You are here: irt.org | RFCs | RFC4925 [ previous next ]
Network Working Group X. Li, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4925 CERNET
Category: Informational S. Dawkins, Ed.
Huawei
D. Ward, Ed.
Cisco Systems
A. Durand, Ed.
Comcast
July 2007
Softwire Problem Statement
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).
Abstract
This document captures the problem statement for the Softwires
Working Group, which is developing standards for the discovery,
control, and encapsulation methods for connecting IPv4 networks
across IPv6-only networks as well as IPv6 networks across IPv4-only
networks. The standards will encourage multiple, inter-operable
vendor implementations by identifying, and extending where necessary,
existing standard protocols to resolve a selected set of "IPv4/IPv6"
and "IPv6/IPv4" transition problems. This document describes the
specific problems ("Hubs and Spokes" and "Mesh") that will be solved
by the standards developed by the Softwires Working Group. Some
requirements (and non-requirements) are also identified to better
describe the specific problem scope.
Li, et al. Informational [Page 1]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Hubs and Spokes Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Non-Upgradable CPE Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.3. Network Address Translation (NAT) and Port Address Translation (PAT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.4. Static Prefix Delegation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.5. Softwire Initiator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.6. Softwire Concentrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.7. Softwire Concentrator Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.8. Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.9. Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.10. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.11. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.11.1. Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.11.2. Privacy, Integrity, and Replay Protection . . . . . . 13 2.12. Operations and Management (OAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.13. Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Mesh Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.1. Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2. Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3. Persistence, Discovery, and Setup Time . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4. Multicast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.5. Softwire Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.6. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5. Principal Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Li, et al. Informational [Page 2]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 1. Introduction The Softwires Working Group is specifying the standardization of discovery, control, and encapsulation methods for connecting IPv4 networks across IPv6-only networks and IPv6 networks across IPv4-only networks in a way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable vendor implementations. This document describes the specific problems ("Hubs and Spokes" and "Mesh") that will be solved by the standards developed by the Softwires Working Group. Some requirements (and non-requirements) are also identified to better describe the specific problem scope. A few generic assumptions are listed up front: o Local Area Networks will often support both protocol families in order to accommodate both IPv4-only and IPv6-only applications, in addition to dual-stack applications. Global reachability requires the establishment of softwire connectivity to transit across portions of the network that do not support both address families. Wide area networks that support one or both address families may be separated by transit networks that do not support all address families. Softwire connectivity is necessary to establish global reachability of both address families. o Softwires are to be used in IP-based networks to forward both unicast and multicast traffic. o Softwires are assumed to be long-lived in nature. o Although Softwires are long-lived, the setup time of a softwire is expected to be a very small fraction of the total time required for the startup of the Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)/Address Family Border Router (AFBR). o The nodes that actually initiate softwires should support dual- stack (IPv4 and IPv6) functionality. o The goal of this effort is to reuse or extend existing technology. The 'time-to-market' requirement for solutions to the stated problems is very strict and existing, deployed technology must be very strongly considered in our solution selection. The solution to the stated problem should address the following points: o Relation of the softwire protocols to other host mechanisms in the same layer of