draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-01.txt   draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-02.txt 
Network Working Group D. Cheng Network Working Group D. Cheng
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Informational M. Boucadair Intended status: Informational M. Boucadair
Expires: April 12, 2012 France Telecom Expires: September 30, 2012 France Telecom
October 10, 2011 March 29, 2012
Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets
draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-01 draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-02
Abstract Abstract
This document describes routing packets destined to IPv4-embedded This document describes routing packets destined to IPv4-embedded
IPv6 addresses across IPv6 transit core using OSPFv3 with a separate IPv6 addresses across IPv6 transit core using OSPFv3 with a separate
routing table. routing table.
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].
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on September 30, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
skipping to change at page 5, line 38 skipping to change at page 5, line 38
this problem and to ease the separation between native IPv6 and IPv4- this problem and to ease the separation between native IPv6 and IPv4-
inferred routing policies, a separate OSPFv3 routing table can be inferred routing policies, a separate OSPFv3 routing table can be
constructed that is dedicated to IPv4-embedded IPv6 topology, and constructed that is dedicated to IPv4-embedded IPv6 topology, and
that table is solely used for routing IPv4-embedded IPv6 packets that table is solely used for routing IPv4-embedded IPv6 packets
(i.e., IPv4 part of the Internet) in the transit network. Further, (i.e., IPv4 part of the Internet) in the transit network. Further,
only a set of routers in the transit network are required to be only a set of routers in the transit network are required to be
involved in such routing scheme, including AFXLBRs that connect to involved in such routing scheme, including AFXLBRs that connect to
IPv4 client networks along with a set of P routers in the core for IPv4 client networks along with a set of P routers in the core for
routing path. routing path.
There are two methods to build a separate OSPFv3 routing table for Below are listed some examples to build a separate OSPFv3 routing
IPv4-embedded IPv6 routing. table for IPv4-embedded IPv6 routing:
o The first one is to run a separate OSPFv3 instance for IPv4- o The first one is to run a separate OSPFv3 instance for IPv4-
embedded IPv6 topology in the IPv6 transit network according to embedded IPv6 topology in the IPv6 transit network according to
[RFC5838], [RFC5838],
o The second one is to stay with the existing OSPFv3 instance that o The second one is to stay with the existing OSPFv3 instance that
already operates in the transit network, but maintain a separate already operates in the transit network, but maintain a separate
IPv4-embedded topology, according to [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3]. IPv4-embedded topology, according to [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3].
With both methods, there would be a dedicated IPv4-embedded IPv6 With both methods, there would be a dedicated IPv4-embedded IPv6
skipping to change at page 10, line 40 skipping to change at page 10, line 40
IPv6 prefix of the destination address, which is either the Well IPv6 prefix of the destination address, which is either the Well
Known Prefix (i.e., 64:ff9b::/96) or locally allocated as defined in Known Prefix (i.e., 64:ff9b::/96) or locally allocated as defined in
[RFC6052]. [RFC6052].
7. MTU Issues 7. MTU Issues
In the IPv6 transit network, there is no new MTU issue introduced by In the IPv6 transit network, there is no new MTU issue introduced by
this document. If a separate OSPFv3 instance (per [RFC5838]) is used this document. If a separate OSPFv3 instance (per [RFC5838]) is used
for IPv4-embedded IPv6 routing, the MTU handling in the transit for IPv4-embedded IPv6 routing, the MTU handling in the transit
network is the same as that of the default OSPFv3 instance. If a network is the same as that of the default OSPFv3 instance. If a
separate OSPFv3 topology (per [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3]) is used for separate OSPFv3 topology is used for IPv4-embedded IPv6 routing, the
IPv4-embedded IPv6 routing, the MTU handling in the transit network MTU handling in the transit network is the same as that of the
is the same as that of the default OSPFv3 topology. default OSPFv3 topology.
