1. RFC 6782
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                 V. Kuarsingh, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6782                         Rogers Communications
Category: Informational                                        L. Howard
ISSN: 2070-1721                                        Time Warner Cable
                                                           November 2012

                       Wireline Incremental IPv6


   Operators worldwide are in various stages of preparing for or
   deploying IPv6 in their networks.  These operators often face
   difficult challenges related to IPv6 introduction, along with those
   related to IPv4 run-out.  Operators will need to meet the
   simultaneous needs of IPv6 connectivity and continue support for IPv4
   connectivity for legacy devices with a stagnant supply of IPv4
   addresses.  The IPv6 transition will take most networks from an IPv4-
   only environment to an IPv6-dominant environment with long transition
   periods varying by operator.  This document helps provide a framework
   for wireline providers who are faced with the challenges of
   introducing IPv6 along with meeting the legacy needs of IPv4
   connectivity, utilizing well-defined and commercially available IPv6
   transition technologies.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Not all documents
   approved by the IESG are a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 1]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 2]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................4
   2. Operator Assumptions ............................................4
   3. Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach ................5
      3.1. Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4 .................................6
      3.2. IPv4 Resource Challenges ...................................6
      3.3. IPv6 Introduction and Operational Maturity .................7
      3.4. Service Management .........................................8
      3.5. Suboptimal Operation of Transition Technologies ............8
      3.6. Future IPv6 Network ........................................9
   4. IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis .............................9
      4.1. Automatic Tunneling Using 6to4 and Teredo .................10
      4.2. Carrier-Grade NAT (NAT444) ................................10
      4.3. 6rd .......................................................11
      4.4. Native Dual Stack .........................................11
      4.5. DS-Lite ...................................................12
      4.6. NAT64 .....................................................12
   5. IPv6 Transition Phases .........................................13
      5.1. Phase 0 - Foundation ......................................13
           5.1.1. Phase 0 - Foundation: Training .....................13
           5.1.2. Phase 0 - Foundation: System Capabilities ..........14
           5.1.3. Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing ......................14
           5.1.4. Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security ..15
           5.1.5. Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture ......15
           5.1.6. Phase 0 - Foundation: Tools and Management .........16
      5.2. Phase 1 - Tunneled IPv6 ...................................16
           5.2.1. 6rd Deployment Considerations ......................17
      5.3. Phase 2 - Native Dual Stack ...............................19
           5.3.1. Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations ........20
      5.4. Intermediate Phase for CGN ................................20
           5.4.1. CGN Deployment Considerations ......................22
      5.5. Phase 3 - IPv6-Only .......................................23
           5.5.1. DS-Lite ............................................23
           5.5.2. DS-Lite Deployment Considerations ..................24
           5.5.3. NAT64 Deployment Considerations ....................25
   6. Security Considerations ........................................26
   7. Acknowledgements ...............................................26
   8. References .....................................................26
      8.1. Normative References ......................................26
      8.2. Informative References ....................................26

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 3]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

1.  Introduction

   This document sets out to help wireline operators in planning their
   IPv6 deployments while ensuring continued support for IPv6-incapable
   consumer devices and applications.  This document identifies which
   technologies can be used incrementally to transition from IPv4-only
   to an IPv6-dominant environment with support for Dual Stack
   operation.  The end state or goal for most operators will be
   IPv6-only, but the path to this final state will depend heavily on
   the amount of legacy equipment resident in end networks and
   management of long-tail IPv4-only content.  Although no single plan
   will work for all operators, options listed herein provide a baseline
   that can be included in many plans.

   This document is intended for wireline environments that include
   cable, DSL, and/or fiber as the access method to the end consumer.
   This document attempts to follow the principles laid out in
   [RFC6180], which provides guidance on using IPv6 transition
   mechanisms.  This document will focus on technologies that enable and
   mature IPv6 within the operator's network, but it will also include a
   cursory view of IPv4 connectivity continuance.  This document will
   focus on transition technologies that are readily available in
   off-the-shelf Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) devices and
   commercially available network equipment.

2.  Operator Assumptions

   For the purposes of this document, the authors assume the following:

   -  The operator is considering deploying IPv6 or is in the process of
      deploying IPv6.

   -  The operator has a legacy IPv4 subscriber base that will continue
      to exist for a period of time.

   -  The operator will want to minimize the level of disruption to the
      existing and new subscribers.

   -  The operator may also want to minimize the number of technologies
      and functions that are needed to mediate any given set of
      subscribers' flows (overall preference for native IP flows).

   -  The operator is able to run Dual Stack in its own core network and
      is able to transition its own services to support IPv6.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 4]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   Based on these assumptions, an operator will want to utilize
   technologies that minimize the need to tunnel, translate, or mediate
   flows to help optimize traffic flow and lower the cost impacts of
   transition technologies.  Transition technology selections should be
   made to mediate the non-dominant IP family flows and allow native
   routing (IPv4 and/or IPv6) to forward the dominant traffic whenever
   possible.  This allows the operator to minimize the cost of IPv6
   transition technologies by minimizing the transition technology
   deployment size.

   An operator may also choose to prefer more IPv6-focused models where
   the use of transition technologies is based on an effort to enable
   IPv6 at the base layer as soon as possible.  Some operators may want
   to promote IPv6 early on in the deployment and have IPv6 traffic
   perform optimally from the outset.  This desire would need to be
   weighed against the cost and support impacts of such a choice and the
   quality of experience offered to subscribers.

3.  Reasons and Considerations for a Phased Approach

   When faced with the challenges described in the introduction,
   operators may want to consider a phased approach when adding IPv6 to
   an existing subscriber base.  A phased approach allows the operator
   to add in IPv6 while not ignoring legacy IPv4 connection
   requirements.  Some of the main challenges the operator will face
   include the following:

   -  IPv4 exhaustion may occur long before all traffic is able to be
      delivered over IPv6, necessitating IPv4 address sharing.

   -  IPv6 will pose operational challenges, since some of the software
      is quite new and has had short run time in large production
      environments and organizations are also not acclimatized to
      supporting IPv6 as a service.

   -  Connectivity modes will move from IPv4-only to Dual Stack in the
      home, changing functional behaviors in the consumer network and
      increasing support requirements for the operator.

