RFC 4852

Network Working Group                                           J. Bound
Request for Comments: 4852                                   Y. Pouffary
Category: Informational                                  Hewlett-Packard
                                                              S. Klynsma
                                                                T. Chown
                                               University of Southampton
                                                                D. Green
                                                     Command Information
                                                              April 2007

          IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis - IP Layer 3 Focus

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).


   This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise networks
   focusing on IP Layer 3.  These networks are characterized as having
   multiple internal links and one or more router connections to one or
   more Providers, and as being managed by a network operations entity.
   The analysis focuses on a base set of transition notational networks
   and requirements expanded from a previous document on enterprise
   scenarios.  Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition
   analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6, assuming
   a Dual-IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node environment within
   the enterprise.  Then, a set of transition mechanisms are recommended
   for each notational network.

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
   2. Terminology .....................................................5
   3. Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition .......................5
   4. Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis ......................10
      4.1. Staged Dual-Stack Deployment ..............................10
      4.2. Routing Capability Analysis for Dual-IP Deployment ........11
           4.2.1. IPv6 Routing Capability ............................11
           4.2.2. IPv6 Routing Non-Capability ........................11
         Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure ..12
         Deploy a Parallel IPv6 Infrastructure .....12
      4.3. Remote IPv6 Access to the Enterprise ......................12
      4.4. Other Considerations ......................................13
   5. Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis ..........................13
      5.1. Internal versus External Tunnel Endpoint ..................13
      5.2. Manual versus Autoconfigured ..............................14
   6. IPv6-Dominant Network Deployment Analysis ......................14
   7. General Issues from Analysis ...................................15
      7.1. Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment ...........................15
      7.2. Network Infrastructure Requirements .......................15
      7.3. Stage 1: Initial Connectivity Steps .......................15
           7.3.1. Obtaining External Connectivity ....................16
           7.3.2. Obtaining Global IPv6 Address Space ................16
      7.4. Stage 2: Deploying Generic Basic Service Components .......16
           7.4.1. Developing an IPv6 Addressing Plan .................16
           7.4.2. IPv6 DNS ...........................................17
           7.4.3. IPv6 Routing .......................................17
           7.4.4. Configuration of Hosts .............................18
           7.4.5. Security ...........................................18
      7.5. Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack Deployment On-Site .........19
   8. Applicable Transition Mechanisms ...............................20
      8.1. Recognizing Incompatible Network Touchpoints ..............20
      8.2. Recognizing Application Incompatibilities .................21
      8.3. Using Multiple Mechanisms to Support IPv6 Transition ......22
   9. Security Considerations ........................................22
   10. References ....................................................22
      10.1. Normative References .....................................22
      10.2. Informative References ...................................24
   11. Acknowledgments ...............................................25
   Appendix A. Crisis Management Network Scenarios ...................26
      A.1. Introduction ..............................................26
      A.2. Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment in Crisis Management
           Networks ..................................................26
      A.3. Description of a Generic Crisis Management Network ........28
      A.4. Stages of IPv6 Deployment .................................29

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

1.  Introduction

   This document analyzes the transition to IPv6 in enterprise networks
   focusing on IP Layer 3.  These networks are characterized as having
   multiple internal links, and one or more router connections to one or
   more Providers, and as being managed by a network operations entity.
   The analysis focuses on a base set of transition notational networks
   and requirements expanded from a previous document on enterprise
   scenarios.  Discussion is provided on a focused set of transition
   analysis required for the enterprise to transition to IPv6, assuming
   a Dual-IP layer (IPv4 and IPv6) network and node environment within
   the enterprise.  Then, a set of transition mechanisms are recommended
   for each notational network.

   The audience for this document is the enterprise network team
   considering deployment of IPv6.  The document will be useful for
   enterprise teams that have to determine the IPv6 transition strategy
   for their enterprise.  It is expected that those teams include
   members from management, network operations, and engineering.  The
   analysis and notational networks presented provide an example set of
   cases the enterprise can use to build an IPv6 transition strategy.

   The enterprise analysis begins by describing a matrix as a tool to be
   used to portray the different IPv4 and IPv6 possibilities for
   deployment.  The document will then provide analysis to support
   enterprise-wide Dual-IP layer deployment strategy, to provide the
   reader with a view of how that can be planned and what options are
   available.  The document then discusses the deployment of sparse IPv6
   nodes within the enterprise and the requirements that need to be
   considered and implemented when the enterprise remains with an IPv4-
   only routing infrastructure for some time.  The next discussion
   focuses on the use of IPv6 when it is determined to be dominant
   across or within parts of the enterprise network.

   The document then discusses the general issues and applicability from
   the previous analysis.  The document concludes by providing a set of
   current transition mechanism recommendations for the notational
   network scenarios to support an enterprise that is planning to deploy

   As stated, this document focuses only on the deployment cases where a
   Dual-IP Layer 3 is supported across the network and on the nodes in
   the enterprise.  Additional deployment transition analysis will be
   required from the effects of an IPv6-only node or Provider
   deployments, and is beyond the scope of this document.  In addition,
   this document does not attempt to define or discuss any use with
   network address translation [NATPT] or Provider Independent address

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   The following specific topics are currently out of scope for this

    - Multihoming
    - Application transition/porting (see [APPS]).
    - IPv6 VPN, firewall, or intrusion detection deployment.
    - IPv6 network management and QoS deployment.
    - Detailed IT Department requirements.
    - Deployment of novel IPv6 services, e.g., Mobile IPv6.
    - Requirements or Transition at the Providers' network.
    - Transport protocol selection for applications with IPv6.
    - Application layer and configuration issues.
    - IPv6 only future deployment scenarios.

   This document focuses on IP Layer 3 deployment in the same way as the
   other IPv6 deployment analysis works have done [UMAN] [ISPA] [3GPA].
   This document covers deployment of IPv6 "on the wire", including
   address management and DNS services.

   We are also assuming that the enterprise deployment is being
   undertaken by the network administration team, i.e., this document
   does not discuss the case of an individual user gaining IPv6
   connectivity (to some external IPv6 provider) from within an
   enterprise network.  Much of the analysis is applicable to wireless
   networks, but there are additional considerations for wireless
   networks not contained within this document.

   In Section 2, we introduce the terminology used in this document.  In
   Section 3, we introduce and define a tools matrix and define the IP
   Layer 3 connectivity requirements.  In Section 4, we discuss wide
   scale Dual-IP layer use within an enterprise.  In Section 5, we
   discuss sparse Dual-IP layer deployment within an enterprise.  In
   Section 6, we discuss IPv6-dominant network deployment within the
   enterprise.  In Section 7, we discuss general issues and
   applicability.  In Section 8, a set of transition mechanisms that can
   support the deployment of IPv6 with an enterprise are recommended.

   This document then provides Appendix A for readers depicting a Crisis
   Management enterprise network to demonstrate an enterprise network
   example that requires all the properties as analyzed in Sections 3,
   4, 5, 6, and 7.  In addition, we recommend that readers of this
   document also read another use-case document to support an IPv6
   Transition for a Campus Network [CAMP].

