| Internet-Draft | IP Addressing with References (IPREF) | September 2024 |
| Augustyn | Expires 24 March 2025 | [Page] |
IP addressing with references, or IPREF for short, is a method for end-to-end communication across different address spaces normally not reachable through native means. IPREF uses references to addresses instead of real addresses. It allows to reach across NAT/NAT6 and across protocols IPv4/IPv6. It is a pure layer 3 addressing feature that works with existing network protocols.¶
IPREF forms addresses (IPREF addresses) made of context addresses and references. These IPREF addresses are publishable in Domain Name System (DNS). Any host in any address space, including behind NAT/NAT6 or employing different protocol IPv4/IPv6, may publish IPREF addresses of its services in DNS. These services will be reachable from any address space, including those running different protocol IPv4/IPv6 or behind NAT/NAT6, provided both ends support IPREF.¶
IPREF is especially useful for transitioning to IPv6 or for operating networks with a mix of IPv4/IPv6.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 24 March 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Some 25 years ago, it became clear that the 32 bit address space of the IP protocol was too small for the growing Internet. An effort to avert the impending 'shortage of IP addressees', as the problem was referred to at the time, led to development of a new IP protocol named version 6. That protocol, referred to as IPv6, had a larger address space thus instantaneously solving the problem. Unfortunately, it created another problem. It operated in a different, incompatible address space than the existing IP protocol, referred to since as IPv4. In this way, two different address spaces, inaccessible to each other, have been created.¶
Meanwhile, a grass roots effort led to development of another solution to the 'shortage of IP addresses' problem that was compatible with existing IPv4 protocol. IPv4 address space was extended by rewriting network addresses. That technique, since widely known as NAT, effectively created an address space hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy, there was the original 32 bit address space. These addresses, at the edge of hierarchy, were translated into and from another set of addresses belonging to so called 'private ranges'. These addresses formed new address spaces. They were 32 bit wide but only 24 bit subsets were used in practice. Together with the top hierarchy, they produced a 56 bit address space for IPv4. Another variant, known as 'carrier grade NAT', added another level of hierarchy which extended total address space to 72 bits. This approach averted the shortage of IP addresses, but it achieved it at a cost of creating another problem. Namely, it created millions of address spaces inaccessible from one another. These new address spaces were not equal value, they were mostly useful for clients accessing servers within their own address spaces or within the space at the top of the hierarchy, commonly referred to as 'global IP addresses'.¶
As a result, the Internet evolved into a collection of a large number of generally inaccessible address spaces with two incompatible network protocols.¶
There were attempts at improving the situation which went in two directions. There were attempts aiming to solve access across address spaces within the same protocol, typically referred to as 'NAT traversal solutions', and there were attempts aiming to bridge IPv4/IPv6 divide. All of these attempts resulted in partial solutions with substantial limitations. We could call them nicely 'focused'. The ones dealing with IPv4/IPv6, like NAT64/SIIT, were asymmetrical, worked differently in one direction than the other, didn't scale well, required global IPv4 addresses, couldn't traverse NAT. The ones dealing with NAT traversal, like STUN or NAT-T collection, didn't work across protocols IPv4/IPv6, were very limited, dealing mostly with port manipulation, never truly solving NAT traversal.¶
The result of these attempts was a hodgepodge of limited, mostly lacking, poorly scaling, half measures which left these millions of different address spaces still generally inaccessible to one another.¶
