IPv6 Rapid Deployment across IPv4-only CPEs (6rd+) draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus-00 IETF 78 - Softwire -July 30, 2010 Rémi Després RD-IPtech 1

The need targeted by 6rd IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD Native IPv6 should be deployed as soon as possible Many existing CPEs are IPv4-only Many are likely to remain so for a long time - even if most of them will be quickly upgraded (long tail syndrome) ➜ ISPs can improve their services by providing native IPv6 even if hosts are behind IPv4-only CPEs ➜ Host vendors can improve their products by supporting native IPv6 in hosts that are behind IPv4- only CPEs with local ISPs supporting 6rd+ ISPs and host vendors need a common specification for this to happen

Involved entities and packet paths 3IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD V4-capable ISP network V4 backbone V6 backbone v4 BR 6rd BR v4P Site NAT44 CPE 6rd+ HOST v4P Site NAT44 CPE 6rd+ HOST v4P- v6 Site V6 HOST 6rd CPE instead of 2 If a NAT is not full cone

rd+ Addresses Ports and Prefixes (Example) 4IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD v4 ISP network V6 Backbone 6rd BR v4P Site NAT44 CPE 6rd+ HOST 6rd+ CPE N Z K N Z K KC DN N D C” D /27 /60 if C” is /1 /32 /48 N /32 Simpler if prefixes beyond /64 are permitted on virtual links G W Well-known port

Functional differences with Teredo IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD Teredo applies anywhere whereas 6rd+, only applies where local ISPs support it (like 6rd) 6rd+ ensures connectivity with ALL combinations of CPE NAT types (not Teredo) With 6rd+, IPv6 QoS of a host is controlled by its local ISP (not with Teredo).

Relationship with 6rd Commonalities o Native IPv6 addresses (Connectivity) o Encapsulations with Stateless Address Mappings (incremental deployments, scalability, simplified operation) o Route optimisation (Efficiency) Differences o Upgraded hosts (6rd+) vs. upgraded CPEs (6rd) o More sophisticated parameter acquisition (NAT traversal, Full-cone NAT detection) 6IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD

Parameter Acquisition by Hosts IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD Param ClientParam Server A -> B SamMsg(“ParamReq”) A <- B SamMsg(“ParamSetForNoNat”) A -> BA:W -> B:W SamMsg(“ParamReq”) A:W <- B:W SamMsg(“ParamSetForNotFullCon e”) A:W <- B:W A’:W’ <- B’:W’ SamMsg(“ParamSetForFullCone”) A’:W’ <- B’:W’ ???

Relationship with SAM IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD SAM is generic for tunnels with Stateless Address Mappings and optimized paths draft-despres-softwire-sam-01 o Exterior and Interior address families: IPv6, IPv4, IPv4E o Common code reduces costs Other SAM applications o Transparent Multihoming with PA prefixes (TRAM) o Public IPv4 across IPv6-only ISP networks (4rd)  One address per customer, OR  Shared IPv4 addresses (IPv4E) o Automatic renumbering in private-addressing sites o Telecom Bretagne experiment (IPv6 AND IPv4E across private IPv4)

What next? IETF 77 at Anaheim - Softwire - RD Have a WG work item on the subject ? Related contributions o draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-01 o draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00 ➜ Work on convergence Introduce in 6man the issue of virtual-link addresses without 64-bit IIDs