   Readers should also be aware that a parallel effort for an enterprise
   to transition to IPv6 is training, but out of scope for this

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

2.  Terminology

   Enterprise Network - A network that has multiple internal links, and
                        one or more router connections to one or more
                        Providers, and is actively managed by a network
                        operations entity.

   Provider           - An entity that provides services and
                        connectivity to the Internet or other private
                        external networks for the enterprise network.

   IPv6-capable       - A node or network capable of supporting both
                        IPv6 and IPv4.

   IPv4-only          - A node or network capable of supporting only

   IPv6-only          - A node or network capable of supporting only
                        IPv6.  This does not imply an IPv6 only stack in
                        this document.

   Dual-IP            - A network or node that supports both IPv4 and

   IP-capability      - The ability to support IPv6 only, IPv4 only, or
                        Dual-IP Layer

   IPv6-dominant      - A network running IPv6 routing and control plane
                        services that provides transport for both IPv4
                        and IPv6 protocol services

   Transition         - The network strategy the enterprise uses to
   Implementation       transition to IPv6.

3.  Enterprise Matrix Analysis for Transition

   In order to identify the best-suited transition mechanisms for an
   enterprise, it is recommended that the enterprise have an in-depth
   up-to-date understanding of its current IT environment.  This
   understanding will help choose the best-suited transition mechanisms.
   It is important to note that one size does not fit all.  Selection of
   mechanisms that reduce the impact on the existing environment is
   suggested.  When selecting a transition mechanism, one must consider
   the functionality required, its scalability characteristic, and the
   security implications of each mechanism.

   To provide context for an analysis of the transitioning enterprise at
   Layer 3, we have provided a matrix that describes various scenarios

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   which might be encountered during an IPv6 transition.  The notional
   enterprise network is comprised of hosts attached to an enterprise-
   owned intranet(s) at two different global locations separated by the
   Internet.  The enterprise owns, operates, and maintains its own
   intranetworks, but relies on an external provider organization that
   offers Internet Service.  Both local and destination intranetworks
   are operated by different organizations within the same enterprise
   and consequently could have different IP-capability than other
   intranetworks at certain times in the transition period.

   Addressing every possible combination of network IP-capability in
   this notional enterprise network is impractical; therefore, trivial
   notional networks (i.e., pure IPv4, pure IPv6, and ubiquitous Dual-
   IP) are not considered.  In addition, the authors could not conceive
   of any scenarios involving IPv6-only ISPs or IPv6-only nodes in the
   near term and consequently have not addressed scenarios with IPv6-
   only ISPs or IPv6-only nodes.  We assume all nodes that host IPv6
   applications are Dual-IP.  The matrix does not assume or suggest that
   network address translation is used.  The authors recommend that
   network address translation not be used in these notional cases.

   Future enterprise transitions that support IPv6-only nodes and IPv6-
   only ISPs will require separate analysis, which is beyond the scope
   of this document.

   Table 1 below is a matrix of ten possible Transition Implementations
   that, being encountered in an enterprise, may require analysis and
   the selection of an IPv6 transition mechanism for that notional
   network.  Each possible implementation is represented by the rows of
   the matrix.  The matrix describes a set of notional networks as

      - The first column represents the protocol used by the application
        and, below, the IP-capability of the node originating the IP
        (Application/Host 1 OS)

      - The second column represents the IP-capability of the host
        network wherein the node originated the packet.
        (Host 1 Network)

      - The third column represents the IP-capability of the service
        provider network.
        (Service Provider)

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

      - The fourth column represents the IP-capability of the
        destination network wherein the originating IP packets are
        (Host 2 Network)

      - The fifth column represents the protocol used by the application
        and, below, the IP-capability of the destination node receiving
        the originating IP packets.
        (Application/Host 2 OS)

   As an example, notional network 1 is an IPv6 application residing on
   a Dual-IP layer host trying to establish a communications exchange
   with a destination IPv6 application.  To complete the information
   exchange, the packets must first traverse the host's originating IPv4
   network (intranet), then the service provider's and destination
   host's Dual-IP network.

   Obviously, Table 1 does not describe every possible scenario.
   Trivial notional networks (such as pure IPv4, pure IPv6, and
   ubiquitous Dual-IP) are not addressed.  However, the authors feel
   these ten scenarios represent the vast majority of transitional
   situations likely to be encountered in today's enterprise.
   Therefore, we will use these ten to address the analysis for
   enterprise deployment.

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

     Table 1 - Enterprise Scenario Deployment Matrix

        |Application |Host 1 |Service |Host 2 |Application |
        |----------- |Network|Provider|Network|----------  |
        | Host 1 OS  |       |        |       | Host 2 OS  |
        |    IPv6    |       |Dual IP |       |    IPv6    |
      A |    ----    | IPv4  |  or    |Dual IP|    ----    |
        |    Dual IP |       | IPv4   |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
      B |    ----    | IPv6  | IPv4   | IPv4  |    ----    |
        |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
      C |    ----    | IPv4  |Dual IP | IPv6  |    ----    |
        |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv4    |Dual IP|        |       |    IPv4    |
      D |    ----    |  or   | IPv4   | IPv6  |    ----    |
        |    Dual IP | IPv6  |        |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv6    |Dual IP|        |Dual IP|    IPv4    |
      E |    ----    |  or   |Dual IP |  or   |    ----    |
        |    Dual IP | IPv6  |        | IPv6  |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
      F |    ----    | IPv6  | IPv4   | IPv4  |    ----    |
        |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
      G |    ----    | IPv6  | Dual IP| IPv6  |    ----    |
        |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
      H |    ----    | IPv6  |Dual IP | IPv4  |    ----    |
        |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    IPv6    |
      I |    ----    | IPv6  |  IPv4  | IPv6  |    ----    |
        |    IPv4    |       |        |       |    Dual IP |
        |    IPv6    |       |        |       |    IPv4    |
      J |    ----    | IPv4  |  IPv4  | IPv6  |    ----    |
        |    Dual IP |       |        |       |    Dual IP |

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   The reader should note that Scenarios A-C in Table 1 are variations
   of compatible hosts communicating across largely (but not entirely)
   homogenous networks.  In each of the first three scenarios, the
   packet must traverse at least one incompatible network component.
   For example, Scenario B represents an enterprise that wishes to use
   IPv6 applications, but has yet to transition its internal networks;
   its Service Provider also lags, offering only a v4 IP-service.
   Conversely, Scenario C represents an enterprise that has completed
   transition to IPv6 in its core networks (as has its Service
   Provider), but continues to require a legacy IPv4-based application.

