draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-00.txt   draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-01.txt 
Dynamic Host Congiguration T. Chown Dynamic Host Congiguration T. Chown
Internet-Draft University of Southampton Internet-Draft University of Southampton
Expires: September 6, 2004 S. Venaas Expires: January 17, 2005 S. Venaas
UNINETT UNINETT
C. Strauf C. Strauf
JOIN (University of Muenster) Technical University of Clausthal
March 8, 2004 July 19, 2004
IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack Issues for DHCPv6 DHCP: IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack Issues
draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-00 draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 6, 2004. This Internet-Draft will expire on January 17, 2005.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
A node may have support for communications using IPv4 and/or IPv6 A node may have support for communications using IPv4 and/or IPv6
protocols. Such a node may wish to obtain IPv4 and/or IPv6 protocols. Such a node may wish to obtain IPv4 and/or IPv6
configuration settings via the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol configuration settings via the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP). The original version of DHCP [1] designed for IPv4 has now (DHCP). The original version of DHCP [1] designed for IPv4 has now
been complemented by a new DHCPv6 [4] for IPv6. This document been complemented by a new DHCPv6 [4] for IPv6. This document
describes issues identified with dual IP version DHCP interactions. describes issues identified with dual IP version DHCP interactions,
the most important aspect of which is how to handle potential
problems in clients processing configuration information received
from DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Configuration scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Configuration scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Dual-stack issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. Dual-stack issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1 Handling multiple responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1 Handling multiple responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2 Multiple interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2 Different administrative management . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3 DNS load balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3 Multiple interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.4 DNS search path issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.4 DNS load balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.5 Administrative management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.5 DNS search path issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.6 DHCP option variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.6 Protocol startup sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.7 Security issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.7 DHCP option variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.8 Security issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Potential solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. Potential solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1 Separate DHCP servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1 Separate DHCP servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2 Single DHCPv6 server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2 Single DHCPv6 server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3 Administrative and other areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3 Administrative and other areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The original specification of the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol The original specification of the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) was made with only IPv4 in mind. That specification has been (DHCP) was made with only IPv4 in mind. That specification has been
subsequently revised, up to the latest version of DHCP [1]. With subsequently revised, up to the latest version of DHCP [1]. With the
the arrival of IPv6, a new DHCP specification for IPv6 has been arrival of IPv6, a new DHCP specification for IPv6 has been designed,
designed, and published as DHCPv6 [4]. and published as DHCPv6 [4].
These protocols allow nodes to communicate via IPv4 or IPv6 to These protocols allow nodes to communicate via IPv4 or IPv6 to
retrieve configuration settings for operation in a managed retrieve configuration settings for operation in a managed
environment. While an IPv6 node may acquire address-related environment. While an IPv6 node may acquire address-related
configuration settings via IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration configuration settings via IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration
[2], such a node may wish to use stateless DHCPv6 [5] for other [2], such a node may wish to use stateless DHCPv6 [5] for other
administratively configured options (e.g. DNS, NTP). administratively configured options (e.g. DNS, NTP).
In early IPv6 deployments, a dual-stack mode of operation is In early IPv6 deployments, a dual-stack mode of operation is
typically used. There will thus be nodes that require both IPv4 and typically used. There will thus be nodes that require both IPv4 and
IPv6 configuration settings. This document discusses issues with IPv6 configuration settings. This document discusses issues with
obtaining such settings in a dual-stack environment. obtaining such settings in a dual-stack environment.
In this document, we refer to a "DHCP server" as a server In this document, we refer to a "DHCP server" as a server
implementing the original DHCP [1], and a "DHCPv6 server" as a server implementing the original DHCP [1], and a "DHCPv6 server" as a server
implementing DHCPv6 [4] or its stateless subset. implementing DHCPv6 [4] or its stateless subset [5].
2. Configuration scenarios 2. Configuration scenarios
For a node in an IPv4-only or IPv6-only environment, the choice of For a node in an IPv4-only or IPv6-only environment, the choice of
DHCP server is a straightforward one; a DHCP server for IPv4, or a DHCP server is a straightforward one; a DHCP server for IPv4, or a
DHCPv6 server for IPv6. DHCPv6 server for IPv6.
