idnits 2.17.00 (12 Aug 2021) /tmp/idnits16884/draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-02.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 451. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 462. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 469. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 475. ** 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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 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 (September 28, 2006) is 5714 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC 3775' on line 173 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC 3963' on line 281 -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC3775' on line 280 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3633 (ref. '1') (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3513 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 4291) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3775 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 6275) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-nemo-terminology has been published as RFC 4885 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3315 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) == Outdated reference: draft-ietf-nemo-requirements has been published as RFC 4886 == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-01 Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 10 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPv6 Group R. Droms 3 Internet-Draft P. Thubert 4 Intended status: Informational Cisco 5 Expires: April 1, 2007 September 28, 2006 7 DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO 8 draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-02 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 April 1, 2007. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 39 Abstract 41 One aspect of network mobility support is the assignment of a prefix 42 or prefixes to a Mobile Router (MR) for use on the links in the 43 Mobile Network. DHCPv6 prefix delegation can be used for this 44 configuration task. 46 1. Introduction 48 One aspect of network mobility support is the assignment of a prefix 49 or prefixes to a Mobile Router for use on the links in the Mobile 50 Network. DHCPv6 prefix delegation [1] (DHCPv6PD) can be used for 51 this configuration task. 53 2. Terminology 55 The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, 56 SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be 57 interpreted as described in RFC2119 [2]. 59 The following terms used in this document are defined in the IPv6 60 Addressing Architecture document [3]: 61 link-local unicast address 62 link-local scope multicast address 64 The following terms used in this document are defined in the mobile 65 IPv6 specification [4]: 66 home agent (HA) 67 home link 69 The following terms used in this document are defined in the Mobile 70 Network terminology document [5]: 71 Mobile Router (MR) 72 Mobile Network 73 mobile host (MH) 75 The following terms used in this document are defined in the DHCPv6 76 [6] and DHCPv6 prefix delegation [1] specifications: 77 delegating router (DR) 78 requesting router (RR) 79 DHCPv6 relay agent 81 3. Application of DHCPv6 prefix delegation to mobile networks for 82 delegation of home prefixes 84 The NEMO Basic protocol [8] extends the mobile IPv6 protocol [4] to 85 enable network mobility. In this extension, a MR uses the mobile 86 IPv6 protocol to establish a maintain a session with its HA, and uses 87 bidirectional tunneling between the MR and HA to provide a path 88 through which hosts attached to links in the Mobile Network can 89 maintain connectivity with nodes not in the Mobile Network. 91 The requirements for NEMO [7] include the ability of the MR to 92 receive delegated prefixes that can then be assigned to links in the 93 Mobile Network. DHCPv6PD can be used to meet this requirement for 94 prefix delegation. 96 To use DHCPv6PD for Mobile Networks, the HA assumes the role of 97 either the DR or a DHCPv6 relay agent and the MR assumes the role of 98 the RR. Throughout the remainder of this document, the HA will be 99 assumed to be acting as a DHCPv6PD DR or relay agent and the MR will 100 be assumed to be acting as a RR. 102 If the HA is acts as relay agent, some other device acts as the DR. 103 For example, the server providing DHCPv6 service in the home network 104 might also provide NEMO DHCPv6PD service. Or, a home network with 105 several HAs might configure one of those HAs as a DHCPv6PD server 106 while the other HAs act as relay agents. 108 The HA and MR exchange DHCPv6PD protocol messages through the tunnel 109 connecting them. The tunnel acts as the link labeled "DSL to 110 subscriber premises" in figure 1 of the DHCPv6PD specification. 