idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 30, 2017) is 2370 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) == Missing Reference: 'BCP36' is mentioned on line 611, but not defined ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2461 (Obsoleted by RFC 4861) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2818 (Obsoleted by RFC 9110) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7159 (Obsoleted by RFC 8259) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4941 (Obsoleted by RFC 8981) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5785 (Obsoleted by RFC 8615) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 intarea P. Pfister 3 Internet-Draft E. Vyncke, Ed. 4 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco 5 Expires: May 3, 2018 T. Pauly 6 D. Schinazi 7 Apple 8 M. Keane 9 Microsoft 10 October 30, 2017 12 Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data 13 draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-00 15 Abstract 17 An increasing number of hosts and networks are connected to the 18 Internet through multiple interfaces, some of which may provide 19 multiple ways to access the internet by means of multiple IPv6 prefix 20 configurations. 22 This document describes a way for hosts to retrieve additional 23 information about their network access characteristics. The set of 24 configuration items required to access the Internet is called a 25 Provisioning Domain (PvD). The PvD is identified by a Fully 26 Qualified Domain Name (FQDN). This identifier, retrieved using a new 27 Router Advertisement (RA) option, is associated with the set of 28 information included within the RA and may later be used to retrieve 29 additional information associated with the PvD by way of an HTTP- 30 over-TLS request. 32 Status of This Memo 34 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 35 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 37 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 38 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 39 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 40 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 42 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 43 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 44 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 45 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 47 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 3, 2018. 49 Copyright Notice 51 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 52 document authors. All rights reserved. 54 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 55 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 56 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 57 publication of this document. Please review these documents 58 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 59 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 60 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 61 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 62 described in the Simplified BSD License. 64 Table of Contents 66 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 67 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 68 3. Provisioning Domain Identification using Router 69 Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 3.1. PvD ID Option for Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 4 71 3.2. Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 3.3. Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 73 3.3.1. DHCPv6 configuration association . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 3.3.2. DHCPv4 configuration association . . . . . . . . . . 7 75 3.3.3. Interconnection Sharing by the Host . . . . . . . . . 7 76 4. Provisioning Domain Additional Information . . . . . . . . . 7 77 4.1. Retrieving the PvD Additional Information . . . . . . . . 7 78 4.2. Providing the PvD Additional Information . . . . . . . . 9 79 4.3. PvD Additional Information Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 80 4.3.1. Connectivity Characteristics Information . . . . . . 10 81 4.3.2. Private Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 82 4.3.3. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 83 4.4. Detecting misconfiguration and misuse . . . . . . . . . . 12 84 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 85 6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 86 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 87 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 88 9. Contributor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 89 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 90 10.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 91 10.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 92 Appendix A. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 93 A.1. Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 94 A.2. Version 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 95 A.3. Version 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 96 A.4. WG Document version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 98 Appendix B. Connection monetary cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 99 B.1. Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 100 B.2. Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 101 B.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 102 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 104 1. Introduction 106 It has become very common in modern networks for hosts to access the 107 network through different network interfaces, tunnels, or next-hop 108 routers. To describe the set of network configurations associated 109 with %% each access method, the concept of Provisioning Domain (PvD) 110 was defined in [RFC7556]. 112 This specification provides a way to identify explicit PvDs with 113 Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDN). The FQDN is thus called PvD ID 114 in this document. The PvD IDs is included in a Router Advertisement 115 [RFC4861] option. This new option, when present, associates the set 116 of configurations with the PvD ID in the same RA message. It is 117 worth noting that multiple PvDs (with different PvD IDs) could be 118 provisioned on any host interface, as well as noting that the same 119 PvD ID could be used on different interfaces in order to inform the 120 host that all PvDs with the same PvD ID, on different interfaces, 121 ultimately provide identical services. 123 This document also introduces a way for hosts to retrieve additional 124 information related to a specific PvD by the mean of an HTTP-over-TLS 125 query using an URI derived from the PvD ID. The retrieved JSON 126 object contains additional network information that would typically 127 be considered unfit, or too large, to be directly included in the 128 Router Advertisements. This information can be used by the 129 networking stack, the applications, or even be partially displayed to 130 the users (e.g., by displaying a localized network service name). 132 2. Terminology 134 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 135 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 136 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 137 [RFC2119]. 139 In addition, this document uses the following terminology: 141 PvD: A Provisioning Domain, a set of network configuration 142 information; for more information, see [RFC7556]. 144 PvD ID: A Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) used to identify a 145 PvD. 147 Explicit PvD: A PvD uniquely identified with a PvD ID. for more 148 information, see [RFC7556]. 150 Implicit PvD: A PvD associated with a set of configuration 151 information that, in the absence of a PvD ID, is associated with 152 the advertising router. 154 3. Provisioning Domain Identification using Router Advertisements 156 Each provisioning domain is identified by a PvD ID. The PvD ID is a 157 Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) which MUST belong to the network 158 operator in order to avoid ambiguity. The same PvD ID MAY be used in 159 several access networks when the set of configuration information is 160 identical (e.g. in all home networks subscribed to the same service). 162 3.1. PvD ID Option for Router Advertisements 164 This document introduces a Router Advertisement (RA) option called 165 the PvD ID Router Advertisement Option, used to convey the FQDN 166 identifying a given PvD. 168 0 1 2 3 169 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 1 170 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 171 | Type | Length |H|L| Reserved | 172 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 173 | Sequence | ... 174 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... 175 ... PvD ID FQDN ... 176 ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 177 ... | Padding | 178 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 180 PvD ID Router Advertisements Option format 182 Type : (8 bits) To be defined by IANA. Current 183 experimentation uses the value of 253. 185 Length : (8 bits) The length of the option (including the Type 186 and Length fields) in units of 8 octets. 188 H-flag : (1 bit) Whether some PvD Additional Information is 189 made available through HTTP over TLS, as described in Section 4. 191 L-flag : (1 bit) Whether the router is also providing IPv4 192 information using DHCPv4 (see Section 3.3.2). 194 Reserved : (14 bits) Reserved for later use. It MUST be set to 195 zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver. 197 Sequence : (16 bits) Sequence number for the PvD Additional 198 Information, as described in Section 4. 200 PvD ID FQDN : The FQDN used as PvD ID encoded as described in 201 Section 3.1 of RFC1035 [RFC1035]. Note that for simple decoding, 202 the domain names MUST NOT be encoded in the compressed form 203 described in Section 4.1.4 of RFC1035 [RFC1035]. This encoding is 204 the same as the one used in RFC8106 [RFC8106]. The encoding MUST 205 end with a null (zero-length) label. 207 Padding : Zero or more padding octets such as to set the option 208 length (Type and Length fields included) to eight times the value 209 of the Length field. It MUST be set to zero by the sender and 210 ignored by the receiver. 212 Routers MUST NOT include more than one PvD ID Router Advertisement 213 Option in each RA. In case multiple PvD ID options are found in a 214 given RA, hosts MUST ignore all but the first PvD ID option. 