Where the source and/or destination node of an IPv6 communication is multi-addressed, a mechanism is required for the initiating node to select the most appropriate address pair for the communication. RFC 3484 (IPv6 Default Address Selection) [RFC3484] (Draves, R., “Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6),” February 2003.) defines such a mechanism for nodes to perform source and destination address selection. While RFC3484 recognised the need for implementations to be able to change the policy table, it did not define how this could be achieved. Requirements have now emerged for administrators to be able to configure and potentially dynamically change RFC 3484 policy from a central control point, and for (nomadic) hosts to be able to obtain the policy for the network that they are currently attached to without manual user intervention. This text discusses considerations for such policy changes, including examples of cases where a change of policy is required, and the likely frequency of such policy changes. This text also includes some discussion on the need to also update RFC 3484, where default policies are currently defined.
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 January 12, 2011.
Copyright (c) 2010 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.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
2. Issues to Consider
3. Other Related Work
4. Drivers for Policy Changes
4.1. Internal vs External Triggers
4.2. Administratively Triggered Changes
4.3. Start-up vs Running Changes
4.4. Nomadic Nodes
4.5. Multiple Interface Nodes
5. How Dynamic?
6. Considerations when Obtaining Policy
6.1. Changes in Available Address(es)
6.3. Manual Configuration?
6.4. Policy Conflicts
7. Solution Space
7.1. Is default policy used?
7.2. Pull model
7.3. Push model
7.4. Routing Hints
7.5. Conflicts/Merging Policies
8. On RFC3484 Default Policies
10. Security Considerations
11. IANA Considerations
13. Informative References
§ Author's Address
There have been various operational issues observed with Default Address Selection for IPv6 (RFC 3484) [RFC3484] (Draves, R., “Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6),” February 2003.), as described in RFC 5220 [RFC5220] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, “Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484 Default Rules,” July 2008.). As as a result, there has been some demand for hosts to be able to have their policy tables, and potentially the rules described in RFC 3484, modified dynamically. Such changes may apply to 'static' hosts in a network where policies or topologies change, or different default policy to that described in RFC 3484 is required, or for nomadic hosts within a network for which policies may vary depending on their location within the network.
There are a number of aspects to consider in the context of such address selection policy updates.
First is the frequency for which such updates are likely to be required; this can be determined largely from identifying the scenarios in which policy changes will be required. This may include overriding default operating system policies on startup, as well as changes while a system is running. We discuss this topic in Section 4.
Second, by understanding how dynamic the policy update mechanism needs to be we should be better placed to determine what types of update approaches best meet those needs. There may be other considerations of course, e.g. whether the systems are in managed or unmanaged environments, and whether the solution should be proactive or automated, as discussed in [I‑D.ietf‑6man‑addr‑select‑sol] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, “Solution approaches for address-selection problems,” March 2010.). Section 5 covers these issues.
Third, if we assume some policy update mechanism is defined we should consider how hosts and systems may become aware that a policy change has happened, and how policy can be disseminated in a timely fashion. Thus we need to understand what kind of triggers can be identified that can be used for invoking the policy table update mechanism, e.g. address re-obtainment, address lifetime expiration, or perhaps policy lifetime expiration. We also need to consider what other factors may come into play, e.g. potential policy conflicts. This is discussed in Section 6.
After analysing these issues, we can make some initial comments regarding the potential solution spaces, and what models may be well suited, e.g. push vs pull models, and what other methods might assist us, e.g. hints from local routing tables. This is covered in Section 7.
Finally, we should assess whether these update solutions require or need RFC 3484 to be updated. In some instances, we might envision solutions that simply use RFC 3484 as guidelines and provide sufficient controls to address the current limitations in the RFC. However, as noted in RFC 5220 [RFC5220] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, “Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484 Default Rules,” July 2008.), not all the operational issues observed to date can be remedied by updating RFC 3484 alone. There is already a good analysis of issues with RFC 3484 and how the text could be revised [I‑D.arifumi‑6man‑rfc3484‑revise] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, “Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision,” October 2009.)).