the network stack. Examples of mechanisms to consider are tunneling mechanisms, VPNs (Virtual Private Networks), mobility, multihoming (SHIM6 (Level 3 Shim for IPv6)),... Li, et al. Informational [Page 3]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 o Operational brittleness introduced by softwire, e.g., potential single point of failure or difficulties to deploy redundant systems. o Effects of softwires on the transport layer. Issue like packet losses, congestion control, and handling of QoS (Quality of Service) reservation and usage of on-path protocols such as RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol). The history of IPv4 and IPv6 transition strategies at the IETF is very long and complex. Here we list out some steps we have taken to further the effort and it has lead to the creation of this document and a few 'working rules' for us to accomplish our work: o At the IETF 63 "LightWeight Reachability softWires" (LRW) BOF meeting, attendees from several operators requested a very tight timeframe for the delivery of a solution, based on time-to-market considerations. This problem statement is narrowly scoped to accommodate near-term deployment. o At the Paris Softwires interim meeting in October, 2005, participants divided the overall problem space into two separate "sub-problems" to solve based on network topology. These two problems are referred to as "Hubs and Spokes" (described in Section 2) and "Mesh" (described in Section 3). As stated, there are two scenarios that emerged when discussing the traversal of networks composed of differing address families. The scenarios are quite common in today's network deployments. The primary difference between "Spokes and Hubs" and "Mesh" is how many connections and associated routes are managed by each IPv4 or IPv6 "island". "Hubs and Spokes" is characterized with one connection and associated static default route, and "Mesh" is characterized by multiple connections and routing prefixes. In general, the two can be categorized as host or LAN connectivity and network (or VPN) connectivity problems. Looking at the history of multi-address family networking, the clear delineation of the two scenarios was never clearly illustrated but they are now the network norm, and both must be solved. Later, during the solution phase of the Work Group (WG), these problems will be treated as related, but separate, problem spaces. Similar protocols and mechanisms will be used when possible, but different protocols and mechanisms may be selected when necessary to meet the requirements of each given problem space. 1.1. Terminology Address Family (AF) - IPv4 or IPv6. Presently defined values for this field are specified in Li, et al. Informational [Page 4]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers. Address Family Border Router (AFBR) - The router that interconnects two networks that use different address families. Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) - Under the scope of this document, this refers to terminal and associated equipment and inside wiring located at a subscriber's premises and connected with a carrier's communication channel(s) at the demarcation point ("demarc"). The demarc is a point established in a building or complex to separate customer equipment from telephone, cable, or other service provider equipment. CPE can be a host or router, depending on the specific characteristics of the access network. The demarc point for IPv4 may or may not be the same as the demarc point for IPv6, thus there can be one CPE box acting for IPv4 and IPv6 or two separate ones, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6. Home gateway - Existing piece of equipment that connects the home network to the provider network. Usually act as CPE for one or both address families. Softwire (SW) - A "tunnel" that is created on the basis of a control protocol setup between softwire endpoints with a shared point-to- point or multipoint-to-point state. Softwires are generally dynamic in nature (they may be initiated and terminated on demand), but may be very long-lived. Softwire Concentrator (SC) - The node terminating the softwire in the service provider network. Softwire Initiator (SI) - The node initiating the softwire within the customer network. Softwire Transport Header AF (STH AF) - the address family of the outermost IP header of a softwire. Softwire Payload Header AF (SPH AF) - the address family of the IP headers being carried within a softwire. Note that additional "levels" of IP headers may be present if (for example) a tunnel is carried over a softwire - the key attribute of SPH AF is that it is directly encapsulated within the softwire and the softwire endpoint will base forwarding decisions on the SPH AF when a packet is exiting the softwire. Subsequent Address Family (SAF) - Additional information about the type of Network Layer Reachability Information (e.g., unicast or multicast). Li, et