   -  Although IPv6 support on CPEs is a newer phenomenon, there is a
      strong push by operators and the industry as a whole to enable
      IPv6 on devices.  As demand grows, IPv6 enablement will no longer
      be optional but will be necessary on CPEs.  Documents like
      [RFC6540] provide useful tools in the short term to help vendors
      and implementors understand what "IPv6 support" means.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 5]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   These challenges will occur over a period of time, which means that
   the operator's plans need to address the ever-changing requirements
   of the network and subscriber demand.  Although phases will be
   presented in this document, not all operators may need to enable each
   discrete phase.  It is possible that characteristics in individual
   networks may allow certain operators to skip or jump to various

3.1.  Relevance of IPv6 and IPv4

   The delivery of high-quality unencumbered Internet service should be
   the primary goal for operators.  With the imminent exhaustion of
   IPv4, IPv6 will offer the highest quality of experience in the long
   term.  Even though the operator may be focused on IPv6 delivery, it
   should be aware that both IPv4 and IPv6 will play a role in the
   Internet experience during transition.  The Internet is made of many
   interconnecting systems, networks, hardware, software, and content
   sources -- all of which will support IPv6 at different rates.

   Many subscribers use older operating systems and hardware that
   support IPv4-only operation.  Internet subscribers don't buy IPv4 or
   IPv6 connections; they buy Internet connections, which demand the
   need to support both IPv4 and IPv6 for as long as the subscriber's
   home network demands such support.  The operator may be able to
   leverage one or the other protocol to help bridge connectivity on the
   operator's network, but the home network will likely demand both IPv4
   and IPv6 for some time.

3.2.  IPv4 Resource Challenges

   Since connectivity to IPv4-only endpoints and/or content will remain
   common, IPv4 resource challenges are of key concern to operators.
   The lack of new IPv4 addresses for additional devices means that
   meeting the growth in demand of IPv4 connections in some networks
   will require address sharing.

   Networks are growing at different rates, including those in emerging
   markets and established networks based on the proliferation of
   Internet-based services and devices.  IPv4 address constraints will
   likely affect many, if not most, operators at some point, increasing
   the benefits of IPv6.  IPv4 address exhaustion is a consideration
   when selecting technologies that rely on IPv4 to supply IPv6
   services, such as 6rd (IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures)
   [RFC5969].  Additionally, if native Dual Stack is considered by the
   operator, challenges related to IPv4 address exhaustion remain a

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 6]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   Some operators may be able to reclaim small amounts of IPv4 addresses
   through addressing efficiencies in the network, although this will
   have few lasting benefits to the network and will not meet longer-
   term connectivity needs.  Secondary markets for IPv4 addresses have
   also begun to arise, but it's not well understood how this will
   complement overall demand for Internet growth.  Address transfers
   will also be subject to market prices and transfer rules governed by
   the Regional Registries.

   The lack of new global IPv4 address allocations will therefore force
   operators to support some form of IPv4 address sharing and may impact
   technological options for transition once the operator runs out of
   new IPv4 addresses for assignment.

3.3.  IPv6 Introduction and Operational Maturity

   The introduction of IPv6 will require new operational practices.  The
   IPv4 environment we have today was built over many years and matured
   by experience.  Although many of these experiences are transferable
   from IPv4 to IPv6, new experience and practices specific to IPv6 will
   be needed.

   Engineering and operational staff will need to develop experience
   with IPv6.  Inexperience may lead to early IPv6 deployment
   instability, and operators should consider this when selecting
   technologies for initial transition.  Operators may not want to
   subject their mature IPv4 service to a "new IPv6" path initially
   while it may be going through growing pains.  Dual Stack Lite
   (DS-Lite) [RFC6333] and NAT64 [RFC6146] are both technologies that
   require IPv6 to support connectivity to IPv4 endpoints or content
   over an IPv6-only access network.

   Further, some of these transition technologies are new and require
   refinement within running code.  Deployment experience is required to
   expose bugs and stabilize software in production environments.  Many
   supporting systems are also under development and have newly
   developed IPv6 functionality, including vendor implementations of
   DHCPv6, management tools, monitoring systems, diagnostic systems, and
   logging, along with other elements.

   Although the base technological capabilities exist to enable and run
   IPv6 in most environments, organizational experience is low.  Until
   such time as each key technical member of an operator's organization
   can identify IPv6 and can understand its relevance to the IP service
   offering, how it operates, and how to troubleshoot it, the deployment
   needs to mature and may be subject to events that impact subscribers.
   This fact should not incline operators to delay their IPv6 deployment

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 7]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   but should drive them to deploy IPv6 sooner, to gain much-needed
   experience before IPv6 is the only viable way to connect new hosts to
   the network.

   It should also be noted that although many transition technologies
   may be new, and some code related to access environments may be new,
   there is a large segment of the networking fabric that has had IPv6
   available for a long period of time and has had extended exposure in
   production.  Operators may use this to their advantage by first
   enabling IPv6 in the core network and then working outward towards
   the subscriber edge.

3.4.  Service Management

   Services are managed within most networks and are often based on the
   gleaning and monitoring of IPv4 addresses assigned to endpoints.
   Operators will need to address such management tools, troubleshooting
   methods, and storage facilities (such as databases) to deal with not
   only new address types containing 128-bit IPv6 addresses [RFC2460]
   but often both IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time.  Examination of
   address types, and recording delegated prefixes along with single
   address assignments, will likely require additional development.

   With any Dual Stack service -- whether native, 6rd-based, DS-Lite,
   NAT64, or some other service -- two address families may need to be
   managed simultaneously to help provide the full Internet experience.
   This would indicate that IPv6 management is not just a simple add-in
   but needs to be well integrated into the service management
   infrastructure.  In the early transition phases, it's quite likely
   that many systems will be missed, and that IPv6 services will go
   unmonitored and impairments will go undetected.

   These issues may be worthy of consideration when selecting
   technologies that require IPv6 as the base protocol to deliver IPv4
   connectivity.  Instability of the IPv6 service in such a case would
   impact IPv4 services.

3.5.  Suboptimal Operation of Transition Technologies

   Native delivery of IPv4 and IPv6 provides a solid foundation for
   delivery of Internet services to subscribers, since native IP paths
   are well understood and networks are often optimized to send such
   traffic efficiently.  Transition technologies, however, may alter the
   normal path of traffic or reduce the path MTU, removing many network
   efficiencies built for native IP flows.  Tunneling and translation
   devices may not be located on the most optimal path in line with the

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 8]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   natural traffic flow (based on route computation) and therefore may
   increase latency.  These paths may also introduce additional points
   of failure.