216 3.2. Router Behavior 218 A router MAY insert only one PvD ID Option in an RA. The included 219 PvD ID is associated with all the other options included in the same 220 RA (for example, and not limited to: Prefix Information [RFC4861], 221 Recursive DNS Server [RFC8106], Routing Information [RFC4191] 222 options). 224 In order to provide multiple independent PvDs, a router MUST send 225 multiple RAs using different source link-local addresses (LLA) (as 226 proposed in [I-D.bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming]), each of 227 which MAY include a PvD ID option. In such cases, routers MAY 228 originate the different RAs using the same datalink layer address. 230 If the router is actually a VRRP instance [RFC5798], then the 231 procedure is identical except that the virtual datalink layer address 232 is used as well as the virtual IPv6 LLA. 234 3.3. Host Behavior 236 RAs provide configuration information for IPv6 hosts. When a host 237 receives an RA message including a PvD ID Option, it MUST associate 238 all the configuration objects which are updated by the received RA 239 (the same types as in Section 3.3) with the PvD identified by the PvD 240 ID Option, even if some objects are already associated with a 241 different explicit or implicit PvD. PvD ID are compared in a case- 242 insensitive manner (i.e., A=a), assuming ASCII with zero parity. 243 Non-alphabetic codes must match exactly (see also Section 3.1 of 244 [RFC1035]). 246 If the received RA does not include a PvD ID Option, the host MUST 247 associate the configuration objects which are updated by the received 248 RA with an implicit PvD, even if some objects were already associated 249 with a different explicit or implicit PvD. This implicit PvD MUST be 250 identified by the LLA of the router sending the RA and the interface 251 on which the RA was received. 253 This document does not update the way Router Advertisement options 254 are processed. But in addition to the option processing defined in 255 other documents, hosts implementing this specification MUST associate 256 each created or updated object (e.g. address, default route, more 257 specific route, DNS server list) with the PvD associated with the 258 received RA. 260 While resolving names, executing the default address selection 261 algorithm [RFC6724] or executing the default router selection 262 algorithm ([RFC2461], [RFC4191] and [RFC8028]), hosts MAY consider 263 only the configuration associated with an arbitrary set of PvDs. 265 For example, a host MAY associate a given process with a specific 266 PvD, or a specific set of PvDs, while associating another process 267 with another PvD. A PvD-aware application might also be able to 268 select, on a per-connection basis, which PvDs should be used for a 269 given connection. In particular, constrained devices such as small 270 battery operated devices (e.g. IoT), or devices with limited CPU or 271 memory resources may purposefully use a single PvD while ignoring 272 some received RAs containing different PvD IDs. 274 The way an application expresses its desire to use a given PvD, or a 275 set of PvDs, or the way this selection is enforced, is out of the 276 scope of this document. Useful insights about these considerations 277 can be found in [I-D.kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs]. 279 3.3.1. DHCPv6 configuration association 281 When a host retrieves configuration elements using DHCPv6, they MUST 282 be associated with the explicit or implicit PvD of the RA received on 283 the same interface, sent from the same LLA, and with the O-flag set 284 [RFC4861]. If no such PvD is found, or whenever multiple different 285 PvDs are found, the host behavior is unspecified. 287 This process requires hosts to keep track of received RAs, associated 288 PvD IDs, and routers LLA; it also assumes that the router either acts 289 as a DHCPv6 server or relay and uses the same LLA for DHCPv6 and RA 290 traffic (which may not be the case when the router uses VRRP to send 291 its RA). 293 3.3.2. DHCPv4 configuration association 295 When a host retrieves configuration elements from DHCPv4, they MUST 296 be associated with the explicit PvD received on the same interface, 297 whose PVD ID Options L-flag is set and, in the case of a non point- 298 to-point link, using the same datalink address. If no such PvD is 299 found, or whenever multiple different PvDs are found, the 300 configuration elements coming from DHCPv4 MUST be associated with an 301 IPv4-only implicit PvD identified by the interface on which the 302 DHCPv4 transaction happened. The case of multiple explicit PvD for 303 an IPv4 interface is undefined. 305 3.3.3. Interconnection Sharing by the Host 307 The situation when a node receives RA on one interface (e.g. 308 cellular) and shares this connectivity by also acting as a router by 309 transmitting RA on another interface (e.g. WiFi) is known as 310 'tethering'. It can be done as ND proxy. The exact behavior is TBD 311 but it is expected that the one or several PvD associated to the 312 shared interface (e.g. cellular) will also be advertised to the 313 clients on the other interface (e.g. WiFi). 315 4. Provisioning Domain Additional Information 317 Once a new PvD ID is discovered, it may be used to retrieve 318 additional information about the characteristics of the provided 319 connectivity. This set of information is called PvD Additional 320 Information, and is encoded as a JSON object [RFC7159]. 