al. Informational [Page 5]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 2. Hubs and Spokes Problem The "Hubs and Spokes" problem is named in reference to the airline industry where major companies have established a relatively small number of well connected hubs and then serve smaller airports from those hubs. Manually configured tunnels (as described in [RFC4213]) can be a sufficient transition mechanism in some situations. However, cases where Network Address Translation (NAT) traversal is a concern (see Section 2.3), or dynamic IP address configuration is required, another solution is necessary. There are four variant cases of the "Hubs and Spokes" problem which are shown in the following figures. +-------+ +------------+ +--------+ | | |Softwire | | IPv6 | +---------+ | IPv4 |--|concentrator|--| Network|=>Internet |v4/v6 |--| | +------------+ +--------+ |Host CPE | | | +---------+ |Network| +-------+ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ()_ _ _ _ _ _ __() IPv6 SPH "softwire" |--------------||-------------------------| IPv4-only IPv6 or dual-stack Case 1: IPv6 connectivity across an IPv4-only access network (STH). Softwire initiator is the host CPE (directly connected to a modem), which is dual-stack. There is no other gateway device. The IPv4 traffic should not traverse the softwire. Figure 1: Case 1 Li, et al. Informational [Page 6]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 +-------+ +-------------+ +--------+ | | | Softwire | | v6 | +-----+ +------+ | v4 |--| concentrator|--| Network|=>Internet |v4/v6|--|v4/v6 |--| | +-------------+ +--------+ |Host | |Router| |Network| +-----+ |v4/v6 | | | | CPE | +-------+ +------+ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ()_ _ _ _ _ _ __() IPv6 SPH "softwire" |--------------||--------------||-------------------------| Dual-stack IPv4-only IPv6 or dual-stack Case 2: IPv6 connectivity across an IPv4-only access network (STH). Softwire initiator is the router CPE, which is a dual-stack device. The IPv4 traffic should not traverse the softwire. Figure 2: Case 2 +-------+ +-------------+ +--------+ | | | Softwire | | v6 | +------+ +------+ | v4 |--| concentrator|--| Network|=>Internet |v4/v6 |--|v4 |--| | +-------------+ +--------+ |Host | |Router| |Network| |v6 CPE| |v4 CPE| | | +------+ | | +-------+ +------+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ()_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _() IPv6 SPH "softwire" |-----------------------||-------------------------| IPv4 only IPv6 or dual-stack Case 3: IPv6 connectivity across an IPv4-only access network (STH). The CPE is IPv4-only. Softwire initiator is a host, which act as an IPv6 host CPE. The IPv4 traffic should not traverse the softwire. Figure 3: Case 3 Li, et al. Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 +-----+ |v4/v6| +-------+ +------------+ +-------+ |Host | | | |Softwire | | v6 | +-----+ +------+ | v4 |--|concentrator|--|Network|=>Internet | |v4 |--| | +------------+ +-------+ |---------|Router| |Network| | |v4 CPE| +-------+ +---------+ +------+ |Softwire | |Initiator| |v6 Router| | CPE | +---------+ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ()_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _() IPv6 SPH "softwire" |--------||-----------------------||----------------------| Dual IPv4 only IPv6 or dual-stack stack Case 4: IPv6 connectivity across an IPv4-only access network (STH). The routing CPE is IPv4-only. Softwire initiator is a device acting as an IPv6 CPE router inside the home network. The IPv4 traffic should not traverse the softwire. Figure 4: Case 4 The converse cases exist, replacing IPv4 by IPv6 and vice versa in the above figures. 2.1. Description In this scenario, carriers (or large enterprise networks acting as carriers for their internal networks) have an infrastructure that in at least one device on any given path supports only one address family, with customers who wish to support applications bound to an address family that cannot be routed end-to-end. The address family that must be "crossed" is called the Softwire Transport Header, or STH AF (which could be either IPv4 or IPv6). In order to support applications bound to another address family (the Softwire Payload Header Address Family, or SPH AF), it is necessary to establish a virtual dual-stack infrastructure (end-to-end), typically by means of automatically-established tunnels (Softwires). The traffic that can traverse the network via its native AF must not be forced to take the softwire path. Only the traffic that otherwise would not be able to be forwarded due to the AF mismatch should be Li, et al. Informational [Page 8]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 forwarded within the softwire. The goal is to avoid overwhelming the softwire concentrator (SC). A network operator may choose to enable a single address family in one or several parts of this infrastructure for