   Generally, the operator will want to deliver native IPv6 as soon as
   possible and utilize transition technologies only when required.
   Transition technologies may be used to provide continued access to
   IPv4 via tunneling and/or translation or may be used to deliver IPv6
   connectivity.  The delivery of Internet or internal services should
   be considered by the operator, since supplying connections using a
   transition technology will reduce overall performance for the

   When choosing between various transition technologies, operators
   should consider the benefits and drawbacks of each option.  Some
   technologies, like Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN)/NAT444, utilize many
   existing addressing and management practices.  Other options, such as
   DS-Lite and NAT64, remove the IPv4 addressing requirement to the
   subscriber premises device but require IPv6 to be operational and
   well supported.

3.6.  Future IPv6 Network

   An operator should also be aware that longer-term plans may include
   IPv6-only operation in all or much of the network.  The IPv6-only
   operation may be complemented by technologies such as NAT64 for long-
   tail IPv4 content reach.  This longer-term view may be distant to
   some but should be considered when planning out networks, addressing,
   and services.  The needs and costs of maintaining two IP stacks will
   eventually become burdensome, and simplification will be desirable.
   Operators should plan for this state and not make IPv6 inherently
   dependent on IPv4, as this would unnecessarily constrain the network.

   Other design considerations and guidelines for running an IPv6
   network should also be considered by the operator.  Guidance on
   designing an IPv6 network can be found in [IPv6-DESIGN] and

4.  IPv6 Transition Technology Analysis

   Operators should understand the main transition technologies for IPv6
   deployment and IPv4 run-out.  This document provides a brief
   description of some of the mainstream and commercially available
   options.  This analysis is focused on the applicability of
   technologies to deliver residential services and less focused on
   commercial access, wireless, or infrastructure support.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                     [Page 9]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   This document focuses on those technologies that are commercially
   available and in deployment.

4.1.  Automatic Tunneling Using 6to4 and Teredo

   Even when operators may not be actively deploying IPv6, automatic
   mechanisms exist on subscriber operating systems and CPE hardware.
   Such technologies include 6to4 [RFC3056], which is most commonly used
   with anycast relays [RFC3068].  Teredo [RFC4380] is also used widely
   by many Internet hosts.

   Documents such as [RFC6343] have been written to help operators
   understand observed problems with 6to4 deployments and provide
   guidelines on how to improve their performance.  An operator may want
   to provide local relays for 6to4 and/or Teredo to help improve the
   protocol's performance for ambient traffic utilizing these IPv6
   connectivity methods.  Experiences such as those described in
   [COMCAST-IPv6-EXPERIENCES] show that local relays have proved
   beneficial to 6to4 protocol performance.

   Operators should also be aware of breakage cases for 6to4 if
   non-[RFC1918] addresses are used within CGN/NAT444 zones.  Many
   off-the-shelf CPEs and operating systems may turn on 6to4 without a
   valid return path to the originating (local) host.  This particular
   use case can occur if any space other than [RFC1918] is used,
   including Shared Address Space [RFC6598] or space registered to
   another organization (squat space).  The operator can use 6to4
   Provider Managed Tunnels (6to4-PMT) [RFC6732] or attempt to block
   6to4 operation entirely by blocking the anycast ranges associated
   with [RFC3068].

4.2.  Carrier-Grade NAT (NAT444)

   Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN), specifically as deployed in a NAT444
   scenario [CGN-REQS], may prove beneficial for those operators who
   offer Dual Stack services to subscriber endpoints once they exhaust
   their pools of IPv4 addresses.  CGNs, and address sharing overall,
   are known to cause certain challenges for the IPv4 service [RFC6269]
   [NAT444-IMPACTS] but may be necessary, depending on how an operator
   has chosen to deal with IPv6 transition and legacy IPv4 connectivity

   In a network where IPv4 address availability is low, CGN/NAT444 may
   provide continued access to IPv4 endpoints.  Some of the advantages
   of using CGN/NAT444 include similarities in provisioning and

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 10]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   activation models.  IPv4 hosts in a CGN/NAT444 deployment will
   likely inherit the same addressing and management procedures as
   legacy IPv4 globally addressed hosts (i.e., DHCPv4, DNS (v4), TFTP,
   TR-069, etc.).

4.3.  6rd

   6rd [RFC5969] provides a way of offering IPv6 connectivity to
   subscriber endpoints when native IPv6 addressing on the access
   network is not yet possible.  6rd provides tunneled connectivity for
   IPv6 over the existing IPv4 path.  As the access edge is upgraded and
   subscriber premises equipment is replaced, 6rd can be replaced by
   native IPv6 connectivity.  6rd can be delivered on top of a CGN/
   NAT444 deployment, but this would cause all traffic to be subject to
   some type of transition technology.

   6rd may also be advantageous during the early transition period while
   IPv6 traffic volumes are low.  During this period, the operator can
   gain experience with IPv6 in the core network and improve the
   operator's peering framework to match those of the IPv4 service.  6rd
   scales by adding relays to the operator's network.  Another advantage
   of 6rd is that the operator does not need a DHCPv6 address assignment
   infrastructure and does not need to support IPv6 routing to the CPE
   to support a delegated prefix (as it's derived from the IPv4 address
   and other configuration parameters).

   Client support is required for 6rd operation and may not be available
   on deployed hardware.  6rd deployments may require the subscriber or
   operator to replace the CPE.  6rd will also require parameter
   configuration that can be powered by the operator through DHCPv4,
   manually provisioned on the CPE, or automatically provisioned through
   some other means.  Manual provisioning would likely limit deployment

4.4.  Native Dual Stack

   Native Dual Stack is often referred to as the "gold standard" of IPv6
   and IPv4 delivery.  It is a method of service delivery that is
   already used in many existing IPv6 deployments.  Native Dual Stack
   does, however, require that native IPv6 be delivered through the
   access network to the subscriber premises.  This technology option is
   desirable in many cases and can be used immediately if the access
   network and subscriber premises equipment support native IPv6.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 11]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   An operator who runs out of IPv4 addresses to assign to subscribers
   will not be able to provide traditional native Dual Stack
   connectivity for new subscribers.  In Dual Stack deployments where
   sufficient IPv4 addresses are not available, CGN/NAT444 can be used
   on the IPv4 path.