In a dual-stack environment a node in a managed environment will need In a dual-stack environment a node in a managed environment will need
to obtain both IPv4 and IPv6 configuration settings, e.g. to obtain both IPv4 and IPv6 configuration settings, e.g.
skipping to change at page 3, line 52 skipping to change at page 3, line 52
o NTP server o NTP server
o DNS server o DNS server
o NIS server o NIS server
o DNS search path o DNS search path
While the format of address settings will be IP-specific, the node While the format of address settings will be IP-specific, the node
may equally well acquire IPv4 or IPv6 addresses for some settings, may equally well acquire IPv4 or IPv6 addresses for some settings,
e.g. for DNS or NTP, if those services are available via IPv4 or IPv6 e.g. for DNS or NTP, if those services are available via IPv4 or
transport. Currently, a DHCP server returns IPv4 data, while a IPv6 transport. Currently, a DHCP server returns IPv4 data, while a
DHCPv6 server returns IPv6 data. DHCPv6 server returns IPv6 data.
It is worth noting that in an IPv4 environment, with a DHCP server, It is worth noting that in an IPv4 environment, with a DHCP server,
the choice of whether to use DHCP is made by the node. In an IPv6 the choice of whether to use DHCP is made by the node. In an IPv6
environment, the use of the managed and other bits in the Router environment, the use of the managed and other bits in the Router
Advertisement can tell the node whether or not to use DHCPv6. It is Advertisement can offer a hint to the node whether or not to use full
perhaps not clear whether a dual-stack node should do DHCP for IPv4 DHCPv6 or its stateless variant. It is perhaps not clear whether a
if Managed and OtherConfig flags in the Router Advertisement are both dual-stack node should do DHCP for IPv4 if Managed and OtherConfig
off; it seems most appropriate that the decision to use DHCP for IPv4 flags in the Router Advertisement are both off; it seems most
or not should be as if the host was IPv4-only. appropriate that the decision to use DHCP for IPv4 or not should be
as if the host was IPv4-only.
3. Dual-stack issues 3. Dual-stack issues
In this section we list issues that have been raised to date related In this section we list issues that have been raised to date related
to dual-stack DHCP operation. to dual-stack DHCP operation.
It has been noted from comments that the first four, and possibly
five, subsections here may also be viewed as multihoming issues.
3.1 Handling multiple responses 3.1 Handling multiple responses
The general question is how to handle configuration information that The general question is how to handle configuration information that
may be gathered from multiple sources. Where those sources are DHCP may be gathered from multiple sources. Where those sources are DHCP
and DHCPv6 servers (which may be two physical nodes or two servers and DHCPv6 servers (which may be two physical nodes or two servers
running on the same node) the client node needs to know whether to running on the same node) the client node needs to know whether to
use the most recent data, or whether to perform some merger or union use the most recent data, or whether to perform some merger or union
of the responses by certain rules. A node may choose to ask a DHCPv6 of the responses by certain rules. A node may choose to ask a DHCPv6
server and only use a DHCP server if no response is received. server and only use a DHCP server if no response is received.
Merging is possible, but is likely to be complex. There could be Merging is possible, but is likely to be complex. There could be
some priority, so that if both DHCP and DHCPv6 servers offer a value, some priority, so that if both DHCP and DHCPv6 servers offer a value,
only one is used. Or the node could choose to store and use both, only one is used. Or the node could choose to store and use both, in
in some order of its choosing. some order of its choosing.
A node may also obtain information from other sources, e.g. a manual A node may also obtain information from other sources, e.g. a manual
configuration file (e.g. /etc/resolv.conf for DNS data on many Unix configuration file (e.g. /etc/resolv.conf for DNS data on many Unix
systems). A node configured manually to use an IPv6 DNS server via systems). A node configured manually to use an IPv6 DNS server via
such manual configuration may lose that configuration if it then uses such manual configuration may lose that configuration if it then uses
DHCP to obtain IPv4 settings if in a dual-stack environment; that DHCP to obtain IPv4 settings if in a dual-stack environment; that
IPv4 configuration may then overwrite the manual IPv6 DNS setting IPv4 configuration may then overwrite the manual IPv6 DNS setting
with new IPv4 settings from the DHCP response. with new IPv4 settings from the DHCP response.
3.2 Multiple interfaces 3.2 Different administrative management
In some deployments, the IPv4 and IPv6 services may not be
administered by the same organisation or people, e.g. in a community
wireless environment. This poses problems for consistency of data
offered by either DHCP version.
