Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-04

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-04-23
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 Terry Manderson
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: October 25, 2015                                 France Telecom
                                                          April 23, 2015

   Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
           draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-04

Abstract

   This document discusses issues induced by the change of the Dual-
   Stack Lite (DS-Lite) 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 October 25, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 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 October 25, 2015                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Prefix Binding for DS-Lite             April 2015

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.1.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     7.2.  Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6

1.  Introduction

   IPv6 deployment models assume 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], that is an IPv4 service continuity
   mechanism over an IPv6 network, the Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4)
   element derives an IPv6 address for the IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire setup
   purposes.

   The B4 element might obtain a new external IPv6 address, for a
   variety of reasons including a reboot of the CPE, power outage,
   DHCPv6 lease expiry, or other actions undertaken by the Service
   Provider.  If this occurs, traffic forwarded to a B4's previous IPv6
   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 Port Control Protocol
   (PCP) [RFC6887]).  The problem is further elaborated in Section 2.

   This document proposes recommendations to soften the impact of such
   renumbering issues (Section 3).

   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].

1.1.  Requirements Language

   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 October 25, 2015                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Prefix Binding for DS-Lite             April 2015

2.  The Problem

   Since IPv4 addresses assigned to hosts serviced by a B4 element are
   overlapping across multiple CPEs, the IPv6 address of a B4 element
Show full document text