322 The purpose of this additional set of information is to securely 323 provide additional information to hosts about the connectivity that 324 is provided using a given interface and source address pair. It 325 typically includes data that would be considered too large, or not 326 critical enough, to be provided within an RA option. The information 327 contained in this object MAY be used by the operating system, network 328 libraries, applications, or users, in order to decide which set of 329 PvDs should be used for which connection, as described in 330 Section 3.3. 332 4.1. Retrieving the PvD Additional Information 334 When the H-flag of the PvD ID Option is set, hosts MAY attempt to 335 retrieve the PvD Additional Information associated with a given PvD 336 by performing an HTTP over TLS [RFC2818] GET query to https:///.well-known/pvd [RFC5785]. Inversely, hosts MUST NOT do so 338 whenever the H-flag is not set. 340 Note that the DNS name resolution of as well as the actual 341 query MUST be performed using the PvD associated with the PvD ID. In 342 other words, the name resolution, source address selection, as well 343 as the next-hop router selection MUST be performed while using 344 exclusively the set of configuration information attached with the 345 PvD, as defined in Section 3.3. In some cases, it may therefore be 346 necessary to wait for an address to be available for use (e.g., once 347 the Duplicate Address Detection or DHCPv6 processes are complete) 348 before initiating the HTTP over TLS query. If the PvD allows for 349 temporary address per [RFC4941], then host SHOULD use a temporary 350 address to fetch the PvD Additional Information and SHOULD deprecate 351 the used temporary address and generate a new temporary address. 353 If the HTTP status of the answer is greater than or equal to 400 the 354 host MUST abandon and consider that there is no additional PvD 355 information. If the HTTP status of the answer is between 300 and 356 399, inclusive, it MUST follow the redirection(s). If the HTTP 357 status of the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the host MAY 358 get a file containing a single JSON object. When a JSON object could 359 not be retrieved, an error message SHOULD be logged and/or displayed 360 in a rate-limited fashion. 362 After retrieval of the PvD Additional Information, hosts MUST watch 363 the PvD ID Sequence field for change. In case a different value than 364 the one in the RA Sequence field is observed, or whenever the 365 validity time included in the PVD Additional Information JSON object 366 is expired, hosts MUST either perform a new query and retrieve a new 367 version of the object, or, failing that, deprecate the object and 368 stop using it. 370 Hosts retrieving a new PvD Additional Information object MUST check 371 for the presence and validity of the mandatory fields Section 4.3. A 372 retrieved object including an outdated expiration time or missing a 373 mandatory element MUST be ignored. In order to avoid traffic spikes 374 toward the server hosting the PvD Additional Information when an 375 object expires, a host which last retrieved an object at a time A, 376 including a validity time B, SHOULD renew the object at a uniformly 377 random time in the interval [(B-A)/2,A]. 379 The PvD Additional Information object includes a set of IPv6 prefixes 380 (under the key "prefixes") which MUST be checked against all the 381 Prefix Information Options advertised in the RA. If any of the 382 prefixes included in the PIO is not covered by at least one of the 383 listed prefixes, the PvD associated with the tested prefix MUST be 384 considered unsafe and MUST NOT be used. While this does not prevent 385 a malicious network provider, it does complicate some attack 386 scenarios, and may help detecting misconfiguration. 388 The server providing the JSON files SHOULD also check whether the 389 client address is part of the prefixes listed into the additional 390 information and SHOULD return a 403 response code if there is no 391 match. The server MAY also use the client address to select the 392 right JSON object to be returned. 394 4.2. Providing the PvD Additional Information 396 Whenever the H-flag is set in the PvD RA Option, a valid PvD 397 Additional Information object MUST be made available to all hosts 398 receiving the RA by the network operator. In particular, when a 399 captive portal is present, hosts MUST still be allowed to access the 400 object, even before logging into the captive portal. 402 Routers MAY increment the PVD ID Sequence number in order to inform 403 host that a new PvD Additional Information object is available and 404 should be retrieved. 406 4.3. PvD Additional Information Format 408 The PvD Additional Information is a JSON object. 