3.3 Multiple interfaces
A node may have multiple interfaces and run IPv4 and IPv6 on A node may have multiple interfaces and run IPv4 and IPv6 on
different interfaces. A question then is whether the settings are different interfaces. A question then is whether the settings are
per interface or per node? DHCPv6 introduces the idea of a DHCP per interface or per node? DHCPv6 introduces the idea of a DHCP
Unique Indentifer (DUID) which does not yet exist for DHCP; some Unique Identifier (DUID) which does not yet exist for DHCP; some
effort is being made to retrofit the concept to DHCP [6]. effort is being made to retrofit the concept to DHCPv4 [6].
Per interface settings can be complex because a client node needs to Per interface settings can be complex because a client node needs to
know from which interface system settings like NTP server came from. know from which interface system settings like NTP server came from.
And it may not be apparent which setting should be used, if e.g. an And it may not be apparent which setting should be used, if e.g. an
NTP server option is received on multiple interfaces, potentially NTP server option is received on multiple interfaces, potentially
over different protocols. over different protocols.
3.3 DNS load balancing 3.4 DNS load balancing
In some cases it is preferable to list DNS server information in an In some cases it is preferable to list DNS server information in an
ordered way per node for load balancing, giving different responses ordered way per node for load balancing, giving different responses
to different clients. Responses from different DHCP and DHCPv6 to different clients. Responses from different DHCP and DHCPv6
servers may make such configuration problematic. servers may make such configuration problematic.
3.4 DNS search path issues 3.5 DNS search path issues
The DNS search path may vary for administrative reasons. For The DNS search path may vary for administrative reasons. For
example, a site under the domain foo.com chooses to place an early example, a site under the domain foo.com chooses to place an early
IPv6 deployment under the subdomain ipv6.foo.com, until it is IPv6 deployment under the subdomain ipv6.foo.com, until it is
confident of offering a full dual-stack service under its main confident of offering a full dual-stack service under its main
domain. The subtlety here is that the DNS search path then affects domain. The subtlety here is that the DNS search path then affects
choice of protocol used, e.g. IPv6 for nodes in ipv6.foo.com. choice of protocol used, e.g. IPv6 for nodes in ipv6.foo.com.
3.5 Administrative management 3.6 Protocol startup sequence
In some deployments, the IPv4 and IPv6 services may not be In the dual-stack environment, one needs to consider what happens if,
administered by the same organisation or people, e.g. in a community for example, the IPv6 interface (transport) is started after DHCPv4
wireless environment. This poses problems for consistency of data was used to configure the client. Should the client then simply
offered by either DHCP version. discard the current IPv4 information, or merge it with a subsequent
IPv6 response?
3.6 DHCP option variations 3.7 DHCP option variations
Some options in DHCP are not available in DHCPv6 and vice-versa. Some Some options in DHCP are not available in DHCPv6 and vice-versa.
IP-version limitations naturally apply, e.g. only IPv6 addresses can Some IP-version limitations naturally apply, e.g. only IPv6
be in an IPv6 NTP option. The DHCP and DHCPv6 option numbers may be addresses can be in an IPv6 NTP option. The DHCP and DHCPv6 option
different. numbers may be different.
There may be some sites that would choose to use IPv4-mapped
addresses in DHCPv6-based options. The merits and drawbacks of such
an approach need discussion.
A site administrator may wish to configure all their dual-stack nodes A site administrator may wish to configure all their dual-stack nodes
with (say) two NTP servers, one of which has an IPv4 address, the with (say) two NTP servers, one of which has an IPv4 address, the
other an IPv6 address. In this case it may be desirable for an NTP other an IPv6 address. In this case it may be desirable for an NTP
option to carry a list of addresses, where some may be IPv4 and some option to carry a list of addresses, where some may be IPv4 and some
may be IPv6. In general one could consider having DHCPv6 options may be IPv6. In general one could consider having DHCPv6 options
that can carry mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. that can carry mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
3.7 Security issues 3.8 Security issues
At this stage in the formation of this draft no specific security At this stage in the formation of this draft no specific security
issues have been raised. The authors welcome comments on this, issues have been raised. The authors welcome comments on this,
should such issues exist. should such issues exist.
