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

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Softwire WG                                            T. Mrugalski, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                       ISC
Intended status: Standards Track                            M. Boucadair
Expires: May 3, 2012                                      France Telecom
                                                                O. Troan
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                 X. Deng
                                                   Orange-France Telecom
                                                                  C. Bao
                                                     Tsinghua University
                                                        October 31, 2011


             DHCPv6 Options for Mapping of Address and Port
                 draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-01

Abstract

   Generic mechanism for mapping between an IPv4 prefix, address or
   parts of thereof, and transport layer between ports and an IPv6
   prefix or address is specified in
   [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port].  This is a companion
   document that specifies provisioning mechanism of MAP rules.  It
   defines DHCPv6 options which are meant to be used between Customer
   Edge (CE) devices and DHCPv6 server to obtain necessary parameters to
   configure MAP rules.  Since specification of MAP architecture is
   still expected to evolve, DHCPv6 options may have to evolve too to
   fit the revised MAP specification.


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 May 3, 2012.

Copyright Notice



Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Provisioning mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  DHCPv6 Options Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  MAP Options Cardinality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.2.  MAP Flags Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.3.  MAP Rule Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.4.  Port Parameters Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.5.  MAP Options Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  DHCPv6 Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  DHCPv6 Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13















Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


1.  Introduction

   Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) defined in
   [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port] is a mechanism for
   providing IPv4 connectivity service to end users over a service
   provider's IPv6 network.  It defines both MAP Border Relay (BR)
   router that is located at the edge of a MAP domain and MAP Customer
   Edge (CE) that typically deployed at customers' location.  In a
   residential broadband deployment, CE is sometimes referred to as a
   Residential Gateway (RG) or Customer Premises Equipment (CPE).  A MAP
   CE may also be referred to simply as a "CE" within the context of
   MAP.

   A typical MAP CE adopting MAP rules will serve a residential site
   with one WAN side interface, one or more LAN side interfaces.  To
   operate properly, it requires one or more MAP rules and additional
   informations.  In larger networks it is infeasible to configure such
   parameters manually.  Therefore provisioning mechanism is required.
   Such mechanism is defined in this document.  It leverages existing
   DHCPv6 [RFC3315] protocol to deliver necessary parameters to CE.

   This document defines several DHCPv6 options that allow delivery of
   required information to configure CE.  Configuration of the BR is
   outside of scope of this document.  Definitions of used parameters
   are provided in [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port].

   Since specification of MAP architecture is still expected to evolve,
   DHCPv6 options may have to evolve too to fit the revised MAP
   specification.

   Described proposal is not a dynamic port allocation mechanism.


2.  Conventions

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


3.  Provisioning mechanism

   A typical MAP CE usually acts as a DHCPv6 client and requests options
   that are being provided by a DHCPv6 server located somewhere in ISP
   network.  It would adopt three kinds of parameters independently:






Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   o  MAP mapping rules are defined in Section 4 of
      [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port].  There are several
      mapping rule types defined.  Depending on rule type, number of
      exact parameters may be different.  Rule parameters may contain
      Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix length), Rule IPv4 prefix
      (including prefix length), EA-bits length (in bits) and additional
      values that define Rule Port Parameters.  One MAP CE can receive
      one or more MAP mapping rules from the DHCPv6 server.  One of
      those rules must be the default MAP mapping rule for the initiated
      CE of its own, followed by other mapping rules within the MAP
      domain if necessary.  (Discussion: We chose to remove the text
      that states that first rule is the default one.  DHCPv6 spec
      explicitly states that option order is arbitrary and must not
      affect the way options are processed.  There's also practical
      aspect - some implementations keep options in hash tables, so
      enforcing any specific order is not feasible.  Therefore we need
      to add rule type field.
   o  Transport mode indicates encapsulation or translation mode for MAP
      approach.  It should be conducted on interface-by-interface basis.
   o  Discussion: Qiong Sun also proposed to add deployment mode here.
      Jacni Qin recommends against it.  Deployment mode is to notify
      whether CE is in Hub and spoke mode or mesh.  In Hub and spoke
      mode, only the first default MAP mapping rule is needed in the
      following MAP procedure.  While in mesh mode, all MAP mapping
      rules are included to achieve CE-CE traffic optimization.  Tomek:
      I believe that hub and spoke or mesh affects number of rules, so
      server will provision one (hub and spoke) or many (mesh) rules.
      CE does not need to explicitly be information about this.  It can
      derive this information in a simple manner: if (number of rules>1)
      then mode=mesh else mode=hub_and_spoke.


4.  DHCPv6 Options Format

   DHCPv6 protocol is used for CE provisioning.  Several new options are
   defined for conveying MAP-specific parameters.  Their format and
   usage is defined in the following sections.