A closer analysis of these different solutions reveals they suffer great difficulties primarily because they try to render necessary address transformations too early. IPREF takes a different approach. It is based on the observation that the originating hosts do not have to know what the destination addresses are, or what protocol they belong to. Thus, IPREF uses references to addresses rather than real addresses. This approach works for both NAT traversal as well as for protocol traversal since both problems are substantially the same. The one difference between them being having to repackage packets on the IPv4/IPv6 boundary. Such repackaging requires sufficient compatibility between the protocols which fortunately exists.¶
With this approach, IPREF does not need to negotiate anything. It does not need any external devices, any shared configurations. It does not require allocating of any global IP addresses. It does not create any new address spaces, it always refers to existing ones. The result is a highly scalable solution that works over NAT, NAT6, filters, and across IPv4/IPv6. All of the millions of different address spaces, whether behind NAT/NAT6, or across IPv4/IPv6 may now communicate with one another using IPREF.¶
In the background to all the above, there is an ongoing effort to convert every IPv4 network out there to IPv6. The idea is to run only one protocol everywhere which would simplify many issues including address space accessibility while complicating other issues perhaps of greater significance. For one, such a return to a single address space, single protocol environment runs against a broad, long running trend of diverging interest of the Internet versus the interests of Internet customers. The appearance of such ideas like NAT6 should give the proponents of IPv6 a pause. Indeed, the customers of the Internet fiercely defend their independence which is the primary reason why the transition to IPv6 has been resisted for so long. In this context, IPREF is in an interesting position. It sure can be used to squash the resistance and force the deployment of IPv6 everywhere as the vision of 'one protocol to rule them all' proposes. But it can also be used to evolve the Internet into a set of different address spaces running different IP protocols easily reachable from any thanks to compatibility provided by IPREF. It just may be, that the evolutionary pressure will tilt the Internet toward the latter.¶
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
IPREF - short name referring to technology described in this document, pronounced I-P-REF¶
context address - a native address component of an IPREF address¶
reference - an unsigned integer component of an IPREF address¶
IPREF address - addressing unit used with IPREF, a combination of a context address and a reference¶
encoding network - network representing IPREF addresses in native form¶
IPREF gateway - a device, or software component, that performs IPREF address rewriting¶
IPREF is a method for communication across different address spaces, that is those that cannot be reached through native means of a network protocol. Examples of such address spaces are networks behind NAT, NAT6, or filters, as well as networks employing different network protocols such as IPv4/IPv6.¶
Key characteristics of IPREF:¶
A common problem with cross address space communication is to decide how to deal with addressing. Communicating peers cannot interpret each other's addresses therefore some other method of directing packets to proper destinations must be devised.¶
IPREF solves this problem by using references to addresses rather than actual addresses. The references are then evaluated within each address space to render proper native addresses suitable for forwarding. The evaluation is performed at each address space independently. As a result the same references render different addresses at different address spaces.¶
References are unsigned integers meaningful only in the context of the address space they pertain to. Local administrators allocate values to references and assign their meaning. They may divide a reference into fields for any purpose believed useful. For example, the fields may reflect different sources of allocations, or provide extra security bits, or provide load balancing hints, etc. Peers are unaware of these fields and treat references as opaque values.¶
IPREF uses references to addresses in lieu of actual addresses. Such references need context to be meaningful, therefore IPREF uses addressing units that combine a context address, which MUST be a native address, and a reference. These addressing units are called IPREF addresses.¶
┌───────────────────┬───────────────────┐
│ context address │ reference │
└───────────────────┴───────────────────┘
198.51.100.11 + 700
