[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: July 27, 2012                                           X. Deng
                                                          France Telecom
                                                                O. Troan
                                                                   Cisco
                                                                  C. Bao
                                                     Tsinghua University
                                                        January 24, 2012


             DHCPv6 Options for Mapping of Address and Port
                 draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-02

Abstract

   Generic mechanism for mapping between an IPv4 prefix, address or
   parts of thereof, and transport layer 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 July 27, 2012.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the



Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


   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.  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 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.5.1.  BMR Option Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.5.2.  FMR Option Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.5.3.  DMR Option Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  DHCPv6 Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   6.  DHCPv6 Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   9.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13














Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


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 CE adopting MAP rules will serve a residential site with
   one WAN side interface and 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.

   Reader interested in deployment considerations is encouraged to read
   [map-d].


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.  This server provides typical information to configured



Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


   nodes: namely IPv6 address (in IA_NA option) and delegates a prefix
   (in IA_PD option).  Server also provides additional parameters that
   are MAP specific.  In particular, it provides the following
   information:

   o  One or more MAP rules.  MAP mapping rules are defined in Section 4
      of [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port].  There are several
      mapping rule types defined: Basic Mapping Rule (BMR), Forwarding
      Mapping Rule (FMR) and Default Mapping Rule (DMR).  Depending on
      rule type, number of exact useful parameters may be different.
      Rule parameters may contain Rule IPv6 prefix (including prefix
      length), Rule IPv4 prefix (including prefix length), and
      additional values that define Rule Port Parameters.  One MAP CE
      can receive one or more MAP mapping rules from the DHCPv6 server.
      Exactly one of those rules MUST be the default MAP mapping rule
      for the initiated CE of its own, possibly accompanied with
      additional mapping rules within the MAP domain if necessary.
   o  Transport mode indicates encapsulation or translation mode for MAP
      approach.  It should be conducted on interface-by-interface basis.


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
   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]).






Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


4.1.  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 (or any other option), please update
   [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port] first.

   Server that supports MAP configuration and is configured to provision
   requesting CE MUST include exactly one OPTION_MAP option in a REPLY
   message for each MAP domain.  It is envisaged that in typical
   network, there will be only one MAP domain deployed.

   OPTION_MAP option MUST include one or more OPTION_MAP_RULE options.

4.2.  MAP Flags Option

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

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


      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             |         option-length         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |   reserved  |T|                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                               .
     .                     sub-options (variable length)             .
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+

                        Figure 1: MAP Flags Option

   o  option-code: OPTION_MAP (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).
   o  suboptions: sub-options specific to this MAP domain.  MUST contain
      one or more MAP_RULE options.

   It was suggested to also provision information whether MAP network is



Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


   working in hub and spoke or full mesh mode.  That is not necessary,
   as this information can be derived from provisioned MAP rules.  In
   the hub and spoke mode, all traffic should be forwarded using DMR.
   Hub and spoke mode is achieved with a BMR IPv4 rule prefix length of
   32 and no further FMR.

4.3.  MAP Rule Option

   MAP Rule Option 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.


      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         |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |  prefix4-len  |     ea-len    |  prefix6-len  |               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               |
     |                        rule-ipv6-prefix                       |
     |                       (variable length)                       |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                       rule-ipv4-prefix                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     |                                                               |
     .                rule sub-options (variable length)             .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



                         Figure 2: MAP Rule Option

   Explicit parameters are:
   o  option-code: OPTION_MAP_RULE (TBD2)
   o  option-length: length of the option, excluding option-code and
      option-length fields, including length of all sub-options.
   o  prefix4-len: 8 bits long field expressing length of the IPv4
      prefix, specified in the rule-ipv4-prefix field, expressed in
      bits.




Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


   o  ea-len: 8-bits long field that specifies Embedded-Address (EA) -
      length, expressed in bits.  This field is meaningful only for FMR.
      For other rules types, it MUST be set to zero by the server and
      its content MUST be ignored by the clients.
   o  prefix6-len: 8 bits long length of the IPv6 prefix, specified in
      the rule-ipv6-prefix field, expressed in bits.
   o  rule-ipv6-prefix: a variable size field that specifies Rule IPv6
      prefix.  Length of the field is defined by prefix6-len field and
      is rounded up to the nearest octet boundary (if case when prefix6-
      len is not divisible by 8).  In such case additional padding bits
      must be zeroed.
   o  rule-ipv4-prefix: a 32-bits long field that specifies an IPv4
      prefix that appears in a MAP rule.
   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.