   Delivering native Dual Stack would require the operator's core and
   access networks to support IPv6.  Other systems, like DHCP, DNS, and
   diagnostic/management facilities, need to be upgraded to support IPv6
   as well.  The upgrade of such systems may often be non-trivial and

4.5.  DS-Lite

   DS-Lite [RFC6333] is based on a native IPv6 connection model where
   IPv4 services are supported.  DS-Lite provides tunneled connectivity
   for IPv4 over the IPv6 path between the subscriber's network device
   and a provider-managed gateway (Address Family Transition Router

   DS-Lite can only be used where there is a native IPv6 connection
   between the AFTR and the CPE.  This may mean that the technology's
   use may not be viable during early transition if the core or access
   network lacks IPv6 support.  During the early transition period, a
   significant amount of content and services may by IPv4-only.
   Operators may be sensitive to this and may not want the newer IPv6
   path to be the only bridge to IPv4 at that time, given the potential
   impact.  The operator may also want to make sure that most of its
   internal services and a significant amount of external content are
   available over IPv6 before deploying DS-Lite.  The availability of
   services on IPv6 would help lower the demand on the AFTRs.

   By sharing IPv4 addresses among multiple endpoints, like CGN/NAT444,
   DS-Lite can facilitate continued support of legacy IPv4 services even
   after IPv4 address run-out.  There are some functional considerations
   to take into account with DS-Lite, such as those described in

   DS-Lite requires client support on the CPE to function.  The ability
   to utilize DS-Lite will be dependent on the operator providing
   DS-Lite-capable CPEs or retail availability of the supported client
   for subscriber-acquired endpoints.

4.6.  NAT64

   NAT64 [RFC6146] provides the ability to connect IPv6-only connected
   clients and hosts to IPv4 servers without any tunneling.  NAT64
   requires that the host and home network support IPv6-only modes of

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 12]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   operation.  Home networks do not commonly contain equipment that is
   100% IPv6-capable.  It is also not anticipated that common home
   networks will be ready for IPv6-only operation for a number of years.
   However, IPv6-only networking can be deployed by early adopters or
   highly controlled networks [RFC6586].

   Viability of NAT64 will increase in wireline networks as consumer
   equipment is replaced by IPv6-capable versions.  There are incentives
   for operators to move to IPv6-only operation, when feasible; these
   include the simplicity of a single-stack access network.

5.  IPv6 Transition Phases

   The phases described in this document are not provided as a rigid set
   of steps but are considered a guideline that should be analyzed by
   operators planning their IPv6 transition.  Operators may choose to
   skip steps based on technological capabilities within their specific
   networks (residential/corporate, fixed/mobile), their business
   development perspectives (which may affect the pace of migration
   towards full IPv6), or a combination thereof.

   The phases are based on the expectation that IPv6 traffic volume may
   initially be low, and operator staff will gain experience with IPv6
   over time.  As traffic volumes of IPv6 increase, IPv4 traffic volumes
   will decline (in percentage relative to IPv6), until IPv6 is the
   dominant address family used.  Operators may want to keep the traffic
   flow for the dominant traffic class (IPv4 vs. IPv6) native to help
   manage costs related to transition technologies.  The cost of using
   multiple technologies in succession to optimize each stage of the
   transition should also be compared against the cost of changing and
   upgrading subscriber connections.

   Additional guidance and information on utilizing IPv6 transition
   mechanisms can be found in [RFC6180].  Also, guidance on incremental
   CGN for IPv6 transition can be found in [RFC6264].

5.1.  Phase 0 - Foundation

5.1.1.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Training

   Training is one of the most important steps in preparing an
   organization to support IPv6.  Most people have little experience
   with IPv6, and many do not even have a solid grounding in IPv4.  The
   implementation of IPv6 will likely produce many challenges due to
   immature code on hardware, and the evolution of many applications and
   systems to support IPv6.  To properly deal with these impending or
   current challenges, organizations must train their staff on IPv6.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 13]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   Training should also be provided within reasonable timelines from the
   actual IPv6 deployment.  This means the operator needs to plan in
   advance as it trains the various parts of its organization.  New
   technology and engineering staff often receive little training
   because of their depth of knowledge but must at least be provided
   opportunities to read documentation, architectural white papers, and
   RFCs.  Operations personnel who support the network and other systems
   need to be trained closer to the deployment timeframes so that they
   immediately use their newfound knowledge before forgetting.

   Subscriber support staff would require much more basic but large-
   scale training, since many organizations have massive call centers to
   support the subscriber base.  Tailored training will also be required
   for marketing and sales staff to help them understand IPv6 and build
   it into the product development and sales process.

5.1.2.  Phase 0 - Foundation: System Capabilities

   An important component with any IPv6 network architecture and
   implementation is the assessment of the hardware and operating
   capabilities of the deployed equipment (and software).  The
   assessment needs to be conducted irrespective of how the operator
   plans to transition its network.  The capabilities of the install
   base will, however, impact what technologies and modes of operation
   may be supported and therefore what technologies can be considered
   for the transition.  If some systems do not meet the needs of the
   operator's IPv6 deployment and/or transition plan, the operator may
   need to plan for replacement and/or upgrade of those systems.

5.1.3.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Routing

   The network infrastructure will need to be in place to support IPv6.
   This includes the routed infrastructure, along with addressing
   principles, routing principles, peering policy, and related network
   functions.  Since IPv6 is quite different from IPv4 in several ways,
   including the number of addresses that are made available, careful
   attention to a scalable and manageable architecture is needed.  One
   such change is the notion of a delegated prefix, which deviates from
   the common single-address phenomenon in IPv4-only deployments.
   Deploying prefixes per CPE can load the routing tables and require a
   routing protocol or route gleaning to manage connectivity to the
   subscriber's network.  Delegating prefixes can be of specific
   importance in access network environments where downstream
   subscribers often move between access nodes, raising the concern of
   frequent renumbering and/or managing movement of routed prefixes
   within the network (common in cable-based networks).

