[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-fujisaki-6man-addr-select-opt) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 7078

6man Working Group                                          A. Matsumoto
Internet-Draft                                               T. Fujisaki
Intended status: Standards Track                                 J. Kato
Expires: August 24, 2012                                             NTT
                                                                T. Chown
                                               University of Southampton
                                                       February 21, 2012


           Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
                 draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-03.txt

Abstract

   RFC 3484 defines default address selection mechanisms for IPv6 that
   allow nodes to select appropriate address when faced with multiple
   source and/or destination addresses to choose between.  The RFC 3484
   allowed for the future definition of methods to administratively
   configure the address selection policy information.  This document
   defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration, allowing a site
   administrator to distribute address selection policy overriding the
   default address selection policy table, and thus control the address
   selection behavior of nodes in their site.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents



Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.


1.  Introduction

   RFC 3484 [RFC3484] describes default algorithms for selecting an
   address when a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses
   to choose from by using an address selection policy.  In Section 2 of
   RFC 3484, it is suggested that the default policy table may be
   administratively configured to suit the specific needs of a site.
   This specification defines a new DHCPv6 option for such
   configuration.

   Some problems have been identified with the default RFC 3484 address
   selection policy [RFC5220].  It is unlikely that any default policy
   will suit all scenarios, and thus mechanisms to control the source
   address selection policy will be necessary.  Requirements for those
   mechanisms are described in [RFC5221], while solutions are discussed
   in [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol] and
   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations].  Those documents have
   helped shape the improvements in the default address selection
   algorithm [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise] as well as the DHCPv6 option
   defined in this specification.

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].




Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


1.2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC2460] and the
   DHCPv6 specification defined in [RFC3315]


2.  Address Selection Policy option

   The Address Selection Policy option provides the policy table for
   address selection rules as described in RFC 3484 and in
   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise].

   Each end node is expected to configure its policy table, as described
   in RFC 3484, using the Address Selection Policy option as described
   in the section below on processing the option.

   Multiple Address Selection Policy options MAY appear in a DHCPv6
   message.  They constitute a single policy table.

   The format of the Address Selection Policy option is given below.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          OPTION_DASP          |         option-len            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    label      |  precedence   |   prefix-len  |               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
      |                                                               |
      |                   prefix   (variable length)                  |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      .                         DASP options                          .
      .                                                               .
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 1: Address Selection Policy option format


   option-code:  OPTION_DASP (TBD).

   option-len:  The total length of the label field, precedence field,
        prefix-len field, prefix field, and DASP options field in
        octets.






Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


   label:  An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used to make a
        combination of source address prefixes and destination address
        prefixes.

   precedence:  An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used for
        sorting destination addresses.

   prefix-len:  An 8-bit unsigned integer; the number of leading bits in
        the prefix that are valid.  The value ranges from 0 to 128.

   prefix:  A variable-length field containing an IP address or the
        prefix of an IP address.  An IPv4-mapped address [RFC4291] must
        be used to represent an IPv4 address as a prefix value.  The
        Prefix should be truncated on the byte boundary.  So the length
        of this field should be between 0 and 16 bytes.

   DASP options:  Options specific to this particular Address Selection
        Policy option.  This includes, but not limited to, zero or one
        PREFIX_ZONE option that specify the zone index of the prefix in
        this option.


   The format of the Zone Index option is given below.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |      OPTION_ZONE_INDEX        |         option-len            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                          zone-index                           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 2: Zone Index option format


   option-code:  OPTION_ZONE_INDEX (TBD).

   option-len:  4.

   zone-index:  The zone-index field is an 32-bit unsigned integer, and
        used to specify the zone for scoped addresses.  The zone-index
        is defined in RFC 3493 [RFC3493] as 'scope ID'.



3.  Appearance of the Address Selection Policy option

   The Address Selection Policy option MUST NOT appear in any messages



Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


   other than the following ones: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew,
   Rebind, Reconfigure, Information-Request, and Reply.


4.  Processing the Address Selection Policy option

   This section describes how to process received Address Selection
   Policy options at the DHCPv6 client.

   When a host receives a DHCPv6 message that includes multiple Address
   Selection Policy options, they MUST be treated as a single policy
   table.

   This option's concept is to serve as a hint for a node about how to
   behave in the network.  So, basically, it should be up to the node's
   administrator how to make use of or even ignore the received policy
   information.

4.1.  Handling of the local policy table

   RFC 3484 defines the default policy table.  Also, a user is usually
   able to configure the policy table to satisfy his requirement.

   The client node SHOULD provide the following choices:

   a) It receives distributed policy table, and replaces the existing
      policy tables with that.
   b) It preserves the default policy table, or manually configured
      policy.

4.2.  Handling of the stale policy table

   When the information from the DHCP server goes stale, the policy
   received form the DHCP server should be removed and the default
   policy should be restored.

   The received information can be considered stale in several cases,
   such as, when the interface goes down, the DHCP server does not
   respond for a certain amount of time, and the Information Refresh
   Time is expired.