We note that there is some existing work in defining Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms [RFC5221] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, “Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms,” July 2008.), and some initial work has been done in the solution space (for a DHCP-based method) [I‑D.fujisaki‑dhc‑addr‑select‑opt] (Fujisaki, T., Matsumoto, A., and R. Hiromi, “Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6,” March 2010.), but these are not discussed here. While RFC 5221 assumes that a dynamic policy update mechanism of some form is available, this draft is primarily aimed at understanding the scenarios and triggers for policy changes, to better inform future detailed solution discussions.
A draft discussing methods for multihoming without NAT66 [I‑D.troan‑multihoming‑without‑nat66] (Troan, O., Miles, D., Matsushima, S., Okimoto, T., and D. Wing, “IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation,” May 2010.) has been published recently. This draft includes a requirement for a method to distribute address selection policy to support IPv6 multihoming.
If we wish to determine how frequent address selection policy changes are likely to be, we need to understand why such policies might need to be changed, for particular sites or networks.
One reference text for potential drivers for policy change is RFC 5220, in which operational issues with the existing policies described in RFC 3484 are listed. Each subsection of this document gives a reason why the existing rules or policy tables in RFC 3484 may not be sufficient in certain cases. There have been some significant changes to IPv6 since RFC 3484 was drafted which have impacted the RFC, e.g. the introduction of Unique Local Addresses (ULAs), and concerns about the impact of using longest prefix matching on (DNS) round-robin load balancing.
In summary, the issues raised in RFC 5220 were:
The authors of RFC 5220 noted which of these issues can be solved just by changes to the RFC 3484 policy table, marked (*) above, and which cannot. It is interesting to note that issues largely related to internal networking and (administrative) policy decisions can be handled this way. However some issues need changes beyond just policy table updates.
When considering drivers or triggers that may lead to a requirement for the policy to change, we can divide the problem space into those drivers that are external to a site or network and those internal to it. In the case of the first two examples above, a dynamic policy table update may be required by externally driven routing changes, assuming the site uses a dynamic routing protocol intra-site and the routing protocol is configured to reflect changes of extra-site routing topology.
If a site is multihomed using BGP and advertising a single prefix upstream, then no policy table manipulation is required for global address preferences. However where a site is multihomed by receiving a prefix from each upstream provider, each host will have multiple addresses and many need policy table manipulation. In such a case, the policy table of hosts may need to be updated according to the routing policy.
It should be noted that we have other mechanisms for dynamic routing topology change, for example deprecating one of the advertised prefixes, e.g. when one of the upstream links has a problem. But such mechanisms may only help in some cases, and do not remove the need for agility in the RFC 3484 policy.
Other examples of external factors include a new transition mechanism being defined (e.g. as with the emergence of Teredo using 2001::/32 as assigned by IANA) and its inclusion being required in the policy table (at the time of writing Teredo is not included in RFC 3484, though some operating systems have added it), a new address block being defined, or a site renumbering event that could be triggered by an upstream provider's actions.
The other examples above are, in the general case, where the site administrator chooses to change a local policy and in doing so triggers the need for policy table updates. Some of these changes one might assume to be set once, and to change rarely, for example:
However it may be the case that different parts of a site have different policies, or policies are changed in a rolling fashion across a site over time as IPv6 and/or ULAs are introduced (for example). This may happen where the administrator prefers a gradual introduction of new policy in a phased operation across a site, rather than changing policy across the whole site in one operation.
Other administrative changes may occur more frequently, e.g.:
It's possible that provider links may vary on a daily basis, or by time of day. The frequency of such policy changes will depend on the frequency that the administrator wishes to change the implied traffic engineering policies.
When a host starts up it may be configured with the default RFC 3484 policies. At this stage a number of addresses may be configured on a number of interfaces on the host. At this time it may be desirable for the host to be able to receive the site-specific policy updates as a start-up override from the RFC 3484 defaults.