   Scenario D represents the unusual situation where the enterprise has
   transitioned its core intranetworks to IPv6, but (like Scenario B)
   it's ISP provider has yet to transition.  In addition, this
   enterprise continues to retain critical legacy IPv4-based
   applications that must communicate over this heterogeneous network

   Scenarios E-J represent transitional situations wherein the
   enterprise has both IPv4 and IPv6 based instantiations of the same
   application that must continue to interoperate.  In addition, these
   scenarios show that the enterprise has not completed transition to
   IPv6 in all its organic and/or Service Provider networks.  Instead,
   it maintains a variety of heterogeneous network segments between the
   communicating applications.  Scenarios E and J represent distinctly
   different extremes on either end of the spectrum.  In Scenario E, the
   enterprise has largely transitioned to IPv6 in both its applications
   and networks.  However, Scenario E shows that a few legacy IPv4-based
   applications may still be found in the enterprise.  On the other
   hand, Scenario J shows an enterprise that has begun its transition in
   a very disjointed manner and, in which IPv6-based applications and
   network segments are relatively rare.

Bound, et al.                Informational                      [Page 9]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

4.  Wide-Scale Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis

   In this section, we address Scenario 1 as described in Section 3.1 of
   [BSCN].  The scenario, assumptions, and requirements are driven from
   the [BSCN] text.  This analysis further corresponds to Scenario A in
   Section 3 above (although Scenario A shows a transitional situation
   wherein the enterprise has one network segment still lagging on
   transition to Dual-IP).

   Within these IPv6 deployment scenarios the enterprise network
   administrator would introduce IPv6 by enabling IPv6 on the wire
   (i.e., within the network infrastructure) in a structured fashion
   with the existing IPv4 infrastructure.  In such scenarios, a number
   of the existing IPv4 routers (and thus subnets) will be made Dual-IP,
   such that communications can run over either protocol.

   Nodes on the Dual-IP links may themselves be IPv4-only or IPv6-
   capable.  The driver for deploying IPv6 on the wire may not be for
   immediate wide-scale usage of IPv6, but rather to prepare an existing
   IPv4 infrastructure to support IPv6-capable nodes.  Thus, while IPv6
   is not used, Dual-IP nodes exist, and the enterprise can be
   transitioned to IPv6 on demand.

   Analyzing this scenario against existing transition mechanisms for
   their applicability suggests a staged approach for IPv6 deployment in
   the enterprise.

4.1.  Staged Dual-Stack Deployment

   Under these scenarios (as well as most others), the site
   administrator should formulate a staged plan for the introduction of
   a Dual-IP IPv6 network.  We suggest that Section 7 of this document
   provides a good basis for such a plan.

   In an enterprise network, the administrator will generally seek to
   deploy IPv6 in a structured, controlled manner, such that IPv6 can be
   enabled on specific links at various stages of deployment.  There may
   be a requirement that some links remain IPv4 only, or some that
   specifically should not have IPv6 connectivity (e.g., Scenario A of
   Table 1).  There may also be a requirement that aggregatable global
   IPv6 addresses, assigned by the enterprise's upstream provider from
   the address space allocated to them by the Regional Internet
   Registries (RIRs), be assigned.

   In this document, we do not discuss the deployment of Unique Local
   IPv6 Unicast Addresses [ULA] because the address type and scope
   selected is orthogonal to the Layer 3 analysis of this document.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 10]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   A typical deployment would initially involve the establishment of a
   single "testbed" Dual-IP subnet at the enterprise site prior to wider
   deployment.  Such a testbed not only allows the IPv6 capability of
   specific platforms and applications to be evaluated and verified, but
   also permits the steps in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 of this document to be
   undertaken without (potential) adverse impact on the production
   elements of the enterprise.

   Section 7.5 describes the stages for the widespread deployment in the
   enterprise, which could be undertaken after the basic building blocks
   for IPv6 deployment are in place.

4.2.  Routing Capability Analysis for Dual-IP Deployment

   A critical part of Dual-IP deployment is the selection of the IPv6-
   capable routing infrastructure to be implemented.  The path taken
   will depend on whether the enterprise has existing Layer 2/3
   switch/router equipment that has an IPv6 (routing) capability, or
   that can be upgraded to have such capability.

   In Section 4, we are not considering sparse IPv6 deployment; the goal
   of Dual-IP deployment is widespread use in the enterprise.

4.2.1.  IPv6 Routing Capability

   Where IPv6 routing capability exists within the infrastructure, the
   network administrator can enable IPv6 on the same physical hardware
   as the existing IPv4 service.  Enabling both is the end-goal of any
   enterprise to support Dual-IP deployment, when the capability,
   performance, and robustness of the Dual-IP operational deployment has
   been verified.

   Ideally, the IPv6 capability will span the entire enterprise,
   allowing deployment on any link or subnet.  If not, techniques from
   Section 4.4 may be required.

4.2.2.  IPv6 Routing Non-Capability

   If the enterprise cannot provide IPv6 routing initially, there are
   alternative methods for transition.  In this case, the enterprise
   administrator faces two basic choices, either to tunnel IPv6 over
   some or all of the existing IPv4 infrastructure, or to deploy a
   parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure providing IPv6 connectivity into
   existing IPv4 subnets.

   It may thus be the case that a node's IPv4 and IPv6 default routes to
   reach other links (subnets) are through different routing platforms.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 11]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007  Tunnel IPv6 over the IPv4 infrastructure

   Consider the situation where there exists IPv6 edge routers that are
   IPv6-capable, while others, and perhaps the enterprise backbone
   itself, are not IPv6-capable (Scenario B of Table 1).  Tunneling, as
   described in [BCNF], would be established between the Dual-IP capable
   routers on the enterprise, thus "bypassing" existing non IPv6-capable
   routers and platforms.

   In the widespread Dual-IP scenario, a more structured, manageable
   method is required, where the administrator has control of the
   deployment per-link and (ideally) long-term, aggregatable global IPv6
   addressing is obtained, planned, and used from the outset.  Deploy a Parallel IPv6 Infrastructure

   Alternatively, the administrator may deploy a new, separate IPv6-
   capable router (or set of routers).  It is quite possible that such a
   parallel infrastructure would be IPv6-dominant.

   Such an approach would likely require additional hardware, but it has
   the advantage that the existing IPv4 routing platforms are not
   disturbed by the introduction of IPv6.

   To distribute IPv6 to existing IPv4 enterprise subnets, either
   dedicated physical infrastructure can be employed or, if available,
   IEEE 802.1q VLANs could be used, as described in [VLAN].  The latter
   has the significant advantage of not requiring any additional
   physical cabling/wiring and also offers all the advantages of VLANs
   for the new Dual-IP environment.  Many router platforms can tag
   multiple VLAN IDs on a single physical interface based on the
   subnet/link the packet is destined for; thus, multiple IPv6 links can
   be collapsed for delivery on a single (or small number of) physical
   IPv6 router interface(s) in the early stages of deployment.

   The parallel infrastructure should only be seen as an interim step
   towards full Dual-IP deployment on a unified infrastructure.  The
   parallel infrastructure however allows all other aspects of the IPv6
   enterprise services to be deployed, including IPv6 addressing, thus
   making the enterprise ready for that unifying step at a later date.