While there is a specification for authentiation for DHCP messages While there is a specification for authentication for DHCP messages
[3], the standard seems to have very few, if any, implementations. [3], the standard seems to have very few, if any, implementations.
Thus DHCP and DHCPv6 servers are still liable to be spoofed. Adding Thus DHCP and DHCPv6 servers are still liable to be spoofed. Adding
an additional protocol may give an extra avenue for attack, should an an additional protocol may give an extra avenue for attack, should an
attacker perhaps spoof a DHCPv6 server but not a DHCP server. attacker perhaps spoof a DHCPv6 server but not a DHCP server.
4. Potential solutions 4. Potential solutions
While this document did not originally intend to have solutions in While this document did not originally intend to have solutions in
its scope, we discuss potential solution spaces in brief here in its scope, we discuss potential solution spaces in brief here in
order to provoke some discussion of the issues. If separate order to provoke some discussion of the issues. If separate solution
solution document(s) emerge, these notes may be removed from this document(s) emerge, these notes may be removed from this document;
document; alternatively this document could be expanded to become a alternatively this document could be expanded to become a best
best practice guide. Comments on this are welcomed. practice guide. Comments on this are welcomed.
4.1 Separate DHCP servers 4.1 Separate DHCP servers
One solution is to run separate DHCP and DHCPv6 servers. These may One solution is to run separate DHCP and DHCPv6 servers. These may
or may not be run on the same physical node. or may not be run on the same physical node. The information served
from the DHCP servers could be generated from a single database
instance for consistency.
In this approach, some best practice guidance is required for how In this approach, some best practice guidance is required for how
multiple responses are handled or merged. Administrators have the multiple responses are handled or merged. Administrators have the
onus to maintain consistency (e.g. scripts may generate common DHCP onus to maintain consistency (e.g. scripts may generate common DHCP
and DHCPv6 configuration files). and DHCPv6 configuration files).
In some cases, inconsistencies may not matter. In a simple case, an In some cases, inconsistencies may not matter. In a simple case, an
NTP server will give the same time whether accessed by IPv4 or IPv6. NTP server will give the same time whether accessed by IPv4 or IPv6.
Even if different recursive DNS servers are offered via DHCP or Even if different recursive DNS servers are offered via DHCP or
DHCPv6, those name servers will provide the same response to a given DHCPv6, those name servers will provide the same response to a given
query. The order of DNS servers in a node's configuration is not query. The order of DNS servers in a node's configuration is not
important, unless DNS load balancing is required. important, unless DNS load balancing is required.
In other cases, inconsistencies may be an issue, e.g. where lists of
values are returned, an algorithm is needed for list merger (e.g.
"alternate, DHCPv6 first"). Or there may be incompatible
configuration values where, for example, DHCPv6 supplies domain names
(such the SMTP or POP servers) whereas DHCPv4 provided only IPv4
addresses.
In the case of separate servers, there are some options like DNS In the case of separate servers, there are some options like DNS
search path, that aren't used in a specific IP protocol context. search path, that aren't used in a specific IP protocol context.
It is worth noting that there has been little effort to date to agree The multiple server approach will have some simplifications. The
a common method for IPv6 nodes to acquire non-address settings via DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers may provide the same value for a particular
DHCPv6 because in most dual-stack environments a node will acquire parameter, in which case there is no conflict. In some cases the
its DNS settings via DHCP and query a local (perhaps dual-stack) value may be different, but the effect should be the same (e.g. NTP
resolver. server). The crux of the issue is to identify where differences may
occur and where these differences will have an impact on node
behaviour.
One possible solution is to have per-host preferences, or an ordered
list of preferences, e.g. "use manually configured"", "prefer
DHCPv4", or "prefer DHCPv6"", assuming the host can act based upon
which protocol is used. It is then up to the site administrator to
ensure values returned from either DHCP are consistent (a principle
which extends if other methods are used, e.g. NIS or SLP).