2001:db8::abc:11 + 700
The context address portion of an IPREF address is an address within adjacent address space. Typically, this is the Internet, so this is usually an Internet address of an edge router of the source or destination network. Other addresses known to the network may also be used.¶
References are allocated by administrators of respective address spaces. The references may only refer to hosts from these address spaces. Thus, the destination references are allocated by the administrators of the destination networks while the source references are allocated by the administrators of the source networks. There are no conflicts and there is no need for negotiations. Each peer defines their own references and accepts peer references as opaque values.¶
Figure 1 shows two examples of IPREF addresses. In the notation, a plus sign '+' separates context address from the reference. A packet carries two IPREF addresses: a source IPREF address and a destination IPREF address.¶
IPREF addresses are publishable in DNS.¶
IPREF addresses are placed in packets by gateways. The gateways must be installed at each address space participating in IPREF communication. Intermediate address spaces, such as the Internet, don't need gateways.¶
The gateways inject and remove IPREF addresses as packets leave and enter local networks. They also encode IPREF addresses for internal use as local network protocols only understand native addresses. The encoding networks are local private networks to which the gateways map IPREF addresses. For example, IPv4 networks could use a 10/8 network while IPv6 networks could use an fd::/64 network for the purpose. For local hosts, these encoded addresses represent peers they communicate with. The peers appear as if on the local network. This is common with cross protocol communication or more generally with cross address space communication. The gateways replace these encoded addresses with IPREF addresses when sending packets outside local networks.¶
Similarly to standard IP protocols, IPREF packets travel through address spaces based on source and destination IPREF addresses. After all, they utilize existing protocols for transport thus they must obey the same rules. The IPREF addresses are interpreted at each address space to render native addresses for forwarding.¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
src: 2001:db8::9 + 1579 2001:db8::9 + 1579 2001:db8::9 + 1579
dst: 2001:db8::8 + 2466 2001:db8::8 + 2466 2001:db8::8 + 2466
🡳 🡳 🡳
src: 172.17.1.75 2001:db8::9 fdee:eeee::5951
dst: 10.128.48.62 2001:db8::8 2001:db8:b::28
┌──────┐ IPv4 │ IPv6 │ IPv6 ┌──────┐
│ host │.75┃ ┃ │ host │
│ A1 ├───┨ ┏━━━━━━━┓ │ │ ┏━━━━━━━┓ ┠───┤ B4 │
└──────┘ ┃ ┃ IPREF ┃:9 :8┃ IPREF ┃ ┃ └──────┘
┠──┨ g-way ┠───── Internet ─────┨ g-way ┠──┨
┌──────┐ ┃ ┃ GWA ┃ ┃ GWB ┃ ┃:28┌──────┐
│ host ├───┨ ┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛ ┠───┤ host │
│ A3 │ ┃ ┃ │ B6 │
└──────┘ │ │ └──────┘
For example, in Figure 2, if host A1 wanted to send a packet outside of its own address space to host B6, it would need a source IPREF address for itself and a destination IPREF address for B6.¶
The destination IPREF address of host B6, presumably a server, would be allocated by the admin of network B where B6 resides. It would normally be advertised in DNS. The source IPREF address of A1, presumably a client, would normally be allocated dynamically by the local IPREF gateway.¶
As packets travel from source to destination, the following takes place:¶
On the way back, source and destination addresses are reversed and their interpretation follows the same pattern, thus a reply packet originating at an IPv6 host B6 reaches an IPv4 host A1.¶
In the example, network A may be IPv4 or IPv6, the Internet may be IPv4 or IPv6, and network B may be IPv4 or IPv6. In any combination, a packet traveling through these address spaces would be processed in the same manner and it would reach its destination in the same way.¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
┌──────┐ IPv4 │ IPv6 │ IPv6 ┌──────┐
│ host │.75┃ ┃ │ host │
│ A1 ├───┨ ┏━━━━━━━┓ │ │ ┏━━━━━━━┓ ┠───┤ B4 │
└──────┘ ┃ ┃ IPREF ┃:9 :8┃ IPREF ┃ ┃ └──────┘
┠──┨ g-way ┠───── Internet ─────┨ g-way ┠──┨
┌──────┐ ┃ ┃ GWA ┃ ┃ GWB ┃ ┃:28┌──────┐
│ host ├───┨ ┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛ ┠───┤ host │
│ A3 │ ┃ ┃ │ B6 │
└──────┘ │ │ └──────┘
Internet ifc: 2001:db8::9 Internet ifc: 2001:db8::8
Local net A: 172.17.1.0/24 Local net B: 2001:db8:b::/64
Encoding net: 10.128.0.0/10 Encoding net: fdee:eeee::/64
