idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-03.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.1 on line 15. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 302. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 313. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 320. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 326. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- 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 (September 5, 2006) is 6442 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 3633 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3588 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 6733) -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 4005 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 7155) Summary: 5 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group J. Salowey 3 Internet-Draft R. Droms 4 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. 5 Expires: March 9, 2007 September 5, 2006 7 RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute 8 draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-03.txt 10 Status of this Memo 12 By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 13 applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware 14 have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes 15 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 17 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 18 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 19 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 20 Drafts. 22 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 23 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 24 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 25 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 9, 2007. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 39 Abstract 41 This document defines a RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User 42 Service) attribute that carries an IPv6 prefix that is to be 43 delegated to the user. This attribute is usable within either RADIUS 44 or Diameter. 46 1. Introduction 48 The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix is a RADIUS attribute [1] that carries an 49 IPv6 prefix to be delegated to the user, for use in the user's 50 network. For example, the prefix in a Delegated-IPv6-Prefix 51 attribute can be delegated to another node through DHCP Prefix 52 Delegation [2]. 54 The Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4] is not designed to carry an IPv6 55 prefix to be used in the user's network, and therefore Framed-IPv6- 56 Prefix and Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attributes may be included in the 57 same RADIUS packet. 59 2. Terminology 61 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 62 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 63 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3]. 65 3. Attribute format 67 The format of the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix is: 69 0 1 2 3 70 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 71 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 72 | Type | Length | Reserved | Prefix-Length | 73 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 74 Prefix 75 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 76 Prefix 77 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 78 Prefix 79 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 80 Prefix | 81 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 83 Type 85 TBD for Delegated-IPv6-Prefix 87 Length 89 The length of the entire attribute, in bytes. At least 4 90 (to hold Type/Length/Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 0-bit 91 prefix), and no larger than 20 (to hold Type/Length/ 92 Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 128-bit prefix) 94 Reserved 96 Always set to zero by sender; ignored by receiver 98 Prefix-Length 100 The length of the prefix being delegated, in bits. At least 101 0 and no larger than 128 bits (identifying a single IPv6 102 address) 104 Note that the prefix field is only required to be long enough to hold 105 the prefix bits and can be shorter than 16 bytes. Any bits in the 106 prefix field that are not part of the prefix MUST be zero. 108 The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix MAY appear in an Access-Accept packet, and 109 can appear multiple times. It MAY appear in an Access-Request packet 110 as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer these 111 prefix(es), but the server is not required to honor the hint. 113 The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute MAY appear in an Accounting- 114 Request packet. 116 The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix MUST NOT appear in any other RADIUS 117 packets. 119 4. Table of Attributes 121 The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found 122 in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity. 124 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 125 | Request Accept Reject Challenge Accounting # Attribute | 126 | Request | 127 | 0+ 0+ 0 0 0+ TBD Delegated-IPv6-Prefix | 128 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 130 The meaning of the above table entries is as follows: 131 0 This attribute MUST NOT be present. 133 0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present. 134 0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present. 135 1 Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present. 136 1+ One or more of these attributes MUST be present. 138 5. Diameter Considerations 140 When used in Diameter, the attribute defined in this specification 141 can be used as a Diameter AVP from the Code space 1-255, i.e., RADIUS 142 attribute compatibility space. No additional Diameter Code values 143 are therefore allocated. The data types of the attributes are as 144 follows: 146 Delegated-IPv6-Prefix OctetString 148 The attribute in this specification has no special translation 149 requirements for Diameter to RADIUS or RADIUS to Diameter gateways, 150 i.e., the attribute is copied as is, except for changes relating to 151 headers, alignment, and padding. See also RFC 3588 [5], Section 4.1, 152 and RFC 4005 [6], Section 9. 154 The text in this specification describing the applicability of the 155 Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Access-Request applies in 156 Diameter to AA-Request [6] or Diameter-EAP-Request [7]. 158 The text in this specification describing the applicability of the 159 Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Access-Accept applies in 160 Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer that indicates success. 