idnits 2.17.1 draft-sarikaya-mext-relay-dhcpv6pd-00.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, updated by RFC 4748 on line 314. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 325. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 332. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 338. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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 (March 10, 2008) is 5888 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 241, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2629' is defined on line 244, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2629 (Obsoleted by RFC 7749) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3633 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3775 (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) -- Possible downref: Normative reference to a draft: ref. 'I-D.ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation' ** Downref: Normative reference to an Experimental draft: draft-dupont-mext-dhcrelay (ref. 'I-D.dupont-mext-dhcrelay') ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational draft: draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd (ref. 'I-D.ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd') -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315 (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B. Sarikaya 3 Internet-Draft F. Xia 4 Expires: September 11, 2008 Huawei USA 5 March 10, 2008 7 Relay Based DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO 8 draft-sarikaya-mext-relay-dhcpv6pd-00.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 September 11, 2008. 35 Abstract 37 This document defines DHCP Relay Agent based prefix delegation 38 support for a mobile network. Mobile Router uses DHCPv6 prefix 39 delegation to dynamically request its Mobile Network Prefixes from 40 DHCP Server. DHCP Relay Agent located in MR enables MR to run the 41 prefix delegation application with the same DHCP Server even after MR 42 moves to a different local network. 44 Table of Contents 46 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 47 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 3. Nemo Prefix Delegation Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 3.1. Message Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 50 4. Nemo Prefix Delegation Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 51 5. Nemo Prefix Delegation Using AAA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 52 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 53 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 54 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 55 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 56 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 57 9.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9 61 1. Introduction 63 Nemo Basic Support Protocol requires that IPv6 prefixes called Home 64 Network Prefix(es) delegated to a Mobile Router and advertized in the 65 Mobile Network [RFC3963]. However the protocol does not provide any 66 means of provisioning MNPs dynamically. 68 Prefix delegation is widely discussed in IETF 16NG, MEXT, and NETLMM 69 Working Groups. Corresponding solutions are also introduced. NEMO 70 deals with synchronization of Mobile Network prefixes between a 71 Mobile Router and a Home Agent, while the method is agnostic to the 72 way that a Home Agent gets prefixes from back end servers. 74 [RFC3633] defines Prefix Delegation options and procedures to provide 75 a mechanism for automated delegation of IPv6 prefixes using the 76 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP). A mechanism to manage 77 prefixes dynamically by an AAA server can also be defined. 79 [I-D.ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation] defines prefix request option for 80 the binding update and prefix confirm for the binding acknowledgment 81 messages of the Nemo Basic Support Protocol. Using these messages MR 82 can request a prefix from HA with BU and HA can give prefixes to MR 83 with BA. However, how HA gets prefixes is not defined. 85 2. Terminology 87 This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC3315], [RFC3633] 88 and [RFC4885]. 90 3. Nemo Prefix Delegation Architecture 92 We assume that the prefixes are managed by an authority that owns the 93 Home Network and subnets it into MNPs that it assigns to the MRs. An 94 MNP can be preassigned to the associated MR (e.g. manually or 95 automatically with a provisioning system). 97 For dynamic prefix management there are two architectures. In HA- 98 based architecture, HA is the requesting router and the DHCP Server 99 is the delegating router. HA needs to be collocated with a DHCP 100 Client to solicit/request prefixes from the DHCP Server. HA is 101 configured with the address of the delegating router which is a 102 backend DHCP Server. MR needs to request dynamically the prefixes 103 from HA using BU/BA exchange defined in 104 [I-D.ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation]. 106 In MR-based architecture, MR is the requesting router and the 107 delegating router is a DHCP Server located in the home network. In 108 this document, we elaborate on the signaling required for this 109 architecture. 111 [I-D.ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd] uses the MR-based architecture but it does 112 not incorporate a DHCP Relay at the MR. [I-D.ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd] 113 assumes a DHCP Client at the MR which requires an onlink DHCP Relay 114 or Server [I-D.dupont-mext-dhcrelay]. However when MR moves it is 115 not possible to satisfy this requirement. 117 Figure 1 shows the MR-based architecture. 119 +-----+ HA-MR +-----+ +--------+ -------------- 120 | MR |-- tunnel --| HA |--------+ Edge | / \ 121 +-----+ +-----+ | Router +-- | Backend | 122 |Relay| |Relay| +--------+ \ / 123 +-----+ +-----+ ------------- 124 |DHCP |<--- | 125 |Client| | +------+ 126 +------+ -----DHCP Prefix Delegation------------>|DHCP | 127 |Server| 128 +------+ 130 Figure 1: MR-based Architecture 132 MR is co-located with DHCP Relay Agent. In order to run DHCP Prefix 133 Delegation we also need a local DHCP Client at the MR. DHCP Client 134 will initiate or respond to DHCP messages required for the MR to be 135 the requesting router. 137 DHCP Relay co-located with MR will relay the client's messages back 138 and forth. DHCP Relay co-located at HA will be configured with the 139 backend DHCP Server's address. The backend DHCP Server will be the 140 delegating router. 