Host A1: 172.17.1.75 Host B6: 2001:db8:b:28
DNS A1: (none) DNS B6: 2001:db8::8 + 2466
Let's say an IPv4 host A1 wants to send a packet to an IPv6 host B6:¶
Host A1 finds out the address of host B6¶
Host A1 issues a DNS query for host B6. The query goes through the local resolver. Local resolver receives a response:¶
B6 has address: 2001:db8::8 + 2466¶
Since local hosts don't understand IPREF addresses, the resolver asks gateway GWA to allocate an encoded address for it. The gateway responds:¶
map: 2001:db8::8 + 2466 = 10.128.48.62¶
The resolver returns the encoded result of the DNS query to host A1:¶
B6 has address: 10.128.48.62¶
Host A1 sends a packet out to B6¶
Host A1 places its own address as source and the address of host B6 returned by the local resolver as destination.¶
packet out: | 172.17.1.75 | 10.128.48.62 | payload |¶
Packet arrives at gateway GWA¶
packet in: | 172.17.1.75 | 10.128.48.62 | payload |¶
The gateway notices that it does not have mapping for the source address, so it creates one on the fly:¶
map: 172.17.1.75 = 2001:db8::9 + 1579¶
It replaces source address with the just created corresponding IPREF address. It replaces encoded destination address with the original IPREF address returned by the DNS query. It also repackages IPv4 packet into IPv6 since the Internet is IPv6.¶
packet out: | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | payload |¶
Packet arrives at gateway GWB¶
packet in: | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | payload |¶
The gateway notices that it does not have encoding for the source IPREF address, so it creates one on the fly:¶
map: 2001:db8::9 + 1579 = fdee:eeee::5951¶
It replaces source IPREF address with the just created local encoded address. It replaces destination IPREF address with the local address of host B6.¶
packet out: | fdee:eeee::5951 | 2001:db8:b::28 | payload |¶
Packet arrives at host B6¶
packet in: | fdee:eeee::5951 | 2001:db8:b::28 | payload |¶
Host B6 recognizes destination address as its own and consumes the packet. OS passes the packet to an application implied by layer 4.¶
Host B6 sends a reply back to A1¶
Host B6 gets a reply payload from the application, swaps source and destination addresses, and sends the packet back to A1.¶
packet out: | 2001:db8:b::28 | fdee:eeee::5951 | payload |¶
Packet arrives at gateway GWB¶
packet in: | 2001:db8:b::28 | fdee:eeee::5951 | payload |¶
The gateway replaces local source address with corresponding IPREF address previously allocated and advertised in DNS. It replaces destination local encoded address with the corresponding IPREF address from mapping created earlier.¶
packet out: | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | payload |¶
Packet arrives at gateway GWA¶
packet in: | 2001:db8::8 + 2466 | 2001:db8::9 + 1579 | payload |¶
The gateway replaces source IPREF address with the corresponding local encoded address from mapping created earlier. It replaces destination IPREF address with the local address of host A1. It also realizes that the local network is IPv4, so it repackages the packet into IPv4.¶
packet out: | 10.128.48.62 | 172.17.1.75 | payload |¶
Packet arrives at host A1¶
packet in: | 10.128.48.62 | 172.17.1.75 | payload |¶
Host A1 recognizes destination address as its own and consumes the packet. OS passes the packet to the application that sent the original packet.¶
At this point any missing mappings have been allocated. Subsequent packet exchange continues without additional allocations.¶
References are network layer entities therefore the most natural place for embedding them would be network layer headers, such as IPv4 options or IPv6 extension headers.¶
Unfortunately, many Internet Service Providers drop options and extension headers for various reasons. Even if they don't, routers tend to put them on a slow processing path resulting in poor performance. For that reason, the most reliable way to embed references is to place them in the payload. One common technique of accomplishing this is tunneling where references could be made a part of the payload.¶
With IPv4, references may be embedded in an IPv4 header option [RFC791]. It would be a new option type. It would contain an octet with option type and option number, an octet with length, and two octets reserved for possible future use while padding to four octet boundary. The source and destination references would then follow.¶
A new option number would be registered with IANA. Until then, experimental option, 30, could be used.¶
