draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6-04.txt   draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6-05.txt 
v6ops V. Kuarsingh, Ed. v6ops V. Kuarsingh, Ed.
Internet-Draft Rogers Communications Internet-Draft Rogers Communications
Intended status: Informational L. Howard Intended status: Informational L. Howard
Expires: December 1, 2012 Time Warner Cable Expires: January 12, 2013 Time Warner Cable
May 30, 2012 July 11, 2012
Wireline Incremental IPv6 Wireline Incremental IPv6
draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6-04 draft-ietf-v6ops-wireline-incremental-ipv6-05
Abstract Abstract
Operators worldwide are in various stages of preparing for, or Operators worldwide are in various stages of preparing for, or
deploying IPv6 into their networks. The operators often face deploying IPv6 into their networks. The operators often face
difficult challenges related to both IPv6 introduction along with difficult challenges related to both IPv6 introduction along with
those related to IPv4 run out. Operators will need to meet the those related to IPv4 run out. Operators will need to meet the
simultaneous needs of IPv6 connectivity and continue support for IPv4 simultaneous needs of IPv6 connectivity and continue support for IPv4
connectivity for legacy devices with a stagnant supply of IPv4 connectivity for legacy devices with a stagnant supply of IPv4
addresses. The IPv6 transition will take most networks from an IPv4- addresses. The IPv6 transition will take most networks from an IPv4-
skipping to change at page 1, line 43 skipping to change at page 1, line 43
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 December 1, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 12, 2013.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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
skipping to change at page 23, line 47 skipping to change at page 23, line 47
DS-Lite [RFC6333] also requires client support on the subscribers DS-Lite [RFC6333] also requires client support on the subscribers
premise device. The operator must clearly articulate to vendors premise device. The operator must clearly articulate to vendors
which technologies will be used at which points, how they interact which technologies will be used at which points, how they interact
with each other at the CPE, and how they will be provisioned. As an with each other at the CPE, and how they will be provisioned. As an
example, an operator may use 6RD in the outset of the transition, example, an operator may use 6RD in the outset of the transition,
then move to Native Dual Stack followed by DS-Lite. then move to Native Dual Stack followed by DS-Lite.
DS-Lite [RFC6333], as any tunneling option, is subject to a reduced DS-Lite [RFC6333], as any tunneling option, is subject to a reduced
MTU so operators need to plan to manage this environment. Additional MTU so operators need to plan to manage this environment. Additional
considerations for DS-Lite deployments can be found in [I-D.ietf- considerations for DS-Lite deployments can be found in
softwire-dslite-deployment]. [I-D.ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment].
5.5.2. NAT64 Deployment Considerations 5.5.2. NAT64 Deployment Considerations
The deployment of NAT64 assumes the network assigns an IPv6 address The deployment of NAT64 assumes the network assigns an IPv6 address
to a network endpoint that is translated to an IPv4 address to to a network endpoint that is translated to an IPv4 address to
provide connectivity to IPv4 Internet services and content. provide connectivity to IPv4 Internet services and content.
Experiments such as the one described in [RFC6586] highlight issues Experiments such as the one described in [RFC6586] highlight issues
related to IPv6-only deployments due to legacy IPv4 APIs and IPv4 related to IPv6-only deployments due to legacy IPv4 APIs and IPv4
literals. Many of these issues will be resolved by the eventual literals. Many of these issues will be resolved by the eventual
removal this undesired legacy behavior. Operational deployment removal this undesired legacy behavior. Operational deployment
skipping to change at page 25, line 37 skipping to change at page 25, line 37
9.1. Normative References 9.1. Normative References
[RFC6180] Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6 [RFC6180] Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6
Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180, Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180,
May 2011. May 2011.
9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References
[I-D.chen-v6ops-nat64-experience] [I-D.chen-v6ops-nat64-experience]
Chen, G., Cao, Z., Byrne, C., and Q. Niu, "NAT64 Chen, G., Cao, Z., Byrne, C., Xie, C., and D. Binet,
Operational Experiences", "NAT64 Operational Experiences",
draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-01 (work in progress), draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-02 (work in progress),
March 2012. July 2012.
[I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn] [I-D.donley-behave-deterministic-cgn]
Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., and K. Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., and K.
Sundaresan, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce Sundaresan, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments", Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments",
draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-02 (work in draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn-03 (work in
progress), March 2012. progress), June 2012.
[I-D.donley-nat444-impacts] [I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]
Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U. Donley, C., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and U.
Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on Colorado, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on
Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-04 Network Applications", draft-donley-nat444-impacts-04
(work in progress), May 2012. (work in progress), May 2012.
[I-D.ieft-softwire-dslite-deployment]
Lee, Y., Maglione, R., Williams, C., and C. Jacquenet,
"Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite",
draft-ieft-softwire-dslite-deployment-00 (work in
progress), September 2011.
[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements] [I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]
Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A., Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade NATs
(CGNs)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-06 (work in (CGNs)", draft-ietf-behave-lsn-requirements-07 (work in
progress), May 2012. progress), June 2012.
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment]
Lee, Y., Maglione, R., Williams, C., Jacquenet, C., and M.
Boucadair, "Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack
Lite", draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-03 (work in
progress), March 2012.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-464xlat]
Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT: Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-03 (work in progress), May 2012. draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-05 (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-6204bis] [I-D.ietf-v6ops-6204bis]
Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers",
draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09 (work in progress), May 2012. draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-09 (work in progress), May 2012.
[I-D.jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences] [I-D.jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences]
Brzozowski, J. and C. Griffiths, "Comcast IPv6 Trial/ Brzozowski, J. and C. Griffiths, "Comcast IPv6 Trial/
Deployment Experiences", Deployment Experiences",
draft-jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences-02 (work in draft-jjmb-v6ops-comcast-ipv6-experiences-02 (work in
progress), October 2011. progress), October 2011.
[I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel] [I-D.kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel]
Kuarsingh, V., Lee, Y., and O. Vautrin, "6to4 Provider Kuarsingh, V., Lee, Y., and O. Vautrin, "6to4 Provider
Managed Tunnels", Managed Tunnels",
draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-06 draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-07
(work in progress), May 2012. (work in progress), July 2012.
[I-D.townsley-v6ops-6rd-sunsetting] [I-D.townsley-v6ops-6rd-sunsetting]
Cassen, A. and M. Townsley, "6rd Sunsetting", Cassen, A. and M. Townsley, "6rd Sunsetting",
draft-townsley-v6ops-6rd-sunsetting-00 (work in progress), draft-townsley-v6ops-6rd-sunsetting-00 (work in progress),
November 2011. November 2011.
[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. 10 change blocks. 
23 lines changed or deleted 23 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/