4.3.  Processing multiple received policy tables

   The policy table is node-global information by its nature.  So, the
   node cannot use multiple received policy tables at the same time.  In
   other words, once the received policy from one source is merged with
   another source, the policy is more or less changed.  The policy table
   is defined as a whole, so the slightest addition/deletion from the



Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


   policy table brings a change in semantics of the policy.

   It also should be noted that, when a node is single-homed and has
   only one upstream line, adopting a received policy table does not
   degrade the security level.

   Under the above assumptions, we specify how to handle multiple
   received policy tables below.

   A node MAY use OPTION_DASP in any of the following two cases:

   1: The address selection option is delivered across the only secure,
      trusted channel.
   2: The address selection option delivery is not secured, but the node
      is single-homed.

   In other cases the node MUST NOT use OPTION_DASP unless the node is
   specifically configured to do so.


5.  Implementation Considerations

   o  The value 'label' is passed as an unsigned integer, but there is
      no special meaning for the value, that is whether it is a large or
      small number.  It is used to select a preferred source address
      prefix corresponding to a destination address prefix by matching
      the same label value within the DHCP message.  DHCPv6 clients need
      to convert this label to a representation specified by each
      implementation (e.g., string).

   o  Currently, the label and precedence values are defined as 8-bit
      unsigned integers.  In almost all cases, this value will be
      enough.

   o  The maximum number of address selection rules that may be conveyed
      in one DHCPv6 message depends on the prefix length of each rule
      and the maximum DHCPv6 message size defined in RFC 3315.  It is
      possible to carry over 3,000 rules in one DHCPv6 message (maximum
      UDP message size).  However, it should not be expected that DHCP
      clients, servers and relay agents can handle UDP fragmentation.
      So, the number of the options and the total size of the options
      should be taken care of.

   o  Since the number of selection rules could be large, an
      administrator configuring the policy to be distributed should
      consider the resulting DHCPv6 message size.





Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


6.  Security Considerations

   A rogue DHCPv6 server could issue bogus address selection policies to
   a client.  This might lead to incorrect address selection by the
   client, and the affected packets might be blocked at an outgoing ISP
   because of ingress filtering.  Alternatively, an IPv6 transition
   mechanism might be preferred over native IPv6, even if it is
   available.  To guard against such attacks, a legitimate DHCPv6 server
   should be communicated through a secure, trusted channel, such as a
   channel protected by IPsec, SEND and DHCP authentication, as
   described in section 21 of RFC 3315,

   Another threat is about privacy concern.  As in the security
   consideration section of RFC 3484, at least a part of, the address
   selection policy stored in a host can be leaked by a packet from a
   remote host.  This issue will not be degraded regardless of the
   introduction of this option, or regardless of whether the host is
   multihomed or not.


7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign option codes to OPTION_DASP from the
   option-code space as defined in section "DHCPv6 Options" of RFC 3315.


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]
              Chown, T. and A. Matsumoto, "Considerations for IPv6
              Address Selection Policy Changes",
              draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-04 (work in
              progress), October 2011.




Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol]
              Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, "Solution
              approaches for address-selection problems",
              draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-03 (work in progress),
              March 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise]
              Matsumoto, A., Kato, J., Fujisaki, T., and T. Chown,
              "Update to RFC 3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6",
              draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05 (work in progress),
              October 2011.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC3493]  Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
              Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
              RFC 3493, February 2003.

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.

   [RFC5220]  Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
              "Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-
              Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484
              Default Rules", RFC 5220, July 2008.

   [RFC5221]  Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
              "Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms", RFC 5221,
              July 2008.


Appendix A.  Past Discussion

   o  The 'zone index' value is used to specify a particular zone for
      scoped addresses.  This can be used effectively to control address
      selection in the site scope (e.g., to tell a node to use a
      specified source address corresponding to a site-scoped multicast
      address).  However, in some cases such as a link-local scope
      address, the value specifying one zone is only meaningful locally
      within that node.  There might be some cases where the
      administrator knows which clients are on the network and wants
      specific interfaces to be used though.  However, in general case,
      it is hard to use this value.



Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


   o  Since we got a comment that some implementations use 32-bit
      integers for zone index value, we extended the bit length of the
      'zone index' field.  However, as described above, there might be
      few cases to specify 'zone index' in policy distribution, we
      defined this field as optional, controlled by a flag.

   o  There may be some demands to control the use of special address
      types such as the temporary addresses described in RFC4941
      [RFC4941], address assigned by DHCPv6 and so on. (e.g., informing
      not to use a temporary address when it communicate within the an
      organization's network).  It is possible to indicate the type of
      addresses using reserved field value.



Authors' Addresses

   Arifumi Matsumoto
   NTT SI Lab
   3-9-11 Midori-Cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 3334
   Email: arifumi@nttv6.net


   Tomohiro Fujisaki
   NTT PF Lab
   3-9-11 Midori-Cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 7351
   Email: fujisaki@nttv6.net


   Jun-ya Kato
   NTT SI Lab
   3-9-11 Midori-Cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 2939
   Email: kato@syce.net






Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt     February 2012


   Tim Chown
   University of Southampton
   Southampton, Hampshire  SO17 1BJ
   United Kingdom

   Email: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk













































Matsumoto, et al.        Expires August 24, 2012               [Page 10]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/