot IPv6-based Internet
Service to their Internet customers. IPv6-based Internet
Service MAY be provided via IPv6 transition mechanisms (such
as those described in [RFC4213] [RFC4213], for example) or via native
IPv6 network service.
2.1.2

Curran Informational [Page 3]

RFC 5211 An Internet Transition Plan July 2008

PREP2: Organizations SHOULD arrange for IPv6-based Internet
connectivity for any Internet-facing servers (e.g. (e.g., web,
email, and domain name servers). Internet-facing IPv6 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.
2.1.3

PREP3: Organizations MAY provide IPv6-based Internet connectivity to
internal user communities.

J. Curran Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft An Internet Transition Plan May 2008

2.2

2.2. Transition Phase - January 2010 to December 2011

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 IPv6-
based connectivity in addition to IPv4-based connectivity.

During the Transition Phase, the following principles apply:

2.2.1

TRANS1: Service Providers MUST offer IPv6-based Internet Service to
their Internet customers. IPv6-based Internet Service SHOULD
be via native IPv6 network service but MAY be via IPv6
transition mechanisms if necessary.
2.2.2

TRANS2: Organizations MUST arrange for IPv6-based Internet
connectivity for any Internet-facing servers (e.g. (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.
2.2.3

TRANS3: Organizations SHOULD provide IPv6-based Internet connectivity
to their internal user communities, and provide IPv6 internal
supporting servers (e.g. (e.g., DNS, DHCP). IPv6-based Internet
connectivity MAY be via native IPv6 network service or MAY be
via IPv6 transition mechanisms.

2.3

2.3. Post-Transition Phase - January 2012 to the Future

In the Post-Transition Phase, End-site end-site organizations provide all
Internet-facing services via IPv6-based connectivity, thus allowing
for new Internet customers connected solely by IPv6.

During the Post-Transition Phase, the following principles apply:

2.3.1

POST1: Service Providers MUST offer IPv6-based Internet Service to
their Internet customers. IPv6-based Internet Service SHOULD
be via native IPv6 network service.
2.3.2

Curran Informational [Page 4]

RFC 5211 An Internet Transition Plan July 2008

POST2: Organizations MUST arrange for IPv6-based Internet
connectivity for any Internet-facing servers (e.g. (e.g., web,
email, and domain name servers). Internet-facing IPv6 servers
MUST be treated as production by the organization, and SHOULD
be treated as production by other Internet organizations.
2.3.3

POST3: Organizations SHOULD provide IPv6-based Internet connectivity
to internal user communities, and provide IPv6 internal
supporting infrastructure (e.g. (e.g., routers, DNS, DHCP, etc).
IPv6-based Internet connectivity SHOULD be via native IPv6
network service or MAY be via IPv6 transition mechanisms.
2.3.4

POST4: Service Providers MAY continue to offer IPv4-based Internet
connectivity to their Internet customers. Organizations MAY
continue to use IPv4-based Internet connectivity.

J. Curran Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft An Internet Transition Plan May 2008

3. Summary

In order to facilitate full Internet-wide connectivity during the
transition from IPv4-based connectivity to IPv6-based connectivity, a
transition plan which provides clear guidance to organizations
regarding expectations is necessary. As the specific expectations
change over time, and vary greatly by organization, a phased approach
is specified in this document, with the timeline for each phase set
with the intention of allowing enough time for the necessary planning
and deployment steps which each organization much undertake. This
Internet Transition Plan provides for transition to predominantly
IPv6-connectivity by January 2012 which, with careful management, may
meet the overall requirements of allowing the Internet to scale as
specified in "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol"
[RFC1752].

4. Security Considerations

This memo describes the transition of the Internet from IPv4-based
connectivity to predominantly IPv6-based connectivity. This change
inherently has security implications due to the widespread deployment
of a new version of the Internet Protocol but these are beyond the
scope of this document and are covered in [RFC4942]. This document
raises no new security issues itself.