policy reasons (i.e., traffic on the network is dominant in one of the address families, a single address family is used to lower Operations and Management (OAM) cost, etc.) or for technical reasons (i.e., because one or more devices are not able to support both address families). There are several obstacles that may preclude support for both address families: a) One or more devices (routers or some other media-specific aggregation point device) being used across the infrastructure (core, access) that supports only one address family. Typically the reasons for this situation include a lack of vendor support for one of the address families, the (perceived) cost of upgrading them, the (perceived) complexity of running both address families natively, operation/management reasons to avoid upgrades (perhaps temporarily), or economic reasons (such as a commercially insignificant amount of traffic with the non-supported address family). b) The home gateway (CPE router or other equipment at the demarc point), cannot be easily upgraded to support both address families. Typically the reason for this is the lack of vendor support for one of the address families, commercial or operational reasons for not carrying out the upgrade (i.e., operational changes and/or cost may need to be supported by the carrier for all the customers, which can turn into millions of units), or customer reluctance to change/ upgrade CPE router (cost, "not broken, so don't change it"). Note that the impracticality of systematic upgrades of the CPE routers is also hindering the deployment of 6to4 based solutions [RFC3056] in IPv4 networks. 2.2. Non-Upgradable CPE Router Residential and small-office CPE equipment may be limited to support only one address family. Often, they are owned by a customer or carrier who is unwilling or unable to upgrade them to run in dual stack mode (as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4). When the CPE router cannot run in dual-stack mode, a softwire will have to be established by a node located behind that CPE router. This can be accomplished either by a regular host in the home running softwire software (Figure 1 or Figure 3) or by a dedicated piece of hardware acting as the "IPv6 router" (Figure 4). Such a device is fairly simple in design and only requires one physical network Li, et al. Informational [Page 9]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 interface. Again, only the traffic of the mismatched AF will be forwarded via the softwire. Traffic that can otherwise be forwarded without a softwire should not be encapsulated. 2.3. Network Address Translation (NAT) and Port Address Translation (PAT) A typical case of non-upgradable CPE router is a pre-existing IPv4/ NAT home gateway, so the softwire solution must support NAT traversal. Establishing a Softwire through NAT or PAT must be supported without an explicit requirement to "autodetect" NAT or PAT presence during softwire setup. Simply enabling NAT traversal could be sufficient to meet this requirement. Although the tunneling protocol must be able to traverse NATs, tunneling protocols may have an optional capability to bypass UDP encapsulation if not traversing a NAT. 2.4. Static Prefix Delegation An important characteristic of this problem in IPv4 networks is that the carrier-facing CPE IP address is typically dynamically assigned. (The IP address of the node establishing the softwire behind the CPE router can also be dynamically assigned.) Solutions like external dynamic DNS and dynamic NAT port forwarding have been deployed to deal with ever changing addresses, but it would be simpler if, in IPv6 networks, a static prefix was delegated to customers. Such a prefix would allow for the registration of stable addresses in the DNS and enable the use of solutions like RFC 3041 [RFC3041] privacy extension or cryptographically generated addresses (CGA) [RFC3972]. The softwire protocol does not need to define a new method for prefix delegation; however, the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) prefix delegation [RFC3633] must be able to run over a softwire. Link local addresses allocated at both ends of the tunnel are enough for packet forwarding, but for management purpose like traceroute, global addresses can be allocated using existing protocols such as stateless address auto-configuration [RFC2462] or DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. The IP addresses of the softwire link itself do not need to be stable, the desire for stability only applies to the delegated prefix. Even if there is a single node attached behind a softwire Li, et al. Informational [Page 10]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 link, nothing prevents a softwire concentrator to delegate it a /64 prefix. Similarly, in the case of an IPv4 softwire, the address could be provided by means of DHCP [RFC2131]. In the case of an IPv4 softwire, a mechanism should be available in order to delegate an IPv4 prefix [SUBNET]. Note about 6to4: This is one of the main differences between Softwires and 6to4. 