Other policy changes may later be required while the host is running. Ideally the same protocol should be used for the start-up and running state update mechanism.
A host may be nomadic within a site and as a result it may see the preferred policy change depending on the host's topological location within that site. Such a host should be capable of receiving policy updates in a timely fashion as it migrates within the network.
While this may be one case of 'running changes' described above, the policy changes are required due to the host's new point of attachment, not changes of policy to the current point of attachment. The frequency of updates are thus depend ant on the frequency of host mobility to parts of the network that have differing policies.
It is worth noting that the point at which a nomadic host configures its network settings would be an appropriate time for it to also receive any specific address selection policy for its point of attachement.
In considering scenarios where hosts may be multi-addressed and require policy to assist in address selection, the issue of hosts with multiple interfaces arises.
A host may have a variety of reasons to have multiple interfaces. It may for example have WiFi and 3G interfaces, and be capable of sending or receiving data over either interface. In some cases these interfaces may fall within the same administrative domain (ISP) and in some cases they may not. Another example would be the case of a host with a VPN connection established, where address selection may be affected by the choice of whether the VPN connection is used or not. In this case it is interesting to note the choice to use the VPN tunnel for all, or just VPN home site traffic, is typically left as a choice for the user via a tickbox selection.
Handling multiple interface nodes, and the possibility of conflicting policy being retrieved via each, is clearly an important problem today, but we note that RFC 3484 is currently defined as a per-node, not per-interface, mechanism. However, for RFC 3484, and its potential update mechanisms, to be applicable to typical 'real world' usage patterns, we should consider the multiple interface scenarios.
In the case where a host has multiple interfaces there are two likely scenarios:
It has been suggested that an RFC 3484 policy table is required on a per-interface basis, though the choice of interface may itself be determined by the (destination) address selection process. As stated above, RFC 3484's policy table is currently defined to be node-wide. The node-wide problem is destination address selection when the source address is implied from a selected interface.
We note that there are some new, initial drafts published recently on the multiple interface problem [I‑D.blanchet‑mif‑problem‑statement] (Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, “Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement,” June 2009.), and on a number of possible DHCPv6 extensions, e.g. to inform hosts about routing information to assist the selection process [I‑D.dec‑dhcpv6‑route‑option] (Dec, W. and R. Johnson, “DHCPv6 Route Option,” March 2010.), [I‑D.sun‑mif‑address‑policy‑dhcp6] (Sun, T., Deng, H., and X. Duan, “Address Selection Policy Configuration by DHCPv6 Option,” March 2009.), [I‑D.sarikaya‑mif‑dhcpv6solution] (Sarikaya, B., Xia, F., and P. Seite, “DHCPv6 Extension for Configuring Hosts with Multiple Interfaces,” July 2010.). Another new draft proposes a DHCPv6 option to convey policy directly to a host [I‑D.sun‑mif‑route‑config‑dhcp6] (Sun, T. and H. Deng, “Route Configuration by DHCPv6 Option for Hosts with Multiple Interfaces,” March 2009.). These drafts fall within the remit of the new IETF mif WG, which at the time of writing was only recently formed. We note that the mif WG may produce relevant work with respect to the analysis of RFC 3484 policy changes, but at this stage no such output exists for inclusion.
The discussion above suggests that many of the potential triggers for policy table changes are 'one-off' in nature, i.e. a site makes a one-time policy change. It is thus unlikely that such administrative changes will be frequent.
There are some cases where updates may be required to be more frequent. In the example of a site which is implementing the gradual introduction of new policy across its network, while the frequency of changes may be relatively high, there is still probably only one or a small number of changes per host.
There may be a higher rate of policy changes within a site if there are nomadic hosts within the site, and these are roaming frequently to parts of the network where differing policies are in effect. In such cases it may be useful for a host to know whether or not the default RFC 3484 (or soon to be 3484bis) policies are in effect or not, and for there to be a 'cheap' way for the host to discover this.
