[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01

Dynamic Host Configuration                                    L. Colitti
Internet-Draft                                                J. Linkova
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Google
Expires: June 6, 2020                                      M. Richardson
                                                               Sandelman
                                                            T. Mrugalski
                                                                     ISC
                                                        December 4, 2019


                  IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP
                        draft-link-dhc-v6only-00

Abstract

   This document specifies a DHCP option to indicate that a host
   supports an IPv6-only mode and willing to forgo obtaining a IPv4
   address if the network provides IPv6 access.

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 https://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 June 6, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   (https://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



Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Reasons to Signal IPv6-Only Support in DHCPv4 Packets . . . .   4
   3.  IPv6-Only Preferred Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Option format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  DHCPv4 Client Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  DHCPv4 Server Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   One of the biggest challenges of deploying IPv6-only LANs is that
   such networks might contain rather heterogeneous collection of end
   hosts.  Some of them are capable of operating in IPv6-only mode
   (either because the OS and all applications are IPv6-only capable or
   because the host has some form of 464XLAT [RFC6877] deployed).  At
   the same time some devices might still have IPv4 dependencies and
   need IPv4 connectivity to operate properly.  To incrementaly rollout
   IPv6-only, network operators need to provide IPv4-as-a-service when a
   host receives an IPv4 address if it needs it, while IPv6-only capable
   devices (such as modern mobile devices) are not allocated IPv4
   addresses.  Deploying separate LAN segments for IPv6-only and for
   dual-stack hosts (such as two WiFi SSIDs or two VLANs) is undesirable
   for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

   o  Doubling number of network segments which leads to operational
      complexity and performance impact, for instance due to TCAM
      utilization increase from an increased number of ACL entries.

   o  Placing a host into correct network segment is problematic.  For
      example, in the case of 802.11 Wi-Fi the user might select the
      wrong SSID.  In the case of wired 802.1x authentication the
      authentication server might not have all information required to
      make the correct decision.




Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


   Therefore it would be beneficial for IPv6 deployment if operators
   could implement IPv4-mostly (or IPv4-as-a-Service) segments where
   IPv6-only hosts co-exist with legacy dual-stack devices.  The trivial
   solution of disabling IPv4 stack on IPv6-only capable hosts is not
   feasible as those clients must be able to operate on IPv4-only
   networks as well.  While IPv6-only capable devices might use a
   heuristic approach to learning if the network provdes IPv6-only
   functionality and stop using IPv4 if it does, it might be practically
   undesirable.  One important reason is that when a host connects to a
   network, it does not know if the network is IPv4-only, dual-stack or
   IPv6-only.  To ensure that the connectivity over whatever protocol is
   present becomes available as soon as possible the host usually starts
   configuring both IPv4 and IPv6 immidiately.  If hosts were to delay
   requesting IPv4 until IPv6 reachability is confirmed, that would
   would penalize IPv4-only and dual-stack networks, which does not seem
   practical.  Instead it would be useful to have a mechanism which
   would allow a host to indicate that IPv4 is optional and a network to
   signal that IPv6-only functionality (such as NAT64) is available.
   The proposed solution is to introduce a new DHCP option which a
   client uses to indicate that it does not need IPv4 if the network
   provides IPv6-only connectivty (as NAT64 and DNS64).  If the
   particular network segment provides IPv4-as-a-service such clients
   would not be supplied with IPv4 addresses, while on IPv4-only or
   dual-stack segments without NAT64 services IPv4 addresses will be
   provided.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

1.2.  Terminology

   IPv6-only capable host: a host which does not require IPv4 and can
   operate on IPv6-only networks.  Strictly speaking IPv6-only
   capability is specific to a given interface of the host: if some
   applocation on a host require IPv4 and 464XLAT clat [RFC6877] is only
   enabled on one interface, the host is IPv6-only capable if connected
   to a NAT64 network via that interface.

   IPv4-as-a-Service: a deployment scenario when end hosts are expected
   to operate in IPv6-only mode by default and IPv4 addresses can be
   assigned to some hosts if those hosts explicitly opt-in to receiving
   IPv4 addresses;




Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


   IPv6-mostly network: a network which provides NAT64 (possibly with
   DNS64) service as well as IPv4 connectivity.  Such deployment
   scenario allows operators to incrementaly turn off IPv4 on end hosts,
   while still providing IPv4 to devices which require IPv4 to operate.
   But, IPv6-only capable devices need not be assigned IPv4 addresses.

