draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.txt 
v6ops WG O. Troan v6ops WG O. Troan
Internet-Draft Cisco Internet-Draft Cisco
Obsoletes: 3068 (if approved) B. Carpenter, Ed. Obsoletes: 3068 (if approved) B. Carpenter, Ed.
Intended status: Best Current Practice Univ. of Auckland Updates: 6343 (if approved) Univ. of Auckland
Expires: May 14, 2015 November 10, 2014 Intended status: Best Current Practice November 13, 2014
Expires: May 17, 2015
Deprecating Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) Deprecating Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers
draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-07.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-08.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 transition mechanism has shown that the mechanism is (6to4)" IPv6 transition mechanism defined in RFC 3056 has shown that
unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the Internet, the mechanism is unsuitable for widespread deployment and use in the
especially in its anycast mode. This document requests that RFC Internet, especially in its anycast mode. This document requests
3068, "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", be made obsolete that RFC 3068, "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", be made
and moved to historic status. It also recommends that future obsolete and moved to historic status. It also recommends that
products should not support 6to4 anycast and that existing future products should not support 6to4 anycast and that existing
deployments should be reviewed. deployments should be reviewed. Thus it updates the guidelines in
RFC 6343.
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 May 14, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 17, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 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 2, line 16 skipping to change at page 2, line 18
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
There would appear to be no evidence of any substantial deployment of There would appear to be no evidence of any substantial deployment of
the variant of 6to4 described in [RFC3056]. Its extension specified the variant of 6to4 described in [RFC3056]. Its extension specified
in "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" [RFC3068] has been in "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" [RFC3068] has been
shown to have severe practical problems when used in the Internet. shown to have severe practical problems when used in the Internet.
This document requests that RFC 3068 be moved to Historic status as This document requests that RFC 3068 be moved to Historic status as
defined in section 4.2.4 of [RFC2026]. defined in section 4.2.4 of [RFC2026]. It also updates the
deployment guidelines in [RFC6343].
6to4 was designed to help transition the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6. 6to4 was designed to help transition the Internet from IPv4 to IPv6.
It has been a good mechanism for experimenting with IPv6, but because It has been a good mechanism for experimenting with IPv6, but because
of the high failure rates seen with anycast 6to4 [HUSTON], end users of the high failure rates seen with anycast 6to4 [HUSTON], end users
may end up disabling IPv6 on hosts as a result, and some content may end up disabling IPv6 on hosts as a result, and some content
providers have been reluctant to make content available over IPv6. providers have been reluctant to make content available over IPv6.
[RFC6343] analyses the known operational issues in detail and [RFC6343] analyses the known operational issues in detail and
describes a set of suggestions to improve 6to4 reliability, given the describes a set of suggestions to improve 6to4 reliability, given the
widespread presence of hosts and customer premises equipment that widespread presence of hosts and customer premises equipment that
skipping to change at page 4, line 46 skipping to change at page 4, line 51
be disabled by default. be disabled by default.
Implementations capable of acting as 6to4 routers MUST NOT enable Implementations capable of acting as 6to4 routers MUST NOT enable
6to4 without explicit user configuration. In particular, enabling 6to4 without explicit user configuration. In particular, enabling
IPv6 forwarding on a device MUST NOT automatically enable 6to4. IPv6 forwarding on a device MUST NOT automatically enable 6to4.
Current operators of an anycast 6to4 relay with the IPv4 address Current operators of an anycast 6to4 relay with the IPv4 address
192.88.99.1 SHOULD review the information in [RFC6343] and the 192.88.99.1 SHOULD review the information in [RFC6343] and the
present document, and then consider carefully when the anycast relay present document, and then consider carefully when the anycast relay
can be discontinued as traffic diminishes. Internet service can be discontinued as traffic diminishes. Internet service
providers SHOULD filter out routes to 192.88.99.1. providers SHOULD filter out routes to 192.88.99.1. However, networks
SHOULD NOT filter out packets whose source address is 192.88.99.1,
because this is normal 6to4 traffic from a 6to4 return relay
somewhere in the Internet.