Perhaps the biggest cause of policy change lies where the preferred links or paths for certain destinations change frequently over time as (typically) traffic engineering requirements change. In some networks this may be a daily change, or change between states at different times of day. It is not clear how common these cases are, and thus further input is welcomed here. Our belief is that cases where dynamic changes are used heavily are rare.
So, unless a site or network has rapidly changing traffic engineering requirements, or includes a high number of mobile nodes where the nodes are roaming to areas of the network with differing address selection related policies, the frequency of updates is likely to be relatively low. Most update requests will simply occur when a host starts up, and such requests for policy will be little different in frequency to other configuration requests. Other types of network change that may require a host to change its RFC 3484 policy behaviour are probably also likely to have associated changes with other host configuration data.
When a policy change is made, or a host migrates to a part of the network with different policies, that change of policy needs to be conveyed to the host. It needs to be made available and applied without restarting every affected host.
One might assume at first that when a host observes a change in its addresses, it should re-obtain the selection policy, but this may not always be the case. Not all policy changes are tied to a host changing one or more addresses, though it may be acceptable to query regardless for new policy (if a pull model is used) when address information changes.
As described above, it may be sufficient for a host to know when a policy is changed, or that perhaps the default policy is - or is not - in effect in its current locale.
In many, but not all, cases a policy change will need to be synchronised across a network. Thus there is a general issue of timely and synchronised dissemination of new policy. If the policy is distributed via the same mechanism that informs a host of a change of address(es), the application of the policy should be synchronised sufficiently with the address change. However, not all hosts may receive the update information at the same time, e.g. where new address assignments may be dependent on DHCP lease timers.
Where hosts use DHCPv6 for address information, in the absence of some form of Reconfigure message, a host may see a delay in policy changes being notified. One possible tool to help here is the DHCPv6 Lifetime Option (RFC4242) [RFC4242] (Venaas, S., Chown, T., and B. Volz, “Information Refresh Time Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” November 2005.), which was originally introduced to assist with network renumbering events.
There are scenarios where a host may wish to ignore conveyed policy. For example, the manager of a mobile node may not want to have its preferences changed by a visited network. In such a case one might argue that the mobile node should use MIPv6 with whatever its home network policies are.
The implication again is that there could be value in having a flag of some kind to inform a host whether network it is in uses the default RFC 3484 policy, which would then allow each end system to decide if it should get an (overriding) local policy or not. One problem with this though is that some operating systems already implement 'modified' RFC 3484 behaviour, so we would have to be sure that all nodes have common understanding of what the 'default' is (in principle, that all nodes implement any future revised RFC 3484 default policy table).
In the case of a host operating in a single administrative domain, consistent policy should be available from whichever policy distribution mechanism provides the information. However, in scenarios where a host is multi-addressed from multiple providers (e.g. a SOHO network with differing DSL and cable providers, or a user in a coffee shop initiating a VPN connection to their home network) there is likely to be some conflicts in the received RFC 3484 policy information.
The question then is whether the policy update mechanism itself needs to handle such potential conflicts, choosing one or ther other or merging by some set of heuristics, or whether the policy update mechansism should be viewed independently of the conflict handling. The view of the design team was that distributing policy is a network problem, while handling conflicts is a host problem.
An initial draft on handling policy conflicts has been released separately [I‑D.arifumi‑6man‑addr‑select‑conflict] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, “Considerations of address selection policy conflicts,” March 2010.) given the topic is beyond the scope of this draft.
In this section we make some initial observations on the possible solution space.
There could be some mechanism to indicate to a host that the local network has a modified RFC 3484 policy in use, and thus that a revised policy table is available (and should be used). Alternatively a host could simply always attempt to obtain local RFC 3484 policy on startup. Regardless, it should also be possible for a host to detect that policy has changed (whether 'around' the host, or due to the host being nomadic). The method to convey this chnage to a host would depend on whether a push or pull configuration method is used.
It is assumed by 'default' policy here we refer to the revised/updated RFC3484 specification, when that is produced.