   Discussion: As the exact parameters required to configure MAP rules
   and MAP in general are expected to change, this section is expected
   to be updated or even rewritten completely.

   Discussion: Proposed layout assumes that several simple options are
   used.  Such approach simplifies implementation as it is much easier
   for implementors to reuse existing code handling such options.  This
   design choice comes at a cost, however.  Clients must perform checks
   if provided set of options is complete.  Alternatively, it would be
   possible to define one complex option that contains all mandatory



Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   parameters.

   Discussion: It should be noted that initial concept of 4rd
   provisioning was presented in DHC working group meeting.  It used one
   complex option to convey all required parameters.  Strong suggestion
   from DHC WG was to use several simpler options.  Options (possibly
   nested) are preferred over conditional option formatting.  See DHCP
   option guidelines document [I-D.ietf-dhc-option-guidelines]).

4.1.  MAP Options Cardinality

   MAP rule is defined in [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port],
   Section 4.

   Discussion: If you want additional parameter added to the
   OPTION_MAP_RULE option, please update
   [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port] first.

   In each REPLY message, server that supports MAP configuration MUST
   include exactly one OPTION_MAP_FLAGS option.

   MAP_FLAGS option MUST include one or more OPTION_MAP_RULE options.

   For proper operation, additional parameters obtained via other
   options are necessary.  In particular, L parameter is equal to a
   length of a prefix delegated to CE, conveyed in OPTION_IA_PD and
   IAPREFIX, as defined in [RFC3633].  As there is already defined
   mechanism to provision this value, it is not mentioned in MAP
   options.  Nevertheless, it is required for proper MAP rule
   configuration.

4.2.  MAP Flags Option

   .  This option specifies MAP flags.  Currently the only defined flag
   is T - transport mode.  Other flags that affect all mapping rules or
   the whole MAP domain may be specified here at a later date.

   Each MAP_FLAGS option MUST contain one or more MAP Rule Options.













Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


      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_MAP_FLAGS       |         option-length         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   reserved  |T|
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Figure 1: MAP Flags Option

   o  option-code: OPTION_MAP_FLAGS (TBD1)
   o  option-length: 1
   o  reserved: This 7-bits long reserved field is not used and MUST be
      set to 0 by server.  Its value MUST be ignored by clients.
   o  T: 1 bit field that specifies transport mode: translation (0) or
      encapsulation (1).

4.3.  MAP Rule Option

   This option represents a single MAP Rule.  Depending on deployment
   mode, each CE may require one or more MAP Rules to operate properly.

   Server includes one or more MAP Rule Options in MAP Flags option.

   Server MAY send more than one MAP Rule Option, if it is configured to
   do so.  Clients MUST NOT send MAP Rule Option.

























Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


      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_MAP_RULE        |         option-length         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |    rule-id    |  prefix4-len  |  prefix6-len  |    ea-len     |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     |                        rule-ipv6-prefix                       |
     |                                                               |
     |                                                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       rule-ipv4-prefix                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                                                               |
     .                rule sub-options (variable length)             .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



                         Figure 2: MAP Rule Option

   o  option-code: OPTION_MAP_RULE (TBD2)
   o  option-length: TBD octets + size of sub-options
   o  rule-id: 8-bits long indentifier that uniquely identifies this
      rule.
   o  rule-ipv6-prefix: a 128-bits field that specifies an IPv6 prefix
      that appears in a MAP rule.
   o  rule-ipv4-prefix: a 32-bits long field that specifies an IPv4
      prefix that appears in a MAP rule.
   o  prefix4-len: length of the IPv6 prefix, specified in the rule-
      ipv6-prefix field, expressed in bits.
   o  prefix6-len: length of the IPv6 prefix, specified in the rule-
      ipv6-prefix field, expressed in bits.
   o  ea-len: 8-bits long field that specifies Embedded-Address (EA)
      length, expressed in bits.
   o  rule sub-options: a variable field that may contains zero or more
      options that specify additional parameters for this rule.  Those
      options follow standard DHCPv6 option format, as defined in
      [RFC3315], Section 22.1.  Currently there is only one option
      defined that may appear in rule sub-options field.  This option is
      OPTION_MAP_PORTPARAMS, defined in section Section 4.4.  Other
      options may be defined at a later date.

   Each rule is identified with a rule-id.  Rule-id MUST be unique
   within each CE.  Rule ID also defines rule type.  Rule-id 0 denotes
   default rule.  Each CE configuration providioned by DHCPv6 server



Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   MUST provide exactly one default rule (with rule-id set to 0).
   Additional rules MAY be provided as required, but they MUST NOT use
   rule-id value of 0.  Rules with rule-id smaller than 128 are Basic
   Mapping Rules.  Rules with rule-id equal or greater than 128 are
   Forwarding Mapping Rules.