112 The DHCPv6PD server is provisioned with prefixes to be assigned using 113 any of the prefix assignment mechanisms described in the DHCPv6PD 114 specifications. Other updates to the HA data structures required as 115 a side effect of prefix delegation are specified by the particular 116 network mobility protocol. For example, in the case of Basic Network 117 Mobility Support [8], the HA would add an entry in its binding cache 118 registering the delegated prefix to the MR to which the prefix was 119 delegated. 121 3.1. When the MR uses DHCPv6 123 The MR initiates a DHCPv6 message exchange for prefix delegation 124 whenever it establishes an MRHA tunnel to its HA. If the MR does not 125 have any active delegated prefixes (with unexpired leases), the MR 126 initiates a DHCPv6 message exchange with a DHCPv6 Solicit message as 127 described in section 17 of RFC 3315 and section 12 of RFC 3633. If 128 the MR has one or more active delegated prefixes, the MR initiates a 129 DHCPv6 message exchange with a DHCPv6 Confirm message as described in 130 section 18.1.2 of RFC 3315 and section 12 of RFC 3633. 132 3.2. Use of MRHA tunnel for DHCPv6 messages 134 The DHCPv6 specification requires the use of link-local unicast and 135 link-local scope multicast addresses in DHCPv6 messages (except in 136 certain cases as defined in section 22.12 of the DHCPv6 137 specification). Section 10.4.2 of the mobile IPv6 specification 138 describes forwarding of intercepted packets, and the third paragraph 139 of that section begins: 141 However, packets addressed to the mobile node's link-local address 142 MUST NOT be tunneled to the mobile node. 144 The DHCPv6 messages exchanged between the HA and the MR originate 145 only with the HA and the MR, and therefore are not "intercepted 146 packets" and may be sent between the HA and the MR through the 147 tunnel. 149 Even though the MRHA tunnel is a point to point connection, the MR 150 SHOULD use multicast DHCPv6 messages as described in RFC 3315 over 151 that tunnel. 153 3.3. Exchanging DHCPv6 messages when MR is at home 155 When the MR is on its home link, the HA uses the home link to 156 exchange DHCPv6PD messages with the MR. It is the responsibility of 157 the implementation to determine when the MR is on its home link and 158 to avoid use of any existing tunnel. 160 3.4. Minimizing DHCPv6PD messages 162 DHCPv6PD in a Mobile Network can be combined with the Rapid Commit 163 option [6] to provide DHCPv6 prefix delegation with a two message 164 exchange between the mobile node and the DHCPv6 PD server. 166 3.5. DHCPv6PD and DHAAD 168 The MR acting as RR needs a direct link to the DR (or relay) 169 function. When the MR is away from Home, that link is the MRHA 170 tunnel. If a MR needs to obtain a prefix by means of DHCPv6PD, it 171 has to locate a HA that is capable of serving either as a DHCPv6PD 172 relay agent or server. Since the use of DHCPv6PD is optional and 173 comes as an addition to existing protocols [RFC 3775] and [RFC 3963], 174 it can not be expected that all HAs are DHCPv6PD capable. 176 This specification extends Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery and 177 the Home Agent Information Option in order to enable the detection by 178 a MR of all HAs that are DHCPv6PD capable. A new 'D' bit is 179 introduced to let Home Agents advertise that they are willing to 180 participate to DHCP. Note that there is no need for the MR acting as 181 RR to know whether a HA is actually a DR or simply acting as a relay. 183 3.5.1. Modified Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery Request 185 A new flag (D) (Support for DHCPv6PD) is introduced in the DHAAD 186 Request message, defined in [RFC3775] and [RFC 3963]. The Mobile 187 Router sets this flag to indicate that it wants to discover Home 188 Agents participating to DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation. 190 A the MR which sets the 'D' flag MUST also set the 'R' flag, to 191 declare that it is a Mobile Router and asks for a HA that supports 192 Mobile Routers, as defined in [RFC 3963]. 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 | Type | Code | Checksum | 198 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 199 | Identifier |R|D| Reserved | 200 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 202 DHCPv6PD Support Flag (D) 204 A one-bit flag that when set indicates that the Mobile Router 205 wants to discover Home Agents participating to DHCPv6 Prefix 206 Delegation. 208 For a description of the other fields in the message, see [RFC3775] 209 and [RFC 3963]. 211 3.5.2. Modified Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery Reply 213 A new flag (D) (Support for DHCPv6PD) is introduced in the DHAAD 214 Reply message, defined in [RFC3775] and [RFC 3963]. If a Home Agent 215 receives a Dynamic Home Agent Discovery request message with the 216 DHCPv6PD Support Flag set, it MUST reply with a list of Home Agents 217 participating to DHCPv6PD. 219 The DHCPv6PD Support Flag MUST be set if there is at least one Home 220 Agent participating to DHCPv6PD. In that case, the reply will list 221 only those HAs that participate to DHCPv6PD, whether they act as 222 servers (DRs) or relays. 