4.3.  Remote IPv6 Access to the Enterprise

   When the enterprise's users are off-site, and using an ISP that does
   not support any native IPv6 service or IPv6 transition aids, the
   enterprise may consider deploying it's own remote IPv6 access
   support.  Such remote support might for example be offered by
   deployment of an IPv6 Tunnel Broker [TBRK].

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 12]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

4.4.  Other Considerations

   There are some issues associated with turning IPv6 on by default,
   including application connection delays, poor connectivity, and
   network insecurity, as discussed in [V6DEF].  The issues can be
   worked around or mitigated by following the advice in [V6DEF].

5.  Sparse Dual-Stack Deployment Analysis

   This section covers Scenario 2 as described in Section 3.1 of [BSCN].
   This scenario assumes the requirements defined within the [BSCN]

   IPv6 deployment within the enterprise network, with an existing IPv4
   infrastructure, could be motivated by mission-critical or business
   applications or services that require IPv6.  In this case, the
   prerequisite is that only the nodes using those IPv6 applications
   need to be upgraded to be IPv6-capable.  The routing infrastructure
   will not be upgraded to support IPv6, nor does the enterprise wish to
   deploy a parallel IPv6 routing infrastructure at this point, since
   this is an option in Section 4.

   There is a need for end-to-end communication with IPv6, but the
   infrastructure only supports IPv4 routing.  Thus, the only viable
   method for end-to-end communication with IPv6 is to tunnel the
   traffic over the existing IPv4 infrastructure as defined in this
   analysis document.

   The network team needs to decide which of the available transition
   tunneling mechanisms are the most efficient to deploy, so they can be
   used without disrupting the existing IPv4 infrastructure.  Several
   conditions require analysis, as introduced in the following sub-

5.1.  Internal versus External Tunnel Endpoint

   Let's assume the upstream provider has deployed some IPv6 services,
   either native IPv6 in its backbone or in the access network, or some
   combination of both (Scenario B of Table 1).  In this case, the
   provider will likely also deploy one or more transition mechanisms to
   support their IPv6 subscribers.  Obviously, the enterprise could
   decide to take advantage of those transition services offered from
   the Provider.  However, this will usually mean that individual nodes
   in the network require their own IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel.  The end result
   is somewhat inefficient IPv6 intranetworks communication, because all
   IPv6 traffic must be forwarded by the enterprise's IPv4
   infrastructure to the Tunnel Endpoint offered by the Provider.
   Nevertheless, this may be acceptable, particularly if the IPv6

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 13]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   applications do not require intranetworks communication at all -- for
   example, when an application's server is located outside of the
   enterprise network, or on other intranetworks of the same enterprise.

   Alternatively, the enterprise could decide to deploy its own
   transition mechanism node, possibly collocating it adjacent to the
   border router that connects to the upstream Provider.  In this case,
   intranetnetworks communication using this tunnel endpoint is also

5.2.  Manual versus Autoconfigured

   If the number of nodes to be using IPv6 is low, the first option is
   to use statically configured tunnels.  However, automatically
   configured tunnels may be preferable, especially if the number is

6.  IPv6-Dominant Network Deployment Analysis

   In this section we are covering Scenario 3 as described in Section
   3.1 of [BSCN].  The scenario, assumptions, and requirements are
   driven from the [BSCN] text.  Within this document, this situation is
   captured in Scenario C of Table 1.

   Some enterprise networks may wish to employ an IPv6-dominant network
   deployment strategy.  What this means essentially is that the network
   or specific sites within the enterprise network will transition to
   IPv6 using only IPv6 routing to transfer both IPv4 and IPv6 packets
   over the network, even though the network may be Dual-IP capable.
   IPv4 routing would not be turned on within an IPv6-dominant network,
   except if required to support edge IPv4 networks.

   Under this scenario, communications between IPv6 nodes will use IPv6.
   When IPv6-capable nodes in the IPv6-dominant network need to
   communicate with IPv4 nodes, the IPv6 nodes will use their Dual-IP
   implementation to tunnel IPv4 packets in IPv6 [V6TUN].  An edge
   router within the IPv6-dominant network will decapsulate the IPv4
   packet and route to the path of the IPv4 node on the network.  This
   permits Dual-IP layer nodes to communicate with legacy IPv4 nodes
   within an IPv6-dominant network.

   Scenarios E and F from Table 1 depict additional cases where an
   IPv6-dominant deployment strategy could be in place.  In Scenario E,
   the entire network could be IPv6-dominant, but the Host OS 2 system
   is running an IPv4 application.  In Scenario F, the Host OS 1 system
   network could be IPv6-dominant, but the rest of the networks are all

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 14]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   In each case, communicating with an IPv4 end host or over an IPv4
   network requires that a transition point exist within the network to
   support that operation.  Furthermore, the node in the IPv6-dominant
   network must acquire an IPv4 address (to interoperate with the IPv4
   end host), and locate a tunnel endpoint on their network which
   permits the IPv4 packet to be tunneled to the next-hop IPv6 router
   and eventually to a destination Dual-IP router.

   While retaining interoperability with IPv4 is a noble goal for
   enterprise architects, it is an unfortunate fact that maintaining
   IPv4 services in an IPv6-dominant network slows and may even impede
   your ability to reap the maximum benefits of IPv6.

   The decision whether or not to use an IPv6-dominant network
   deployment strategy is completely driven by the enterprise's business
   and operational objectives and guided by the enterprise's transition

7.  General Issues from Analysis

   In this section, we describe generic enterprise IPv6 deployment
   issues, applicable to the analysis in Sections 4-6 of this document.

7.1.  Staged Plan for IPv6 Deployment

   The enterprise network administrator will need to follow a staged
   plan for IPv6 deployment.  What this means is that a strategic
   identification of the enterprise network must be performed for all
   points and components of the transition.

7.2.  Network Infrastructure Requirements

   The considerations for the enterprise components are detailed in
   Section 3.2 of [BSCN].  We do not go into detail on all aspects of
   such components in this document.  In this document, we focus on
   Layer 3 issues.

7.3.  Stage 1: Initial Connectivity Steps

   The first steps for IPv6 deployment do not involve technical aspects
   per se; the enterprise needs to select an external IPv6 provider and
   obtain globally routable IPv6 address space from that provider.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 15]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

7.3.1.  Obtaining External Connectivity

   The enterprise service provider would typically be a topographically
   close IPv6 provider that is able to provide an IPv6 upstream link.
   It would be expected that the enterprise would use either native IPv6
   upstream connectivity or, in its absence, a manually configured
   tunnel [BCNF] to the upstream provider.

7.3.2.  Obtaining Global IPv6 Address Space

   The enterprise will obtain global IPv6 address space from its
   selected upstream provider, as provider-assigned (PA) address space.

   The enterprise should receive at least a /48 allocation from its
   provider, as described in [ALLOC].

   Should an enterprise change their provider, a procedure for
   enterprise renumbering between providers is described in [RENUM].