142 3.1. Message Encapsulation 144 DHCP Relay co-located at the MR encapsulates DHCP Client's messages 145 in the form of DHCPv6 datagrams. These datagrams need to be sent 146 over HA-MR tunnel when MR is not on the home link. This requires 147 that each such message is piggybacked in a Binding Update message 148 sent from MR to HA. 150 IPv6 extension headers for each message sent by the DHCP Relay co- 151 located at MR MUST contain the mobility header as described in 152 Section 6.1 of [RFC3775]. MH type MUST be set to 5 for Binding 153 Update. The payload MUST contain the DHCP message being sent. 155 DHCP Relay co-located at the HA encapsulates DHCP Prefix Delegation 156 messages to be sent in the form of DHCPv6 datagrams. These datagrams 157 need to be sent over HA-MR tunnel to the MR. This requires that each 158 such message is piggybacked in a Binding Acknowledgement message sent 159 from HA to MR. 161 IPv6 extension header for each message sent by the DHCP Relay co- 162 located at HA towards MR MUST contain the mobility header as 163 described in Section 6.1 of [RFC3775]. MH type MUST be set to 6 for 164 Binding Acknowledgement. The payload MUST contain the DHCP message 165 being sent. 167 4. Nemo Prefix Delegation Protocol 169 Figure 2 shows the process that a Mobile Router as the requesting 170 router requests prefixes from a DHCP Server as the delegating router 171 using DHCPv6 [RFC3315] and DHCPv6 Prefix delegation [RFC3633]. 173 MR HA DHCP Server 174 | | 175 -->| |1. Trigger to DHCP Client 176 |2 Relay-forward/Solicit|2. DHCP Relay-Forward/Solicit 177 |---------------------> | 178 |3 Relay-reply/Advertise|3. DHCP Relay-reply/ Advertise 179 |<--------------------- | 180 |4 Relay-forward/Request|4. DHCP Relay-Forward/Request (MNP) 181 |---------------------> | 182 |5 Relay-reply/Reply |5. DHCP Relay-reply/Reply (MNP) 183 |<--------------------- | 185 Figure 2: Prefix Delegation in NEMO 187 1. DHCP Client co-located with MR needs to be triggered to start 188 requesting prefixes using DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation. The initial 189 trigger should be when MR boots up. The subsequent triggers are 190 timeout based. Each prefix received has a lifetime. When the 191 lifetime of a prefix expires, a trigger SHOULD be received at the 192 DHCP Client. 193 2. DHCP Client at the MR initiates DHCP Solicit procedure to request 194 prefixes for the MN. HA creates and transmits a Solicit message 195 as described in sections 17.1.1, "Creation of Solicit Messages" 196 and 17.1.2, "Transmission of Solicit Messages" of RFC 3315. MR 197 creates an IA_PD and assigns it an IAID. MR MUST include the 198 IA_PD option in the Solicit message. 199 3. The DHCP server sends an Advertise message to MR in the same way 200 as described in section 17.2.2, "Creation and transmission of 201 Advertise messages" of RFC 3315. 202 4. MR uses the same message exchanges as described in section 18, 203 "DHCP Client-Initiated Configuration Exchange" of RFC 3315 to 204 obtain or update prefixes from a DHCP server. MR and the DHCP 205 server use the IA_PD Prefix option to exchange information about 206 prefixes in much the same way as IA Address options are used for 207 assigned addresses. 208 5. MR stores the prefix information it received in the Reply 209 message. 211 HA SHOULD add the route to the delegated prefix(es) and advertise the 212 prefix(es) upstream. HA SHOULD use route aggregation, i.e. advertise 213 the /48 prefix that is the extension of the delegated /64 prefixes. 215 In Explicit Mode of NEMO Basic Protocol, MR includes the delegated 216 prefix(es) to the prefix list in Prefix Information Option of Binding 217 Update message. This message triggers HA to add a route for the 218 prefixes included. 220 5. Nemo Prefix Delegation Using AAA 222 Diameter prefix delegation application is currently to be defined. 223 Once such an application is defined, Nemo prefix delegation using 224 this Diameter application will be included in this section. 226 6. Security Considerations 228 This document does not by itself introduce any security issues. 230 7. IANA Considerations 232 None. 234 8. Acknowledgements 236 TBD. 238 9. References 239 9.1. Normative References 241 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 242 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 244 [RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629, 245 June 1999. 247 [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. 248 Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", 249 RFC 3963, January 2005. 251 [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic 252 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 253 December 2003. 255 [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support 256 in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 258 [I-D.ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation] 259 Kniveton, T. and P. Thubert, "Mobile Network Prefix 260 Delegation", draft-ietf-nemo-prefix-delegation-02 (work in 261 progress), August 2007. 263 [I-D.dupont-mext-dhcrelay] 264 Dupont, F. and W. Haddad, "DHCPv6 Relay Agents and NEMO", 265 draft-dupont-mext-dhcrelay-00 (work in progress), 266 February 2008. 268 [I-D.ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd] 269 Droms, R. and P. Thubert, "DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for 270 NEMO", draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-03 (work in progress), 271 December 2007. 273 9.2. Informative references 275 [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., 276 and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for 277 IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. 279 [RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support 280 Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007. 282 Authors' Addresses 284 Behcet Sarikaya 285 Huawei USA 286 1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500 287 Plano, TX 75075 289 Phone: +1 972-509-5599 290 Email: sarikaya@ieee.org 292 Frank Xia 293 Huawei USA 294 1700 Alma Dr. Suite 500 295 Plano, TX 75075 297 Phone: +1 972-509-5599 298 Email: xiayangsong@huawei.com 300 Full Copyright Statement 302 Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008). 304 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 305 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 306 retain all their rights. 308 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 309 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 310 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND 311 THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS 312 OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF 313 THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 314 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 316 Intellectual Property 318 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 319 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 320 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 321 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 322 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 323 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 324 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 325 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 327 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 328 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 329 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 330 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 331 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 332 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 334 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 335 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 336 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 337 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 338 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.