410 The following array presents the mandatory keys which MUST be 411 included in the object: 413 +----------+-----------------+-------------+------------------------+ 414 | JSON key | Description | Type | Example | 415 +----------+-----------------+-------------+------------------------+ 416 | name | Human-readable | UTF-8 | "Awesome Wifi" | 417 | | service name | string | | 418 | | | [RFC3629] | | 419 | expires | Date after | [RFC3339] | "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z" | 420 | | which this | | | 421 | | object is not | | | 422 | | valid | | | 423 | prefixes | Array of IPv6 | Array of | ["2001:db8:1::/48", | 424 | | prefixes valid | strings | "2001:db8:4::/48"] | 425 | | for this PVD | | | 426 +----------+-----------------+-------------+------------------------+ 428 A retrieved object which does not include a valid string associated 429 with the "name" key at the root of the object, or a valid date 430 associated with the "expires" key, also at the root of the object, 431 MUST be ignored. In such cases, an error message SHOULD be logged 432 and/or displayed in a rate-limited fashion. If the PIO of the 433 received RA is not included in the "prefixes" key, the retrieved 434 object SHOULD be ignored. 436 The following table presents some optional keys which MAY be included 437 in the object. 439 +-----------------+-----------------+---------+---------------------+ 440 | JSON key | Description | Type | Example | 441 +-----------------+-----------------+---------+---------------------+ 442 | localizedName | Localized user- | UTF-8 | "Wifi Genial" | 443 | | visible service | string | | 444 | | name, language | | | 445 | | can be selected | | | 446 | | based on the | | | 447 | | HTTP Accept- | | | 448 | | Language header | | | 449 | | in the request. | | | 450 | dnsZones | DNS zones | array | ["example.com","sub | 451 | | searchable and | of DNS | .example.org"] | 452 | | accessible | zones | | 453 | noInternet | No Internet, | boolean | true | 454 | | set when the | | | 455 | | PvD only | | | 456 | | provides | | | 457 | | restricted | | | 458 | | access to a set | | | 459 | | of services | | | 460 | characteristics | Connectivity | JSON | See Section 4.3.1 | 461 | | characteristics | object | | 462 | metered | metered, when | boolean | false | 463 | | the access | | | 464 | | volume is | | | 465 | | limited | | | 466 +-----------------+-----------------+---------+---------------------+ 468 It is worth noting that the JSON format allows for extensions. 469 Whenever an unknown key is encountered, it MUST be ignored along with 470 its associated elements. 472 4.3.1. Connectivity Characteristics Information 474 The following set of keys can be used to signal certain 475 characteristics of the connection towards the PvD. 477 They should reflect characteristics of the overall access technology 478 which is not limited to the link the host is connected to, but rather 479 a combination of the link technology, CPE upstream connectivity, and 480 further quality of service considerations. 482 +---------------+--------------+---------------------+--------------+ 483 | JSON key | Description | Type | Example | 484 +---------------+--------------+---------------------+--------------+ 485 | maxThroughput | Maximum | object({down(int), | {"down": | 486 | | achievable | up(int)}) in kbit/s | 10000, "up": | 487 | | throughput | | 5000} | 488 | minLatency | Minimum | object({down(int), | {"down": 10, | 489 | | achievable | up(int)}) in msec | "up": 20} | 490 | | latency | | | 491 | rl | Maximum | object({down(int), | {"down": | 492 | | achievable | up(int)}) in losses | 0.1, "up": | 493 | | reliability | every 1000 packets | 1} | 494 +---------------+--------------+---------------------+--------------+ 496 4.3.2. Private Extensions 498 JSON keys starting with "x-" are reserved for private use and can be 499 utilized to provide information that is specific to vendor, user or 500 enterprise. It is RECOMMENDED to use one of the patterns "x-FQDN- 501 KEY" or "x-PEN-KEY" where FQDN is a fully qualified domain name or 502 PEN is a private enterprise number [PEN] under control of the author 503 of the extension to avoid collisions. 505 4.3.3. Example 507 Here are two examples based on the keys defined in this section. 509 { 510 "name": "Foo Wireless", 511 "localizedName": "Foo-France Wifi", 512 "expires": "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z", 513 "prefixes" : ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"], 514 "characteristics": { 515 "maxThroughput": { "down":200000, "up": 50000 }, 516 "minLatency": { "down": 0.1, "up": 1 } 517 } 518 } 520 { 521 "name": "Bar 4G", 522 "localizedName": "Bar US 4G", 523 "expires": "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z", 524 "prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"], 525 "metered": true, 526 "characteristics": { 527 "maxThroughput": { "down":80000, "up": 20000 } 528 } 529 } 531 4.4. Detecting misconfiguration and misuse 533 Although some solutions such as IPsec or SEND [RFC3971] can be used 534 in order to secure the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol, actual 535 deployments largely rely on link layer or physical layer security 536 mechanisms (e.g. 802.1x [IEEE8021X]) in conjunction with RA Guard 537 [RFC6105]. 539 This specification does not improve the Neighbor Discovery Protocol 540 security model, but extends the purely link-local configuration 541 retrieval mechanisms with HTTP-over-TLS communications and some 542 checks to detect misconfiguration and some misuses. 