6to4 addresses will change every time the CPE router gets a new external address, where a DHCPv6 delegated prefix through a softwire link could be stable. 2.5. Softwire Initiator In the "Hubs and Spokes" problem, softwires are always initiated by the customer side. Thus, the node hosting the end of the softwire within the customer network is called the softwire initiator. It can run on any dual-stack node. As noted earlier, this can be the CPE access device, another dedicated CPE router behind the original CPE access device, or actually any kind of node (host, appliance, sensor, etc.). The softwire initiator node can change over time and may or may not be delegated the same IP address for the softwire endpoint. In particular, softwires should work in the nomadic case (e.g., a user opening up his laptop in various Wi-Fi hot-spots), where the softwire initiator could potentially obtain an IP address of one address family outside its original carrier network and still want to obtain the other address family addresses from its carrier. If and when the IPv4 provider periodically changes the IPv4 address allocated to the gateway, the softwire initiator has to discover in a reasonable amount of time that the tunnel is down and restart it. This re-establishment should not change the IPv6 prefix and other parameters allocated to the site. 2.6. Softwire Concentrator On the carrier side, softwires are terminated on a softwire concentrator. A softwire concentrator is usually a dual-stack router connected to the dual-stack core of the carrier. A carrier may deploy several softwire concentrators (for example one per POP) for scalability reasons. Softwire concentrators are usually not nomadic and have stable IP addresses. Li, et al. Informational [Page 11]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 It may be the case that one of the address families is not natively supported on the interface facing the core of the carrier. Connectivity must then be provided by other tunnels, potentially using the softwire mesh model. Softwire concentrator functionality will be based on existing standards for tunneling, prefixes, and addresses allocation, management. The working group must define a softwire concentrator architecture and interaction between these protocols and recommend profiles. These recommendations must take into account the distributed nature of the Softwires Concentrator in the provider network and the impact on core IPv6 networks (for instance: prefix aggregation). 2.7. Softwire Concentrator Discovery The softwire initiator must know the DNS name or IP address of the softwire concentrator. An automated discovery phase may be used to return the IP address(s) or name(s) of the concentrator. Alternatively, this information may be configured by the user, or by the provider of the softwire initiator in advance. The details of this discovery problem are outside the scope of this document, however previous work could be taken in consideration. Examples include: [SERVICE-DIS], [RFC4891], and [TUN-AD]. 2.8. Scaling In a "Hubs and Spokes model", a carrier must be able to scale the solution to millions of softwire initiators by adding more hubs (i.e., softwire concentrators). 2.9. Routing As customer networks are typically attached via a single link to their carrier, the minimum routing requirement is a default route for each of the address families. 2.10. Multicast Softwires must support multicast. 2.11. Security 2.11.1. Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) The softwire protocol must support customer authentication in the control plane, in order to authorize access to the service, and provide adequate logging of activity (accounting). However, a Li, et al. Informational [Page 12]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 carrier may decide to turn it off in some circumstances, for instance, when the customer is already authenticated by some other means, such as closed networks, cellular networks, etc., in order to avoid unnecessary overhead. The protocol should offer mutual authentication in scenarios where the initiator requires identity proof from the concentrator. The softwire solution, at least for "Hubs and Spokes", must be integrable with commonly deployed AAA solutions (although extensions to those AAA solutions may be needed). 