   Note that the default mapping rule is a simplified version of Basic
   Mapping Rule.  While it reuses the same DHCPv6 option format, Default
   Mapping Rule uses only Rule IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv6 Prefix Length and
   IPv4 address that denotes BR IPv4 address.  All other parameters are
   ignored for Default Mapping Rule.

   Discussion: Remi Despres pointed out that not all of prefix4len +
   prefix6-len + ea-len + excluded ports + off are needed.  Only 4 of
   these are independent, so one of them will be removed.

4.4.  Port Parameters Option

   Port Parameters Option specifies Rule Port Paramters.  It MAY appear
   as sub-option in OPTION_MAP_RULE option.  It MUST NOT appear directly
   in a message.

   See [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port], Section 4.1 for
   detailed description of Port mapping algorithm.


      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_MAP_PORTPARAMS     |         option-length         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |         excluded-ports        |A|  rsv  | off |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 3: MAP Port Parameters Option

   o  option-code: OPTION_MAP_PORTPARAMS (TBD3)
   o  option-length: 3
   o  excluded-ports: defines upper bound for range of excluded ports.
      The lower range is 0.  For example, for value 2047, excluded range
      is 0-2047 ports.  Value of 0 (range 0-0) means that no ports are
      excluded.
   o  A: Specifies if the offset is for a (0) or m (1).
   o  rsvd: This 4-bits long field is currently not used and MUST be set
      to 0 by server.  Its value MUST be ingored by clients.
   o  off: specifies offset bits.  Currently defined values are 4 and 6.

   Map Port Parameters Option is optional.  If it is not present, the



Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   following default values are to be assumed:
   1.  Excluded ports: 0-1023 (excluded-ports field value is 1023)
   2.  A: offset is for a (A field value is 0)
   3.  Offset bits: 6 (off field value is 6)
   If administrator wants to provision only one or two of those
   parameters, remaining fields SHOULD be set to their default value.

4.5.  MAP Options Example

   DHCPv6 server provisioning a single MAP Rule to a CE (DHCPv6 client)
   will convey the following MAP options in its messages:


                        <MAP_FLAGS>
                            <MAP_RULE1 rule-id="0"/>
                            <MAP_RULE2 rule-id="1"/>
                            <MAP_RULE3 rule-id="2"/>
                              <MAP_PORTPARAMS>
                            ...
                            <MAP_RULEN/>
                        </MAP_FLAGS>

                       Figure 4: MAP Options Example

   TODO: Make this a more detailed.  This is more of a placeholder, than
   a real example.


5.  DHCPv6 Server Behavior

   RFC 3315 Section 17.2.2 [RFC3315] describes how a DHCPv6 client and
   server negotiate configuration values using the ORO.  As a
   convenience to the reader, we mention here that a server will not
   reply with a MAP Rule Option if the client has not explicitly
   enumerated it on its Option Request Option.

   Server conformant to this specification MUST allow configuration of
   one or more MAP Rule Options.

   Server MUST transmist all configured instances of the Mapping Rule
   Options with all sub-options, if client requested it using
   OPTION_MAP_RULE in its Option Request Option (ORO).  Server MUST
   transmit MAP Flags Option if client requested OPTION_MAP_FLAGS in its
   ORO.

   Rules assignment is a stateless process from the server's
   perspective.  Server does not need to maintain a state of rules
   provisioned to clients, track lifetimes, expire outdated rules etc.



Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   Server SHOULDs assign the same set of rules to all CEs in one MAP
   Domain, unless there are several classes of CEs defined, e.g. regular
   and premium users.  In such case, each class of CEs is expected to
   get the same set of rules.  Server is not expected to track MAP rules
   on a per CE basis.  Exact assignment of specific rules to a specific
   CEs is outside of scope of this document.


6.  DHCPv6 Client Behavior

   Although other use cases are allowed, in typical use case CE will act
   as DHCPv6 client and will request MAP configuration to be assigned by
   the DHCPv6 server located in the ISP network.  A client that supports
   MAP CE functionality and conforms to this specfication MUST include
   OPTION_MAP_RULE and OPTION_MAP_FLAGS in its ORO.

   For proper operation, MAP CE client MUST also request IPv6 address
   (OPTION_IA_NA, defined in [RFC3315]) and prefix delegation
   (OPTION_IA_PD, defined in [RFC3633]).  MAP CE client SHOULD NOT
   initiate DHCPv4 configuration as all parameters are delivered over
   DHCPv6.

