Recommendation for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-01-14 (latest revision 2014-10-27)
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Best Current Practice
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
IETF conflict review conflict-review-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding
Additional URLs
Stream WG state (None)
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD Ted Lemon
Send notices to mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Network Working Group                                      S. Vinapamula
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Best Current Practice                      M. Boucadair
Expires: April 30, 2015                                   France Telecom
                                                        October 27, 2014

   Recommendation for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
           draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-03

Abstract

   This document discusses issues induced by the change of the Basic
   Bridging BroadBand (B4) IPv6 address and sketches a set of
   recommendations to solve those issues.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Vinapamula & Boucadair   Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Prefix Binding for DS-Lite           October 2014

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.1.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     8.2.  Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   IPv6 deployment models assumes IPv6 prefixes are delegated by Service
   Providers to the connected CPEs (Customer Premise Equipments) or
   hosts, which in their turn derive IPv6 addresses out of that prefix.
   In the case of DS-Lite [RFC6333], the Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4)
   element derives an IPv6 address for the softwire setup purposes.

   A B4 element might obtain a new external IPv6 address, for a variety
   of reasons including a reboot of the CPE, power outage, DHCP lease
   expiry, or other action undertaken by the Service Provider.  If this
   occurs, traffic forwarded to a B4's previous address might be
   delivered to another B4 that now acquired that address.  This affects
   all mapping types, whether implicit (e.g., by sending a TCP SYN) or
   explicit (e.g., using PCP [RFC6887]).

   The main goal of this document is to propose recommendations to
   soften the impact of such renumbering issues.

   Note that in some deployments, CPE renumbering may be required to
   accommodate some privacy-related requirements to avoid the same
   prefix be assigned to the same customer.  It is out of scope of this
   document to discuss such contexts.

   This document complements [RFC6908].

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Vinapamula & Boucadair   Expires April 30, 2015                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Prefix Binding for DS-Lite           October 2014

3.  The Problem

   Since the network behind B4 can be overlapping across multiple CPEs,
   B4 address plays a key role in identifying associated resources
   assigned for each of the connections.  These resources maintain state
   of Endpoint-Independent Mapping (EIM), Endpoint-Independent Filtering
   (EIF), preserve external IPv4 address assigned in the AFTR, and PCP
   mappings and flows.
Show full document text