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 14]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

5.1.4.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Network Policy and Security

   Many, but not all, security policies will map easily from IPv4 to
   IPv6.  Some new policies may be required for issues specific to IPv6
   operation.  This document does not highlight these specific issues
   but raises the awareness that they are to be taken into consideration
   and should be addressed when delivering IPv6 services.  Other IETF
   documents, such as [RFC4942], [RFC6092], and [RFC6169], are excellent

5.1.5.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Transition Architecture

   Operators should plan out their transition architecture in advance
   (with room for flexibility) to help optimize how they will build out
   and scale their networks.  Should operators consider multiple
   technologies, like CGN/NAT444, DS-Lite, NAT64, and 6rd, they may want
   to plan out where network resident equipment may be located and
   potentially choose locations that can be used for all functional
   roles (i.e., placement of a NAT44 translator, AFTR, NAT64 gateway,
   and 6rd relays).  Although these functions are not inherently
   connected, additional management, diagnostic, and monitoring
   functions can be deployed alongside the transition hardware without
   the need to distribute these functions to an excessive or divergent
   number of locations.

   This approach may also prove beneficial if traffic patterns change
   rapidly in the future, as operators may need to evolve their
   transition infrastructure faster than originally anticipated.  One
   such example may be the movement from a CGN/NAT44 model (Dual Stack)
   to DS-Lite.  Since both traffic sets require a translation function
   (NAT44), synchronized pool management, routing, and management system
   positioning can allow rapid movement (the technological means to
   re-provision the subscriber notwithstanding).

   Operators should inform their vendors of what technologies they plan
   to support over the course of the transition to make sure the
   equipment is suited to support those modes of operation.  This is
   important for both network gear and subscriber premises equipment.

   Operators should also plan their overall strategy to meet the target
   needs of an IPv6-only deployment.  As traffic moves to IPv6, the
   benefits of only a single stack on the access network may eventually
   justify the removal of IPv4 for simplicity.  Planning for this
   eventual model, no matter how far off this may be, will help
   operators embrace this end state when needed.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 15]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

5.1.6.  Phase 0 - Foundation: Tools and Management

   The operator should thoroughly analyze all provisioning and
   management systems to develop requirements for each phase.  This will
   include concepts related to the 128-bit IPv6 address, the notation of
   an assigned IPv6 prefix (Prefix Delegation), and the ability to
   detect either or both address families when determining if a
   subscriber has full Internet service.

   If an operator stores usage information, this would need to be
   aggregated to include both IPv4 and IPv6 information as both address
   families are assigned to the same subscriber.  Tools that verify
   connectivity may need to query the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.

5.2.  Phase 1 - Tunneled IPv6

   Tunneled access to IPv6 can be regarded as an early-stage transition
   option by operators.  Many network operators can deploy native IPv6
   from the access edge to the peering edge fairly quickly but may not
   be able to offer IPv6 natively to the subscriber edge device.  During
   this period of time, tunneled access to IPv6 is a viable alternative
   to native IPv6.  It is also possible that operators may be rolling
   out IPv6 natively to the subscriber edge, but the time involved may
   be long, due to logistics and other factors.  Even while carefully
   rolling out native IPv6, operators can deploy relays for automatic
   tunneling technologies like 6to4 and Teredo.  Where native IPv6 to
   the access edge is a longer-term project, operators can consider 6rd
   [RFC5969] as an option to offer in-home IPv6 access.  Note that 6to4
   and Teredo have different address selection [RFC6724] behaviors than
   6rd.  Additional guidelines on deploying and supporting 6to4 can be
   found in [RFC6343].

   The operator can deploy 6rd relays into the network and scale them as
   needed to meet the early subscriber needs of IPv6.  Since 6rd
   requires the upgrade or replacement of CPE devices, the operator may
   want to ensure that the CPE devices support not just 6rd but native
   Dual Stack and other tunneling technologies, such as DS-Lite, if
   possible [IPv6-CE-RTR-REQS].  6rd clients are becoming available in
   some retail channel products and within the original equipment
   manufacturer (OEM) market.  Retail availability of 6rd is important,
   since not all operators control or have influence over what equipment
   is deployed in the consumer home network.  The operator can support
   6rd access with unmanaged devices using DHCPv4 Option 212
   (OPTION_6RD) [RFC5969].

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 16]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                       Encap IPv6 Flow |  6rd   |      |  IPv6   |
                                - - -> | Relay  | <- > |   Net   |
          +---------+         /        |        |       \       /
          |         |        /         +--------+         -----
          |   6rd   + <-----                              -----
          |         |                                   /       \
          |  Client |         IPv4 Flow                |  IPv4   |
          |         + < - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -> |   Net   |
          |         |                                   \       /
          +---------+                                     -----

                         Figure 1: 6rd Basic Model

   6rd used as an initial transition technology also provides the added
   benefit of a deterministic IPv6 prefix based on the IPv4 assigned
   address.  Many operational tools are available or have been built to
   identify what IPv4 (often dynamic) address was assigned to a
   subscriber CPE.  So, a simple tool and/or method can be built to help
   identify the IPv6 prefix using the knowledge of the assigned IPv4

   An operator may choose to not offer internal services over IPv6 if
   tunneled access to IPv6 is used, since some services generate a large
   amount of traffic.  Such traffic may include video content, like
   IPTV.  By limiting how much traffic is delivered over the 6rd
   connection (if possible), the operator can avoid costly and complex
   scaling of the relay infrastructure.

5.2.1.  6rd Deployment Considerations

   Deploying 6rd can greatly speed up an operator's ability to support
   IPv6 to the subscriber network if native IPv6 connectivity cannot be
   supplied.  The speed at which 6rd can be deployed is highlighted in

   The first core consideration is deployment models.  6rd requires the
   CPE (6rd client) to send traffic to a 6rd relay.  These relays can
   share a common anycast address or can use unique addresses.  Using an
   anycast model, the operator can deploy all the 6rd relays using the
   same IPv4 interior service address.  As the load increases on the
   deployed relays, the operator can deploy more relays into the
   network.  The one drawback is that it may be difficult to manage the
   traffic volume among additional relays, since all 6rd traffic will
   find the nearest (in terms of IGP cost) relay.  The use of multiple
   relay addresses can help provide more control but has the
   disadvantage of being more complex to provision.  Subsets of CPEs

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 17]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   across the network will require and contain different relay
   information.  An alternative approach is to use a hybrid model using
   multiple anycast service IP addresses for clusters of 6rd relays,
   should the operator anticipate massive scaling of the environment.
   Thus, the operator has multiple vectors by which to scale the

