IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition: Requirements for solutions draft-bagnulo-v6ops-6man-nat64-pb-statement-01 M. Bagnulo, F. Baker v6ops WG - IETF71.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Computer Networks TCP/IP Protocol Suite.
Advertisements

Stacking it Up Experimental Observations on the operation of Dual Stack Services in todays Network Geoff Huston APNIC R&D February
Architectural Approaches to Multi-Homing for IPv6 A Walk-Through of draft-huston-multi6-architectures-00 Geoff Huston June 2004.
1 An Update on Multihoming in IPv6 Report on IETF Activity IPv6 Technical SIG 1 Sept 2004 APNIC18, Nadi, Fiji Geoff Huston.
IPv4 Unallocated Address Space Exhaustion Geoff Huston Chief Scientist APNIC APNIC 24, September 2007.
DNSSEC Support in SOHO CPE OARC Workshop Ottawa 24 th September 2008.
Using HIP to solve MULTI-HOMING IN IPv6 networks YUAN Zhangyi Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.
Stateless IPv4-IPv6 Interconnection for DS-lite and A+P Flexible IPv6 Migration Scenarios in the Context of IPv4 Address Shortage I-D.boucadair-behave-ipv6-portrange.
IETF 80 th Problem Statement for Operational IPv6/IPv4 Co-existence 3/31/2011 Chongfeng Xie Qiong Sun
4V6 – stateless 4Via6 W. Dec R. Asati
IP Family Selection for MIF Host Zhen Cao, Dapeng Liu China Mobile.
BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company. Copyright © 2011 Boeing. All rights reserved. On-Demand Dynamic Route Optimization Between Tunnel Endpoints.
PMIPv6 Localized Routing Problem Statement draft-liebsch-netext-pmip6-ro-ps-01.txt Marco Liebsch, Sangjin Jeong, Qin Wu IETF75 - Stockholm NetExt WG, 30.
Why NAT64 must win. Andy Davidson 27 th Septeber 2012 ______________________________________________________ CTO, 2Connect UK. RIPE65, Amsterdam
Ch 20. Internet Protocol (IP) Internetworking PHY and data link layers operate locally.
All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2009 Enhancing Dynamic Cloud-based Services using Network Virtualization F. Hao, T.V. Lakshman, Sarit Mukherjee, H.
Requirements (and Other Considerations) for NAT-PT Replacement from RFC 4966 IETF70 Vancouver v6ops W.G. December 6, 2007 Elwyn Davies.
Mobile IP Outline Intro to mobile IP Operation Problems with mobility.
NAT-PT Applicability Statement Design Team IETF #57, IETF V6OPS WG Vienna, Austria July 16, 2003.
1 IPv6 and IPv4 Interoperation and Transition Tony Hain co-chair IETF ngtrans WG
NAT, firewalls and IPv6 Christian Huitema Architect, Windows Networking Microsoft Corporation.
IPv4 - IPv6 Integration and Coexistence Strategies Warakorn Sae-Tang Network Specialist Professional Service Department A Subsidiary.
TCP/IP Protocol Suite 1 Chapter 27 Upon completion you will be able to: Next Generation: IPv6 and ICMPv6 Understand the shortcomings of IPv4 Know the IPv6.
Transitioning to IPv6 April 15,2005 Presented By: Richard Moore PBS Enterprise Technology.
IPv6: The Next Generation Internet Protocol CEOS WGISS 18: Beijing, China September 2004 Dave Hartzell Computer Sciences Corp, NASA Ames
December 5, 2007 CS-622 IPv6: The Next Generation 1 IPv6 The Next Generation Saroj Patil Nadine Sundquist Chuck Short CS622-F2007 University of Colorado,
20.1 Chapter 20 Network Layer: Internet Protocol Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Permission required for reproduction or display.
Project by: Palak Baid (pb2358) Gaurav Pandey (gip2103) Guided by: Jong Yul Kim.
17/10/031 Summary Peer to peer applications and IPv6 Microsoft Three-Degrees IPv6 transition mechanisms used by Three- Degrees: 6to4 Teredo.
© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco Public 1 Addressing the Network – IPv4 Network Fundamentals – Chapter 6.