Operators of a 6to4 return relay announcing the IPv6 prefix 2002::/16 Operators of a 6to4 return relay announcing the IPv6 prefix 2002::/16
SHOULD review the information in [RFC6343] and the present document, SHOULD review the information in [RFC6343] and the present document,
and then consider carefully when the return relay can be discontinued and then consider carefully when the return relay can be discontinued
as traffic diminishes. As discussed in Section 4.5 of RFC 6343, as traffic diminishes. As discussed in Section 4.5 of RFC 6343,
content providers might choose to continue operating such a relay for content providers might choose to continue operating such a relay for
the benefit of their own residual 6to4 clients. Internet service the benefit of their own residual 6to4 clients. Internet service
providers SHOULD announce the IPv6 prefix 2002::/16 if and only if it providers SHOULD announce the IPv6 prefix 2002::/16 to their own
leads to a correctly operating return relay as described in RFC 6343. customers if and only if it leads to a correctly operating return
relay as described in RFC 6343. IPv6-only service providers are
advised that their own customers need such a relay to be available in
case a residual 6to4 user served by a different service provider
attempts to communicate with them.
The references to the 6to4 relay anycast prefix (192.88.99.0/24) The guidelines in Section 4 of [RFC6343] remain valid for those who
should be removed as soon as practical from the revision of the choose to continue operating Anycast 6to4 despite its deprecation.
Special Use IPv4 addresses [RFC6890].
Incidental references to 6to4 should be reviewed and possibly removed Incidental references to 6to4 should be reviewed and possibly removed
from other IETF documents if and when they are updated. These from other IETF documents if and when they are updated. These
documents include RFC3162, RFC3178, RFC3790, RFC4191, RFC4213, documents include RFC3162, RFC3178, RFC3790, RFC4191, RFC4213,
RFC4389, RFC4779, RFC4852, RFC4891, RFC4903, RFC5157, RFC5245, RFC4389, RFC4779, RFC4852, RFC4891, RFC4903, RFC5157, RFC5245,
RFC5375, RFC5971, and RFC6071. RFC5375, RFC5971, RFC6071 and RFC6890.
5. IANA Considerations 5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to mark the 192.88.99.0/24 prefix [RFC3068] as The document creating the IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry
"deprecated", pointing to this document. Redelegation of this prefix [RFC6890] included the 6to4 relay anycast prefix (192.88.99.0/24) as
for any usage requires justification via an IETF Standards Action Table 10. Instead, IANA is requested to mark the 192.88.99.0/24
[RFC5226]. prefix originally defined by [RFC3068] as "Deprecated (6to4 Relay
Anycast)", pointing to the present document. Redelegation of this
prefix for any usage requires justification via an IETF Standards
Action [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 [RFC6169] and more General security issues with tunnels are listed in [RFC6169] and more
specifically to 6to4 in [RFC3964] and [RFC6324]. specifically to 6to4 in [RFC3964] and [RFC6324].
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Tore Anderson, Dmitry Anipko, The authors would like to acknowledge Tore Anderson, Dmitry Anipko,
Jack Bates, Cameron Byrne, Ben Campbell, Gert Doering, Ray Hunter, Jack Bates, Cameron Byrne, Ben Campbell, Gert Doering, David Farmer,
Joel Jaeggli, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, Jason Livingood, Keith Moore, Tom Ray Hunter, Joel Jaeggli, Kurt Erik Lindqvist, Jason Livingood, Keith
Petch, Daniel Roesen and Mark Townsley, James Woodyatt, for their Moore, Tom Petch, Daniel Roesen, Mark Townsley and James Woodyatt for
contributions and discussions on this topic. their contributions and discussions on this topic.
Special thanks go to Fred Baker, Geoff Huston, and Wes George for Special thanks go to Fred Baker, Geoff Huston, and Wes George for
their significant contributions. their significant contributions.
Many thanks to Gunter Van de Velde for documenting the harm caused by Many thanks to Gunter Van de Velde for documenting the harm caused by
non-managed tunnels and to stimulate the creation of this document. non-managed tunnels and stimulating the creation of this document.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[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.
 End of changes. 13 change blocks. 
29 lines changed or deleted 42 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/