                                              |        |
                                IPv4 Addr.X   |  6rd   |
                                     - - - >  | Relay  |
               +-----------+        /         |        |
               | Client A  | <- - -           +--------+
                             Separate IPv4 Service Addresses
               | Client B  | < - -            +--------+
               +-----------+       \          |        |
                                     - - - >  |  6rd   |
                                IPv4 Addr.Y   | Relay  |
                                              |        |

             Figure 2: 6rd Multiple IPv4 Service Address Model

                                            |        |
                              IPv4 Addr.X   |  6rd   |
                                   - - - >  | Relay  |
             +-----------+        /         |        |
             | Client A  |- - - -           +--------+
                       Common (Anycast) IPv4 Service Addresses
             | Client B  | - - -            +--------+
             +-----------+       \          |        |
                                   - - - >  |  6rd   |
                              IPv4 Addr.X   | Relay  |
                                            |        |

             Figure 3: 6rd Anycast IPv4 Service Address Model

   Provisioning of the 6rd endpoints is affected by the deployment model
   chosen (i.e., anycast vs. specific service IP addresses).  Using
   multiple IP addresses may require more planning and management, as
   subscriber equipment will have different sets of data to be

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 18]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   provisioned into the devices.  The operator may use DHCPv4, manual
   provisioning, or other mechanisms to provide parameters to subscriber

   If the operator manages the CPE, support personnel will need tools
   able to report the status of the 6rd tunnel.  Usage information can
   be collected on the operator edge, but if source/destination flow
   details are required, data must be collected after the 6rd relay (the
   IPv6 side of the connection).

   6rd [RFC5969], like any tunneling option, is subject to a reduced
   MTU, so operators need to plan to manage this type of environment.

       +---------+  IPv4 Encapsulation  +------------+
       |         +- - - - - - - - - - - +            |
       |   6rd   +----------------------+     6rd    +------------
       |         |   IPv6 Packet        |    Relay   | IPv6 Packet
       | Client  +----------------------+            +------------
       |         +- - - - - - - - - - - +            |      ^
       +---------+  ^                   +------------+      |
                    |                                       |
                    |                                       |
             IPv4 (Tools/Mgmt)                     IPv6 Flow Analysis

                  Figure 4: 6rd Tools and Flow Management

5.3.  Phase 2 - Native Dual Stack

   Either as a follow-up phase to "tunneled IPv6" or as an initial step,
   the operator may deploy native IPv6 down to the CPEs.  This phase
   would then allow both IPv6 and IPv4 to be natively accessed by the
   subscriber home network without translation or tunneling.  The native
   Dual Stack phase can be rolled out across the network while the
   tunneled IPv6 service remains operational, if used.  As areas begin
   to support native IPv6, subscriber home equipment will generally
   prefer using the IPv6 addresses derived from the delegated IPv6
   prefix versus tunneling options as defined in [RFC6724], such as 6to4
   and Teredo.  Specific care is needed when moving to native Dual Stack
   from 6rd, as documented in [6rd-SUNSETTING].

   Native Dual Stack is the best option at this point in the transition
   and should be sought as soon as possible.  During this phase, the
   operator can confidently move both internal and external services to
   IPv6.  Since there are no translation devices needed for this mode of
   operation, it transports both protocols (IPv6 and IPv4) efficiently
   within the network.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 19]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

5.3.1.  Native Dual Stack Deployment Considerations

   Native Dual Stack is a very desirable option for the IPv6 transition,
   if feasible.  The operator must enable IPv6 on the network core and
   peering edge before attempting to turn on native IPv6 services.
   Additionally, provisioning and support systems such as DHCPv6, DNS,
   and other functions that support the subscriber's IPv6 Internet
   connection need to be in place.

   The operator must treat IPv6 connectivity with the same operational
   importance as IPv4.  A poor IPv6 service may be worse than not
   offering an IPv6 service at all, as it will negatively impact the
   subscriber's Internet experience.  This may cause users or support
   personnel to disable IPv6, limiting the subscriber from the benefits
   of IPv6 connectivity as network performance improves.  New code and
   IPv6 functionality may cause instability at first.  The operator will
   need to monitor, troubleshoot, and resolve issues promptly.

   Prefix assignment and routing are new for common residential
   services.  Prefix assignment is straightforward (DHCPv6 using
   Identity Associations for Prefix Delegation (IA_PDs)), but
   installation and propagation of routing information for the prefix,
   especially during access layer instability, are often poorly
   understood.  The operator should develop processes for renumbering
   subscribers who move to new access nodes.

   Operators need to keep track of the dynamically assigned IPv4 address
   along with the IPv6 address and prefix.  Any additional dynamic
   elements, such as auto-generated host names, need to be considered
   and planned for.

5.4.  Intermediate Phase for CGN

   Acquiring more IPv4 addresses is already challenging, if not
   impossible; therefore, address sharing may be required on the IPv4
   path of a Dual Stack deployment.  The operator may have a preference
   to move directly to a transition technology such as DS-Lite [RFC6333]
   or may use Dual Stack with CGN/NAT444 to facilitate IPv4 connections.

   CGN/NAT444 requires IPv4 addressing between the subscriber premises
   equipment and the operator's translator; this may be facilitated by
   shared addresses [RFC6598], private addresses [RFC1918], or another
   address space.  CGN/NAT444 is only recommended to be used alongside

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 20]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   IPv6 in a Dual Stack deployment and not on its own.  Figure 5
   provides a comparative view of a traditional IPv4 path versus one
   that uses CGN/NAT444.

                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                             IPv4 Flow |  CGN   |      |         |
                                - - -> +        + < -> |         |
          +---------+         /        |        |      |         |
          |   CPE   | <- - - /         +--------+      |  IPv4   |
          |---------+                                  |   Net   |
                                                       |         |
          +---------+         IPv4 Flow                |         |
          |   CPE   | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > |         |
          |---------+                                   \       /

                     Figure 5: Overlay CGN Deployment

   In the case of native Dual Stack, CGN/NAT444 can be used to assist in
   extending connectivity for the IPv4 path while the IPv6 path remains
   native.  For endpoints operating in an IPv6+CGN/NAT444 model, the
   native IPv6 path is available for higher-quality connectivity,
   helping host operation over the network.  At the same time, the CGN
   path may offer less than optimal performance.  These points are also
   true for DS-Lite.