   Client SHOULD request OPTION_MAP_RULE and OPTION_MAP_FLAGS options in
   SOLICIT, REQUEST, RENEW, REBIND and INFORMATION-REQUEST messages.

   If client receives more than one OPTION_MAP_RULE option, it MUST use
   all received instances.  It MUST NOT use only the first one, while
   discarding remaining ones.

   Note that system implementing MAP CE functionality may have multiple
   network interfaces, and these interfaces may be configured
   differently; some may be connected to networks that call for MAP, and
   some may be connected to networks that are using normal dual stack or
   other means.  The MAP CE system should approach this specification on
   an interface-by-interface basis.  For example, if the CE system is
   attached to multiple networks that provide the MAP Mapping Rule
   Option, then the CE system MUST configure a MAP connection (i.e. a
   translation or encapsulation) for each interface separately as each
   MAP provides IPv4 connectivity for each distinct interface.  Means to
   bind a MAP configuration to a given interface in a multiple
   interfaces device are out of scope of this document.


7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is kindly requested to allocate DHCPv6 option code referencing
   this document, delineating OPTION_MAP_RULE and OPTION_MAP_FLAGS.




Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


8.  Security Considerations

   Implementation of this document does not present any new security
   issues, but as with all DHCPv6-derived configuration state, it is
   completely possible that the configuration is being delivered by a
   third party (Man In The Middle).  As such, there is no basis to trust
   that the access over the MAP can be trusted, and it should not
   therefore bypass any security mechanisms such as IP firewalls.

   Readers concerned with security of MAP provisioning over DHCPv6 are
   encouraged to familiarize with [I-D.ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6].

   Section XX of [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port] discusses
   security issues of the MAP mechanism.

   Section 23 of [RFC3315] discusses DHCPv6-related security issues.

   Section 6 of [I-D.murakami-softwire-4rd] discusses 4rd related
   security issues that are partially applicable to MAP mechanism.


9.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to allocate DHCPv6 option code TBD1 to the
   OPTION_MAP_FLAGS,TBD2 to OPTION_MAP_RULE and TBD3 to
   OPTION_MAP_PORTPARAMS.  All three values should be added to the
   DHCPv6 option code space defined in Section 24.3 of [RFC3315].


10.  Contributors

   The members of the MAP design team are:
   1.   Congxiao Bao
   2.   Mohamed Boucadair
   3.   Gang Chen
   4.   Maoke Chen
   5.   Wojciech Dec
   6.   Xiaohong Deng
   7.   Remi Despres
   8.   Jouni Korhonen
   9.   Xing Li
   10.  Satoru Matsushima
   11.  Tomasz Mrugalski
   12.  Jacni Qin
   13.  Qiong Sun
   14.  Tina Tsou





Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   15.  Ole Troan
   16.  Dan Wing
   17.  Leaf Yeh
   18.  Jan Zorz


11.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Xiaohong Deng, Congxiao Bao, Jacni Qin,
   Qiong Sun for their comments and suggestions.


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port]
              Troan, O., "Mapping of Address and Port (MAP)",
              draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-01 (work in
              progress), October 2011.

   [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.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.boucadair-dhcpv6-shared-address-option]
              Boucadair, M., Levis, P., Grimault, J., Savolainen, T.,
              and G. Bajko, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              (DHCPv6) Options for Shared IP Addresses Solutions",
              draft-boucadair-dhcpv6-shared-address-option-01 (work in
              progress), December 2009.

   [I-D.ietf-dhc-option-guidelines]
              Hankins, D., "Guidelines for Creating New DHCP Options",
              draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-07 (work in progress),
              October 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6]
              Jiang, S. and S. Shen, "Secure DHCPv6 Using CGAs",



Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


              draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6-03 (work in progress),
              June 2011.

   [I-D.mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-4rd]
              Mrugalski, T., "DHCPv6 Options for IPv4 Residual
              Deployment (4rd)", draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-4rd-00 (work
              in progress), July 2011.

   [I-D.murakami-softwire-4rd]
              Murakami, T., Troan, O., and S. Matsushima, "IPv4 Residual
              Deployment on IPv6 infrastructure - protocol
              specification", draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-01 (work in
              progress), September 2011.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.


Authors' Addresses

   Tomasz Mrugalski (editor)
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 423 1345
   Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@gmail.com


   Ole Troan
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   Telemarksvingen 20
   Oslo  N-0655
   Norway

   Email: ot@cisco.com





Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               October 2011


   Xiaohong Deng
   Orange-France Telecom
   Haidian district
   Beijing  100190
   China

   Email: xiaohong.deng@orange.com


   Congxiao Bao
   CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
   Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   CN

   Phone: +86 10-62785983
   Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn


































Mrugalski, et al.          Expires May 3, 2012                 [Page 14]


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