7.4.  Stage 2: Deploying Generic Basic Service Components

   Most of these are discussed in Section 4 of [BSCN].  Here we comment
   on those aspects that we believe are in scope for this analysis
   document.  Thus, we have not included network management,
   multihoming, multicast, or application transition analysis here;
   however, these aspects should be addressed in Stage 2.

7.4.1.  Developing an IPv6 Addressing Plan

   A site will need to formulate an IPv6 addressing plan, utilizing the
   globally aggregatable public IPv6 prefix allocated to it by its
   upstream connectivity provider.

   In a Dual-IP deployment, the site will need to decide whether it
   wishes to deploy IPv6 links to be congruent with existing IPv4
   subnets.  In this case, nodes will fall into the same links or
   subnets for both protocols.  Such a scheme could be followed, with
   IPv6 prefix allocations being made such that room for topological
   growth is provisioned (reducing the potential requirement for future
   renumbering due to restructuring).

   A beneficial property of IPv6 is that an administrator will not need
   to invest as much effort in address conservation.  With IPv4, a site
   will likely allocate IPv4 subnets to be as small as possible for the
   number of hosts currently in the subnet (e.g., a /26 for 50 nodes)
   because IPv4 address conservation is required.  This creates problems

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 16]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   when the number of nodes on a subnet grows, larger IPv4 prefixes are
   then required, and potentially time-consuming and disruptive
   renumbering events will follow.

   With IPv6, a link can in effect have any number of nodes, allowing
   link growth without the need to adjust prefix allocations with the
   associated renumbering requirement.  The size of the initial site
   allocation (currently recommended to be a /48) also is likely to
   allow room for site growth without a need to return to the
   connectivity provider to obtain more, potentially non-sequential,
   address space (as is the case for IPv4 today, with the associated
   paperwork and probable delays).

   At the time of writing, best practice in IPv6 site address planning
   is restricted due to limited wide-scale deployments.  Administrators
   should allocate /64 size prefixes for subnets, and do so in a way
   that has scope for growth within a site.  The site should utilize a
   plan that reserves space for topological growth in the site, given
   that its initial IPv6 prefix allocation (currently recommended to be
   a /48) is likely to include such room for growth.  Also see "IPv6
   Unicast Address Assignment" [UNAD].

7.4.2.  IPv6 DNS

   The enterprise site should deploy a DNS service that is capable of
   both serving IPv6 DNS records using the AAAA format [DNSV6R] and
   communicating over IPv6 transport.

   Specific IPv6 DNS issues are reported in [DNSOP6].

7.4.3.  IPv6 Routing

   The enterprise network will need to support methods for internal and
   external routing.

   For a single-homed single-site network, a static route to a single
   upstream provider may be sufficient, although the site may choose to
   use an exterior routing protocol, especially where it has multiple
   upstream providers.

   For internal routing, an appropriate interior routing protocol may be
   deployed.  IPv6 routing protocols that can be used are as follows:
   BGP4+ [BGP4], IS-IS [ISIS], OSPFv3 [OSPF], and RIPng [RIPng].

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 17]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

7.4.4.  Configuration of Hosts

   An enterprise network will have a number of tools available for the
   delegation and management of IPv4 addresses and other configuration
   information.  These include manual configuration, NIS [NIS], and DHCP

   In an IPv6 enterprise, Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [CONF] may
   be used to configure a host with a global IPv6 address, a default
   router, and on-link prefix information.

   Where support for secure autoconfiguration is required, SEND [SEND]
   can be used.  Readers should see the applicability statements to
   IPsec [IPSEC] within the SEND document.

   A stateless configured node wishing to gain other configuration
   information (e.g., DNS, NTP servers) will likely need a Stateful
   DHCPv6 [DHCPv6] service available.

   For nodes configuring using DHCPv6, where DHCPv6 servers are offlink,
   a DHCPv6 Relay Agent function will be required.  Where DHCPv4 and
   DHCPv6 service are deployed together, dual-stack considerations need
   to be made, as discussed within current work on DHCP dual-stack
   issues [DHDS].

   Hosts may also generate or request IPv6 Privacy Addresses [PRIVv6];
   there is support for DHCPv6 to assign privacy addresses to nodes in
   managed environments.

7.4.5.  Security

   When deploying IPv6 within a Dual-IP network, a site will need to
   implement its site security policy for IPv6-capable nodes as it does
   for IPv4-capable nodes.  For example, a border firewall should be
   capable of filtering and controlling IPv6 traffic by enforcing the
   same policy as it already does for IPv4.

   However, a site will also need to review its security policy in light
   of IPv6-specific functionality that will be deployed in the site,
   e.g., Mobile IPv6, stateless autoconfiguration (and SEND), IPv6
   Privacy Extensions, and end-to-end IPsec.  In addition, a site will
   need to review the use of globally aggregatable public address space
   where, for IPv4, private addressing and NAT may have been used.

   An overview of how Network Architecture Protection (NAP) using IPv6
   can provide the same or more benefits without the need for NAT can be
   found in [NAP].  This describes how the perceived security with IPv4
   NAT can be achieved and surpassed with IPv6, i.e., how IPv6

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 18]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   technology can be used to provide the market-perceived benefits of
   IPv4 NAT.

   Where deployed, intrusion detection systems will need to be enhanced
   to check IPv6 transport both for known application layer attack
   patterns and for new potential IPv6 threats, e.g., excessive hop-by-
   hop headers or errant IPv6 header options.

   The deployment of specific transition mechanisms may also introduce
   threats, e.g., carrying IPv6 data tunneled in IPv4.  The site
   security policy should embrace the transition mechanisms that are

   An overview of IPv6 security issues can be found in [V6SEC].  This
   includes discussion of issues specific to the IPv6 protocol, to
   transition mechanisms, and to IPv6 deployment itself.

   In addition, an enterprise should review all current host-based
   security requirements for their networks and verify support for IPv6.

7.5.  Stage 3: Widespread Dual-Stack Deployment On-Site

   With the basic building blocks of external connectivity, interior
   IPv6 routing, an IPv6 DNS service, and address allocation management
   in place, the IPv6 capability can be rolled out to the wider
   enterprise.  This involves putting IPv6 on the wire in the desired
   links, and enabling applications and other services to begin using an
   IPv6 transport.

   In the Dual-IP deployment case, this means enabling IPv6 on existing
   IPv4 subnets.  As described in Section 7.4.4, above, it is likely
   that IPv6 links will be congruent with IPv4 subnets because IPv4
   subnets tend to be created for geographic, policy, or administrative
   reasons that would be IP version-independent.

   While the use of IPv6 by some applications can be administratively
   controlled (e.g., in the case of open source software by compiling
   the application without IPv6 support enabled), the use of IPv6
   transport, and preference over IPv4 transport, will vary per
   application based on the developer/author's implementation.