                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                             IPv4 Flow |  CGN   |      |  IPv4   |
                                - - -> +        + < -> |   Net   |
          +---------+         /        |        |       \       /
          |         | <- - - /         +--------+        -------
          |   Dual  |
          |  Stack  |                                     -----
          |   CPE   |         IPv6 Flow                 / IPv6  \
          |         | <- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > |   Net   |
          |---------+                                   \       /

                       Figure 6: Dual Stack with CGN

   CGN/NAT444 deployments may make use of a number of address options,
   which include [RFC1918] or Shared Address Space [RFC6598].  It is
   also possible that operators may use part of their own Regional
   Internet Registry (RIR) assigned address space for CGN zone
   addressing if [RFC1918] addresses pose technical challenges in their

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 21]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   networks.  It is not recommended that operators use 'squat space', as
   it may pose additional challenges with filtering and policy control

5.4.1.  CGN Deployment Considerations

   CGN is often considered undesirable by operators but is required in
   many cases.  An operator who needs to deploy CGN capabilities should
   consider the impacts of the function on the network.  CGN is often
   deployed in addition to running IPv4 services and should not
   negatively impact the already working native IPv4 service.  CGNs will
   be needed on a small scale at first and will grow to meet the demands
   based on traffic and connection dynamics of the subscriber, content,
   and network peers.

   The operator may want to deploy CGNs more centrally at first and then
   scale the system as needed.  This approach can help conserve the
   costs of the system, limiting the deployed base and scaling it based
   on actual traffic demand.  The operator should use a deployment model
   and architecture that allow the system to scale as needed.

                                       +--------+         -----
                                       |        |       /       \
                                       |  CGN   |      |         |
                                - - -> +        + < -> |         |
          +---------+         /        |        |      |         |
          |   CPE   | <- - - /         +--------+      |  IPv4   |
          |         |                      ^           |         |
          |---------+                      |           |   Net   |
                           +--------+    Centralized   |         |
          +---------+      |        |       CGN        |         |
          |         |      |  CGN   |                  |         |
          |   CPE   | <- > +        + <- - - - - - - > |         |
          |---------+      |        |                   \       /
                           +--------+                     -----
                           Distributed CGN

           Figure 7: CGN Deployment: Centralized vs. Distributed

   The operator may be required to log translation information
   [CGN-REQS].  This logging may require significant investment in
   external systems that ingest, aggregate, and report such information

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 22]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   Since CGN has noticeable impacts on certain applications
   [NAT444-IMPACTS], operators may deploy CGN only for those subscribers
   who may be less affected by CGN (if possible).

5.5.  Phase 3 - IPv6-Only

   Once native IPv6 is widely deployed in the network and well supported
   by tools, staff, and processes, an operator may consider supporting
   only IPv6 to all or some subscriber endpoints.  During this final
   phase, IPv4 connectivity may or may not need to be supported,
   depending on the conditions of the network, subscriber demand, and
   legacy device requirements.  If legacy IPv4 connectivity is still
   demanded (e.g., for older nodes), DS-Lite [RFC6333] may be used to
   tunnel the traffic.  If IPv4 connectivity is not required but access
   to legacy IPv4 content is, then NAT64 [RFC6144] [RFC6146] can be

5.5.1.  DS-Lite

   DS-Lite allows continued access for the IPv4 subscriber base using
   address sharing for IPv4 Internet connectivity but with only a single
   layer of translation, as compared to CGN/NAT444.  This mode of
   operation also removes the need to directly supply subscriber
   endpoints with an IPv4 address, potentially simplifying the
   connectivity to the customer (single address family) and supporting
   IPv6-only addressing to the CPE.

   The operator can also move Dual Stack endpoints to DS-Lite
   retroactively to help optimize the IPv4 address-sharing deployment by
   removing the IPv4 address assignment and routing component.  To
   minimize traffic needing translation, the operator should have
   already moved most content to IPv6 before the IPv6-only phase is
                                        +--------+      -----
                                        |        |    /       \
                        Encap IPv4 Flow |  AFTR  |   |  IPv4   |
                                 -------+        +---+   Net   |
           +---------+         /        |        |    \       /
           |         |        /         +--------+      -----
           | DS-Lite +-------                           -----
           |         |                                /       \
           |  Client |         IPv6 Flow             |  IPv6   |
           |         +-------------------------------|   Net   |
           |         |                                \       /
           +---------+                                  -----

                       Figure 8: DS-Lite Basic Model

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 23]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   If the operator had previously decided to enable a CGN/NAT444
   deployment, it may be able to co-locate the AFTR and CGN/NAT444
   processing functions within a common network location to simplify
   capacity management and the engineering of flows.  This case may be
   evident in a later transition stage, when an operator chooses to
   optimize its network and IPv6-only operation is feasible.

5.5.2.  DS-Lite Deployment Considerations

   The same deployment considerations associated with native IPv6
   deployments apply to DS-Lite and NAT64.  IPv4 will now be dependent
   on IPv6 service quality, so the IPv6 network and services must be
   running well to ensure a quality experience for the end subscriber.
   Tools and processes will be needed to manage the encapsulated IPv4
   service.  If flow analysis is required for IPv4 traffic, this may be
   enabled at a point beyond the AFTR (after decapsulation) or where
   DS-Lite-aware equipment is used to process traffic midstream.

     +---------+  IPv6 Encapsulation  +------------+
     |         + - - - - - - - - - - -+            |
     |  AFTR   +----------------------+    AFTR    +------------
     |         |   IPv4 Packet        |            | IPv4 Packet
     | Client  +----------------------+            +------------
     |         + - - - - - - - - - - -+            |      ^
     +---------+  ^               ^   +------------+      |
                  |               |                       |
                  |               |                       |
           IPv6 (Tools/Mgmt)      |           IPv4 Packet Flow Analysis
             Midstream IPv4 Packet Flow Analysis (Encapsulation Aware)

                 Figure 9: DS-Lite Tools and Flow Analysis

   DS-Lite [RFC6333] also requires client support on the subscriber
   premises device.  The operator must clearly articulate to vendors
   which technologies will be used at which points, how they interact
   with each other at the CPE, and how they will be provisioned.  As an
   example, an operator may use 6rd in the outset of the transition,
   then move to native Dual Stack followed by DS-Lite.