544 When a host retrieves the PvD Additional Information, it MUST verify 545 that the HTTPS server certificate is valid and that the Subject Name 546 is equal to the PvD ID expressed as an FQDN. This authentication 547 creates a secure binding between the information provided by the 548 trusted Router Advertisement, and the HTTPS server. But this does 549 not mean the Advertising Router and the PvD server belong to the same 550 entity. 552 When the "prefixes" key is included in the PvD Additional 553 Information, then host MUST verify that all prefixes in the RA PIO 554 are covered by a prefixes from the PvD Additional Informaion. An 555 adversarial router willing to fake the use of a given explicit PvD, 556 without any access to the actual PvD Additional Information, would 557 need to perform NAT66 in order to circumvent this check. 559 It is also RECOMMENDED that the HTTPS server checks the source 560 addresses of incoming connections (see Section 4.1). This checks 561 give reasonable assurance that NAT66 was not used and also restrict 562 the information to the valid network users. 564 5. Security Considerations 566 It must be noted that the Section 4.4 of this document only provides 567 reasonable assurance against misconfiguration but does not prevent an 568 hostile network access provider to wrong information that could lead 569 applications or hosts to select an hostile PvD. Users should always 570 apply caution when connecting to an unknown network. 572 6. Privacy Considerations 574 When a host retrieves via HTTPS the additional information, all nodes 575 on the path (including the HTTPS server) can detect that the node is 576 active. 578 As it can be expected that the HTTPS server is located in the same 579 management domain as the client (usually, it will be within an 580 enterprise network, WiFi hotspot, or Service Provider network), the 581 network operator as usually other means to also detect the new active 582 node (DHCP, Neighbor Discovery Protocol cache inspection or DNS 583 request logging). In this case, privacy is not worsened by using 584 PvD. 586 It must also be noted that most operating systems implement a system 587 to detect the presence of a captive portal and also connect to a 588 well-known web site over the Internet, for example to 589 http://captive.example.com/hotspot-detect.html. This detection 590 mechanism is exposing the activity of the detecting node not only 591 within the management domain but also to all nodes outside this 592 domain on the path to the captive.example.com server. As PvD can 593 also be used to detect captive portal, then the PvD actually 594 preserves privacy. 596 Finally, the fetching of additional information is an option and 597 could be disabled by the host. 599 7. IANA Considerations 601 IANA is asked to assign the value TBD from the IPv6 Neighbor 602 Discovery Option Formats registry for the PvD ID Router Advertisement 603 option. 605 IANA is asked to assign the value "pvd" from the Well-Known URIs 606 registry. 608 IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry entitled 609 "Additional Information PvD Keys" containing ASCII strings. The 610 initial content of this registry are given below; future assignements 611 are to be made through Expert Review [BCP36]. 613 8. Acknowledgements 615 Many thanks to M. Stenberg and S. Barth for their earlier work: 616 [I-D.stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns]. 618 Thanks also to Mikael Abrahamson, Ray Bellis, Lorenzo Colitti, 619 Thierry Danis, Bob Hinden, Tatuya Jinmei, Erik Kline, Ted Lemon, Jen 620 Lenkova, Mark Townsley, James Woodyatt for useful and interesting 621 discussions. 623 Finally, many thanks to Thierry Danis for his implementation work 624 ([github]), Tom Jones for his integration effort into the Neat 625 project and Rigil Salim for his implementation work. 627 9. Contributor 629 Basile Bruneau was a co-author of this document while he was studying 630 at the Polytechnique Paris. 632 10. References 634 10.1. Normative references 636 [I-D.bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] 637 Baker, F., Bowers, C., and J. Linkova, "Enterprise 638 Multihoming using Provider-Assigned Addresses without 639 Network Prefix Translation: Requirements and Solution", 640 draft-bowbakova-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-01 (work 641 in progress), October 2016. 643 [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and 644 specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, 645 November 1987, . 647 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 648 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 649 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 650 . 652 [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor 653 Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, 654 DOI 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998, 655 . 657 [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, 658 DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, 659 . 661 [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 662 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 663 2003, . 665 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 666 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 667 DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, 668 . 670 [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data 671 Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March 672 2014, . 