draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-00.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-01.txt 
v6ops WG O. Troan v6ops WG O. Troan
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Obsoletes: 3056, 3068 April 5, 2011 Obsoletes: 3056, 3068 April 27, 2011
(if approved) (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 7, 2011 Expires: October 29, 2011
Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to
Historic status Historic status
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-00.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-01.txt
Abstract Abstract
Experience with the "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds Experience with the "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds
(6to4)" IPv6 transitioning mechanism has shown that the mechanism is (6to4)" IPv6 transitioning mechanism has shown that the mechanism is
unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the Internet. This unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the Internet. This
document requests that RFC3056 and the companion document "An Anycast document requests that RFC3056 and the companion document "An Anycast
Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" RFC3068 are moved to historic status. Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" RFC3068 are moved to historic status.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 37 skipping to change at page 1, line 37
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 October 7, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on October 29, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 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
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The managed IPv6 transition mechanism "Connection of IPv6 Domains via The managed IPv6 transition mechanism "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
IPv4 Clouds (6to4)" described in [RFC3056] has rarely if ever been IPv4 Clouds (6to4)" described in [RFC3056], referred to as "Router
deployed. Its extension in "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay 6to4" in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory] has rarely if ever been
Routers" [RFC3068] has been shown to have severe practical problems deployed. Its extension "Anycast 6to4" specified in "An Anycast
when used in the Internet. This document requests that RFC3056 and Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" [RFC3068] has been shown to have
RFC3068 be moved to Historic status as defined in section 4.2.4 severe practical problems when used in the Internet. This document
[RFC2026]. requests that RFC3056 and RFC3068 be moved to Historic status as
defined in section 4.2.4 [RFC2026].
6to4 was designed to help transitioning the Internet from IPv4 to
IPv6. It has been a good mechanism for experimenting with IPv6, but
because of the high failure rates seen with 6to4 [HUSTON], end users
are forced to disable IPv6 on hosts, and content providers are
reluctant to make content available over IPv6.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory] analyses the known operational issues [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory] analyses the known operational issues
and describes a set of suggestions to improve 6to4 reliability, given and describes a set of suggestions to improve 6to4 reliability, given
the widespread presence of hosts and customer premises equipment that the widespread presence of hosts and customer premises equipment that
support it. support it.
Declaring the mechanism historic is not expected to have immediate The IETF sees no evolutionary future for the mechanism and it is not
product implications. The IETF sees no evolutionary future for the recommended to include this mechanism in new implementations.
mechanism and it is not recommended to include this mechanism in new
implementations. 6rd [RFC5969] utilizes the same encapsulation and base mechanism as
6to4, and could be viewed as a superset of 6to4 (6to4 could be
achieved by setting the 6rd prefix to 2002::/16). However, the
deployment model is such that 6rd can avoid the problems described
here. In this sense, 6rd can be viewed as superseding 6to4 as
described in section 4.2.4 of [RFC2026]
2. Conventions 2. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. 6to4 operational problems 3. 6to4 operational problems
6to4 is a mechanism designed to allow isolated IPv6 islands to reach 6to4 is a mechanism designed to allow isolated IPv6 islands to reach
skipping to change at page 4, line 44 skipping to change at page 5, line 11
IANA is requested to mark the 2002::/16 prefix as "deprecated", IANA is requested to mark the 2002::/16 prefix as "deprecated",
pointing to this document. Reassignment of the prefix for any usage pointing to this document. Reassignment of the prefix for any usage
requires justification via an IETF Standards Action [RFC5226]. requires justification via an IETF Standards Action [RFC5226].
IANA is requested to mark the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain [RFC5158] as IANA is requested to mark the 2.0.0.2.ip6.arpa domain [RFC5158] as
"deprecated", pointing to this document. Redelegation of the domain "deprecated", pointing to this document. Redelegation of the domain
for any usage requires justification via an IETF Standards Action for any usage requires justification via an IETF Standards Action
[RFC5226].RFC5158 [RFC5226].RFC5158
IANA is requested to mark the 192.88.99.0/24 prefix [RFC3068] as
"deprecated", pointing to this document. Redelegation of the domain
for any usage requires justification via an IETF Standards Action
[RFC5226].RFC5158
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
There are no new security considerations pertaining to this document. There are no new security considerations pertaining to this document.
General security issues with tunnels are listed in General security issues with tunnels are listed in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns] and more specifically to [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns] and more specifically to
6to4 in [RFC3964] and [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops]. 6to4 in [RFC3964] and [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops].
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Jack Bates, Cameron Byrne, Gert The authors would like to acknowledge Jack Bates, Cameron Byrne, Gert
Doering, Joel Jaeggli, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, Jason Livingood, Keith Doering, Joel Jaeggli, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, Jason Livingood, Keith
Moore, Daniel Roesen and Mark Townsley, for their contributions and Moore, Daniel Roesen and Mark Townsley, for their contributions and
discussions on this topic. discussions on this topic.
Special thanks go to Fred Baker, Geoff Huston, Brian Carpenter, and Special thanks go to Fred Baker, Geoff Huston, Brian Carpenter, and
Wes George for their significant contributions. Wes George for their significant contributions.
Many thanks to Gunter Van de Velde for documenting the harm caused by
non-managed tunnels and to stimulate the creation of this document.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise] [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise]
Matsumoto, A., Kato, J., and T. Fujisaki, "Update to RFC Matsumoto, A., Kato, J., and T. Fujisaki, "Update to RFC
3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6", 3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6",
draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 (work in progress), draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 (work in progress),
March 2011. March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory]
Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment", Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment",
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-00 (work in progress), draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01 (work in progress),
March 2011. April 2011.
[RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision [RFC2026] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
skipping to change at page 6, line 7 skipping to change at page 6, line 27
[RFC5156] Blanchet, M., "Special-Use IPv6 Addresses", RFC 5156, [RFC5156] Blanchet, M., "Special-Use IPv6 Addresses", RFC 5156,
April 2008. April 2008.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008. May 2008.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[HUSTON] Huston, "Flailing IPv6", December 2010,
<http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2010-12/6to4fail.html>.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops]
Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack using Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack using
IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
Mitigations", draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-06 (work in Mitigations", draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-06 (work in
progress), March 2011. progress), March 2011.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns]
Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security
Concerns With IP Tunneling", Concerns With IP Tunneling",
draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-04 (work in draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-04 (work in
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 7, line 5
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC3964] Savola, P. and C. Patel, "Security Considerations for [RFC3964] Savola, P. and C. Patel, "Security Considerations for
6to4", RFC 3964, December 2004. 6to4", RFC 3964, December 2004.
[RFC5158] Huston, G., "6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation Specification", [RFC5158] Huston, G., "6to4 Reverse DNS Delegation Specification",
RFC 5158, March 2008. RFC 5158, March 2008.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, August 2010.
Author's Address Author's Address
Ole Troan Ole Troan
Cisco Cisco
Oslo, Oslo,
Norway Norway
Email: ot@cisco.com Email: ot@cisco.com
 End of changes. 11 change blocks. 
16 lines changed or deleted 43 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/