With IPv6, references may be embedded in an IPv6 extension header [RFC8200]. It would be a new header type. It would contain an octet with next header type value, an octet with length, and two octets reserved for possible future use. This would be followed by four octets of padding to 8 octet boundary. Padding octets would not be intended for any future use. The source and destination references would then follow.¶
A new protocol type would be registered with IANA. Until then, experimental protocol, 254, could be used.¶
Placing references in a UDP tunnel works for both IPv4 and IPv6. In both cases, the references would be embedded in the form of respective options or extension headers. In addition, a tunnel encapsulation record would be added. The order of items would be as follows:¶
The encapsulation record would consist of four octets. First octet would contain the value of TTL copied from the original IP header. The second octet would contain protocol number copied from the original IPv4 header or next header value form an IPv6 extension header. The third octet would report number of hops detected for incoming packets. The fourth octet would be reserved for possible future use while padding to 4 octet boundary. The IPREF option would follow in the format matching respective IP protocol, IPv4 or IPv6.¶
The tunnel would operate at port 1045. This value would be registered with IANA.¶
IPREF gateways provide mapping support for name resolution services such as DNS. When resolving queries on behalf of local hosts, all returned IPREF addresses must be mapped to native addresses of the local network protocol. Typically, a subnet on a private network is dedicated for the purpose. That subnet is used just for encoding, there are no real hosts with these addresses. There may be a need to standardize on how resolvers communicate with gateways to obtain such mappings.¶
IPREF takes full advantage of DNS [RFC1035]. Local networks may publish IPREF addresses of any services hosted on local networks. Standard unmodified DNS servers may be used for the purpose.¶
Network A │
╔═══════╗
┌──────┐ │ ║ publc ║
│ host │.75┃ ┌────────────╢ DNS ║ A3 AA 2001:db8::9 + 1733
│ A1 ├───┨ ┏━━━┷━━━┓ │ ║ servr ║ ────────>
└──────┘ ┃ ┃ IPREF ┃:9 ╚═══════╝
┠──┨ g-way ┠─────
┌──────┐ ┃ ┃ GWA ┃
│ host ├───┨ ┗━━━┯━━━┛ │ Internet
│ A3 │ ┃ │ ╔═══════╗
└──────┘ │ │ ║ other ║
│ ║ ╔═══════╗
▲ ╔═══╧═══╗ │ ║ ║ other ║
│ ║ local ║ <─────── ╚═║ ╔═══════╗
╰──── ║ DNS ║ B6 AA 2001:db8::8 + 2466 ║ ║ other ║
║ rslvr ║ ╚═║ DNS ║
╚═══════╝ │ ║ servr ║
╚═══════╝
For the resolution of DNS names, a modified recursive resolver is required because IPREF addresses are different from IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. The resolver must recognize them in addition to native IP addresses.¶
IPREF addresses are unlike well known IPv4 addresses or IPv6 addresses. These addresses consist of two components which must be considered as a single address entity. It is not possible to separate references from their companion context addresses. For that reason, there is a need for a new resource record type. The new record type is tentatively called AA. This record type has not been registered yet. Until such time, a TXT record may be used instead. The TXT record simply holds a textual representation of an AA record.¶
Here are some examples of what the records might look like:¶
Host-B4 AA 198.51.100.22 + 400
Host-A5 AA net-A + 500
Host-A5 AA 2001:db8::abc:11 + 700
Host-A5 TXT "AA net-A + 500"
¶
The IP portion may be provided numerically or as a domain name. The format for the reference would allow unsigned decimal integers as well as unsigned hex integers. Other formats may be defined as well.¶
Local network resolvers must recognize IPREF addresses returned by DNS queries. They must also be capable of encoding them into native IP addresses in consultation with IPREF gateways. This is shown in Figure 4 as a line connecting local DNS resolver with IPREF gateway GWA. Encoding is needed because local hosts do not understand IPREF addresses. Instead, local hosts use encoded equivalents which are then replaced with the actual IPREF addresses by the gateways. There may be a need to standardize on how resolvers communicate with gateways.¶
All published IPREF addresses must be communicated to local IPREF gateways so that they can properly map destination addresses of incoming packets. This is reflected in Figure 4 by a line connecting public DNS server with IPREF gateway GWA. There is a number of ways to accomplish this. There may be a need to standardize on how this should be done to allow interoperability between different gateways and different DNS servers.¶