One potential solution is that a host uses a similar mechanism for RFC 3484 policy updates as is used for obtaining other configuration data, for example DHCPv6 [RFC3315] (Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, “Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” July 2003.). For hosts using stateless autoconfiguration, policy could be available via stateless DHCPv6 [RFC3736] (Droms, R., “Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6,” April 2004.).
There are also already some initial proposals from the IETF mif WG on using DHCPv6 to deliver (mainly routing oriented) information to hosts, e.g. [I‑D.sun‑mif‑route‑config‑dhcp6] (Sun, T. and H. Deng, “Route Configuration by DHCPv6 Option for Hosts with Multiple Interfaces,” March 2009.), [I‑D.dec‑dhcpv6‑route‑option] (Dec, W. and R. Johnson, “DHCPv6 Route Option,” March 2010.), [I‑D.sun‑mif‑address‑policy‑dhcp6] (Sun, T., Deng, H., and X. Duan, “Address Selection Policy Configuration by DHCPv6 Option,” March 2009.) and [I‑D.sarikaya‑mif‑dhcpv6solution] (Sarikaya, B., Xia, F., and P. Seite, “DHCPv6 Extension for Configuring Hosts with Multiple Interfaces,” July 2010.). These methods assume entities that have timely knowledge of routing information can provide equally timely hints to hosts on address selection, via DHCPv6. At this stage we believe that distributing RFC 3484 policy, as configured by an administrator, is a more practical use of DHCPv6. If future methods offer additional 'hints' based on routing information, this becomes part of the 'policy conflict' problem to be solved.
The DHCP model allows individual nodes to potentially have differing policy, even when on the same subnet.
For hosts only using stateless autoconfiguration, in environments without DHCPv6, it can be argued that since the network is not managed, there is not likely to be any 'managed' policy to push to the hosts. In such environments hosts may perhaps more usefully use techniques such as router hints to make informed selections, as discussed later in this text.
It may of course be possible to piggy back policy information to a host in a Router Advertisement message, though initial consensus seems to be that this is a less attractive approach. However, we may find that RAs may be a good place to indicate whether a default policy is in place or not, to avoid hosts requesting non-existent updates via DHCPv6.
As mentioned above, if a host has routing hints available, it may be able to make more informed selections. For example, a protocol could be specified for a node to query an on-link or remote (e.g. edge) router for 'hints'. Having hosts themselves participate in routing is generally not desirable. At this stage we can simply note that address selection might be simplified when some hint based on routing state is provided to the end system, but such mechanisms are out of scope for this text.
It is noted in [I‑D.carpenter‑renum‑needs‑work] (Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, “Renumbering still needs work,” January 2010.) that:
"In an environment where a site has more than one upstream link to the outside world, the site might have more than one valid routing prefix. In such cases, typically all valid routing prefixes within a site will have the same prefix length. Also in such cases, it might be desirable for hosts that obtain their addresses using DHCPv6 to learn about the availability of upstream links dynamically, by deducing from periodic IPv6 RA messages which routing prefixes are currently valid. This application seems possible within the IPv6 Neighbour Discovery architecture, but does not appear to be clearly specified anywhere."
The same thought seems relevant to address selection. There's no point selecting a source address whose prefix is not being advertised in RAs.
While routing and prefix hints may help a host make selection decisions, we should consider to what extent we wish to 'burden' a host with holding such information. If a host is to determine and cache routing hints, this may require an update of RFC 3484 policy table syntax to support preference for address pairs.
As discussed above, the solution used to allow a host to determine its address selection policy should be considered separately from the heuristics a host may use to choose how to resolve any policy conflicts where configurations are received from multiple sources. We believe the conflict handling should be progressed in a separate text, but have included some initial considerations here.
For whatever mechanism is used to distribute RFC 3484 policy, it is not yet clear whether entire policy tables will be made available, or simply differences to the 'default', and thus whether policies may need to be merged, or overridden. Some policy conflicts will be unresolvable, e.g. one prefers IPv4 over IPv6, the other vice-versa. It may be simpler, though less efficient, for whole policy tables to be distributed, to avoid the merger problem.
