idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC3633, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC3633, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 2002-10-24) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (January 12, 2011) is 4847 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3633 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC) J. Korhonen, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Nokia Siemens Networks 4 Updates: 3633 (if approved) T. Savolainen 5 Intended status: Standards Track Nokia 6 Expires: July 16, 2011 S. Krishnan 7 Ericsson 8 O. Troan 9 Cisco Systems, Inc 10 January 12, 2011 12 Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix Delegation 13 draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-01.txt 15 Abstract 17 This specification defines an optional mechanism to allow exclusion 18 of one specific prefix from a delegated prefix set when using DHCPv6- 19 based prefix delegation. 21 Status of this Memo 23 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 24 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 26 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 27 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 28 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 29 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 31 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 32 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 33 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 34 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 36 This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2011. 38 Copyright Notice 40 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 41 document authors. All rights reserved. 43 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 44 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 45 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 46 publication of this document. Please review these documents 47 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 48 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 49 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 50 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 51 described in the Simplified BSD License. 53 Table of Contents 55 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 2. Requirements and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 3. Problem Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 4. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4.1. Prefix Delegation with Excluded Prefixes . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4.2. Prefix Exclude Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 5. Delegating Router Solicitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 5.1. Requesting Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 5.2. Delegating Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 6. Requesting Router Initiated Prefix Delegation . . . . . . . . . 6 65 6.1. Requesting Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 6.2. Delegating Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 68 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 70 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 71 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 72 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 73 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 75 1. Introduction 77 This specification defines an optional mechanism and the related 78 DHCPv6 option to allow exclusion of one specific prefix from a 79 delegated prefix set when using DHCPv6-based prefix delegation. 81 The prefix exclusion mechanism is targeted to deployments where 82 DHCPv6-based prefix delegation is used but a single aggregatable 83 route/prefix has to represents one customer, instead of using one 84 prefix for the link between the delegating router and the requesting 85 router and another prefix for the customer network. The mechanism 86 defined in this specification allows a delegating router to use a 87 prefix out of the delegated prefix set on the link through which it 88 exchanges DHCPv6 messages with the requesting router. 90 2. Requirements and Terminology 92 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 93 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 94 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 96 3. Problem Background 98 DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) [RFC3633] has an explicit 99 limitation described in Section 12.1 of [RFC3633] that a prefix 100 delegated to a requesting router cannot be used by the delegating 101 router. This restriction implies that the delegating router will 102 have two (non aggregatable) routes towards a customer, one for the 103 link between the requesting router and the delegating router, and one 104 for the customer site behind the requesting router. 106 There are architectures and link models, where a host (e.g. a mobile 107 router, also acting as a requesting router) always has a single (/64) 108 prefix configured on its uplink interface and the delegating router 109 is also requesting router's first hop router. Furthermore, it may be 110 required that the prefix configured on the uplink interface has to be 111 aggregatable with the delegated prefixes. This introduces a problem 112 in how to use DHCPv6-PD together with stateless [RFC4862] or stateful 113 [RFC3315] address autoconfiguration on a link, where the /64 114 advertised on the link is also part of the prefix delegated (e.g /56) 115 to the requesting router. 117 4. Solution 118 4.1. Prefix Delegation with Excluded Prefixes 120 This specification defines a new DHCPv6 option, OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE 121 (TBD1), that is used to exclude exactly one prefix from a delegated 122 prefix. The OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE is included in the OPTION_IAPREFIX 123 IAprefix-options field. There can be at most one OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE 124 option in one OPTION_IAPREFIX option. The OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option 125 allows prefix delegation where a requesting router is delegated a 126 prefix (e.g. /56) and the delegating router uses one prefix (e.g. 127 /64) on the link through which it exchanges DHCPv6 messages with the 128 requesting router with a prefix out of the same delegated prefix set. 130 A requesting router includes an OPTION_ORO option with the 131 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option code in a Solicit, Request, Renew, Rebind or 132 Confirm message to inform the delegating router about the support for 133 the prefix delegation functionality defined in this specification. A 134 delegating router may include the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option code in an 135 OPTION_ORO option in a Reconfigure message for indicating that the 136 requesting router should request OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE from the 137 delegating router. 139 The delegating router includes the prefix in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE 140 option that is excluded from the delegated prefix set. The 141 requesting router MUST NOT assign the excluded prefix to any of its 142 downstream interfaces. 144 4.2. Prefix Exclude Option 146 0 1 2 3 147 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 148 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 149 | OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE | option-len | 150 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 151 | prefix-len | IPv6 subnet ID (1 to 16 octets) ~ 152 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 154 Prefix Exclude Option 156 o option-code: OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE (TBD1). 158 o option-len: 1 + length of IPv6 subnet ID in octets. A valid 159 option-len is between 2 and 17. 161 o prefix-len: The length of the excluded prefix in bits. The 162 prefix-len MUST be between 'OPTION_IAPREFIX prefix-length'+1 and 163 128. 165 o IPv6 subnet ID: A variable length IPv6 subnet ID up to 128 bits. 166 The subnet ID contains prefix-len minus 'OPTION_IAPREFIX prefix- 167 length' bits extracted from the excluded prefix starting from the 168 bit position 'OPTION_IAPREFIX prefix-length'. The extracted 169 subnet ID MUST be left shifted to start from a full octet 170 boundary, i.e. left shift of 'OPTION_IAPREFIX prefix-length' mod 8 171 bits. The subnet ID MUST be zero padded to the next full octet 172 boundary. 