4.2 Single DHCPv6 server 4.2 Single DHCPv6 server
There is an argument for not having to configure and operate both There is an argument for not having to configure and operate both
DHCP and DHCPv6 servers. The use of both servers may also lead to DHCP and DHCPv6 servers in a dual-stack site environment. The use of
some redundancy in the information served. Thus one solution may be both servers may also lead to some redundancy in the information
to modify DHCPv6 to be able to return IPv4 information. This served. Thus one solution may be to modify DHCPv6 to be able to
solution is hinted at in the DHCPv6 [4] specification: "If there is return IPv4 information. This solution is hinted at in the DHCPv6
sufficient interest and demand, integration can be specified in a [4] specification: "If there is sufficient interest and demand,
document that extends DHCPv6 to carry IPv4 addresses and integration can be specified in a document that extends DHCPv6 to
configuration information." This solution may allow DHCP for IPv4 to carry IPv4 addresses and configuration information." This solution
be completely replaced by DHCPv6 with additional IPv4 information may allow DHCP for IPv4 to be completely replaced by DHCPv6 with
options, for dual-stack nodes. additional IPv4 information options, for dual-stack nodes.
A general argument is that which DHCP protocol is used (whether it's
over IPv4 or IPv6) shouldn't affect what kind of addresses you can
get configured with it, and that simplicity and predicatability comes
from using a single server over a single transport. IPv4-capable
hosts will likely remain for at least 10 years, probably much longer;
do we want dual-stack hosts (which will become the norm) to do both
DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 forever while dual-stack? If you need both servers
to configure interfaces with addresses, and get other configuration,
then you rely on two separate protocols to work (servers and relays,
etc) in order for the host to behave correctly.
This approach may require the listing of a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 This approach may require the listing of a mix of IPv4 and IPv6
addresses for an option. This should be considered when new IPv6 addresses for an option. This should be considered when new IPv6
options are introduced. options are introduced. There could be just two options needed, one
new option for the address delegation, and one for doing
encapsulation.
One problem with this approach is that the client node may then be Also, there are a number of paradigms in DHCPv6 that we miss in
IPv6-only and receiving IPv4 configuration settings that it does not DHCPv4, e.g. going away from using MAC addresses for per-host
want or be able to meaningfully handle. address assignment but instead using DUIDs/IAIDs, etc (although there
is ongoing work to provide DUIDs for DHCPv4 [6]).
However, there are a number of potential problems with this approach:
o IPv4-only nodes would not have any DHCP service available to them;
such an approach is only possible in a fully dual-stack
environment.
o The client node may then be IPv6-only and receiving IPv4
configuration settings that it does not want or be able to
meaningfully handle.
o The DHCPv4 servers need to be configured anyway to support
IPv4-only hosts, so there is still duplication of information.
o What happens if there are DHCPv6 servers that don't return IPv4
information? Does this mean the client can't run IPv4 (since it
won't do DHCPv4)?
o If IPv4 information is served from a DHCPv6 server as well as an
IPv4 DHCP server, IPv4 address space will need to be allocated to
both servers, fragmenting the potentially precious IPv4 global
address resource for the site.
4.3 Administrative and other areas 4.3 Administrative and other areas
There are also administrative issues or best practice that could be There are also administrative issues or best practice that could be
promoted. For example, it may be recommended that sites do not promoted. For example, it may be recommended that sites do not split
split their DNS name space for IPv6-specific testbeds. their DNS name space for IPv6-specific testbeds.
It may be worth considering whether separate manual configuration It may be worth considering whether separate manual configuration
files should be kept for IPv4 and IPv6 settings, e.g. separate /etc/ files should be kept for IPv4 and IPv6 settings, e.g. separate /etc/
resolv.conf files for DNS settings on Unix systems. However, this resolv.conf files for DNS settings on Unix systems. However, this
seems a complex solution that should be better solved by other more seems a complex solution that should be better solved by other more
generalised methods. generalised methods.
Some differences in DHCP and DHCPv6 may not be reconciled, but may Some differences in DHCP and DHCPv6 may not be reconciled, but may
not need to be, e.g. different ways to assign addresses by DUID in not need to be, e.g. different ways to assign addresses by DUID in
DHCPv6, or the non-aligned option numbers for DHCP and DHCPv6. DHCPv6, or the non-aligned option numbers for DHCP and DHCPv6.
skipping to change at page 7, line 45 skipping to change at page 9, line 21
There are a number of issues in the operation of DHCP and DHCPv6 There are a number of issues in the operation of DHCP and DHCPv6
servers for nodes in dual-stack environments that should be servers for nodes in dual-stack environments that should be
clarified. While some differences in the protocols may not be clarified. While some differences in the protocols may not be
reconciled, there may not be a need to do so. However, for general reconciled, there may not be a need to do so. However, for general
operation some best practice should be agreed, the principle choice operation some best practice should be agreed, the principle choice
being whether separate DHCP and DHCPv6 servers should be maintained being whether separate DHCP and DHCPv6 servers should be maintained
by a site, or whether DHCPv6 should be extended to carry IPv4 by a site, or whether DHCPv6 should be extended to carry IPv4
configuration settings for dual-stack nodes. configuration settings for dual-stack nodes.