2.11.2. Privacy, Integrity, and Replay Protection The softwire Control and/or Data plane must be able to provide full payload security (such as IPsec or SSL (Secure Socket Layer)) when desired. This additional protection must be separable from the tunneling aspect of the softwire mechanism itself. For IPsec, default profiles must be defined. [RFC4891] provides guidelines on this. 2.12. Operations and Management (OAM) As it is assumed that the softwire may have to go across NAT or PAT, a keepalive mechanism must be defined. Such a mechanism is also useful for dead peer detection. However in some circumstances (i.e., narrowband access, billing per traffic, etc.) the keepalive mechanism may consume unnecessary bandwidth, so turning it on or off, and modifying the periodicity, must be supported administrative options. Other needed OAM features include: - Logging - Usage accounting - End-point failure detection (the detection mechanism must operate within the tunnel) - Path failure detection (the detection mechanism must operate outside the tunnel) 2.13. Encapsulations IPv6/IPv4, IPv6/UDP/IPv4, and IPv4/IPv6 are on the critical path for "Hubs and Spokes" softwires. There is no intention to place limits on additional encapsulations beyond those explicitly mentioned in this specification. Li, et al. Informational [Page 13]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 3. Mesh Problem 3.1. Description We use the term "Mesh Problem" to describe the problem of supporting a general routed topology in which a backbone network that does not support a particular address family can be used as part of the path for packets that belong to that address family. For example, the path for an IPv4 packet might include a transit network that supports only IPv6. There might (or might not) be other paths that the IPv4 packet could take that do not use the IPv6 transit network; the actual path chosen will be determined by the IPv4 routing procedures. By saying that the transit network supports only a single address family, we mean that the "core" routers of that network do not maintain routing information for other address families, and they may not even be able to understand the packet headers of other address families. We do suppose though that the core will have "edge routers" or "border routers", which maintain the routing information for both address families, and which can parse the headers of both address families. We refer to these as "Address Family Border Routers" (AFBRs). The following figure shows an AF2-only network connected to AF1-only networks, AF2-only networks, and dual stack networks. Note that in addition to paths through the AF2-only core, other paths may also exist between AF1 networks. The AFBRs that support AF1 would use BGP to exchange AF1 routing information between themselves, but such information would not be distributed to other core routers. The AFBRs would also participate in the exchange of AF2 routing information with the core nodes. Li, et al. Informational [Page 14]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 +----------+ +----------+ |AF1 only | |AF1 only | | | | | +----------+ +----------+ | | | | Dual-Stack Dual-Stack "AFBR" "AFBR" | | | | +----------------------------+ | | +-------+ | | +-------+ |AF2 | | AF2 only | |AF2 | |only |-------| (but also providing |-------|only | +-------+ | transit for AF1) | +-------+ | | +----------------------------+ | / \ | | / \ | Dual-Stack Dual-Stack "AFBR" "AFBR" | | | | | | +--------+ +--------+ |AF1 and | |AF1 and | |AF2 | |AF2 | +--------+ +--------+ Figure 5: Mesh Topology The situation in which a pair of border routers use BGP to exchange routing information that is not known to the core routers is sometimes known, somewhat misleadingly, as a "BGP-free core". In this sort of scenario, the problems to be solved are (a) to make sure that the BGP-distributed routing updates for AF1 allow a given AFBR, say AFBR1, to see that the path for a given AF1 address prefix is through a second AFBR, say AFBR2, and (b) to provide a way in which AFBR1 can send AF1 packets through the AF2-only core to AFBR2. Of course, sending AF1 packets through an AF2-only core requires the AF1 packets to be encapsulated and sent through "tunnels"; these tunnels are the entities known as "softwires". One of the goals of the mesh problem is to provide a solution that does not require changes in any routers other than the AFBRs. This would allow a carrier (or large enterprise networks acting as carrier for their internal resources) with an AF2-only backbone to provide AF1 transit services for its clients, without requiring any changes Li, et al. Informational [Page 15]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 whatsoever to the clients' routers, and without requiring any changes to the core routers. The AFBRs are the only devices that perform dual-stack operations, and the only devices that encapsulate and/or decapsulate the AF1 packets in order to send and/or receive them on softwires. It may be recognized that this scenario is very similar to the scenario handled by the Layer 3 Virtual Private Network (L3VPN) solution described in RFC 4364 [RFC4364]. The AFBRs correspond to the "Provider Edge Routers" (PE) of RFC 4364. In those L3VPN scenarios, the PEs exchange routing information in an address family (e.g., the VPN-IPv4 address family), but they send VPN data packets through a core which does not have the VPN routing information. However, the softwire problem is NOT focused on the situation in which the border routers maintain multiple private and/or overlapping address spaces. Techniques which are specifically needed to support multiple address spaces are in the domain of L3VPN, rather than in the domain of Softwires. Note that the AFBRs may be multiply connected to the core network, and also may be multiply connected to the client networks. Further, the client networks may have "backdoor connections" to each other, through private networks or through the Internet. 