1 Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, nature calls a butterfly. - Anonymous.
Understanding Internet Protocol
Guide to Network Defense and Countermeasures Second Edition
CSCI 530 Lab Firewalls. Overview Firewalls Capabilities Limitations What are we limiting with a firewall? General Network Security Strategies Packet Filtering.
COM555: Mobile Technologies Location-Identifier Separation.
1 Network Address Translation (NAT) Relates to Lab 7. Module about private networks and NAT.
Transition Mechanisms for Ipv6 Hosts and Routers RFC2893 By Michael Pfeiffer.
COS 420 Day 20. Agenda Group Project Discussion Protocol Definition Due April 12 Paperwork Due April 29 Assignment 3 Due Assignment 4 is posted Last Assignment.
Chapter 2 Internet Protocol DoD Model Four layers: – Process/Application layer – Host-to-Host layer – Internet layer – Network Access layer.
NAT64 marcelo bagnulo, Philip Matthews, Iljitsch van Beijnum IETF 72 - Dublin.
Guoliang YANG Problem Statement of China Telecom.
資 管 Lee Lesson 11 Coexistence and Migration. 資 管 Lee Lesson Objectives Coexistence and migration overview Coexistence mechanisms ◦ Dual Stack ◦ Tunneling.
Coexistence and Migration
TCOM 515 Lecture 6.
1 Chapter 6: Proxy Server in Internet and Intranet Designs Designs That Include Proxy Server Essential Proxy Server Design Concepts Data Protection in.
Guide to TCP/IP Fourth Edition
Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers -RFC 4213 Kai-Po Yang
Windows 7 Firewall.
IPv6 and IPv4 Coexistence Wednesday, October 07, 2015 IPv6 and IPv4 Coexistence Motorola’s Views for Migration and Co-existence of 3GPP2 Networks to Support.
1 Chapter 12: VPN Connectivity in Remote Access Designs Designs That Include VPN Remote Access Essential VPN Remote Access Design Concepts Data Protection.
IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Scenarios - Requirements for Translation Mechanisms. draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-01 M. Bagnulo, F. Baker, I. van Beijnum.
APNIC Update The state of IP address distribution and IPv6 deployment status Miwa Fujii Senior IPv6 Program Specialist APNIC.
The Implementation of 6TALK Yong-Geun Hong The 1 st GLOBAL IPv6 Summit in AP
Ch 6: IPv6 Deployment Last modified Topics 6.3 Transition Mechanisms 6.4 Dual Stack IPv4/IPv6 Environments 6.5 Tunneling.
The necessity of 4-over-6 stateless address sharing mechanism Satoru Matsushima Jie Jiao Chunfa Sun 0.
Packet Capture and Analysis: An Introduction to Wireshark 1.
An Update on Multihoming in IPv6 Report on IETF Activity RIPE IPv6 Working Group 22 Sept 2004 RIPE 49 Geoff Huston, APNIC.
W&L Page 1 CCNA CCNA Training 3.4 Describe the technological requirements for running IPv6 in conjunction with IPv4 Jose Luis Flores /
Site Multihoming for IPv6 Brian Carpenter IBM TERENA Networking Conference, Poznan, 2005.
17/10/031 Euronetlab – Implementation of Teredo
IPv6 Security Issues Georgios Koutepas, NTUA IPv6 Technology and Advanced Services Oct.19, 2004.
IPv6 Transition Mechanisms - 6DISS Workshop - 5 March 2006 IPv6 Transition Mechanisms, their Security and Management Georgios Koutepas National Technical.
Atrium Router Project Proposal Subhas Mondal, Manoj Nair, Subhash Singh.
COM594: Mobile Technologies Location-Identifier Separation.
Mobile IP THE 12 TH MEETING. Mobile IP  Incorporation of mobile users in the network.  Cellular system (e.g., GSM) started with mobility in mind. 
GGF 17 - May, 11th 2006 FI-RG: Firewall Issues Overview Document update and discussion The “Firewall Issues Overview” document.
Lab A: Planning an Installation
Network Address Translation (NAT)
Network Address Translation (NAT)
Network Address Translation (NAT)
Presentation transcript:

IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition: Requirements for solutions draft-bagnulo-v6ops-6man-nat64-pb-statement-01 M. Bagnulo, F. Baker v6ops WG - IETF71

Transition scenarios There are six obvious transition scenarios: –IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 system across an IPv4 network, –An IPv6 system connecting to an IPv6 system across an IPv6 network, –an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 system across an IPv6 network, –an IPv6 system connecting to an IPv6 system across an IPv4 network, –an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv6 system, or –an IPv6 system connecting to an IPv4 system.

Transition scenarios IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 system across an IPv4 network, An IPv6 system connecting to an IPv6 system across an IPv6 network, Dual stack provides support for these

Transition scenarios an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 system across an IPv6 network, an IPv6 system connecting to an IPv6 system across an IPv4 network, Both tunnels and translation could support these, we reccomend tunnels.

Transition scenarios an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv6 system, or an IPv6 system connecting to an IPv4 system. Translation is needed to support these

Requirements for the overall transition strategy (I) 1.Any transition strategy must contemplate a period of coexistence, with ultimate transition (e.g., turning off IPv4) being business decision. 2.Many are delaying turning on IPv6 (initiating coexistence in their networks) as long as possible. 3.Some are turning off IPv4 immediately, at least as a customer service. 4.Therefore, dual stack approaches, tunneled architectures, and translation architectures are all on the table.

Requirements for the overall transition strategy (II) 5.Any solution that makes translation between semi- connected islands "normal" has failed the fundamental architecture of the Internet and can expect service complexity to be an issue. 6.Translation architectures must provide for the advertisement of IPv4 names to IPv6 systems and vice versa. The address advertised in the "far" domain must be that of the translating gateway. 7.Tunneling architectures must provide a way to minimize and ideally eliminate configuration of the tunnel.

Market timing considerations We expect translation mechanism to require deployment in the very near term –Prior to IPv4 address depletion Host software tends to be changed primarily when people buy new hardware –every 2-3 years on average, The mechanisms needs to be compatible with currently-deployed –Windows (XP and Vista), MacOSX (Tiger and Leopard), Linux, and Solaris operating systems. The solution is expected to deploy via patch update procedures in the hosts or otherwise all solved in network devices.

Requirements for new generation of v4-v6 translation mechanisms Basic Requirements that MUST be supported Important things that SHOULD be supported

Basic Requirements that MUST be supported R1: Changes in the hosts: –The translation mechanism MUST NOT require changes in the v4-only nodes to support the Basic requirements. –The translation mechanism MAY require changes to v6-only nodes. R2: Basic communication support: –Translation mechanim must support v4-initiated and v6-initiated (?) short-lived local handle.

Basic Requirements that MUST be supported R3: Interaction with dual-stack hosts: –Translation mechanism MUST allow using native connectivity when it is available. This means that if a v6-only nodes wants to communicate with a dual stack, it must use native v6 connectivity and the other way round R4: Private Addressing: –The translation mechanism MUST support v4-initiated short- lived local handle type of communication when the v4-only node has a private v4 address. R5: DNS semantics preservation: –Any modifications to DNS responses associated with translation MUST NOT violate standard DNS semantics. This includes in particular that a DNS response should not be invalid if it ends up in the wrong context, i.e. traversing a non expected part of the topology.

Basic Requirements that MUST be supported R6: Routing: –IPv6 routing should not be affected in any way, and there should be no risk of importing "entropy" from the IPv4 routing tables into IPv6. R7: Protocols supported: –The translation mechanism MUST support at least TCP, UDP, ICMP, TLS. R8: Behave-type requirements: –Mapping timeout (5min), –Address mapping behaviour: Endpoint independent –Port Assignment –Filtering behaviour: Endpoint independent

Basic Requirements that MUST be supported R9: Fragmented packets: –The translation mechanism MUST suport fragmented packets when the fragments arrive in an ordered fashion. R10: Security: –The adoption of the translation mechanism MUST not introduce new vulnerabilities in the Internet

Important things that SHOULD be supported (I) I1: DNSSec support –DNSSec support SHOULD NOT be prevented. If the translation mechanism is used jointly with DNSSec, then DNSSec requirements take precedence over the translation requirements. Morevoer DNSSec must not be weakened in any way I2: Operational flxibility –It should be possible to locate the translation device at an arbitrary point in the network (i.e. not at fixed points such as a site exit), so that there is full operational flexibility.

Important things that SHOULD be supported (II) I4: Fragmented packets bis –The translation mechanism SHOULD suport fragmented packets when the fragments arrive in an out of order fashion. I5: Richer application behaviour support –The translation mechanism SHOULD support the other types of application behaviours, including Long-lived application associations, callbacks and referrals.In order to support this. The translation mechanism MAY require changes to v4-only nodes too I6: MIPv6 support –The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent MIPv6 Route Optimization when the CN is a v4-only node I7: SCTP support –The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent a SCTP communication between a v6-only node and a v4-only node

Important things that SHOULD be supported (III) I8: DCCP support –The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent a DCCP communication between a v6-only node and a v4-only node I9: Multicast support –The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent multicast traffic between the v4-only nodes and the v6-only nodes.