It can certainly be argued that until a site is completely
dual-stack, an IPv4 DHCP service will always be required (e.g. while
there are still legacy printers, IP webcams or devices which still
configure via DHCPv4), and a single IPv6 transport DHCP server
offering configuration information for both protocols will then not
be sufficient. In that case, there is a good rationale for focusing
effort on how to combine the information received from separate IPv4
DHCP and (stateless) DHCPv6 servers.
In theory, it should be relatively straightforward to write a
configuration manager that would accept a single configuration
specification from the service manager and distribute the correct
(and consistent) configurations to the DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers
(whether on the same host or not). In this case, maintaining
coordinated configurations in two servers is an interface issue, not
a protocol issue. The question then is whether the client has all
the information it needs to make reasonable choices. We are aware of
one implementation of separate DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 clients that is
using a preference option for assisting client-side merging of the
received information.
Another issue for discussion is whether a combined DHCP service only
available over IPv6 transport is a desirable longer-term goal for
networks containing only dual-stack or IPv6-only nodes (or IPv4-only
nodes where DHCPv4 is not needed). The transition to the long-term
position may easily take more than 10 years.
This work has overlap with multihoming and multi-interface
configuration issues. It is also interwoven with the Detecting
Network Attachment area, e.g. where a node may move from an
IPv4-only network to a dual-stack network, or vice versa. Both
aspects may be best abstracted for discussion in the IETF multi6 and
dna WGs for discussion.
The authors also noted that the original working title of the draft
was not as appropriate as it might be; we have thus renamed it "DHCP:
IPv4 and IPv6 Dual-Stack Issues". We are open to further renaming if
comments warrant it.
There is not a full consensus in the DHC WG on solutions for the DHCP
dual-stack configuration issue at present. This text is intended to
provoke discussion towards a consensus, and it may then document that
consensus and the reasons behind it for future reference.
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
There are no security considerations in this problem statemement per There are no security considerations in this problem statement per
se, as it does not propose a new protocol. se, as it does not propose a new protocol.
Normative References 7. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the following people for input to this draft:
Bernie Volz, AK Vijayabhaskar, Ted Lemon, Ralph Droms, Robert Elz,
Changming Liu, Margaret Wasserman and Greg Daley. The draft may not
fully reflect the views of each of these individuals.
The authors would also like to thank colleagues on the 6NET project
for contributions to this draft.
8 Informative References
[1] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, [1] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131,
March 1997. March 1997.
[2] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address [2] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[3] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages", [3] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Messages",
RFC 3118, June 2001. RFC 3118, June 2001.
[4] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M. [4] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 3315, July 2003. RFC 3315, July 2003.
[5] Droms, R., "A Guide to Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service", [5] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP)
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-01 (work in progress), October Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
2003.
[6] Lemon, T., "Node-Specific Client Identifiers for DHCPv4", [6] Lemon, T., "Node-Specific Client Identifiers for DHCPv4",
draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-00 (work in progress), October draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-02 (work in progress), February
2003. 2004.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Tim Chown Tim Chown
University of Southampton University of Southampton
School of Electronics and Computer Science School of Electronics and Computer Science
Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom United Kingdom
EMail: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk EMail: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Stig Venaas Stig Venaas
UNINETT UNINETT
Trondheim NO 7465 Trondheim NO 7465
Norway Norway
EMail: venaas@uninett.no EMail: venaas@uninett.no
Christian Strauf Christian Strauf
JOIN (University of Muenster) Technical University of Clausthal
Roentgenstr. 9-13 Erzstr. 51
Muenster D-48149 Clausthal-Zellerfeld D-38678
Germany Germany
EMail: strauf@uni-muenster.de EMail: strauf@rz.tu-clausthal.de
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
obtain a general license or permission for the use of such assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
Director. ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer of Validity
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be Copyright Statement
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society. Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.23, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/