   There are also number of implicit parameters that may be derived from
   content of MAP and other options.  In particular, End-User IPv6
   Prefix (or Delegated prefix, specified in IA_PD option, see
   [RFC3633]) and assigned IPv6 address (specified in IA_NA option, see
   [RFC3315]) are needed.  Even though these values are not provided
   explicitely, they are required for proper MAP rule configuration.
   Following implicit parameters may be calculated:
   o  rule type: Depending on rule content, it can be Basic Mapping Rule
      (BMR), Forwarding Mapping Rule (FMR) or Default Mapping Rule
      (DMR).  See Sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 in
      [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port] for detailed
      description of those rules.  A CE node can determine, which
      received rule is the basic rule based on the longest match between
      End-User IPv6 prefix (received in IAPREFIX option in IA_PD) and
      the Rule IPv6 prefix (received in Map Rule Option).  A Default
      rule can be determined by the fact that it has Rule IPv4 prefix of
      0.0.0.0/0.
   o  Embedded Address bits (EA-bits) length can be derived as a length
      of the delegated prefix (specified in prefix-length field in
      IAPREFIX option) decreased by MAP Domain IPv6 prefix length
      (specified in prefix6-len of the DMR).

   It is expected that in a typical simple scenarios, there will be a
   single BMR with a single DMR (that will also work as FMR).  For
   detailed discussion about MAP deployment considerations, see [map-d].

   Note that the DMR is a simplified version of BMR.  While it reuses



Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


   the same DHCPv6 option format, DMR 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.  Client
   MUST ignore those parameters for DMR and server MUST set those
   parameters to zero.

4.4.  Port Parameters Option

   Port Parameters Option specifies optional Rule Port Paramters that
   MAY be provided as part of the Mapping Rule.  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        |   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 a value 1023 means that
      excluded range is 0-1023 ports.  Value of 0 (range 0-0) means that
      no ports are excluded.
   o  rsvd: This 5-bits long field is currently not used and MUST be set
      to 0 by server.  Its value MUST be ingored by clients.
   o  off: 3 bits long field that specifies offset bits.  It is referred
      to as 'a' value and specifies length of a A field, as presented in
      Fig. 1 in [I-D.mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port], Section
      4.1.1.

   TODO: Ole pointed out that excluded-ports are related to the offset.
   with a = 6, j > 0 you exclude 0-1023; with a = 4, j > 0 you exclude
   0-4095; with a = 0, no ports excluded and number of systems ports per
   user given by PSID/PSID length the flag would allow j = 0.

   Map Port Parameters Option is optional.  If it is not present, the
   following default values are assumed:




Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


   1.  Excluded ports: 0-4095 (excluded-ports field value is 4095)
   2.  Offset bits: 4 (off field value is 4)
   If administrator wants to provision only one of those parameters,
   remaining fields SHOULD be set to their default value.

4.5.  MAP Options Examples

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

4.5.1.  BMR Option Example


                         TODO: Reflect example in section 4.2 of MAP draft

                       Figure 4: BMR Option Example

4.5.2.  FMR Option Example


                         TODO: Reflect example in section 4.3 of MAP draft

                       Figure 5: FMR Option Example

4.5.3.  DMR Option Example


                         TODO: Reflect example in section 4.4 of MAP draft

                       Figure 6: DMR Option Examples


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 transmit 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 in its ORO.




Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


   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.
   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 a 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 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 for the purpose of MAP configuration as
   all parameters are delivered over DHCPv6.

   Client supporting MAP functionality SHOULD request OPTION_MAP_RULE
   and OPTION_MAP 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.






Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is kindly requested to allocate DHCPv6 option code TBD1 to the
   OPTION_MAP,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].


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.  Contributors

   The current members of the MAP design team are: Congxiao Bao, Mohamed
   Boucadair, Gang Chen, Maoke Chen, Wojciech Dec, Xiaohong Deng, Jouni
   Korhonen, Xing Li, Satoru Matsushima, Tomasz Mrugalski, Tetsuya
   Murakami, Jacni Qin, Necj Scoberne, Qiong Sun, Tina Tsou, Dan Wing,
   Leaf Yeh and Jan Zorz.

   Former MAP design team members are: Remi Despres.


10.  Acknowledgements

   Authors would like to thank Jacni Qin, Qiong Sun and Remi Despres for
   their comments and suggestions.


11.  References




Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


11.1.  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-02 (work in
              progress), November 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.

11.2.  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",
              draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6-04 (work in progress),
              December 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.




Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


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

   [map-d]    Chen, M., Sun, Q., and G. Chen, "Mapping of Address and
              Port (MAP) - Deployment Considerations",
              draft-mdt-softwire-map-deployment 00, 12 2012.


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
   URI:   http://isc.org/


   Mohamed Boucadair
   France Telecom
   Rennes  35000
   France

   Email: mohamed.boucadair@gmail.com
   URI:   http://www.francetelecom.com/


   Xiaohong Deng
   France Telecom
   Haidian district
   Beijing  100190
   China

   Email: xiaohong.deng@orange.com
   URI:   http://www.francetelecom.com/












Mrugalski, et al.         Expires July 27, 2012                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             MAP DHCPv6 Options               January 2012


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

   Email: ot@cisco.com
   URI:   http://cisco.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 July 27, 2012                [Page 14]


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