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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 draft-fujisaki-6man-addr-select-opt

DHC Working Group                                            T. Fujisaki
Internet-Draft                                              A. Matsumoto
Intended status: Standards Track                                 J. Kato
Expires: July 5, 2007                                         S. Niinobe
                                                                     NTT
                                                                Jan 2007


       Distributing Default Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
               draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-opt-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 5, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).

Abstract

   This document describes a new DHCPv6 option for distributing default
   address selection policy information defined in RFC3484 to a client.
   With this option, site administrators can distribute address
   selection policy to control the node's address selection behavior.





Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


1.  Introduction

   RFC3484 [RFC3484] describes algorithms for selecting a default
   address when a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses
   by using an address selection policy.  However, there are some
   problems with the default address selection policy in RFC3484
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps], and administrators can change the
   node's address selection behavior by distributing the policy.
   Practical usages are described in [I-D.arifumi-ipv6-policy-dist].
   This document describes an option for distributing default address
   selection policy information using DHCPv6.


2.  Terminology

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


3.  Default Address Selection Policy Option

   The Default Address Selection Policy Option provides policy
   information for address selection rules.  Specifically, it transmits
   a set of IPv6 source and destination address prefixes and some
   parameters that are used to control address selection as described in
   RFC 3484.

   Each end node is expected to configure its policy table, as described
   in RFC 3484, in a manner consistent with the Default Address
   Selection Policy option information.

   The format of the Default Address Selection Policy option is given
   below:


















Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


       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   |  zone-index   |   prefix-len  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Prefix   (Variable Length)                  |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    label      |  precedence   |  zone-index   |   prefix-len  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Prefix   (Variable Length)                  |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      .                                                               .
      .                                                               .
      .                                                               .
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    label      |  precedence   |  zone-index   |   prefix-len  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Prefix   (Variable Length)                  |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                                [Fig. 1]



   Fields:

   option-code:  OPTION_DASP (TBD)

   option-len:  The total length of the label fields, precedence fields,
        zone-index fields, prefix-len fields, and prefix fields in
        octets.







Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


   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.

   zone-index:  An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used to specify
        zones for scoped 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.  The
        Prefix field is 0, 4, 8, 12, or 16 octets, depending on the
        length.

   Prefix:  A variable-length field containing an IP address or the
        prefix of an IP address.  IPv4-mapped address [mapped] must be
        used to represent an IPv4 address as a prefix value.



4.  Appearance of this Option

   The Default Address Selection Policy option MUST NOT appear in any
   messages other than the following ones : Solicit, Advertise, Request,
   Renew, Rebind, Information-Request, and Reply.


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 this DHCP message.  DHCPv6 clients
      need to convert this label to a representation specified by each
      implementation (e.g., string).

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

   o  The 'precedence' is used to sort destination addresses.  There
      might be some cases where precedence values will conflict when a
      client already has a selection policy configured or a client
      receives multiple policies from multiple DHCP servers (e.g., when
      a home gateway in a user network is connected to multiple upstream
      ISPs).  In such cases, manual configuration of the policy will be



Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


      necessary.

   o  The maximum number of address selection rules in one DHCPv6
      message depend on the prefix length of each rules and maximum
      DHCPv6 message size defined in RFC3315.  It is possible to carry
      over 3,000 rules (e.g. default policy table defined in RFC3484
      contains 5 rules) in one DHCPv6 message (maximum UDP message
      size).

   o  Since the number of selection rules would be large, policy
      distributer should be care about the DHCPv6 message size.



6.  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, it is hard to use
      this value in general case.

   o  We also proposed a policy distribution option using a Router
      Advertisement message defined in RFC2461 [RFC2461].  There was a
      discussion that using DHCPv6 was more suitable to distribute a
      selection policy, because such policy should be distributed under
      the site administrator's centralized control.

   o  There may be some demands to control the use of temporary
      addresses described in RFC3041 [RFC3041] (e.g., informing not to
      use a temporary address when it communicate within the an
      organization's network).  Since a temporary address cannot
      represent as an IPv6 address and its prefix, some semantics to
      specify the temporary address will be necessary to control it
      (such as a flag to indicate a temporary address or a special
      representation for temporary address in prefix field).



7.  Security Considerations

   A rogue DHCPv6 server could issue bogus default address selection
   policies to a client.  This might lead to incorrect address selection



Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


   by the client, and the affected packets might be blocked at an
   outgoing ISP because of ingress filtering.

   To guard against such attacks, both DCHP clients and servers SHOULD
   use DHCP authentication, as described in section 21 of RFC 3315,
   "Authentication of DHCP messages."


8.  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.


Appendix A.  RFC3484 implementation status

   Today, many operating systems implement address selection mechanism
   defined in RFC3484.  Many of them, however, implement the
   specification partially.  We summarize current implementation status
   of RFC 3484 at http://www.nttv6.net/dass/.


Appendix B.  Revision History

   03:
      Discussion about DHCPv6 packetsize and number of rules added.
      Authors' e-mail addresses corrected.
      Some editorial changes.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [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.

9.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.arifumi-ipv6-policy-dist]
              Matsumoto, A., "Practical Usages of Address Selection
              Policy Distribution", draft-arifumi-ipv6-policy-dist-01
              (work in progress), June 2006.




Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps]
              Matsumoto, A., "Problem Statement of Default Address
              Selection in Multi-prefix Environment:  Operational Issues
              of RFC3484 Default Rules",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-00 (work in progress),
              November 2006.

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

   [RFC2461]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
              Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
              December 1998.

   [RFC3041]  Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for
              Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041,
              January 2001.


Authors' Addresses

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

   Phone: +81 422 59 7351
   Email: fujisaki.tomohiro@lab.ntt.co.jp


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

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












Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


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

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


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

   Phone: +81 422 59 4949
   Email: nin@syce.net

































Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt          Jan 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2007).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Fujisaki, et al.          Expires July 5, 2007                  [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/