[v6tc] background information / potential text for a charter for v6tc
Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM> Wed, 22 December 2004 17:25 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15380; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:25:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChAOr-0005MF-Ab; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:35:51 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ChABM-0003si-72; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:21:52 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ch9vB-0004iq-SV for v6tc@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:05:09 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13410 for <v6tc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:05:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from brmea-mail-3.sun.com ([192.18.98.34]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ChA4s-0004fx-BN for v6tc@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:15:12 -0500
Received: from esunmail ([129.147.156.34]) by brmea-mail-3.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iBMH55Vu025099 for <v6tc@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:05:05 -0700 (MST)
Received: from xpa-fe2 (esunmail [129.147.156.34]) by edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I9400L7ZVGG8L@edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM> for v6tc@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:05:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([83.197.5.178]) by mail.sun.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.02 (built Oct 21 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0I9400611VGD44@mail.sun.net> for v6tc@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:05:04 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:05:04 -0800
From: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@Sun.COM>
To: v6tc@ietf.org
Message-id: <9FBFA542-543B-11D9-B08B-00039358A080@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: e8c5db863102a3ada84e0cd52a81a79e
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [v6tc] background information / potential text for a charter for v6tc
X-BeenThere: v6tc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6tc.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc>, <mailto:v6tc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/v6tc>
List-Post: <mailto:v6tc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6tc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc>, <mailto:v6tc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: v6tc-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v6tc-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: a92270ba83d7ead10c5001bb42ec3221
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Problem statement: -------------------------- Enable ISPs (ISPs are defined as traditional broadband ISP, 3GPP, enterprise IT department, ...) who have upgraded their core network to v6 one way or another (using native links or tunnels) to offer production v6 service to their customers without upgrading all their access network at once (which can be cumbersome, expensive,...) Essentially, it decouples the issue to upgrade the core and the access networks. Automatic transition mechanisms like 6to4, teredo do not really leverage the infrastructure the ISP had put in place and offer little insight on how to gradually introduce native IPv6 in the access network. Configured tunnels are better suited for the job, and a number of deployment have been undertaken using the tunnel broker approach. However, the lack of standard on how to configure those tunnels remains a serious obstacle and manual configuration of all the parameters is out of reach of typical customers. ISP assumptions: ----------------------- It is assumed that the ISP has upgraded its core network so it can have global IPv6 connectivity. It is also assumed that the ISP has obtain its address space, either from the RIRs or an upstream ISP. The ISP can be small, large or extra large and span the entire planet. In that case, it is expected that a number of IPv6 point of presence will be deployed all over the word and that customers will 'connect' to the 'closest' one. Access media assumptions: -------------------------------------- No assumptions are made on the access network. They will have high or low bandwidth, high or low latency, high or low access cost, and there will be more or less secure. Especially in the case of wireless access network, confidentiality of the data cannot always be guaranteed. Address spoofing may or may not be a problem. Although those environment vary widely, it is expected that a single configuration protocol with a number of options can be designed to accommodate all the different cases. Customer assumptions: -------------------------------- Customers connecting with IPv6 to their ISP can have multiple configurations. The most common topologies expected to be encountered are: - a single node, directly attached to the ISP access network - a router, directly attached to the ISP access network - a router, behind an unmodifiable IPv4-only customer owned NAT The IPv4 addresses of the customer may change over time and be dynamically allocated. In the case of NAT environment, both the internal and the external addresses may be dynamically allocated. Another case to consider in the "roaming" user. When the customer is roaming within the ISP network(s), this is not really different than having a dynamic IPv4 address, except that the "nearest" ISP tunnel end point to use may be different. When the customer is roaming in another ISP network that does not offer IPv6 service, the "home" ISP may be willing to still offer tunneling service, however the security implications and the tunnel end point discovery mechanism to use will be different. Work items: ---------------- The problem can be decomposed into two independent areas: a) Having a way for an ISP to indicate that it is offering tunnel services to its direct customers, and how to invoke them. This is also known as tunnel end-point discovery. Due to the large variety of customer configuration expected, classic mechanisms like DHCP or SLP cannot be used (they would have a hard time to work through an unmodified NAT). This mechanism will be limited to the administrative domain controlled by the ISP and thus could not be used by customers roaming in other ISPs networks. b) Setting up of a tunnel, maybe with some negotiation about various parameters. For reasons of efficiency over very high latency networks, minimizing the number of packet exchanges is important, thus it is possible that some parameters that would normally be obtained over a subsequent DHCPv6 exchange (like IPv6 addresses and/or prefixes) would be optionally piggybacked into this configuration negotiation. Focus: --------- This work is not about creating a new transition mechanism, but to offer a standardized way to configure v6 over v4 tunnels, potentially using UDP as an extra layer of encapsulation to work over NAT. The work perform in a) and b) will be made generic but will focus essentially on v6 over v4 case. It is expected that it could be reused to help configuring v4 over v6 tunnels, but this will not be the priority of this working group. Way forward: ------------------ The v6tc working group will do three things in parallel: 1. Merge the three v6Ops requirement documents into a v6tc combined goal document, dropping things that are not necessary and anchoring each goal into characteristics of the different access networks considered. This document would also described targeted customer environments. The outcome of this work item is a Informational RFC. 2. Finalize the tunnel end point discovery mechanism tradeoff analysis document. This work will collect input from other related working groups, mainly DNSop and be published as an Informational RFC. When this will be understood, we'll standardize one solution. This will be published as an Standard Track RFC. 3. Use the issue tracker to document the different tradeoff in the solution space some of the issues initially explored are: - Could we live with UDP encapsulation always on? - Do we need mutual authentication? How strong should this be? - Should some of this authentication mechanism "follow-on" atfer the tunnel set-up phase as finished? - Should we embed some kind of signaling in the tunnel? - How much of the wheel are we going to re-invent? e.g. if we define a new packet exchange and there is a goal to minimize the total number of RTT needed, there is a temptation to piggy-back configuration information in this protocol that could be over wise obtained via DHCP... When those tradeoff will be understood, the v6tc working group will define a configuration protocol that will be published as Standard Track RFC. List of documents to be used originally as input to v6tc: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- http://www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/ietf/draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf- reqs-01.txt draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01.txt draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc-02.txt Goals & Milestones: -------------------------- 01/2005: initial merged goals document 01/2005; initial tunnel end point discovery analysis document 01/2005: issue tracker set-up for configuration trade-off analysis 04/2005: initial configuration protocol specification document 06/2005: wg last on tunnel end point discovery analysis document 06/2005: initital tunnel end point discovery specification document 06/2005: wg last call on goals documents 12/2005: wg last call on configuration protocol specification document _______________________________________________ v6tc mailing list v6tc@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc
- [v6tc] background information / potential text fo… Alain Durand