3.2. Scaling In the mesh problem, the number of AFBRs that a backbone network supporting only AF2 will need is approximately on the order of the number of AF1 networks to which it connects. (This is really an upper limit, since a single AFBR can connect to many such networks). An AFBR may need to exchange a "full Internet's" worth of routing information with each network to which it connects. If these networks are not VPNs, the scaling issues associated with the amount of routing information are just the usual scaling issues faced by the border routers of any network which is providing Internet transit services. (If the AFBRs are also attached to VPNs, the usual L3VPN scaling issues apply, as discussed in RFC 4364 [RFC4364] and RFC 4365 [RFC4365].) The number of BGP peering connections can be controlled through the usual methods, e.g., use of route reflectors. 3.3. Persistence, Discovery, and Setup Time AFBRs may discover each other, and may obtain any necessary information about each other, as a byproduct of the exchange of routing information (essentially in the same way that PE routers discovery each other in L3VPNs). This may require the addition of new protocol elements or attributes to existing protocols. Li, et al. Informational [Page 16]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 The softwires needed to allow packets to be sent from one AFBR to another should be "always available", i.e., should not require any extended setup time that would impart an appreciable delay to the data packets. 3.4. Multicast If the AF2 core does not provide native multicast services, multicast between AF1 client networks should still be possible, even though it may require replication at the AFBRs and unicasting of the replicated packets through Softwires. If native multicast services are enabled, it should be possible to use these services to optimize the multicast flow. 3.5. Softwire Encapsulation The solution to the mesh problem must not require the use of any one encapsulation. Rather, it must accommodate the use of a variety of different encapsulation mechanisms, and a means for choosing the one to be used in any particular circumstance based on policy. In particular, the solution to the mesh problem must allow for at least the following encapsulations to be used: Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol version 3 (L2TPv3), IP-in-IP, MPLS (LDP-based and RSVP-TE- based), Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE), and IPsec. The choice of encapsulation is to be based on policy, and the policies themselves may be based on various characteristics of the packets, of the routes, or of the softwire endpoints themselves. 3.6. Security In the mesh problem, the routers are not advertising routes for individual users. So the mesh problem does not require the fine- grained authentication that is required by the "Hub and Spoke" problem. There should however be a way to provide various levels of security for the data packets being transmitted on a softwire. The softwire solution must support IPsec and an IPsec profile must be defined (see recommendations in [USEIPSEC]). Security mechanisms for the control protocols are also required. It must be possible to protect control data from being modified in flight by an attacker, and to prevent an attacker from masquerading as a legitimate control protocol participant. The verification of the reachability information exchanged and issues surrounding the security of routing protocols themselves is outside the scope of the specification. Li, et al. Informational [Page 17]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 4. Security Considerations Security considerations specific to the "Hubs and Spokes" and "Mesh" models appear in those sections of the document. As with any tunneling protocol, using this protocol may introduce a security issue by circumventing a site security policy implemented as ingress filtering, since these filters will only be applied to STH AF IP headers. 