674 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 675 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 676 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 677 . 679 10.2. Informative references 681 [github] Cisco, "IPv6-mPvD github repository", 682 . 684 [I-D.kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs] 685 Kline, E., "Multiple Provisioning Domains API 686 Requirements", draft-kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs-00 (work in 687 progress), November 2015. 689 [I-D.stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns] 690 Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Multiple Provisioning Domains 691 using Domain Name System", draft-stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns-00 692 (work in progress), October 2015. 694 [IEEE8021X] 695 IEEE, "IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area 696 Networks: Port based Network Access Control, IEEE Std". 698 [PEN] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers", 699 . 701 [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: 702 Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, 703 . 705 [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, 706 "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, 707 DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, 708 . 710 [RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and 711 More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191, 712 November 2005, . 714 [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy 715 Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in 716 IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007, 717 . 719 [RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known 720 Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, 721 DOI 10.17487/RFC5785, April 2010, 722 . 724 [RFC5798] Nadas, S., Ed., "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) 725 Version 3 for IPv4 and IPv6", RFC 5798, 726 DOI 10.17487/RFC5798, March 2010, 727 . 729 [RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J. 730 Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105, 731 DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011, 732 . 734 [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, 735 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 736 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, 737 . 739 [RFC7556] Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain 740 Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015, 741 . 743 [RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by 744 Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028, 745 DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016, 746 . 748 [RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, 749 "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", 750 RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017, 751 . 753 Appendix A. Changelog 755 Note to RFC Editors: Remove this section before publication. 757 A.1. Version 00 759 Initial version of the draft. Edited by Basile Bruneau + Eric Vyncke 760 and based on Basile's work. 762 A.2. Version 01 764 Major rewrite intended to focus on the the retained solution based on 765 corridors, online, and WG discussions. Edited by Pierre Pfister. 766 The following list only includes major changes. 768 PvD ID is an FQDN retrieved using a single RA option. This option 769 contains a sequence number for push-based updates, a new H-flag, 770 and a L-flag in order to link the PvD with the IPv4 DHCP server. 772 A lifetime is included in the PvD ID option. 774 Detailed Hosts and Routers specifications. 776 Additional Information is retrieved using HTTP-over-TLS when the 777 PvD ID Option H-flag is set. Retrieving the object is optional. 779 The PvD Additional Information object includes a validity date. 781 DNS-based approach is removed as well as the DNS-based encoding of 782 the PvD Additional Information. 784 Major cut in the list of proposed JSON keys. This document may be 785 extended later if need be. 787 Monetary discussion is moved to the appendix. 789 Clarification about the 'prefixes' contained in the additional 790 information. 792 Clarification about the processing of DHCPv6. 794 A.3. Version 02 796 The FQDN is now encoded with ASCII format (instead of DNS binary) 797 in the RA option. 799 The PvD ID option lifetime is removed from the object. 801 Use well known URI "https:///.well-known/pvd" 803 Reference RFC3339 for JSON timestamp format. 805 The PvD ID Sequence field has been extended to 16 bits. 807 Modified host behavior for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6. 809 Removed IKEv2 section. 811 Removed mention of RFC7710 Captive Portal option. A new I.D. 812 will be proposed to address the captive portal use case. 814 A.4. WG Document version 00 816 Document has been accepted as INTAREA working group document 818 IANA considerations follow RFC8126 [RFC8126] 820 PvD ID FQDN is encoded as per RFC 1035 [RFC1035] 822 PvD ID FQDN is prepended by a one-byte length field 824 Marcus Keane added as co-author 826 dnsZones key is added back 828 draft of a privacy consideration section and added that a 829 temporary address should be used to retrieve the PvD additional 830 information 832 per Bob Hinden's request: the document is now aiming at standard 833 track and security considerations have been moved to the main 834 section 836 Appendix B. Connection monetary cost 838 NOTE: This section is included as a request for comment on the 839 potential use and syntax. 