   A Dual-IP deployment will often be made by sites wishing to support
   use of IPv6 within a site, even if IPv6 transport is not preferred by
   all applications.  Putting support for IPv6 in all site
   infrastructure (DNS, email transport, etc.) allows IPv6 usage to be
   phased in over time.  As nodes become IPv6 capable, and applications
   and services IPv6 enabled, the IPv6 capable infrastructure can be
   leveraged.  For most networks, Dual-IP will be at the very least a

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 19]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   medium-term transition towards an IPv6-dominant future.  However, the
   introduction of IPv6 support, with the potential benefits of globally
   aggregatable public address usage (with [NAP]) and other new IPv6
   capabilities, can bring more immediate benefits for the site.

8.  Applicable Transition Mechanisms

   This section will provide general guidance for the use of specific
   transition mechanisms which in turn can be used by the enterprise to
   support the enterprise matrix notional networks (rows) in Section 3,
   and within the context of the analysis discussed in Sections 4, 5,
   and 6.

   Table 1 provides a number of common scenarios that an enterprise
   architect might encounter as they consider how and where they should
   consider deploying transition mechanisms to support the network
   transition to IPv6.  Selecting the most appropriate mechanism for
   each scenario is more of an art than a science and consequently
   making recommendations against each of the ten scenarios would be
   simply fodder for sharpshooters touting their favored product.
   However we can provide some high-level guidance that should benefit
   the architect's decision-making process.

8.1.  Recognizing Incompatible Network Touchpoints

   Mapping your specific situation into one of the ten scenarios of
   Table 1 is far less important than recognizing the critical
   touchpoints within the enterprise networks where incompatible
   networks interface.  Unless a transition mechanism is being offered
   by the enterprise as a service, it is at these touchpoints that a
   mechanism must be considered.

   A quick review of Table 1 reveals that the ten scenarios can be
   boiled down to variations of four major themes.  The simplest, but
   also most favored (due to its flexibility), is widespread Dual-IP
   with compatible hosts at either end.  This situation is illustrated
   in Scenario A, and transition mechanism considerations have already
   been described in some detail in Section 4.

   In the second common theme (depicted in Scenarios B-D of Table 1),
   the enterprise is comprised of compatible hosts, with one or more
   incompatible network touchpoints in between.  As described in Section, tunneling can be used to "bypass" the incompatible network
   segments.  One tunneling option, manually configured tunnels [BCNF]
   could be used by the enterprise, but as the name implies, this
   mechanism provides no automated tunnel configuration.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 20]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds" [6TO4] can be used to
   support enterprises that do not have an assigned IPv6 prefix address.

   Identifying the responsible device to perform the tunneling is driven
   by the position of the incompatible touchpoint.  If a local network
   is incompatible, then host tunneling is appropriate.  If the backbone
   (provider) network is incompatible, then gateway-to-gateway tunneling
   might be a better choice.  By working to ensure tunnel endpoints are
   always configured at Dual-IP devices, end-to-end communication or
   services (IPv4 or IPv6) can be preserved.

   Readers should review the current work regarding tunnels within the
   IETF Softwire working group and problem statement [SOFTW].

   Having IPv6 applications on a Dual-IP host on a v4-only network
   requires some form of tunneling.  Where configured tunnels are not
   sufficient, a more automatic solution may be appropriate.  Available
   solutions include the Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol
   (ISATAP) [ISTP] or Teredo [TRDO] to tunnel to a v6 end service.
   ISATAP [ISTP] can be used to provide end-node IPv6 connectivity from
   nodes on an isolated IPv4 network, through the use of automatic
   tunneling of IPv6 in IPv4.  Teredo [TRDO] can be used when the
   enterprise network is behind a NAT.

   Enterprise architects should consider providing a Tunnel Broker
   [TBRK] [TSPB] as a cost-effective service to local users or
   applications.  Tunnel Brokers can be used to provide tunnel setup for
   an enterprise using manually configured tunnels and 6TO4 [6TO4].
   Tunnel Brokers can automate the use of tunnels across an enterprise
   deploying IPv6.

   Later in the transition process, after the enterprise has
   transitioned to a predominately IPv6 infrastructure, the architect
   will need to determine a network transition strategy to tunnel IPv4
   within IPv6 [V6TUN] across IPv6-dominant links, or the enterprise
   Intranet.  Or in the case of early deployment of IPv6-dominant
   networks, the architect will need to address this from the beginning
   of the required transition planning.

8.2.  Recognizing Application Incompatibilities

   Having recognized incompatible network touchpoints, it is also
   incumbent on the architect to identify application incompatibilities.
   During the transition period, particularly for large enterprises, it
   is to be expected that an application hosted at one location may lead
   (or lag) the IPv6-compatibility of its peer (or server) at some other

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 21]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   This leads us to the third theme (represented by Scenarios E and G):
   incompatible applications communicating across a homogenous network.
   Translation is an obvious solution, but not recommended except for
   legacy devices that are at the network edge and cannot or never will
   be upgraded to IPv6.  A more scalable solution would be to use an
   Application Layer Gateway (ALG) between the incompatible hosts.

8.3.  Using Multiple Mechanisms to Support IPv6 Transition

   Inevitably, during the course of transitioning a large enterprise to
   IPv6, the architect will be faced with both incompatible hosts and
   simultaneously (at different parts of the enterprise) incompatible
   networks.  These highly complex situations represent the fourth
   common theme in Table 1 (specifically depicted by Scenarios F, H, I,
   and J).  Maintaining IP interoperability in these situations requires
   additional planning and may require multiple or even nested use of
   diverse transition mechanisms.  For example, an ALG collocated with
   the application server may be required to service both IPv4 and IPv6
   data streams that are simultaneously tunneled through incompatible
   network segment(s).

9.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for IPv6 deployment in a Dual-IP environment
   are discussed above in Section 7.4.5, where external references to
   overview documents [V6SEC] [NAP] are also included.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [CONF]   Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
            Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

   [DHCPv6] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
            and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
            (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [6TO4]   Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via
            IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

   [BSCN]   Bound, J., Ed., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios", RFC
            4057, June 2005.

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

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 22]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   [ISTP]   Templin, F., Gleeson, T., Talwar, M., and D. Thaler,
            "Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)",
            RFC 4214, October 2005.

   [V6TUN]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6
            Specification", RFC 2473, December 1998.

   [TBRK]   Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I., and D. Lento, "IPv6
            Tunnel Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001.

   [ALLOC]  IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address
            Allocations to Sites", RFC 3177, September 2001.

   [NATPT]  Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address Translation
            - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, February 2000.

   [UMAN]   Huitema, C., Austein, R., Satapati, S., and R. van der Pol,
            "Evaluation of IPv6 Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged
            Networks", RFC 3904, September 2004.

   [ISPA]   Lind, M., Ksinant, V., Park, S., Baudot, A., and P. Savola,
            "Scenarios and Analysis for Introducing IPv6 into ISP
            Networks", RFC 4029, March 2005.

   [3GPA]   Wiljakka, J., Ed., "Analysis on IPv6 Transition in Third
            Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Networks", RFC 4215,
            October 2005.

   [OSPF]   Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., and J. Moy, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC
            2740, December 1999.

   [BGP4]   Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
            "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January

   [ISIS]   Oran, D., Ed., "OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol",
            RFC 1142, February 1990.

   [RIPng]  Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
            January 1997.

   [APPS]   Shin, M-K., Ed., Hong, Y-G., Hagino, J., Savola, P., and E.
            Castro, "Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition", RFC 4038,
            March 2005.

   [RENUM]  Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
            Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
            September 2005.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 23]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   [BCNF]   Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
            for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

   [ULA]    Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
            Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [DNSOP6] Durand, A., Ihren, J., and P. Savola, "Operational
            Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS", RFC 4472, April

   [DNSV6R] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi, "DNS
            Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596, October 2003.

   [NIS]    Kalusivalingam, V., "Network Information Service (NIS)
            Configuration Options for Dynamic Host Configuration
            Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3898, October 2004.

   [DHCPv4] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
            March 1997.

   [IPSEC]  Eastlake 3rd, D., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation
            Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and
            Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4305, December 2005.

   [SEND]   Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
            "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.

   [PRIVv6] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless
            Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001.

10.2.  Informative References

   [TSPB]   Blanchet, M., and F. Parent, "IPv6 Tunnel Broker with the
            Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP", Work in Progress, August 2005.

   [V6SEC]  Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6
            Transition/Co-existence Security Considerations", Work in
            Progress, October 2006.

   [NAP]    Van de Velde, G., Hain, T., Droms, R., Carpenter, B., and E.
            Klein, "Local Network Protection for IPv6", Work in
            Progress, January 2007.

   [CAMP]   Chown, T., "IPv6 Campus Transition Scenario Description and
            Analysis", Work in Progress, March 2007.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 24]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   [DHDS]   Chown, T., Venaas, S., and C. Strauf, "Dynamic Host
            Configuration Protocol (DHCP): IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack
            Issues", RFC 4477, May 2006.

   [UNAD]   Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and T. Chown, "IPv6 Unicast
            Address Assignment", Work in Progress, March 2007.

   [VLAN]   Chown, T., "Use of VLANs for IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence in
            Enterprise Networks", RFC 4554, June 2006.

   [V6DEF]  Roy, S., Durand, A., and J. Paugh, "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
            On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful", Work in Progress,
            January 2006.

   [SOFTW]  Dawkins, S., Ed., "Softwire Problem Statement", Work in
            Progress, March 2007.

11.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to acknowledge contributions from the
   following: IETF v6ops Working Group members, Fred Baker, Pekka
   Savola, and Jordi Palet

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 25]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

Appendix A.  Crisis Management Network Scenarios

A.1.  Introduction

   This appendix first describes different scenarios for the
   introduction of IPv6 into a crisis management network for emergency
   services, defense, or security forces that are currently running IPv4
   service.  Then, the scenarios for introducing IPv6 are analyzed, and
   the relevance of already defined transition mechanisms are evaluated.
   Known challenges are also identified.

   When a crisis management enterprise deploys IPv6, its goal is to
   provide IPv6 connectivity on its institutional fixed networks and on
   the mobile wireless services that are deployed to a crisis area.  The
   new IPv6 service must be added to an already existing IPv4 service,
   the introduction of IPv6 must not interrupt this IPv4 service, and
   the IPv6 services must be interoperable with existing IPv4 services.

   Crisis management enterprises accessing IPv4 service across mobile
   ground networks, airborne networks, and satellites will find
   different ways to add IPv6 to this service based on their network
   architecture, funding, and institutional goals.  This document
   discusses a small set of scenarios representing the architectures for
   IPv6 expected to be dominant in crisis management networks during the
   next decade.  This document evaluates the relevance of the existing
   transition mechanisms in the context of these deployment scenarios,
   and points out the lack of essential functionality within these
   methods for a provider to support IPv6 services for these scenarios.

   The document focuses on services that include both IPv6 and IPv4 and
   does cover issues surrounding accessing IPv4 services across IPv6-
   only networks.  It is outside the scope of this document to describe
   detailed implementation plans for IPv6 in defense networks.

A.2.  Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment in Crisis Management Networks

   Scenario 1:  Limited IPv6 Deployment Network

   Sparse IPv6 dual-stack deployment in an existing IPv4 network
   infrastructure.  Enterprise with an existing IPv4 network wants to
   deploy a set of particular IPv6 "applications" and have some ability
   to interoperate with other institutions that are using IPv6 services.
   The IPv6 deployment is limited to the minimum required to operate
   this set of applications.

   Assumptions:  IPv6 software/hardware components for the application
   are available, and platforms for the application are IPv6 capable.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 26]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   Requirements: Do not disrupt IPv4 infrastructure.

   Scenario 2:    Dual-Stack Network

   Wide-scale/total dual-stack deployment of IPv4 and IPv6 capable hosts
   and network infrastructure.  Enterprise with an existing IPv4 network
   wants to deploy IPv6 in conjunction with their IPv4 network in order
   to take advantage of emerging IPv6 network-centric capabilities and
   to be interoperable with other agencies, international partners, and
   commercial enterprises that are deploying an IPv6 architecture.

   Assumptions:  The IPv4 network infrastructure used has an equivalent
   capability in IPv6.

   Requirements: Do not disrupt existing IPv4 network infrastructure
   with IPv6.  IPv6 should be equivalent or "better" than the network
   infrastructure in IPv4.  It may not be feasible to deploy IPv6 on all
   parts of the network immediately.  Dual-stacked defense enterprise
   network must be interoperable with both IPv4 and IPv6 networks and

   Scenario 3: IPv6-Dominant Network

   Enterprise has some limited IPv4-capable/only nodes/applications
   needing to communicate over the IPv6 infrastructure.  Crisis
   management enterprise re-structuring an existing network, decides to
   pursue aggressive IPv6 transition as an enabler for network-centric
   services and wants to run some native IPv6-only networks to eliminate
   cost/complexity of supporting a dual stack.  Some legacy IPv4 capable
   nodes/applications within the enterprise will have slow technical
   refresh/replacement paths and will need to communicate over the IPv6
   dominant infrastructure for years until they are replaced.  The
   IPv6-dominant enterprise network will need to be interoperable with
   its own legacy networks, commercial networks, and the legacy networks
   of similar organizations that will remain IPv4-dominant during a long
   transition period.  Reserve units, contractors, other agencies, and
   international partners may need IPv4 service across this enterprise's
   IPv6-dominant backbone.

   Assumptions: Required IPv6 network infrastructure is available, or
   available over some defined timeline, supporting the aggressive
   transition plan.