224 A HA that supports DHCPv6PD MUST support Mobile Routers as well, so 225 if the 'D' bit is set, then the 'R' bit should be set as well. So 226 there is no need in an implementation to support the case where some 227 HAs would support Mobile Routers while others would be participating 228 to DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation but none could do both. 230 If none of the Home Agents support DHCPv6PD, the Home Agent MAY reply 231 with a list of Home Agents that only support NEMO basic Mobile 232 Routers or Mobile IPv6 Mobile Nodes. In this case, the DHCPv6PD 233 Support Flag MUST be set to 0. 235 The modified message format is as follows. 237 0 1 2 3 238 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 1 239 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 240 | Type | Code | Checksum | 241 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 242 | Identifier |R|D| Reserved | 243 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 244 | | 245 + + 246 + + 247 | | 248 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 250 DHCPv6PD Support Flag (D) 252 A one-bit flag that when set indicates that the Home Agents 253 listed in this message participate to DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation. 255 For a description of the other fields in the message, see [RFC3775] 256 and [RFC 3963]. 258 3.5.3. Modified Home Agent Information Option 260 A new flag (D) (Support for DHCPv6PD) is introduced in the Home Agent 261 Information Option defined in [RFC3775] and [RFC 3963]. 263 If a Home Agent participates to DHCPv6PD, it SHOULD set the flag. If 264 the HA sets the 'D' flag, then it MUST also set the 'R' flag, 265 Indicating that it supports Mobile Routers, as defined in [RFC 3963]. 267 0 1 2 3 268 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 1 269 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 270 | Type | Length |R|D| Reserved | 271 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 272 | Home Agent Preference | Home Agent Lifetime | 273 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 275 DHCPv6PD Support Flag (D) 277 A one-bit flag that when set indicates that the Home Agents 278 participates to DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation. 280 For a description of the other fields in the message, see [RFC3775] 281 and [RFC 3963]. 283 3.6. Location of DHCPv6PD Delegating Router function 285 Support of DHCPv6PD for a Mobile Network is optional. 287 The use of a DHCPv6 relay agent is not defined for DHCPv6PD in the 288 DHCPv6PD specification [1]. If the DHCPv6PD DR function is 289 implemented in the HA for the MR, no relay agent function is 290 required. 292 It may be desirable to use a single DR to manage RRs in a network 293 with multiple HAs. In this scenario, the HAs will act as DHCP relay 294 agents, forwarding messages between the RRs and the DR. 296 Use of the DHCPv6 relay agent function with DHCPv6PD requires that 297 there be some mechanism through which routing information for the 298 delegated prefixes can be added to the appropriate routing 299 infrastructure. If the HA is acting as a DHCPv6 relay agent, the HA 300 SHOULD add a route to the delegated prefix and advertise that route 301 after receiving a binding update for the prefix from the RR [8]. 303 In particular, if the MR uses NEMO explicit mode, then it must add 304 the delegated prefix to prefix list in the Binding Update messages. 305 If the binding cache is cleared before the prefix valid lifetime, the 306 MR might bind that prefix again using explicit mode, till the 307 lifetime expires. 309 In implicit mode, the HA must save the delegated prefix with the 310 binding cache entry of the Mobile Router. When the BCE is cleared, 311 the HA loses the information about the delegated prefix. Because the 312 MR will use DHCPv6 when it reestablishes its tunnel to the HA (see 313 Section 3.1), the HA will be able to add the delegated prefix back to 314 the BCE. 316 At the time this draft was written, one way in which a DR can 317 explicitly notify a relay agent about delegated prefixes, is to use 318 the "DHCP Relay Agent Assignment Notification Option" [9]. 320 Another alternative, if the RR is part of the same administrative 321 domain as the home network to which it is attached through the HA, 322 and the RR can be trusted, the RR can use a routing protocol like 323 OSPF to advertise any delegated prefixes. 325 NEMO explicit mode is recommended to take advantage of the function 326 already defined for NEMO. 328 3.7. Other DHCPv6 functions 330 The DHCPv6 messages exchanged between the MR and the HA may also be 331 used for other DHCPv6 functions in addition to DHCPv6PD. For 332 example, the HA may assign global addresses to the MR and may pass 333 other configuration information such as a list of available DNS 334 recursive resolvers to the MR using the same DHCPv6 messages as used 335 for DHCPV6PD. 337 The HA may act as a DHCPv6 relay agent for MHs while it acts as a DR 338 for MRs. 340 4. Changes in this draft 342 4.1. Revision -01 344 Removed section 3.2, "Delegating Access Prefixes". 