841 The billing of a connection can be done in a lot of different ways. 842 The user can have a global traffic threshold per month, after which 843 his throughput is limited, or after which he/she pays each megabyte. 844 He/she can also have an unlimited access to some websites, or an 845 unlimited access during the weekends. 847 An option is to split the bill in elementary billings, which have 848 conditions (a start date, an end date, a destination IP address...). 849 The global billing is an ordered list of elementary billings. To 850 know the cost of a transmission, the host goes through the list, and 851 the first elementary billing whose the conditions are fulfilled gives 852 the cost. If no elementary billing conditions match the request, the 853 host MUST make no assumption about the cost. 855 B.1. Conditions 857 Here are the potential conditions for an elementary billing. All 858 conditions MUST be fulfill. 860 +-----------+-------------+---------------+-------------------------+ 861 | Key | Description | Type | JSON Example | 862 +-----------+-------------+---------------+-------------------------+ 863 | beginDate | Date before | ISO 8601 | "1977-04-22T06:00:00Z" | 864 | | which the | | | 865 | | billing is | | | 866 | | not valid | | | 867 | endDate | Date after | ISO 8601 | "1977-04-22T06:00:00Z" | 868 | | which the | | | 869 | | billing is | | | 870 | | not valid | | | 871 | domains | FQDNs whose | array(string) | ["deezer.com","spotify. | 872 | | the billing | | com"] | 873 | | is limited | | | 874 | prefixes4 | IPv4 | array(string) | ["78.40.123.182/32","78 | 875 | | prefixes | | .40.123.183/32"] | 876 | | whose the | | | 877 | | billing is | | | 878 | | limited | | | 879 | prefixes6 | IPv6 | array(string) | ["2a00:1450:4007:80e::2 | 880 | | prefixes | | 00e/64"] | 881 | | whose the | | | 882 | | billing is | | | 883 | | limited | | | 884 +-----------+-------------+---------------+-------------------------+ 886 B.2. Price 888 Here are the different possibilities for the cost of an elementary 889 billing. A missing key means "all/unlimited/unrestricted". If the 890 elementary billing selected has a trafficRemaining of 0 kb, then it 891 means that the user has no access to the network. Actually, if the 892 last elementary billing has a trafficRemaining parameter, it means 893 that when the user will reach the threshold, he/she will not have 894 access to the network anymore. 896 +------------------+------------------+--------------+--------------+ 897 | Key | Description | Type | JSON Example | 898 +------------------+------------------+--------------+--------------+ 899 | pricePerGb | The price per | float | 2 | 900 | | Gigabit | (currency | | 901 | | | per Gb) | | 902 | currency | The currency | ISO 4217 | "EUR" | 903 | | used | | | 904 | throughputMax | The maximum | float (kb/s) | 100000 | 905 | | achievable | | | 906 | | throughput | | | 907 | trafficRemaining | The traffic | float (kB) | 12000000 | 908 | | remaining | | | 909 +------------------+------------------+--------------+--------------+ 911 B.3. Examples 913 Example for a user with 20 GB per month for 40 EUR, then reach a 914 threshold, and with unlimited data during weekends and to 915 example.com: 917 [ 918 { 919 "domains": ["example.com"] 920 }, 921 { 922 "prefixes4": ["78.40.123.182/32","78.40.123.183/32"] 923 }, 924 { 925 "beginDate": "2016-07-16T00:00:00Z", 926 "endDate": "2016-07-17T23:59:59Z", 927 }, 928 { 929 "beginDate": "2016-06-20T00:00:00Z", 930 "endDate": "2016-07-19T23:59:59Z", 931 "trafficRemaining": 12000000 932 }, 933 { 934 "throughputMax": 100000 935 } 936 ] 938 If the host tries to download data from example.com, the conditions 939 of the first elementary billing are fulfilled, so the host takes this 940 elementary billing, finds no cost indication in it and so deduces 941 that it is totally free. If the host tries to exchange data with 942 foobar.com and the date is 2016-07-14T19:00:00Z, the conditions of 943 the first, second and third elementary billing are not fulfilled. 945 But the conditions of the fourth are. So the host takes this 946 elementary billing and sees that there is a threshold, 12 GB are 947 remaining. 949 Another example for a user abroad, who has 3 GB per year abroad, and 950 then pay each MB: 952 [ 953 { 954 "beginDate": "2016-02-10T00:00:00Z", 955 "endDate": "2017-02-09T23:59:59Z", 956 "trafficRemaining": 3000000 957 }, 958 { 959 "pricePerGb": 30, 960 "currency": "EUR" 961 } 962 ] 964 Authors' Addresses 966 Pierre Pfister 967 Cisco 968 11 Rue Camille Desmoulins 969 Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 970 France 972 Email: ppfister@cisco.com 974 Eric Vyncke (editor) 975 Cisco 976 De Kleetlaan, 6 977 Diegem 1831 978 Belgium 980 Email: evyncke@cisco.com 982 Tommy Pauly 983 Apple 985 Email: tpauly@apple.com 986 David Schinazi 987 Apple 989 Email: dschinazi@apple.com 991 Marcus Keane 992 Microsoft 993 Sandyford Industrial Estate 994 Dublin 18 995 Ireland 997 Email: Marcus.Keane@microsoft.com