Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-10

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-08-19
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 Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Mohamed Boucadair
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2015-06-23)
IESG IESG state Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Needs a YES. Needs 6 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Responsible AD Terry Manderson
Send notices to mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, sureshk@juniper.net, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding.shepherd@ietf.org, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding.ad@ietf.org, draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding@ietf.org
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state None
Network Working Group                                      S. Vinapamula
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Best Current Practice                      M. Boucadair
Expires: February 20, 2016                                France Telecom
                                                         August 19, 2015

   Recommendations for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
           draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-10

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 February 20, 2016.

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 February 20, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Prefix Binding for DS-Lite            August 2015

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Introducing Subscriber-Mask . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Normative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Informative references  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   IPv6 deployment models assume IPv6 prefixes are delegated by Service
   Providers to the connected CPEs (Customer Premises Equipments) or
   hosts, which in turn derive IPv6 addresses from that prefix.  In the
   case of Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite) [RFC6333], which 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 IPv6 address, for a variety of
   reasons that include (but are not limited to) 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 may never reach its destination or be delivered
   to another B4 that now uses the address formerly assigned to the
   original B4.  This situation affects all mapping types, both implicit
   (e.g., by sending a TCP SYN) and 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 4).

   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 February 20, 2016               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Prefix Binding for DS-Lite            August 2015

2.  The Problem

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