draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-02.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-03.txt 
v6ops WG O. Troan v6ops WG O. Troan
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Obsoletes: 3056, 3068 May 2, 2011 Obsoletes: 3056, 3068 May 24, 2011
(if approved) (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: November 3, 2011 Expires: November 25, 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-02.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-03.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 November 3, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on November 25, 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
skipping to change at page 4, line 28 skipping to change at page 4, line 28
and follow the recommendations found in and follow the recommendations found in
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory]. When traffic levels diminish, these [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory]. When traffic levels diminish, these
routers can be decommissioned. routers can be decommissioned.
1. IPv6 nodes SHOULD treat 6to4 as a service of "last resort" as 1. IPv6 nodes SHOULD treat 6to4 as a service of "last resort" as
recommended in [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise] recommended in [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise]
2. Implementations capable of acting as 6to4 routers SHOULD NOT 2. Implementations capable of acting as 6to4 routers SHOULD NOT
enable 6to4 without explicit user configuration. In particular, enable 6to4 without explicit user configuration. In particular,
enabling IPv6 forwarding on a device, SHOULD NOT automatically enabling IPv6 forwarding on a device, SHOULD NOT automatically
enable 6to4. enable 6to4.
3. If implemented in future products 6to4 SHOULD be disabled by
default.
Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use 6to4. Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use 6to4.
The references to 6to4 should be removed as soon as practical from The references to 6to4 should be removed as soon as practical from
the revision of the Special-Use IPv6 Addresses [RFC5156]. the revision of the Special-Use IPv6 Addresses [RFC5156].
Incidental references to 6to4 should be removed from other IETF Incidental references to 6to4 should be removed from other IETF
documents if and when they are updated. These documents include documents if and when they are updated. These documents include
RFC3162, RFC3178, RFC3790, RFC4191, RFC4213, RFC4389, RFC4779, RFC3162, RFC3178, RFC3790, RFC4191, RFC4213, RFC4389, RFC4779,
RFC4852, RFC4891, RFC4903, RFC5157, RFC5245, RFC5375, RFC5971, and RFC4852, RFC4891, RFC4903, RFC5157, RFC5245, RFC5375, RFC5971, and
skipping to change at page 4, line 51 skipping to change at page 4, line 49
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
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].
IANA is requested to mark the 192.88.99.0/24 prefix [RFC3068] as IANA is requested to mark the 192.88.99.0/24 prefix [RFC3068] 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].
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
skipping to change at page 6, line 28 skipping to change at page 6, line 26
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-01 (work in progress), draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-advisory-01 (work in progress),
April 2011. April 2011.
[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-07 (work in
progress), March 2011. progress), May 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
progress), October 2010. progress), October 2010.
[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.
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 9 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/