IPREF address records may be protected by DNSSEC. Packets leaving local networks contain the exact addresses returned from DNS. Internally, local hosts use encoded versions of these addresses which complicates things a little but the gateways replace them with the original IPREF addresses listed in DNS before sending packets out of the local network.¶
DNS is immensely useful and it is considered a necessary component of IP networking. But IP networking does not relay on DNS. It works just fine with IP address literals entered and distributed manually. Similarly, IPREF does not rely on DNS. It is possible to use IPREF address literals in a manner similar to IP. The addresses would still need to be encoded by the gateways. They would be entered manually at gateways first, then their encoded equivalents would be distributed to hosts, possibly as entries in /etc/hosts files.¶
IPREF is a general purpose technology. While it can be used for transition purpose, it is not a transition technology. It was created to bridge a divide between incompatible protocols and between unreachable address spaces. This is a networking world that we live in now. We have two public Internets and millions of address spaces. It will stay like this in the foreseeable future, likely for decades to come. IPREF addresses this situation. New protocols are being developed as well, for example such as those presented in various IRTF groups. Some are specialized, some are intended for wider use. Each of them create their own address spaces with a need to exist within wider networking system. IPREF can bridge these new technologies with existing IPv4 and IPv6 Internets and allow them to strive. These are important projects which address new issues not encountered before. IPREF dovetails with these efforts, thus enabling and enhancing innovation in networking.¶
Transitioning to IPv6 Internet using IPREF offers significant benefits to both the transitioning organizations as well as to the Internet service providers, carriers, and operators.¶
The transition may involve only a switch to the IPv6 Internet in preparation for the take down of the IPv4 Internet. Or, it may involve transitioning of some or all local networks to IPv6. These two transition tasks are independent. It is possible to keep local network unchanged and only switch to IPv6 Internet. In this case local IPv4 communication will go over IPv6 Internet reaching remote IPv4 or IPv6 destinations. It is also possible to switch local networks to IPv6 while keeping IPv4 Internet which may be useful if destinations are expected to stay on the IPv4 Internet for longer. In either case, very little to none coordination is needed with the peers. This alone is a huge advantage of the IPREF technology.¶
The transitioning process takes advantage of IPREF's flexibility to operate in all combinations of address spaces:¶
network A Internet Network B
1 IPv4 IPv4 IPv4 -- starting point
2 IPv4 IPv4 IPv6 (possible but rare)
3 IPv6 IPv4 IPv4 (same as 2)
4 IPv6 IPv4 IPv6 (possible but rare)
5 IPv4 IPv6 IPv4 -- after dropping IPv4 Internet
6 IPv4 IPv6 IPv6 -- after dropping IPv4 Internet
7 IPv6 IPv6 IPv4 (same as 6)
8 IPv6 IPv6 IPv6 -- after dropping IPv4 Internet
¶
Because different address spaces - network A, Internet, and network B - are processed independently by IPREF, the transitioning process at local networks is decoupled from transitioning efforts at peer networks. It also decouples the transitioning process at either peer from the Internet thus allowing transitioning of the Internet to IPv6 independently.¶
Starting point¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
┏━━━━━━━┓ │ IPv6 │ ┏━━━━━━━┓
┫ IPREF ┣ ┫ IPREF ┣
IPv4 ┃ g-way ┃ │ IPv4 │ ┃ g-way ┃ IPv4
════════╗ ┫ GWA ┣ ╔════════════════════╗ ┫ GWB ┣ ╔════════
║ ┗━━━━━━━┛ ║ │ │ ║ ┗━━━━━━━┛ ║
╚═════════════╝ ╚═════════════╝
│ │
¶
IPREF gateways are installed but not used. All connectivity is pure IPv4.¶
Switching traffic to IPREF¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
┏━━━━━━━┓ │ IPv6 │ ┏━━━━━━━┓
┫ IPREF ┣ ┫ IPREF ┣
IPv4 ┃ g-way ┃ │ IPv4 │ ┃ g-way ┃ IPv4
═══════════┫ GWA ┣══════════════════════════┫ GWB ┣═══════════
┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛
│ │
¶
IPREF gateways are configured. References are assigned. Traffic goes through the gateways. All services subject to transition are now accessed via IPREF. Traffic between gateways remains over IPv4 Internet until both ends connect to IPv6 Internet. This does not affect transitioning of local networks to IPv6.¶