   IPv6-Only network: a network which does not provide routing
   functionality for IPv4 packets.  Such network may or may not allow
   intra-LAN IPv4 connectivity.  IPv6-Only network usually provide
   access to IPv4-only resources via NAT64 [RFC6147].

   NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to
   IPv4 Servers [RFC6146];

   RA: Router Advertisement, a message used by IPv6 routers to advertise
   their presence together with various link and Internet parameters
   [RFC4861];

   DNS64: a mechanism for synthesizing AAAA records from A records
   [RFC6147];

2.  Reasons to Signal IPv6-Only Support in DHCPv4 Packets

   For networks which contains both IPv6-capable and IPv4-requiring
   devices and utilizes DHCP for configuring IPv4 network stack on
   hosts, it seems only natural to leverage the same protocol to signal
   that IPv4 is discretional on the given segment.  Such approach limits
   the attack surface to DHCP-related attacks without introducing new
   vulnerable elements.

   Another benefit of using DHCPv4 for signalling is that IPv4 will be
   disabled only if both the client and the server indicate IPv6-only
   capability.  It allows IPv6-only capable clients to turn off IPv6
   only upon receiving an explicit signal from the network and operate
   in dual-stack or IPv4-only mode otherwise.

   Coexistence of IPv6-only, dual-stack and even IPv4-only hosts on the
   same LAN would not only allow network administrators to preserve
   scarce IPv4 addresses but would also drastically simplify incremental
   deployment of IPv6-only networks, positively impacting IPv6 adoption.

3.  IPv6-Only Preferred Option

3.1.  Option format







Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


                      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                     |     Type      |   Length      |
                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


                Figure 1: IPv6-Only Preferred Option Format

   Fields:

   Type   8-bit identifier of the IPv6-Only Preferred option type as
          assigned by IANA: TBD
   Length  8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of the option (excluding
          the Type and Length Fields. The server MUST set the length
          field to 0. The receiver MUST ignore the  IPv6-Only Preferred
          option if the the length field value is not 0.

3.2.  DHCPv4 Client Behaviour

   A DHCP client SHOULD allow a device administrator to configure
   IPv6-only preferred mode either for a specific interface (to indicate
   that the device is IPv6-only capable if connected to a NAT64 network
   via that interface) or for all interfaces.  If only a specific
   interface is configured as IPv6-only capable the DHCP client MUST NOT
   be considered as an IPv6-capable for the purpose of sending/receiving
   DHCP packets over any other interfaces.

   Clients not capable of operating in an IPv6-only NAT64 environment
   MUST NOT include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the Parameter
   Request List of any DHCP packets and MUST ignore that option in
   packets received from DHCP servers.

   IPv6-only capable clients SHOULD include the IPv6-only Preferred
   option in the Parameter Request List in DHCPDISCOVER and DHCPREQUEST
   messages.

   If the client did not include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
   DHCPDISCOVER or DHCPREQUEST message it MUST ignore the the IPv6-only
   Preferred option in any messages received from the server.

   If the client includes the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
   Parameter Request List and the DHCPOFFER message from the server
   contains a valid IPv6-only Preferred option, the client MUST NOT
   configure the IPv4 address provided in the DHCPOFFER.  The client
   SHOULD stop the DHCP configuration process for at least V6ONLY_WAIT
   seconds or until a network attachement event happens.  The host MAY
   disable IPv4 stack completely for V6ONLY_WAIT seconds or until the
   network disconnection event heppens.



Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


   The client SHOULD include the IPv6-only Preferred option in
   DHCPREQUEST messages (after receiving a DHCPOFFER without this
   option, for a INIT-REBOOT, or when renewing or rebinding a leased
   address).  If the DHCP server responds with a DHCPACK that includes
   the IPv6-only Preferred option, the client MAY send a DHCPRELEASE
   message and MAY either stop the DHCP configuration process or disable
   IPv4 stack completely for V6ONLY_WAIT seconds or until the network
   disconnection event heppens.  Alternatively the client MAY continue
   to use the assigned IPv4 address until further DHCP reconfiguration
   events.