5. IANA Considerations

While no new name or identifier space is created by this document,
the policies for management of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4)
address space may not provide for IPv4 availability through the
Transition Phase as intended by this plan. The IANA should work with

Curran Informational [Page 5]

RFC 5211 An Internet Transition Plan July 2008

all parties to develop policies per [RFC2050] which allow continued
general availability of IPv4 address resources sufficiently long for
any transition plan that receives widespread community support.

6. Acknowledgments

This document would not have been possible without the abundant
suggestions made by members of the Internet community at large, but
specific thanks go to Fred Baker, Jim Bound, Scott Bradner, Bob
Braden, Randy Bush, David Divins, Geoff Huston, Chris Morrow, Jordi Palet
Palet, Ken Shores, James Woodyatt, and the members of the IETF V6
Operations Working Group for their review and insightful suggestions
for improvement.

J. Curran Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft An Internet Transition Plan May 2008

7. References

7.1. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

[RFC4472] Durand, A., Ihren, J., and P. Savola, "Operational
Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS", RFC 4472, April
2006.

[RFC1752] Bradner, S., S. and A. Mankin, A.," The "The Recommendation for the IP
Next Generation Protocol", RFC 1752, Feburary January 1995.

7.2. Informative References

[RFC1958] Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
Internet", RFC 1958, June 1996.

[RFC1669] Curran, J., "Market Viability as a IPng Criteria", RFC
1669, August 1994.

[IPUSAGE] Huston, G., IPv4 Address Report,February Report, February 2008, by Geoff Huston.
<http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html>
<http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html>.

[RFC4057] Bound, J., Ed., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios", RFC
4057, June 2005.

[RFC3750] Huitema, C., Austein, R., Satapati, S., and R. van der
Pol, "Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios", RFC
3750, April 2004.

[CAMPUS] Chown, T., "IPv6 Campus

Curran Informational [Page 6]

RFC 5211 An Internet Transition Scenario Description and
Analysis", (Work in Progress), March 2007. Plan July 2008

[RFC2050] Hubbard, K., Kosters, M., Conrad, D., Karrenberg, D., and
J. Postel, "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines",
BCP 12, RFC 2050, November 1996.

[RFC4942] Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/Coexistence
Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC
4942, September 2007.

J. Curran Expires November 1, 2008 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft An Internet Transition Plan February 2008

Appendix A. Change History

Changes from -02 version to -03 version:

o Revise Introduction to provide additional motivation language.

o Revise Introduction and requirements language preface to better
clarify use of RFC 2119 style terminology.

o Clarify need for IPv6-capable infrastructure rather than simply
servers in final phase.

o Correct misc typos and capitlization errors.

o Updated Acknowledgements section appropriately.

Changes from -01 version to -02 version:

o Clarification of pilot nature of IPv6 services prior to
start of Transition Phase.

o Strengthen use of native IPv6 in Post-Transition Phase.

Changes from -00 version to -01 version:

o Expanded discussion of phased transition model.

o Extended Preparation phase by one year to reflect overwhelming
community concern about the state of IPv6 readiness.

o Clarified use of IPv6 services in Preparation phase to advise
caution with respect to DNS interactions per RFC 4472.

o Removed last sentence of Post-Transition phase regarding removal
of IPv4-based connectivity. Removal of IPv4 is considered out of
the scope of this document.

o Updated Introduction to clarify use of RFC 2119 terminology
despite inherently non-standards nature of this document.

o Corrected misc typographic errors.

o Updated acknowledgments section.

Author's Address

John Curran
99 Otis Street
Cambridge, MA USA 20190

Email:

EMail: jcurran@istaff.org

Curran Expires November 1, 2008 Informational [Page 8]

Internet-Draft 7]

RFC 5211 An Internet Transition Plan February July 2008

Full Copyright Statement

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, 78 and at http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html,
and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

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, THE IETF TRUST 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.

Intellectual Property

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.

Acknowledgment

Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).

Curran Informational [Page 8]

----