One option may be to split the policy table into destination address selection and source address selection tables, with the policy distribution only updating the source address selection. Whether this might make merging policies simpler or in fact more complex would require further study.
It may also be possible to indicate some priority value for a policy, e.g. the priority of the interface it is received on. Or if there are multiple policies in conflict, a host could simply choose to fall back to use the default RFC 3484 policy.
A host also needs to know how to decide when to accept a policy. We could simplify the discussion by assuming a host is located in and only nomadic within a single site with one administrative controlling entity.
RFC 3484 includes text about mechanisms for changing policy, having 'policy hooks' and having a configurable policy table. The implication is that defaults can be changed, and the text gives examples of this in Section 10. However, issues with RFC 3484 are broader that just policy table updates - it remains the case that some operational issues with RFC 3484 are not just related to the table, but on rules themselves, e.g. longest prefix match (affecting DNS round robin as described in [RFC5220] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, “Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484 Default Rules,” July 2008.)).
While discussing default policy, we noted that the word 'default' has to be carefully defined, and also what the scope of this 'default' is. The default policy should be whatever RFC 3484, or its -bis version, states. At present some operating systems have already modified their default, based on operational feedback (e.g. on ULAs, on Teredo prefixes, or on the DNS round-robin problem). Currently we assume RFC3484 and changes to it will remain node-specific.
It certainly seems the case that the issues raised in RFC 5220, and discussed in [I‑D.arifumi‑6man‑rfc3484‑revise] (Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, “Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision,” October 2009.) mean that an update of RFC 3484 is required, if only because some of the issues (as highlighted earlier) cannot be addressed by updating the policy table alone. An update would also give us some hope that all operating systems might have a common 'default'.
We do not note any specific comments here on how RFC 3484 should be updated. Other drafts have made suggestions. There are some discussions on ideas however, e.g. on the semantics of labels, and in adding ULAs explicitly to the default policy table.
There have also been new issues identified, e.g. on how one differentiates between IPv4+NAT access or IPv6 transitional access (e.g. via Teredo) to a dual-stack destination (the IPv4 private address inside the NAT is implicitly global, although its explicit scope is local) [I‑D.denis‑v6ops‑nat‑addrsel] (Denis-Courmont, R., “Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs,” February 2009.). This illustrates that new issues may continue to be identified through growing IPv6 operational experience.
It is hard to predict exactly what features people will want to add to address selection algorithms in the future. Ideally we should not preclude future flexibility. It seems clear that any RFC 3484 update has two aspects: one that uses the existing policy table capability, and one that might change associated algorithms.
We believe the general scope of this text applies to site and enterprise networks, where an administrator may need to change policies over time, but that it includes nomadic nodes within the site, which may migrate to different parts of the site where different policies are required. We believe a key outcome of this text should be progression of a solution to allow an enterprise network manager to configure their hosts with address selection policies that differ from the RFC 3484 default, across all or part of their network, and possibly changing polciy with time.
It is clear there may be environments which might introduce conflicting policies from different administrative domains, e.g. a SOHO network with two ISP links, or an enterprise node running a VPN to a remote network. We conclude that the policy distribution mechanism is a network task, while policy conflict handling is a host task, and thus argue that we should progress the policy distribution solution while analysing conflict handling (which is not unique to this domain) in a separate text.
There is clearly a need to revise RFC 3484, to create a new default policy table for address selection, and to improve non policy table algorithms. This should be expedited. We also note that RFC 3484 is currently defined on a per-node, not per-interface basis, which we believe should remain the status quo for the scope of this work. The node-wide problem is destination address selection.
The scope of this text includes issues affecting the design of a protocol to allow a host's RFC 3484 policy table to be updated. From discussion of update triggers/scenarios, we believe rapid updates are unlikely unless a node is in a network which has (very) dynamic external traffic engineering, or many nodes are mobile between parts of the network with differing policy. It's thus probably appropriate to use a similar method to obtain RFC 3484 policy as to obtain other configuration data.