   If the client includes the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
   Parameter Request List and the server responds with DHCPOFFER message
   without a valid IPv6-only Preferred option, the client MUST proceed
   as normal with a DHCPREQUEST.

   If the client waits for multiple responses and the server the client
   sends the DHCPREQUEST to did not include the IPv6-only Preferred
   option in the DHCPOFFER, the client MUST NOT stop the DHCP
   configuration process or disable IPv4 stack even if other servers
   include the IPv6-only Preferred option in their responses.

   When an IPv6-only capable client receives the IPv6-Only Preferred
   option from the server, The client MAY configure IPv4 link-local
   address [RFC3927].  In that case IPv6-Only capable devices might
   still be able to communicate over IPv4 to other devices on the link.

3.3.  DHCPv4 Server Behaviour

   The DHCP server SHOULD have a configuration option to mark the given
   DHCP pool as belonging to an IPv6-mostly network segment.

   The server MUST NOT include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
   DHCPOFFER or DHCPACK message if the YIADDR field in the message does
   not belong to a pool configured as IPv6-mostly.  The server MUST NOT
   include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the DHCPOFFER or DHCPACK
   message if the option was not present in the Parameter Request List
   sent by the client.

   If the IPv6-only Preferred option is present in the Parameter Request
   List received from the client and the corresponding DHCP pool is
   explicitly configured as belonging to an IPv6-mostly network segment,
   the server MUST include respond with the DHPCOFFER or DHCPACK
   message.  If the pool is explicitly configured with a dedicated IPv4
   address to be returned to IPv6-only capable clients the server MUST
   specify that address as the client's network address and MUST NOT
   verify its uniqueness.  Otherwise the server SHOULD follow the
   recommendations in [RFC2131].  The client is not expected to use that



Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


   IPv4 address so if the client responds with the DHCPREQUEST message
   for that address the server SHOULD respond with DHCPNAK.

   If a client includes both a Rapid-Commit option [RFC4039] and
   IPv6-Only Preferred option in the DHCPDISCOVER message the server
   SHOULD NOT honor the Rapid-Commit option if the response woul contain
   the IPv6-only Preferred option to the client.  It SHOULD instead
   respond with a DHCPOFFER so that the IP address does not need to be
   reserved for the client until the lease expires.

3.4.  Configuration Variables

      V6ONLY_WAIT The minimum time the client SHOULD stop the DHCP
                  configuration process for. MUST be no less than 300
                  seconds. Default: 1800 seconds

4.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA is requested to assign a new DHCP Option code for the
   IPv6-Only Preferred option from the BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP
   Options registry, located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-
   dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml#options .  If possible,
   please assign option code 108.

                  +----------------------------+-------+
                  | Option Name                | Type  |
                  +----------------------------+-------+
                  | IPv6-only Preferred option | (TBD) |
                  +----------------------------+-------+

                                  Table 1

5.  Security Considerations

   The proposed mechanism is not introducing any new security
   implications.  While clients using the IPv6-only Preferred option are
   vunerable to attacks related to a rogue DHCP server, enabling
   IPv6-only Preferred option does not provide an attacker with any
   additional mechanisms.

   It should be noted that disabling IPv4 on a host upon receiving the
   IPv6-only Preferred option from the DHCP server protects the host
   from IPv4-related attacks and therefore could be considered a
   security feature.







Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


6.  Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
   review and feedback: Bernie Volz.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.

   [RFC3927]  Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
              Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3927, May 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3927>.

   [RFC4039]  Park, S., Kim, P., and B. Volz, "Rapid Commit Option for
              the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4
              (DHCPv4)", RFC 4039, DOI 10.17487/RFC4039, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4039>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC6146]  Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
              NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
              Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
              April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.








Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP     December 2019


   [RFC6147]  Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
              Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
              Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.

   [RFC6877]  Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
              Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
              RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.

Authors' Addresses

   Lorenzo Colitti
   Google
   Shibuya 3-21-3
   Shibuya, Tokyo  150-0002
   JP

   Email: lorenzo@google.com


   Jen Linkova
   Google
   1 Darling Island Rd
   Pyrmont, NSW  2009
   AU

   Email: furry@google.com


   Michael C. Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works

   Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
   URI:   http://www.sandelman.ca/


   Tomek Mrugalski
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com






Colitti, et al.           Expires June 6, 2020                  [Page 9]


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