162 The text in this specification describing the applicability of the 163 Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Accounting-Request applies 164 to Diameter Accounting-Request [6] as well. 166 The AVP flag rules [5] for the Delegate-IPv6-Prefix attribute are: 168 +---------------------+ 169 | AVP Flag rules | 170 |----+-----+----+-----|----+ 171 AVP Section | | |SHLD| MUST| | 172 Attribute Name Code Defined Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT| NOT|Encr| 173 -----------------------------------------|----+-----+----+-----|----| 174 Framed-IPv6- 97 6.11.6 OctetString| M | P | | V | Y | 175 Prefix | | | | | | 177 6. IANA Considerations 179 IANA is requested to assign a Type value, TBD, for this attribute 180 from the RADIUS Attribute Types registry. 182 7. Security Considerations 184 Known security vulnerabilities of the RADIUS protocol are discussed 185 in RFC 2607 [8], RFC 2865 [1] and RFC 2869 [9]. Use of IPsec [10] 186 for providing security when RADIUS is carried in IPv6 is discussed in 187 RFC 3162. 189 Security considerations for the Diameter protocol are discussed in 190 RFC 3588 [5]. 192 8. Change Log 194 This section to be removed before publication as an RFC. 196 The following changes were made in revision -01 of this document: 197 o Added additional details to Abstract; defined that this attribute 198 can be used in both RADIUS and Diameter. (Issue 188) 199 o Moved and clarified text describing which packets this attribute 200 can appear in adjacent to table in section 3. (Issue 188) 201 o Fixed RFC 2119 boilerplate in section 2. (Issue 185) 202 o Fixed table in section 3 to clarify which packets this attribute 203 cannot appear in. (Issue 188) 204 o Added section 4, Diameter Considerations. (Issue 188) 205 o Made some references in section 6, Security Considerations, 206 Informative rather than Normative. (Issue 188) 207 o Updated reference to RFC 2401 [9] to RFC 4301. (Issue 188) 208 o Changed "IP SEC" to "IPsec" in section 6. (Issues 185 and 188) 210 The following changes were made in revision -02 of this document: 211 o Added a second paragraph to the Introduction, referencing the 212 Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute 213 o Improved description of attribute fields in section 3 214 o Added border to table in section 3 215 o Updated Section 4, Diameter Considerations, to describe how this 216 attribute would be used in Diameter. 217 o Added reference to RFC 3588 in Section 6, Security Considerations. 219 The following changes, based on Issues 201 and 204 on the RADEXT WG 220 Issues list: http://www.drizzle.com/~aboba/RADEXT/, were made in 221 revision -03 of this document: 223 o Updated Section 4, Diameter Considerations, to describe the AVP 224 flag rules for this attribute. 225 o Edited Section 1, to clarify the relationship between the 226 Delegated-IPv6-Prefix and Framed-IPv6-Prefix attributes. 227 o Edited table of attributes and moved to a separate section. 229 9. References 231 9.1. Normative References 233 [1] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote 234 Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, 235 June 2000. 237 [2] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host 238 Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 239 December 2003. 241 [3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 242 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 244 9.2. Non-normative References 246 [4] Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6", 247 RFC 3162, August 2001. 249 [5] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, 250 "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003. 252 [6] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter 253 Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005. 255 [7] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible 256 Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, 257 August 2005. 259 [8] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy 260 Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999. 262 [9] Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Extensions", 263 RFC 2869, June 2000. 265 [10] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet 266 Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. 268 Authors' Addresses 270 Joe Salowey 271 Cisco Systems, Inc. 272 2901 Third Avenue 273 Seattle, WA 98121 274 USA 276 Phone: +1 206.310.0596 277 Email: jsalowey@cisco.com 279 Ralph Droms 280 Cisco Systems, Inc. 281 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 282 Boxborough, MA 01719 283 USA 285 Phone: +1 978.936.1674 286 Email: rdroms@cisco.com 288 Full Copyright Statement 290 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 292 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 293 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 294 retain all their rights. 296 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 297 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 298 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 299 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 300 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 301 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 302 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 304 Intellectual Property 306 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 307 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 308 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 309 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 310 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 311 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 312 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 313 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 315 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 316 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 317 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 318 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 319 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 320 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 322 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 323 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 324 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 325 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 326 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 328 Acknowledgment 330 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 331 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).