174 The OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option MUST only be included in the 175 OPTION_IAPREFIX IAprefix-options [RFC3633] field. The 176 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option MUST be located before the possible Status 177 Code option in the IAprefix-options field. 179 Any prefix excluded from the delegated prefix MUST be contained in 180 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE options within the corresponding OPTION_IAPREFIX. 182 The prefix included in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option share the same 183 preferred-lifetime and valid-lifetime as the delegated prefix in the 184 encapsulating OPTION_IAPREFIX option. 186 The prefix in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option MUST be part of the 187 delegated prefix in the OPTION_IAPREFIX. For example, the requesting 188 router has earlier been assigned a 2001:db8:dead:beef::/64 prefix by 189 the delegating router, and the delegated prefix in the 190 OPTION_IAPREFIX is 2001:db8:dead:bee0::/59. In this case, 2001:db8: 191 dead:beef::/64 is a valid prefix to be used in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE 192 option. The OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option would be encoded as follows: 194 0 1 2 3 195 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 196 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 197 | OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE | 2 | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 | 64 |0|1|1|1|1|0|0|0| 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 201 ^ ^ 202 | | 203 | +- 3 zero padded bits follow 204 | 205 +- using C syntax: (0xef & 0x1f) << (59 % 8) 206 Note: 59 mod 8 = 3 208 5. Delegating Router Solicitation 210 The requesting router locates and selects a delegating router in the 211 same way as described in Section 11 [RFC3633]. This specification 212 only describes the additional steps required by the use of 213 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option. 215 5.1. Requesting Router 217 If the requesting router implements the solution described in 218 Section 4.1 then the requesting router SHOULD include the 219 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option code in the OPTION_ORO option in the Solicit 220 message. 222 Once receiving Advertise message, the requesting router uses the 223 prefix(es) received in OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE in addition to the 224 advertised prefixes to choose the delegating router to respond to. 225 If Advertise message did not include OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option, then 226 the requesting router MUST fall back to normal [RFC3633] behavior. 228 5.2. Delegating Router 230 If the OPTION_ORO option in the Solicit message includes the 231 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option code, then the delegating router knows that 232 the requesting router supports the solution defined in this 233 specification. If the Solicit message also contains an IA_PD option, 234 the delegating router can delegate to the requesting router a prefix 235 which includes the prefix already assigned to the requesting router's 236 uplink interface. The delegating router includes the prefix 237 originally or to be assigned to the requesting router in the 238 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option within the OPTION_IAPREFIX IAprefix-option 239 in the Advertise message. 241 If the OPTION_ORO option in the Solicit message does not include the 242 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option code, then the delegating router MUST fall 243 back to normal [RFC3633] behavior. 245 If the OPTION_ORO option in the Solicit message includes the 246 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option code but the delegating router does not 247 support the solution described in this specification, then the 248 delegating router acts as specified in [RFC3633]. The requesting 249 router MUST in this case also fall back to normal [RFC3633] behavior. 251 6. Requesting Router Initiated Prefix Delegation 253 The procedures described in the following sections are aligned with 254 Section 12 of [RFC3633]. In this specification we only describe the 255 additional steps required by the use of OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option. 257 6.1. Requesting Router 259 The requesting router behavior regarding the use of the 260 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option is more or less identical to step described 261 in Section 5.1. The only difference really is different used DHCPv6 262 messages. 264 The requesting router uses a Release message to return the delegated 265 prefix(es) to a delegating router. The prefix(es) to be released 266 MUST be included in the IA_PDs along with the excluded prefix 267 included in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option. The requesting router MUST 268 NOT use the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option to introduce additional excluded 269 prefix in the Release message that it originally got a valid binding 270 for. 272 The requesting router must create sink routes for the delegated 273 prefixes minus the excluded prefixes. This may be done by creating 274 sink routes for delegated prefixes and more specific routes for the 275 excluded prefixes. 277 6.2. Delegating Router 279 The delegating router behavior regarding the use of the 280 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option is more or less identical to step described 281 in Section 5.2. The only difference really is DHCPv6 messages used 282 to carry the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option. 284 The delegating router may mark any prefix(es) in IA_PD Prefix options 285 in a Release message from a requesting router as 'available' 286 excluding the prefix included in the OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE options. If 287 the Release message contains 'new' excluded prefix in any 288 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option, the delegating router MUST send a Reply 289 message with Status Code set to NoBinding for that IA_PD option. 291 7. Security Considerations 293 Security considerations in DHCPv6 are described in Section 23 of 294 [RFC3315], and for DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation in Section 12 of 295 [RFC3633]. 297 8. IANA Considerations 299 A new DHCPv6 Option Code is reserved from DHCPv6 registry for DHCP 300 Option Codes. 302 OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE is set to TBD1 304 9. Acknowledgements 306 Authors would like to thank Ralph Droms, Frank Brockners, Ted Lemon, 307 Julien Laganier, Fredrik Garneij, Sri Gundavelli, Mikael Abrahamsson, 308 Behcet Sarikaya, Jyrki Soini and Deng Hui for their valuable comments 309 and discussions. 311 10. References 313 10.1. Normative References 315 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 316 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 318 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 319 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 320 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 322 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 323 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 324 December 2003. 326 10.2. Informative References 328 [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless 329 Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. 331 Authors' Addresses 333 Jouni Korhonen (editor) 334 Nokia Siemens Networks 335 Linnoitustie 6 336 FI-02600 Espoo 337 Finland 339 Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com 341 Teemu Savolainen 342 Nokia 343 Hermiankatu 12 D 344 FI-33720 Tampere 345 Finland 347 Email: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com 348 Suresh Krishnan 349 Ericsson 350 8400 Decarie Blvd. 351 Town of Mount Royal, QC 352 Canada 354 Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com 356 Ole Troan 357 Cisco Systems, Inc 358 Oslo 359 Norway 361 Email: ot@cisco.com