5. Principal Authors These are the principal authors for this document. Xing Li CERNET Room 225 Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing 100084 China Phone: +86 10 62785983 Fax: +86 10 62785933 Email: xing@cernet.edu.cn Alain Durand Comcast 1500 Market st Philadelphia PA 19102 USA Email: Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com Shin Miyakawa NTT Communications 3-20-2 TOC 21F, Nishi-shinjuku, Shinjuku Tokyo Japan Phone: +81-3-6800-3262 Fax: +81-3-5365-2990 Email: miyakawa@nttv6.jp Li, et al. Informational [Page 18]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 Jordi Palet Martinez Consulintel San Jose Artesano, 1 Alcobendas - Madrid E-28108 - Spain Phone: +34 91 151 81 99 Fax: +34 91 151 81 98 Email: jordi.palet@consulintel.es Florent Parent Hexago 2875 boul. Laurier, suite 300 Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2M2 Canada Phone: +1 418 266 5533 Email: Florent.Parent@hexago.com David Ward Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 USA Phone: +1-408-526-4000 Email: dward@cisco.com Eric C. Rosen Cisco Systems 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA, 01716 USA Email: erosen@cisco.com 6. Contributors The authors would like to acknowledge the following contributors who provided helpful inputs on earlier versions of this document: Alain Baudot, Hui Deng, Francis Dupont, Rob Evans, Ed Koehler Jr, Erik Nordmark, Soohong Daniel Park, Tom Pusateri, Pekka Savola, Bruno Stevant, Laurent Totain, Bill Storer, Maria (Alice) Dos Santos, Yong Cui, Chris Metz, Simon Barber, Skip Booth, Scott Wainner, and Carl Williams. Li, et al. Informational [Page 19]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 The authors would also like to acknowledge the participants in the Softwires interim meeting in Paris, France (October 11-12, 2005) (minutes are at http://bgp.nu/~dward/softwires/InterimMeetingMinutes.htm). The authors would also like to express a special acknowledgement and thanks to Mark Townsley. Without his leadership, persistence, editing skills, and thorough suggestions for the document, we would have not have been successful. Tunnel-based transition mechanisms have been under discussion in the IETF for more than a decade. Initial work related to softwire can be found in RFC 3053 [RFC3053]. The earlier "V6 Tunnel Configuration" BOF problem statement [GOALS-TUN] a reasonable pointer to prior work. The authors would like to acknowledge the work and support of Dr Jianping Wu of Tsinghua university. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC3041] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001. [RFC3053] Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I., and D. Lento, "IPv6 Tunnel Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001. [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. [RFC3972] Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)", RFC 3972, March 2005. [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. 7.2. Informative References [GOALS-TUN] Palet, J., "Goals for Tunneling Configuration", Work in Progress, February 2005. [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997. Li, et al. Informational [Page 20]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 [RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. [RFC3315] 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. [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003. [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006. [RFC4365] Rosen, E., "Applicability Statement for BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4365, February 2006. [RFC4891] Graveman, R., Parthasarathy, M., Savola, P., and H. Tschofenig, "Using IPsec to Secure IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunnels", RFC 4891, May 2007. [SERVICE-DIS] Durand, A., "Service Discovery using NAPTR records in DNS", Work in Progress, October 2004. [SUBNET] Johnson, R., "Subnet Allocation Option", Work in Progress, June 2007. [TUN-AD] Palet, J. and M, "Analysis of IPv6 Tunnel End-point Discovery Mechanisms", Work in Progress, January 2005. [USEIPSEC] Bellovin, S., "Guidelines for Mandating the Use of IPsec", Work in Progress, February 2007. Li, et al. Informational [Page 21]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 2007 Authors' Addresses Xing Li (editor) CERNET Room 225 Main Building, Tsinghua University Beijing, 100084 China Phone: +86 10 62785983 Fax: +86 10 62785933 EMail: xing@cernet.edu.cn Spencer Dawkins (editor) Huawei Technologies (USA) 1700 Alma Drive, Suite 100 Plano, TX 75075 US Phone: +1 972 509 0309 Fax: +1 469 229 5397 EMail: spencer@mcsr-labs.org David Ward (editor) Cisco Systems 170 W. Tasman Dr. San Jose, CA 95134 US Phone: 1-408-526-4000 EMail: dward@cisco.com Alain Durand (editor) Comcast 1500 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19102 US EMail: alain_durand@cable.comcast.com Li, et al. Informational [Page 22]
RFC 4925 Softwire Problem Statement July 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 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 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 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 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 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Li, et al. Informational [Page 23]