   Requirements: Reduce operation and maintenance requirements and
   increase net-centricity through aggressive IPv6 transition.
   Interoperation and coexistence with legacy IPv4 networks and
   applications is required.  Legacy IPv4 nodes/applications/networks
   will need to be able to operate across the IPv6 backbone and need to

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 27]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   be able to interoperate with the IPv6-dominant network's

A.3.  Description of a Generic Crisis Management Network

   A generic network topology for crisis management reflects the various
   ways a crisis management network can connect customers through their
   network infrastructure.  Because the institution's existing wired and
   fixed-site wireless infrastructure can be destroyed or unavailable in
   a crisis, the crisis management network must be able to deploy its
   own mobile wireless network or connect through external wired and
   wireless networks provided by ISPs or partner organizations.  This
   infrastructure lets us divide the basic areas for IPv4/IPv6
   interoperability into three main areas: the customer applications,
   the local network, and the network backbone.

   The basic components in a crisis management network are depicted in
   Figure 1.

      ------------    ----------       ---- Wired Connection
     | Network and|  |          |      .... Wireless Connection
     |  Service   |--| Backbone |
     | Operation  |  |          |
      ------------    ----------
                       /  |          ---------------------
                      /   :        _|Connection to        |
                     /    :         |Commercial Internet  |
                    /     :          ---------------------
                                      Network Backbone
    -------------- /------|-------------|--------------------
      ----------  /  ----------      ----------
     | Home     |/  | Wireless |    |External  |.............
     | Base     |   | Mobile   |    |Untrusted |+---------  :
     | Network  |   | Network  |    |Network   |          | :
      ----------     ----------      ----------           | :
          | :            :                                | :
                                      Local Network
                                      Customer Applications
          | :            :                                | :
       +--------+    +--------+      +--------+           | :
       |        |    |        |      |        |           | :
       |Customer|    |Customer|      |Customer|+----------- :
       |        |    |        |      |        |..............
       +--------+    +--------+      +--------+

             Figure 1: Crisis Management Network Topology.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 28]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

A.4.  Stages of IPv6 Deployment

   The stages are derived from the generic description of scenarios for
   crisis management networks in Section 2.  Combinations of different
   building blocks that constitute a crisis network environment lead to
   a number of scenarios from which the network engineers can choose.
   The scenarios most relevant to this document are those that maximize
   the network's ability to offer IPv6 to its customers in the most
   efficient and feasible way.  In the first three stages, the goal is
   to offer both IPv4 and IPv6 to the customer, and it is assumed that
   in the distant future, all IPv4 services will be eventually switched
   to IPv6.  This document will cover engineering the first four stages.

   The four most probable stages are:

         o Stage 1      Limited Launch
         o Stage 2      Dual-Stack Dominance
         o Stage 3      IPv6 Dominance
         o Stage 4      IPv6 Transition Complete

   Generally, a crisis management network is able to entirely upgrade a
   current IPv4 network to provide IPv6 services via a dual-stack
   network in Stage 2 and then slowly progress to Stages 3 and 4 as
   indicated in Figure 2.  During Stage 2, when most applications are
   IPv6 dominant, operational and maintenance costs can be reduced on
   some networks by moving to Stage 3 and running backbone networks
   entirely on IPv6, while adding IPv4 backwards compatibility via v4 in
   v6 tunneling or translation mechanisms to the existing configuration
   from Stage 2.  When designing a new network, if a new IPv6-only
   service is required, it can be implemented at a lower cost by jumping
   directly to Stage 3/4 if there are only limited or no legacy

   Stage 1: Limited Launch

   The first stage begins with an IPv4-only network and IPv4 customers.
   This is the most common case today and the natural starting point for
   the introduction of IPv6.  During this stage, the enterprise begins
   to connect individual IPv6 applications run on dual-stacked hosts
   through host-based tunneling using Tunnel Broker, ISATAP, or Teredo.
   Some early adopter networks are created for pilot studies and
   networked together through configured tunnels and 6to4.

   The immediate first step consists of obtaining a prefix allocation
   (typically a /32) from the appropriate RIR (e.g., AfriNIC, APNIC,
   ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE) according to allocation procedures.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 29]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

   The crisis management enterprise will also need to establish IPv6
   connectivity between its home base networks and mobile wireless
   networks over its backbone.  It will need to negotiate IPv6 service
   with its service providers and with peer organizations; it is of
   utmost importance to require IPv6 capability or an upgrade plan when
   negotiating purchases of network applications and infrastructure.  In
   the short term, network connections, especially legacy wireless
   networks that cannot provide IPv6 services, can provide IPv6 services
   through the use of tunnels.  However, the longer-term goal must be
   requiring and obtaining IPv6 native connectivity from the transit
   networks.  Otherwise, the quality of IPv6 connectivity will likely be
   poor and the transition to Stage 2 will be delayed.

   Stage 2: Dual-Stack Dominance

   Stage 2 occurs when most applications, local networks, and network
   backbones become dual-stacked so that native IPv6 connections are
   enabled.  At this point there is a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 applications
   and services in use across the enterprise.  The enterprise may be
   made IPv6-capable through either software upgrades, hardware
   upgrades, or a combination of both.  Generally IPv6 is added during
   normal technical refresh as the enterprise buys new equipment that is
   IPv6 ready.

   Specialty legacy applications and wireless/satellite networks may be
   especially slow to transition to IPv6 capability due to upgrade
   costs, so plans must be made for backwards compatibility for these
   systems.  Since some new IPv6 services cannot be provided through
   IPv4, and some legacy network connections may not yet be upgraded,
   tunneling mechanisms have to be provided on the backbone to provide
   IPv6 connectivity through to customer IPv6 applications still relying
   on legacy IPv4-only networks.  The tunnels may provide host-based
   tunneling for individual customers or site-to-site tunnels to connect
   small IPv6 domains through IPv4-only networks.  If any new
   applications are IPv6-only rather than dual-stacked, and need to
   interact with IPv4-only legacy applications, translators will be used
   as a transition mechanism of last resort during this stage.

   Stage 3: IPv6 Dominance

   Applications are deployed specifically to use IPv6 as benefit; thus,
   network backbone and nodes use IPv6 and not IPv4, except where IPv4
   is legacy.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 30]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

Authors' Addresses

   Jim Bound
   110 Spitbrook Road
   Nashua, NH 03062
   Phone: 603.465.3130
   EMail: jim.bound@hp.com

   Yanick Pouffary
   HP Competency Center
   950, Route des Colles, BP027,
   06901 Sophia Antipolis CEDEX
   Phone: + 33492956285
   EMail: Yanick.pouffary@hp.com

   Tim Chown
   School of Electronics and Computer Science
   University of Southampton
   Southampton SO17 1BJ
   United Kingdom
   EMail: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk

   David Green
   Command Information
   13655 Dulles Technology Drive
   Suite 500
   Herndon, VA 20171
   Phone: 703.561.5937
   EMail: green@commandinformation.com

   Steve Klynsma
   The MITRE Corporation
   7515 Colshire Drive
   McLean, VA 22102-5708
   Phone: 703-883-6469
   EMail: sklynsma@mitre.org

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 31]

RFC 4852            IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis          April 2007

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Bound, et al.                Informational                     [Page 32]