Transitioning local networks to IPv6¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
IPv6 ┏━━━━━━━┓ │ IPv6 │ ┏━━━━━━━┓
═══════════┫ IPREF ┣╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ┫ IPREF ┣
IPv4 ┃ g-way ┃ │ IPv4 │ ┃ g-way ┃ IPv4
═══════════┫ GWA ┣══════════════════════════┫ GWB ┣═══════════
┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛
│ │
¶
Local IPv6 networks may be set up without waiting for IPv6 Internet. These are pure IPv6 networks, no dual stacks. Connectivity between local IPv4/IPv6 networks is provided by the same IPREF gateways that connect to remote peers. Clients located on local IPv6 networks can reach servers located on local IPv4 networks or on remote IPv4 or IPv6 networks. Similarly, servers on local IPv6 network can be reached from clients located on local IPv4 networks as well as those located on remote IPv4 or IPv6 networks.¶
Switching to IPv6 Internet¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
IPv6 ┏━━━━━━━┓ │ IPv6 │ ┏━━━━━━━┓
═══════════┫ IPREF ┣══════════════════════════┫ IPREF ┣
IPv4 ┃ g-way ┃ │ IPv4 │ ┃ g-way ┃ IPv4
═══════════┫ GWA ┣╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ┫ GWB ┣═══════════
┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛
│ │
¶
After both ends connect to IPv6 Internet, IPREF addresses may be changed to switch traffic to go over the IPv6 Internet. Transition process at local networks is not affected by this change. Peers communicate the same way as if nothing happened. IPv4 Internet remains available but is not used. Most organizations would hold on to it until completely comfortable with the IPv6 Internet.¶
This concludes the switch to IPv6 Internet.¶
Dropping IPv4 Internet¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
IPv6 ┏━━━━━━━┓ │ IPv6 │ ┏━━━━━━━┓
═══════════┫ IPREF ┣══════════════════════════┫ IPREF ┣
IPv4 ┃ g-way ┃ │ │ ┃ g-way ┃ IPv4
═══════════┫ GWA ┣ ┫ GWB ┣═══════════
┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛
│ │
¶
IPv4 Internet may be dropped if all peers connect to IPv6. For a certain period of time, organizations would keep their IPv4 Internet in case some peers are not connected to IPv6 Internet. This process only requires that organizations install IPREF gateways, their local network may remain unchanged.¶
In the diagram, servers on Network B do not need any global IPv4 addresses, they will be reached by both IPv4 clients and IPv6 clients via IPREF without them.¶
Switching local networks to IPv6 independently¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
IPv6 ┏━━━━━━━┓ │ IPv6 │ ┏━━━━━━━┓
═══════════┫ IPREF ┣══════════════════════════┫ IPREF ┣
┃ g-way ┃ │ │ ┃ g-way ┃ IPv4
┫ GWA ┣ ┫ GWB ┣═══════════
┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛
│ │
¶
Each local network may switch to IPv6 independently at its own pace. This does not affect peer networks. There is no need for coordination. At the end of the transition, the change to the server addresses is reflected in reference mappings. The peers are unaware of any transitions taking place at peer networks.¶
Transitioning of the Internet beyond IPv6¶
Network A │ Internet │ Network B
IPv6 ┏━━━━━━━┓ │ IPv6 │ ┏━━━━━━━┓
═══════════┫ IPREF ┣══════════════════════════┫ IPREF ┣
┃ g-way ┃ │ IPvX │ ┃ g-way ┃ IPv4
┫ GWA ┣ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ╌ ┫ GWB ┣═══════════
┗━━━━━━━┛ │ │ ┗━━━━━━━┛
│ │
¶
IPREF greatly simplifies evolving IPv6 Internet. In case a new protocol is developed, let's call it IPvX, then it may be deployed with relatively little disruption by asking the Internet users to upgrade their IPREF gateways. Such an upgrade would be developed as part of the new protocol work. It would typically be a routine software upgrade. With most every site already equipped with IPREF gateways, such a massive global upgrade could be performed in a relatively short time. Trials before the switch would be performed well in advance with high level of confidence as they could be performed without affecting existing network operations.¶
IPREF works well with related technologies. It does not create conflicts and it does not attempt to step on their functionality.¶
This memo includes no requests to IANA.¶
This document should not affect the security of the Internet. Documents describing particular pieces of IPREF might. Proper security consideration statements would be included in those documents.¶