However, the MTU in the IPv6 transit network may be different than However, the MTU in the IPv6 transit network may be different than
that of IPv4 client networks. Since an IPv6 router will never that of IPv4 client networks. Since an IPv6 router will never
fragment a packet, the packet size of any IPv4-embedded IPv6 packet fragment a packet, the packet size of any IPv4-embedded IPv6 packet
entering the IPv6 transit network must be equal to or smaller than entering the IPv6 transit network must be equal to or smaller than
the MTU of the IPv6 transit network. In order to achieve this the MTU of the IPv6 transit network. In order to achieve this
requirement, it is recommended that AFXLBRs to perform IPv6 path requirement, it is recommended that AFXLBRs to perform IPv6 path
discovery among themselves and the resulting MTU, after taking into discovery among themselves and the resulting MTU, after taking into
account of the difference between IPv4 header length and IPv6 header account of the difference between IPv4 header length and IPv6 header
length, must be "propagated" into IPv4 client networks, e.g.- length, must be "propagated" into IPv4 client networks, e.g.-
skipping to change at page 11, line 25 skipping to change at page 11, line 25
be transported between those IPv4 client networks via backdoor be transported between those IPv4 client networks via backdoor
connections, or through the IPv6 transit network. In general, connections, or through the IPv6 transit network. In general,
routing policies should be as such that the "backdoor" path is routing policies should be as such that the "backdoor" path is
preferred since the packet forwarding is within a single address preferred since the packet forwarding is within a single address
family without the need for IP header translation, among other family without the need for IP header translation, among other
things. things.
9. Security Considerations 9. Security Considerations
This document does not introduce any security issue than what has This document does not introduce any security issue than what has
been identified in [RFC5838], [I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3] and been identified in [RFC5838] and [RFC6052].
[RFC6052].
10. IANA Considerations 10. IANA Considerations
No new IANA assignments are required for this document. No new IANA assignments are required for this document.
11. Acknowledgements 11. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Acee Lindem, Dan Wing and Joel Halpern for their Many thanks to Acee Lindem, Dan Wing and Joel Halpern for their
comments. comments.
12. References 12. References
12.1. Normative References 12.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3]
Mirtorabi, S. and A. Roy, "Multi-topology routing in
OSPFv3 (MT-OSPFv3)", draft-ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3-03 (work in
progress), July 2007.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and R.
Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, April 2010.
[RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. [RFC6052] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X.
Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052, Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", RFC 6052,
October 2010. October 2010.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011. Algorithm", RFC 6145, April 2011.
12.2. Informative References 12.2. Informative References
[I-D.boucadair-softwire-dslite-v6only] [I-D.boucadair-softwire-dslite-v6only]
Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Grimault, J., Kassi-Lahlou, Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Grimault, J., Kassi-Lahlou,
M., Levis, P., Cheng, D., and Y. Lee, "Deploying Dual- M., Levis, P., Cheng, D., and Y. Lee, "Deploying Dual-
Stack Lite in IPv6 Network", Stack Lite in IPv6 Network",
draft-boucadair-softwire-dslite-v6only-01 (work in draft-boucadair-softwire-dslite-v6only-01 (work in
progress), April 2011. progress), April 2011.
[I-D.ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3]
Mirtorabi, S. and A. Roy, "Multi-topology routing in
OSPFv3 (MT-OSPFv3)", draft-ietf-ospf-mt-ospfv3-03 (work in
progress), July 2007.
[RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh [RFC5565] Wu, J., Cui, Y., Metz, C., and E. Rosen, "Softwire Mesh
Framework", RFC 5565, June 2009. Framework", RFC 5565, June 2009.
[RFC5838] Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and R.
Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3",
RFC 5838, April 2010.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Dean Cheng Dean Cheng
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway 2330 Central Expressway
95050 95050
USA USA
Email: dean.cheng@huawei.com Email: dean.cheng@huawei.com
Mohamed Boucadair Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom France Telecom
Rennes, 35000 Rennes, 35000
France France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
30 lines changed or deleted 20 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/