346 Modified sections 3 and 3.6 (was section 3.1.3), "Location of 347 DHCPv6PD Delegating Router function," to allow for DHCPv6PD through a 348 relay agent and to allow for a single DR on a home network to perform 349 PD for RRs through more than one HA. 351 Added section 3.1 describing when the MR should use DHCPv6 PD. 353 Added section 3.4 describing use of Rapid Commit to minimize DHCPv6PD 354 messages and 356 Added section 3.5 recommending that DHCPv6PD and DHAAD be kept 357 independent and describing flags indicating availability of PD 358 service from HA. 360 Added section 3.7 describing the use of DHCPv6 for other 361 configuration in parallel with PD. 363 5. Security Considerations 365 This document describes the use of DHCPv6 for prefix delegation in 366 Mobile Networks. It does not introduce any additional security 367 considerations beyond those described in the "Security 368 Considerations" section of the DHCPv6 base specification [6] and the 369 "Security Considerations" of the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation 370 specification [1]. 372 Following the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation specification, HAs and MRs 373 SHOULD use DHCPv6 authentication as described in section 374 "Authentication of DHCP messages" of the DHCPv6 specification [6], to 375 guard against attacks mounted through prefix delegation. 377 6. IANA Considerations 379 This document describes the use of DHCPv6 for prefix delegation in 380 Mobile Networks. It does not introduce any additional IANA 381 considerations. 383 7. Normative References 385 [1] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host 386 Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, 387 December 2003. 389 [2] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 390 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 392 [3] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) 393 Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003. 395 [4] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in 396 IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. 398 [5] Ernst, T. and H. Lach, "Network Mobility Support Terminology", 399 draft-ietf-nemo-terminology-05 (work in progress), March 2006. 401 [6] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. 402 Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", 403 RFC 3315, July 2003. 405 [7] Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements", 406 draft-ietf-nemo-requirements-05 (work in progress), 407 October 2005. 409 [8] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, 410 "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963, 411 January 2005. 413 [9] Droms, R., "DHCPv6 Relay Agent Assignment Notification (RAAN) 414 Option", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-01 (work in 415 progress), August 2006. 417 Authors' Addresses 419 Ralph Droms 420 Cisco 421 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 422 Boxborough, MA 01719 423 USA 425 Phone: +1 978.936.1674 426 Email: rdroms@cisco.com 428 Pascal Thubert 429 Cisco 430 Village d'Entreprises Green Side 431 400, Avenue Roumanille 432 Biot - Sophia Antipolis 06410 433 FRANCE 435 Email: pthubert@cisco.com 437 Full Copyright Statement 439 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 441 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions 442 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors 443 retain all their rights. 445 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 446 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 447 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 448 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 449 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 450 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 451 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 453 Intellectual Property 455 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 456 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 457 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 458 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 459 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 460 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 461 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 462 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 464 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 465 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 466 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 467 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 468 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 469 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 471 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 472 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 473 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 474 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 475 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 477 Acknowledgment 479 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF 480 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).