   DS-Lite [RFC6333], like any tunneling option, is subject to a reduced
   MTU, so operators need to plan to manage this type of environment.
   Additional considerations for DS-Lite deployments can be found in

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 24]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

5.5.3.  NAT64 Deployment Considerations

   The deployment of NAT64 assumes that the network assigns an IPv6
   address to a network endpoint that is translated to an IPv4 address
   to provide connectivity to IPv4 Internet services and content.
   Experiments such as the one described in [RFC6586] highlight issues
   related to IPv6-only deployments due to legacy IPv4 APIs and IPv4
   literals.  Many of these issues will be resolved by the eventual
   removal of this undesirable legacy behavior.  Operational deployment
   models, considerations, and experiences related to NAT64 have been
   documented in [NAT64-EXPERIENCE].

                                        +--------+      -----
                                        |        |    /       \
                              IPv6 Flow | NAT64  |   |  IPv4   |
                                 -------+ DNS64  +---+   Net   |
           +---------+         /        |        |    \       /
           |         |        /         +--------+      -----
           |  IPv6   +-------                           -----
           |         |                                /       \
           |  Only   |         IPv6 Flow             |  IPv6   |
           |         +-------------------------------|   Net   |
           |         |                                \       /
           +---------+                                  -----

                    Figure 10: NAT64/DNS64 Basic Model

   To navigate some of the limitations of NAT64 when dealing with legacy
   IPv4 applications, the operator may choose to implement 464XLAT
   [464XLAT] if possible.  As support for IPv6 on subscriber equipment
   and content increases, the efficiency of NAT64 increases by reducing
   the need to translate traffic.  NAT64 deployments would see an
   overall decline in translator usage as more traffic is promoted to
   IPv6-to-IPv6 native communication.  NAT64 may play an important part
   in an operator's late-stage transition, as it removes the need to
   support IPv4 on the access network and provides a solid go-forward
   networking model.

   It should be noted, as with any technology that utilizes address
   sharing, that the IPv4 public pool sizes (IPv4 transport addresses
   per [RFC6146]) can pose limits to IPv4 server connectivity for the
   subscriber base.  Operators should be aware that some IPv4 growth in
   the near term is possible, so IPv4 translation pools need to be

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 25]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

6.  Security Considerations

   Operators should review the documentation related to the technologies
   selected for IPv6 transition.  In those reviews, operators should
   understand what security considerations are applicable to the chosen
   technologies.  As an example, [RFC6169] should be reviewed to
   understand security considerations related to tunneling technologies.

7.  Acknowledgements

   Special thanks to Wes George, Chris Donley, Christian Jacquenet, and
   John Brzozowski for their extensive review and comments.

   Thanks to the following people for their textual contributions,
   guidance, and comments: Jason Weil, Gang Chen, Nik Lavorato, John
   Cianfarani, Chris Donley, Tina TSOU, Fred Baker, and Randy Bush.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6180]  Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6
              Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180,
              May 2011.

8.2.  Informative References

   [464XLAT]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation", Work
              in Progress, September 2012.

              Townsley, W. and A. Cassen, "6rd Sunsetting", Work
              in Progress, November 2011.

              Perreault, S., Ed., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa,
              A., and H. Ashida, "Common requirements for Carrier Grade
              NATs (CGNs)", Work in Progress, August 2012.

              Brzozowski, J. and C. Griffiths, "Comcast IPv6 Trial/
              Deployment Experiences", Work in Progress, October 2011.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 26]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

              Donley, C., Grundemann, C., Sarawat, V., and K.
              Sundaresan, "Deterministic Address Mapping to Reduce
              Logging in Carrier Grade NAT Deployments", Work
              in Progress, July 2012.

              Lee, Y., Maglione, R., Williams, C., Jacquenet, C., and M.
              Boucadair, "Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack
              Lite", Work in Progress, August 2012.

              Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
              Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", Work
              in Progress, October 2012.

              Matthews, P., "Design Guidelines for IPv6 Networks", Work
              in Progress, October 2012.

              Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "IPv6 Guidance for Internet
              Content and Application Service Providers", Work
              in Progress, September 2012.

              Donley, C., Ed., Howard, L., Kuarsingh, V., Berg, J., and
              J. Doshi, "Assessing the Impact of Carrier-Grade NAT on
              Network Applications", Work in Progress, October 2012.

              Chen, G., Cao, Z., Byrne, C., Xie, C., and D. Binet,
              "NAT64 Operational Experiences", Work in Progress,
              August 2012.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

   [RFC3068]  Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
              RFC 3068, June 2001.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 27]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4942]  Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/
              Co-existence Security Considerations", RFC 4942,
              September 2007.

   [RFC5569]  Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
              Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, January 2010.

   [RFC5969]  Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
              Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
              RFC 5969, August 2010.

   [RFC6092]  Woodyatt, J., "Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in
              Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing
              Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
              January 2011.

   [RFC6144]  Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for
              IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, April 2011.

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, April 2011.

   [RFC6169]  Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security
              Concerns with IP Tunneling", RFC 6169, April 2011.

   [RFC6264]  Jiang, S., Guo, D., and B. Carpenter, "An Incremental
              Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", RFC 6264,
              June 2011.

   [RFC6269]  Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
              Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
              June 2011.

   [RFC6333]  Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J., and Y. Lee, "Dual-
              Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4
              Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.

   [RFC6343]  Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment",
              RFC 6343, August 2011.

   [RFC6540]  George, W., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and L. Howard,
              "IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes", BCP 177,
              RFC 6540, April 2012.

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 28]
RFC 6782                Wireline Incremental IPv6          November 2012

   [RFC6586]  Arkko, J. and A. Keranen, "Experiences from an IPv6-Only
              Network", RFC 6586, April 2012.

   [RFC6598]  Weil, J., Kuarsingh, V., Donley, C., Liljenstolpe, C., and
              M. Azinger, "IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address
              Space", BCP 153, RFC 6598, April 2012.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.

   [RFC6732]  Kuarsingh, V., Lee, Y., and O. Vautrin, "6to4 Provider
              Managed Tunnels", RFC 6732, September 2012.

Authors' Addresses

   Victor Kuarsingh (editor)
   Rogers Communications
   8200 Dixie Road
   Brampton, Ontario  L6T 0C1

   EMail: victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com
   URI:   http://www.rogers.com

   Lee Howard
   Time Warner Cable
   13820 Sunrise Valley Drive
   Herndon, VA  20171

   EMail: lee.howard@twcable.com
   URI:   http://www.timewarnercable.com

Kuarsingh & Howard            Informational                    [Page 29]
  1. RFC 6782