RFC 5211

An Internet Transition Plan

📅 published July 2008, from ietf

RFC 5211: An Internet Transition Plan 🦋

Okay bestie, here's the header info you need up top 💖

  • RFC number: 5211
  • Group: Network Working Group
  • Author: J. Curran
  • Date: July 2008
  • Category: Informational
  • Obsoletes / Updates: the header doesn't list either, so it doesn't claim to obsolete or update anything 🧚

Status of This Memo ✨

This memo gives information to the Internet community. It's not an Internet standard of any kind, and it can be shared freely with no distribution limits 🌸

IESG Note 🙈

Okay, this one's important. This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard. The IETF doesn't vouch for whether it's fit for any purpose, and publishing it wasn't based on IETF review, except for IESG review to check for conflicts with IETF work. The RFC Editor chose to publish it at their discretion. For more info, check out RFC 3932 📚

Abstract 💅

This memo lays out one possible plan for moving the Internet from a mostly IPv4-based connectivity model to a mostly IPv6-based one 🌈

Table of Contents 🎀

   1. Introduction ....................................................2
      1.1. Requirements Language ......................................2
   2. A Phased Transition Model .......................................2
      2.1. Preparation Phase - Present to December 2009 ...............3
      2.2. Transition Phase - January 2010 to December 2011 ...........4
      2.3. Post-Transition Phase - January 2012 to the Future .........4
   3. Summary .........................................................5
   4. Security Considerations .........................................5
   5. IANA Considerations .............................................5
   6. Acknowledgments .................................................6
   7. References ......................................................6
      7.1. Normative References .......................................6
      7.2. Informative References .....................................6

1. Introduction 🦋

Okay so this memo is basically one possible plan for moving the Internet from a mostly IPv4-based connectivity model to a mostly IPv6-based one ✨

Other transition plans are possible too. This is purely informational, so it doesn't force anyone to do anything listed here. Any requirements language is only there to describe the proposed plan in clear, unambiguous terms, per RFC 2119 💖

The whole point of an Internet-wide transition plan is to get innumerable, super decentralized entities on the same page during a big change. That way, we lower the risk to the defining property of the Internet: universal connectivity 🌍

And specifying this particular plan lets people assess how hard the transition will be overall, and keeps the bigger conversation about Internet-wide transition plans going 🫶

1.1. Requirements Language 🔑

Okay so the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. RFC 2119 is the one that explains what these key words mean, so Standards Track docs stay as clear as possible. This isn't a Standards Track doc, but we're using the same key words anyway, just so the proposed transition plan reads super clearly 💅

2. A Phased Transition Model 🌸

It's not realistic to list every change that every single system on the Internet needs to make to reach this transition. There are just too many connected systems for one plan to get that detailed. Common scenarios do exist for transitioning individual networks (see [RFC3750] and [RFC4057] for examples), but the exact timeline and mechanisms for any given network will be unique. Even so, we need to coordinate expectations overall so Internet-wide connectivity stays up through the whole transition 🫶

This document lays out a three-phase transition plan: preparation, transition, and post-transition. It spells out what needs to happen in each phase, depending on the role an organization plays in providing and using Internet services ✨

Here's the big deal: existing end-site organizations are explicitly required to add IPv6-based connectivity to their public-facing servers during a transition phase. Speeding up IPv6 adoption for public-facing servers means new organizations in the post-transition phase can connect to the Internet only via IPv6 and still reach a substantial, representative base of publicly available servers 🔥

For almost every organization, IPv6-enabling their public-facing servers is way easier than doing an organization-wide IPv6 adoption. Still, asking existing Internet-connected organizations to add IPv6 connectivity, even for just a few systems, is a big hurdle. It takes effort that might not be doable when these organizations don't see many compelling extra benefits [RFC1669]. This plan assumes that "connectivity is its own reward" [RFC1958], and that Internet participants still cooperate enough to make this evolution possible 💜

The three phases are the Preparation Phase, the Transition Phase, and the Post-Transition Phase. The timeline is set so that we enter the Post-Transition Phase before the projected IPv4 address pool exhaustion date [IPUSAGE] ⏳

2.1. Preparation Phase - Present to December 2009 🧪

In the Preparation Phase, Service Providers pilot test their IPv6 network services. End-site organizations get ready to offer Internet-facing services over IPv6-based connectivity, while still offering them over IPv4 connectivity 🌷

These principles apply during the Preparation Phase:

PREP1: Okay so Service Providers SHOULD offer pilot IPv6-based Internet Service to their Internet customers. IPv6-based Internet Service MAY be provided via IPv6 transition mechanisms (such as those described in [RFC4213], for example) or via native IPv6 network service 🦋

PREP2: Organizations SHOULD arrange for IPv6-based Internet connectivity for any Internet-facing servers (for example, web, email, and domain name servers). Internet-facing IPv6 servers in this phase SHOULD use separate service names per [RFC4472] so they don't impact production IPv4-based services, unless the organization supports production IPv6 connectivity 🍓

PREP3: Organizations MAY provide IPv6-based Internet connectivity to internal user communities 🧚

2.2. Transition Phase - January 2010 to December 2011 🚀

In the Transition Phase, Service Providers offer production IPv6 and IPv4 services to their Internet customers. End-site organizations provide Internet-facing services in a production manner over IPv6-based connectivity, on top of their IPv4-based connectivity 💖

These principles apply during the Transition Phase:

TRANS1: Service Providers MUST offer IPv6-based Internet Service to their Internet customers. IPv6-based Internet Service SHOULD be via native IPv6 network service, but MAY be via IPv6 transition mechanisms if necessary ✨

TRANS2: Organizations MUST arrange for IPv6-based Internet connectivity for any Internet-facing servers (for example, web, email, and domain name servers). Internet-facing IPv6 servers SHOULD be treated as production by the organization, and SHOULD be treated as production by other Internet organizations 👑

TRANS3: Organizations SHOULD provide IPv6-based Internet connectivity to their internal user communities, and provide IPv6 internal supporting servers (for example, DNS and DHCP). IPv6-based Internet connectivity MAY be via native IPv6 network service, or MAY be via IPv6 transition mechanisms 🌈

2.3. Post-Transition Phase - January 2012 to the Future 🌟

In the Post-Transition Phase, end-site organizations provide all Internet-facing services over IPv6-based connectivity. That's what lets new Internet customers connect solely over IPv6 💅

These principles apply during the Post-Transition Phase:

POST1: Service Providers MUST offer IPv6-based Internet Service to their Internet customers. IPv6-based Internet Service SHOULD be via native IPv6 network service 🫶

POST2: Organizations MUST arrange for IPv6-based Internet connectivity for any Internet-facing servers (for example, web, email, and domain name servers). Internet-facing IPv6 servers MUST be treated as production by the organization, and SHOULD be treated as production by other Internet organizations 🔥

POST3: Organizations SHOULD provide IPv6-based Internet connectivity to internal user communities, and provide IPv6 internal supporting infrastructure (for example, routers, DNS, DHCP, and so on). IPv6-based Internet connectivity SHOULD be via native IPv6 network service, or MAY be via IPv6 transition mechanisms 🧚

POST4: Service Providers MAY continue to offer IPv4-based Internet connectivity to their Internet customers. Organizations MAY continue to use IPv4-based Internet connectivity 🌸

3. Summary 🍓

To get full Internet-wide connectivity during the move from IPv4-based to IPv6-based connectivity, we need a transition plan that gives organizations clear guidance on what's expected. Those expectations change over time and vary a lot between organizations, so this document uses a phased approach. Each phase's timeline is set to leave enough time for the planning and deployment steps every organization has to take 💜

This Internet Transition Plan gets us to predominantly IPv6 connectivity by January 2012. With careful management, it may meet the overall requirements for letting the Internet scale, as laid out in "The Recommendation for the IP Next Generation Protocol" [RFC1752] 🦋

4. Security Considerations 💀

This memo covers the Internet moving from IPv4-based connectivity to mostly IPv6-based connectivity. This change comes with real security implications, since a new version of the Internet Protocol is being deployed everywhere. But those are beyond the scope of this document and are covered in [RFC4942]. This document doesn't raise any new security issues itself 😭

5. IANA Considerations 📜

No new name or identifier space is created by this document. However, the policies for managing Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space may not keep IPv4 available through the Transition Phase the way this plan intends. IANA should work with all parties to develop policies per [RFC2050] that keep IPv4 address resources generally available long enough for any transition plan that gets widespread community support 🌈

To be continued! Part 2 brings the Acknowledgments and References, so stay tuned 🫶✨

6. Acknowledgments 🫶

okay so this doc would literally not exist without the whole internet community dropping suggestions 💖 but we gotta give a special shoutout to Fred Baker, Jim Bound, Scott Bradner, Bob Braden, Randy Bush, David Divins, Geoff Huston, Chris Morrow, Jordi Palet, Ken Shores, James Woodyatt, and the members of the IETF V6 Operations Working Group 👑 they reviewed it and gave super insightful suggestions for making it better, so iconic of them 🙌

7. References ✨

7.1. Normative References

These are the ones the doc is basically built on, no cap 💅

[RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

[RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
           for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

[RFC4472]  Durand, A., Ihren, J., and P. Savola, "Operational
           Considerations and Issues with IPv6 DNS", RFC 4472, April
           2006.

[RFC1752]  Bradner, S. and A. Mankin, "The Recommendation for the IP
           Next Generation Protocol", RFC 1752, January 1995.

7.2. Informative References

These are the background reads 🧚 totally worth bookmarking if you're into this stuff 🌸

[RFC1958]  Carpenter, B., Ed., "Architectural Principles of the
           Internet", RFC 1958, June 1996.

[RFC1669]  Curran, J., "Market Viability as a IPng Criteria", RFC
           1669, August 1994.

[IPUSAGE]  Huston, G., IPv4 Address Report, February 2008,
           <http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html>.

[RFC4057]  Bound, J., Ed., "IPv6 Enterprise Network Scenarios", RFC
           4057, June 2005.

[RFC3750]  Huitema, C., Austein, R., Satapati, S., and R. van der
           Pol, "Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios", RFC
           3750, April 2004.

[RFC2050]  Hubbard, K., Kosters, M., Conrad, D., Karrenberg, D., and
           J. Postel, "Internet Registry IP Allocation Guidelines",
           BCP 12, RFC 2050, November 1996.

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

Author's Address 🎀

Here's where to find the author, John Curran 🦋

John Curran
99 Otis Street
Cambridge, MA USA 20190

EMail: jcurran@istaff.org

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and at http://www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, 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.

That's the whole thing, bestie 🌈✨ we made it through the transition together 🦋💖

📦 where this page comes from