draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-00.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01.txt 
V6OPS B. Carpenter V6OPS B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland Internet-Draft Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational S. Jiang Intended status: Informational S. Jiang
Expires: June 4, 2011 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Expires: August 6, 2011 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
V. Kuarsingh V. Kuarsingh
Rogers Communications Rogers Communications
December 1, 2010 February 2, 2011
Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios Framework for IP Version Transition Scenarios
draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-00 draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01
Abstract Abstract
This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios
and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition
from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co- from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co-
existence of the two protocols. existence of the two protocols.
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 36 skipping to change at page 1, line 36
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 June 4, 2011. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 6, 2011.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
skipping to change at page 3, line 16 skipping to change at page 3, line 16
This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios This document sets out a framework for the presentation of scenarios
and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition and recommendations for a variety of approaches to the transition
from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co- from IPv4 to IPv6, given the necessity for a long period of co-
existence of the two protocols. A general "call to arms" for existence of the two protocols. A general "call to arms" for
transition is found in [RFC5211], and a recommendation for four transition is found in [RFC5211], and a recommendation for four
principal scenarios is given in principal scenarios is given in
[I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]. A report on experience and [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]. A report on experience and
plans of various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is given in plans of various Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is given in
[RFC6036]. However, it is clear that operators require more detailed [RFC6036]. However, it is clear that operators require more detailed
technical recommendations than are available so far. A companion technical recommendations than are available so far. Unfortunately,
document [reference TBD] provides a technical problem statement. the number of different combinations of existing IPv4 deployment
Unfortunately, the number of different combinations of existing IPv4 models, customer profiles and requirements, and possible coexistence
deployment models, customer profiles and requirements, and possible and transition models, is enormous, so it is quite impracticable to
coexistence and transition models, is enormous, so it is quite produce either a set of recommendations for each case, or a
impracticable to produce either a set of recommendations for each recommended "one size fits all" model. That is why this document
case, or a recommended "one size fits all" model. That is why this proposes a set of topics or dimensions, as a framework for a
document proposes a set of topics or dimensions, as a framework for a
reasonable number of recommendation documents. reasonable number of recommendation documents.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with IPv6. The IETF's view of The reader is assumed to be familiar with IPv6. The IETF's view of
core IPv6 requirements is to be found in [RFC4294] (currently being core IPv6 requirements is to be found in [RFC4294] (currently being
updated as [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]). However, this does not updated as [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]). However, this does not
give a complete view of mechanisms an ISP may need to deploy, since give a complete view of mechanisms an ISP may need to deploy, since
it considers the requirements for an individual node, not for a it considers the requirements for an individual node, not for a
network or service infrastructure as a whole. network or service infrastructure as a whole.
[RFC4029] discussed scenarios for introducing IPv6 into ISP networks, [RFC4029] discussed scenarios for introducing IPv6 into ISP networks,
skipping to change at page 4, line 19 skipping to change at page 4, line 19
conditions: conditions:
1. The documents will not be primary protocol specifications, 1. The documents will not be primary protocol specifications,
because those are the outcome of IETF working groups chartered to because those are the outcome of IETF working groups chartered to
work on specific protocol mechanisms. work on specific protocol mechanisms.
2. The documents are addressed to service providers who have taken 2. The documents are addressed to service providers who have taken
the decision to support IPv6, have acquired basic knowledge and the decision to support IPv6, have acquired basic knowledge and
skills, have determined how they will obtain upstream IPv6 skills, have determined how they will obtain upstream IPv6
connectivity, and are ready to write their operational plan for connectivity, and are ready to write their operational plan for
transition. transition.
The documents should each cover some or all of the following aspects The documents should describe scenarios for real transition to IPv6,
or dimensions: not life extensions to IPv4 or other matters best handled in other
working groups. They should each cover some or all of the following
aspects or dimensions:
o For the convenience of readers, each document should briefly o For the convenience of readers, each document should briefly
describe its network model in the Abstract (or Introduction) for describe its network model in the Abstract (or Introduction) for
quick reference. quick reference.
o The documents should explain how certain technology components fit o The documents should explain how certain technology components fit
together in a given transition and co-existence scenario. together in a given transition and co-existence scenario.
o They will present major generic network models, and their subsets, o They will present major generic network models, and their subsets,
which exist (or are firmly planned) today, including network which exist (or are firmly planned) today, including network
topologies and/or architectures. topologies and/or architectures.
o They should specify their scope: the range of technologies that o They should specify their scope: the range of technologies that
they do or do not apply to (e.g. specific access network they do or do not apply to (e.g. specific access network
skipping to change at page 5, line 36 skipping to change at page 5, line 40
security exposures that are specific to transition and coexistence security exposures that are specific to transition and coexistence
mechanisms. Thus, all recommendations for transition scenarios must mechanisms. Thus, all recommendations for transition scenarios must
include any security aspects that are specific to that scenario. include any security aspects that are specific to that scenario.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of the IANA. This document makes no request of the IANA.
5. Acknowledgements 5. Acknowledgements
Useful comments and contributions were made by ... and others. Useful comments and contributions were made by Randy Bush and other
members of the V6OPS WG.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
6. Change log 6. Change log
draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-01: small addition following
WGLC, 2011-02-02
draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-00: adopted by WG at IETF 79, draft-ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework-00: adopted by WG at IETF 79,
2010-12-01 2010-12-01
draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00: original version, 2010-08-18 draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00: original version, 2010-08-18
7. Informative References 7. Informative References
[I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines] [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]
Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6
Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment",
draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-08 (work in draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-14 (work in
progress), November 2010. progress), December 2010.
[I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]
Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements RFC 4294-bis", Requirements RFC 4294-bis",
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-06 (work in progress), draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07 (work in progress),
October 2010. December 2010.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
June 1999. June 1999.
[RFC4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P. [RFC4029] Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P.
Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into Savola, "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into
ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005. ISP Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005.
[RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294, [RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
April 2006. April 2006.
skipping to change at page 7, line 6 skipping to change at page 7, line 6
Brian Carpenter Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland University of Auckland
PB 92019 PB 92019
Auckland, 1142 Auckland, 1142
New Zealand New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Sheng Jiang Sheng Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd., Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing
P.R. China P.R. China
Email: shengjiang@huawei.com Email: shengjiang@huawei.com
Victor Kuarsingh Victor Kuarsingh
Rogers Communications Rogers Communications
Canada Canada
Email: Victor.Kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com Email: Victor.Kuarsingh@rci.rogers.com
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
21 lines changed or deleted 25 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.40. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/