In terms of push or pull-based methods for policy distribution, our discussions suggest that a push-based hint to hosts as to whether they are in a network where a (non default) local policy applies or not could be useful. This might be indicated via a RA option. In terms of obtaining policy, a pull-based solution, such as DHCPv6, may be appropriate in managed environments (where managed non-default policies are most likely to be in effect). DHCPv6 is also preferable if individual hosts on a subnet require different policies.
Further comments on this draft are welcomed.
There are no extra Security consideration for this document.
There are no extra IANA consideration for this document.
The design team working on this draft is: Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Marc Blanchet, Tim Chown, Francis Dupont, Tim Enos, TJ Evans, Brian Haberman, Tony Hain, Ruri Hiromi, Suresh Krishnan, Arifumi Matsumoto, Janos Mohacsi, Sebastien Roy, Teemu Savolainen, Fujisaki Tomohiro, and John Zhao.
We also acknowledge comments received from IETF WG mail lists, including those by Brian Carpenter and Dave Thaler.
|[RFC3484]||Draves, R., “Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6),” RFC 3484, February 2003 (TXT).|
|[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 (TXT).|
|[RFC3736]||Droms, R., “Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6,” RFC 3736, April 2004 (TXT).|
|[RFC4242]||Venaas, S., Chown, T., and B. Volz, “Information Refresh Time Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6),” RFC 4242, November 2005 (TXT).|
|[RFC5220]||Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, “Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484 Default Rules,” RFC 5220, July 2008 (TXT).|
|[RFC5221]||Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, “Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms,” RFC 5221, July 2008 (TXT).|
|[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol]||Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, “Solution approaches for address-selection problems,” draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-03 (work in progress), March 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise]||Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, “Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision,” draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 (work in progress), October 2009 (TXT).|
|[I-D.fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-opt]||Fujisaki, T., Matsumoto, A., and R. Hiromi, “Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6,” draft-fujisaki-dhc-addr-select-opt-09 (work in progress), March 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.blanchet-mif-problem-statement]||Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, “Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement,” draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01 (work in progress), June 2009 (TXT).|
|[I-D.dec-dhcpv6-route-option]||Dec, W. and R. Johnson, “DHCPv6 Route Option,” draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option-03 (work in progress), March 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.sun-mif-address-policy-dhcp6]||Sun, T., Deng, H., and X. Duan, “Address Selection Policy Configuration by DHCPv6 Option,” draft-sun-mif-address-policy-dhcp6-01 (work in progress), March 2009 (TXT).|
|[I-D.sarikaya-mif-dhcpv6solution]||Sarikaya, B., Xia, F., and P. Seite, “DHCPv6 Extension for Configuring Hosts with Multiple Interfaces,” draft-sarikaya-mif-dhcpv6solution-04 (work in progress), July 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.sun-mif-route-config-dhcp6]||Sun, T. and H. Deng, “Route Configuration by DHCPv6 Option for Hosts with Multiple Interfaces,” draft-sun-mif-route-config-dhcp6-01 (work in progress), March 2009 (TXT).|
|[I-D.arifumi-6man-addr-select-conflict]||Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, “Considerations of address selection policy conflicts,” draft-arifumi-6man-addr-select-conflict-02 (work in progress), March 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel]||Denis-Courmont, R., “Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs,” draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00 (work in progress), February 2009 (TXT).|
|[I-D.carpenter-renum-needs-work]||Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, “Renumbering still needs work,” draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-05 (work in progress), January 2010 (TXT).|
|[I-D.troan-multihoming-without-nat66]||Troan, O., Miles, D., Matsushima, S., Okimoto, T., and D. Wing, “IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation,” draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66-00 (work in progress), May 2010 (TXT).|
|Tim Chown (editor)|
|University of Southampton|
|Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ|