draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-05.txt   draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-06.txt 
intarea P. Pfister Network Working Group P. Pfister
Internet-Draft E. Vyncke, Ed. Internet-Draft E. Vyncke
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: December 20, 2019 T. Pauly Expires: February 13, 2020 T. Pauly
Apple Apple Inc.
D. Schinazi D. Schinazi
Google LLC Google LLC
W. Shao W. Shao
Cisco Cisco
June 18, 2019 August 12, 2019
Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data
draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-05 draft-ietf-intarea-provisioning-domains-06
Abstract Abstract
An increasing number of hosts access the Internet via multiple Provisioning Domains (PvDs) are defined as consistent sets of network
interfaces or, in IPv6 multi-homed networks, via multiple IPv6 prefix configuration information. This allows hosts to manage connections
configurations context. to multiple networks and interfaces simultaneously, such as when a
home router provides connectivity through both a broadband and
This document describes a way for hosts to identify such contexts, cellular network provider.
called Provisioning Domains (PvDs), where Fully Qualified Domain
Names (FQDNs) act as PvD identifiers. Those identifiers are
advertised in a new Router Advertisement (RA) option and, when
present, are associated with the set of information included within
the RA.
Based on this FQDN, hosts can retrieve additional information about This document defines a mechanism for explicitly identifying PvDs
their network access characteristics via an HTTP over TLS query. through a Router Advertisement (RA) option. This RA option announces
This allows applications to select which Provisioning Domains to use a PvD identifier, which hosts can compare to differentiate between
as well as to provide configuration parameters to the transport layer PvDs. The option can directly carry some information about a PvD and
and above. can optionally point to additional PvD information that can be
retrieved using HTTP over TLS.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 20, 2019.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 13, 2020.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Specification of Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Provisioning Domain Identification using Router 3. Provisioning Domain Identification using Router
Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. PvD ID Option for Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. PvD ID Option for Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2. Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Non-PvD-aware Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Non-PvD-aware Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. PvD-aware Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.4. PvD-aware Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1. DHCPv6 configuration association . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4.1. DHCPv6 configuration association . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.2. DHCPv4 configuration association . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4.2. DHCPv4 configuration association . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4.3. Connection Sharing by the Host . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4.3. Connection Sharing by the Host . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4.4. Usage of DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4.4. Usage of DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Provisioning Domain Additional Information . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Provisioning Domain Additional Information . . . . . . . . . 12
4.1. Retrieving the PvD Additional Information . . . . . . . . 11 4.1. Retrieving the PvD Additional Information . . . . . . . . 13
4.2. Operational Consideration to Providing the PvD Additional 4.2. Operational Consideration to Providing the PvD Additional
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3. PvD Additional Information Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.3. PvD Additional Information Format . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.3.1. Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.4. Detecting misconfiguration and misuse . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.4. Detecting misconfiguration and misuse . . . . . . . . . . 17
5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 5.1. Exposing Extra RA Options to PvD-Aware Hosts . . . . . . 18
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.2. Different RAs for PvD-Aware and Non-PvD-Aware Hosts . . . 18
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 5.3. Enabling Multi-homing for PvD-Aware Hosts . . . . . . . . 19
8.1. Additional Information PvD Keys Registry . . . . . . . . 18 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
8.2. PvD Option Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.3. PvD JSON Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.1. Additional Information PvD Keys Registry . . . . . . . . 22
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.2. PvD Option Flags Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8.3. PvD JSON Media Type Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
10.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.1. Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
A.2. Version 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.3. Version 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A.4. WG Document version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.5. WG Document version 01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.6. WG Document version 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.7. WG Document version 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A.7.1. WG Document version 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
It has become very common in modern networks for hosts to access the Provisioning Domains (PvDs) are defined in [RFC7556] as consistent
internet through different network interfaces, tunnels, or next-hop sets of network configuration information. This information includes
routers. For example, if Alice has a mobile phone provider and a properties that are traditionally associated with a single networking
broadband provider in her home, her devices and her applications interface, such as source addresses, DNS configuration, proxy
should be capable of seamlessly transitioning from one to the other configuration, and gateway addresses.
and be able to use her Wi-Fi to access local resources or use the
more suitable link on a per-application base. This document provides
the basic information necessary to make this choice intelligently.
There are similar use cases for IPsec Virtual Private Networks that
are already considered Explicit PvDs in [RFC7556].
To describe the set of network configurations associated with each Clients that are aware of PvDs can take advantage of multiple network
access method, the concept of Provisioning Domain (PvD) was defined interfaces simultaneously. This enables using two PvDs in parallel
in [RFC7556]. for separate connections or for multi-path transports.
While most PvDs today are discovered implicitly (such as by receiving
information via Router Advertisements from a router on a network that
a client host directly connects to), [RFC7556] also defines the
notion of Explicit PvDs. IPsec Virtual Private Networks are
considered Explicit PvDs, but Explicit PvDs can also be discovered
via the local network router. Discovering Explicit PvDs allows two
key advancements in managing multiple PvDs:
1. The ability to discover and use multiple PvDs on a single
interface, such as when a local router can provide connectivity
to two different Internet Service Providers.
2. The ability to associate additional informations about PvDs to
describe the properties of the network.
While [RFC7556] defines the concept of Explicit PvDs, it does not
define the mechanism for discovering multiple Explicit PvDs on a
single network and their additional information.
This document specifies a way to identify PvDs with Fully Qualified This document specifies a way to identify PvDs with Fully Qualified
Domain Names (FQDN), called PvD IDs. Those identifiers are Domain Names (FQDN), called PvD IDs. Those identifiers are
advertised in a new Router Advertisement (RA) [RFC4861] option called advertised in a new Router Advertisement (RA) [RFC4861] option called
the PvD ID Router Advertisement option which, when present, the PvD ID Router Advertisement option which, when present,
associates the PvD ID with all the information present in the Router associates the PvD ID with all the information present in the Router
Advertisement as well as any configuration object, such as addresses, Advertisement as well as any configuration object, such as addresses,
deriving from it. The PVD ID Router Advertisement option may also deriving from it. The PVD ID Router Advertisement option may also
contain a set of other RA options. Since such options are only contain a set of other RA options. Since such options are only
considered by hosts implementing this specification, network considered by hosts implementing this specification, network
operators may configure hosts that are 'PvD-aware' with PvDs that are operators may configure hosts that are 'PvD-aware' with PvDs that are
ignored by other hosts. ignored by other hosts.
Since PvD IDs are used to identify different ways to access the Since PvD IDs are used to identify different ways to access the
internet, multiple PvDs (with different PvD IDs) could be provisioned internet, multiple PvDs (with different PvD IDs) can be provisioned
on a single host interface. Similarly, the same PvD ID could be used on a single host interface. Similarly, the same PvD ID could be used
on different interfaces of a host in order to inform that those PvDs on different interfaces of a host in order to inform that those PvDs
ultimately provide identical services. ultimately provide equivalent services.
This document also introduces a way for hosts to retrieve optional This document also introduces a mechanism for hosts to retrieve
and additional information related to a specific PvD by means of an optional additional information related to a specific PvD by means of
HTTP over TLS query using an URI derived from the PvD ID. The an HTTP over TLS query using an URI derived from the PvD ID. The
retrieved JSON object contains additional information that would retrieved JSON object contains additional information that would
typically be considered unfit, or too large, to be directly included typically be considered too large to be directly included in the
in the Router Advertisement, but might be considered useful to the Router Advertisement, but might be considered useful to the
applications, or even sometimes users, when choosing which PvD should applications, or even sometimes users, when choosing which PvD should
be used. be used.
2. Terminology For example, if Alice has both a cellular network provider and a
broadband provider in her home, her PvD-aware devices and
applications would be aware of both available uplinks. These
applications could fail-over between these networks, or run
connections over both (potentially using multi-path transports).
Applications could also select specific uplinks based on the
properties of the network; for example, if the cellular network
provides free high-quality video streaming, a video-streaming
application could select that network while most of the other traffic
on Alice's device uses the broadband provider.
1.1. Specification of Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
[RFC2119]. 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
In addition, this document uses the following terminology: 2. Terminology
Provisioning Domain (PvD): A set of network configuration This document uses the following terminology:
Provisioning Domain (PvD): A set of network configuration
information; for more information, see [RFC7556]. information; for more information, see [RFC7556].
PvD ID: A Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) used to identify a PvD ID: A Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) used to identify a PvD.
PvD.
Explicit PvD: A PvD uniquely identified with a PvD ID. For more Explicit PvD: A PvD uniquely identified with a PvD ID. For more
information, see [RFC7556]. information, see [RFC7556].
Implicit PvD: A PvD that, in the absence of a PvD ID, is identified Implicit PvD: A PvD that, in the absence of a PvD ID, is identified
by the host interface to which it is attached and the address of by the host interface to which it is attached and the address of
the advertising router. See also [RFC7556]. the advertising router. See also [RFC7556].
PvD-aware host A host that supports the association of network PvD-aware host: A host that supports the association of network
configuration information into PvDs and the use of these PvDs. configuration information into PvDs and the use of these PvDs as
Also named PvD-aware node in [RFC7556]. described in this document. Also named PvD-aware node in
[RFC7556].
3. Provisioning Domain Identification using Router Advertisements 3. Provisioning Domain Identification using Router Advertisements
Explicit PvDs are identified by a PvD ID. The PvD ID is a Fully Explicit PvDs are identified by a PvD ID. The PvD ID is a Fully
Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) which MUST belong to the network Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) which MUST belong to the network
operator in order to avoid naming collisions. The same PvD ID MAY be operator in order to avoid naming collisions. The same PvD ID MAY be
used in several access networks when they ultimately provide used in several access networks when they ultimately provide
identical services (e.g., in all home networks subscribed to the same identical services (e.g., in all home networks subscribed to the same
service); else, the PvD ID MUST be different to follow section 2.4 of service); else, the PvD ID MUST be different to follow Section 2.4 of
[RFC7556]. [RFC7556].
3.1. PvD ID Option for Router Advertisements 3.1. PvD ID Option for Router Advertisements
This document introduces a Router Advertisement (RA) option called This document introduces a Router Advertisement (RA) option called
PvD option. It is used to convey the FQDN identifying a given PvD PvD Option. It is used to convey the FQDN identifying a given PvD
(see Figure 1), bind the PvD ID with configuration information (see Figure 1, bind the PvD ID with configuration information
received over DHCPv4 (see Section 3.4.2), enable the use of HTTP over received over DHCPv4 (see Section 3.4.2), enable the use of HTTP over
TLS to retrieve the PvD Additional Information JSON object (see TLS to retrieve the PvD Additional Information JSON object (see
Section 4), as well as contain any other RA options which would Section 4), as well as contain any other RA options which would
otherwise be valid in the RA. otherwise be valid in the RA.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |H|L|R| Reserved | Delay | | Type | Length |H|L|R| Reserved | Delay |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
skipping to change at page 5, line 34 skipping to change at page 6, line 24
... | Padding | ... | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | ...
... Router Advertisement message header ... ... Router Advertisement message header ...
... (Only present when R-flag is set) ... ... (Only present when R-flag is set) ...
... | ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ... | Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Figure 1: PvD ID Router Advertisements Option format Figure 1: PvD ID Router Advertisements Option Format
Type : (8 bits) Set to 21. Type: (8 bits) Set to 21.
Length : (8 bits) The length of the option in units of 8 Length: (8 bits) The length of the option in units of 8 octets,
octets, including the Type and Length fields, the Router including the Type and Length fields, the Router Advertisement
Advertisement message header, if any, as well as the RA options message header, if any, as well as the RA options that are
that are included within the PvD Option. included within the PvD Option.
H-flag : (1 bit) 'HTTP' flag stating whether some PvD H-flag: (1 bit) 'HTTP' flag stating whether some PvD Additional
Additional Information is made available through HTTP over TLS, as Information is made available through HTTP over TLS, as described
described in Section 4. in Section 4.
L-flag : (1 bit) 'Legacy' flag stating whether the router is L-flag: (1 bit) 'Legacy' flag stating whether the router is also
also providing IPv4 information using DHCPv4 (see Section 3.4.2). providing IPv4 information using DHCPv4 (see Section 3.4.2).
R-flag : (1 bit) 'Router Advertisement' flag stating whether R-flag: (1 bit) 'Router Advertisement' flag stating whether the PvD
the PvD Option is followed (right after padding to the next 64 Option is followed (right after padding to the next 64 bits
bits boundary) by a Router Advertisement message header (See boundary) by a Router Advertisement message header (See section
section 4.2 of [RFC4861]). 4.2 of [RFC4861]).
Delay : (4 bits) Unsigned integer used to delay HTTP GET Delay: (4 bits) Unsigned integer used to delay HTTP GET queries from
queries from hosts by a randomized backoff (see Section 4.1). hosts by a randomized backoff (see Section 4.1).
Reserved : (13 bits) Reserved for later use. It MUST be set to Reserved: (13 bits) Reserved for later use. It MUST be set to zero
zero by the sender and ignored by the receiver. by the sender and ignored by the receiver.
Sequence Number: (16 bits) Sequence number for the PvD Additional Sequence Number: (16 bits) Sequence number for the PvD Additional
Information, as described in Section 4. Information, as described in Section 4.
PvD ID FQDN : The FQDN used as PvD ID encoded in DNS format, as PvD ID FQDN: The FQDN used as PvD ID encoded in DNS format, as
described in Section 3.1 of [RFC1035]. Domain names compression described in Section 3.1 of [RFC1035]. Domain names compression
described in Section 4.1.4 of [RFC1035] MUST NOT be used. described in Section 4.1.4 of [RFC1035] MUST NOT be used.
Padding : Zero or more padding octets to the next 8 octets Padding: Zero or more padding octets to the next 8 octet boundary
boundary. It MUST be set to zero by the sender, and ignored by (see Section 4.6 of [RFC4861]). It MUST be set to zero by the
the receiver. sender, and ignored by the receiver.
RA message header : (16 octets) When the R-flag is set, a full RA message header: (16 octets) When the R-flag is set, a full Router
Router Advertisement message header as specified in [RFC4861]. Advertisement message header as specified in [RFC4861]. The
The sender MUST set the 'Type' to 134, the value for "Router sender MUST set the 'Type' to 134, the value for "Router
Advertisement", and set the 'Code' to 0. Receivers MUST ignore Advertisement", and set the 'Code' to 0. Receivers MUST ignore
both of these fields. The 'Checksum' MUST be set to 0 by the both of these fields. The 'Checksum' MUST be set to 0 by the
sender; non-zero checksums MUST be ignored by the receiver. All sender; non-zero checksums MUST be ignored by the receiver. All
other fields are to be set and parsed as specified in [RFC4861] or other fields are to be set and parsed as specified in [RFC4861] or
any updating documents. any updating documents.
Options : Zero or more RA options that would otherwise be valid as Options: Zero or more RA options that would otherwise be valid as
part of the Router Advertisement main body, but are instead part of the Router Advertisement main body, but are instead
included in the PvD Option such as to be ignored by hosts that are included in the PvD Option such as to be ignored by hosts that are
not 'PvD-aware'. not PvD-aware.
Here is an example of a PvD option with example.org as the PvD ID Here is an example of a PvD Option with "example.org" as the PvD ID
FQDN and including a RDNSS and prefix information options (it also FQDN and including both an RDNSS option and a prefix information
have the sequence number 123, presence of additional information to option. It has a Sequence Number of 123, and indicates the presence
be fetched with a delay indicated as 5): of additional information that is expected to be fetched with a delay
factor of 5.
0 1 2 3 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 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
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+ +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Type: 21 | Length: 12 |1|0|0| Reserved |Delay:5| | Type: 21 | Length: 12 |1|0|0| Reserved |Delay:5|
+---------------+-------------------------------+---------------+ +---------------+-------------------------------+---------------+
| Seq number: 123 | 7 | e | | Seq number: 123 | 7 | e |
+---------------+-----------------------------------------------+ +---------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| x | a | m | p | | x | a | m | p |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| l | e | 3 | o | | l | e | 3 | o |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| r | g | 0 | 0 (padding) | | r | g | 0 | 0 (padding) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| 0 (padding) | 0 (padding) | 0 (padding) | 0 (padding) | | 0 (padding) | 0 (padding) | 0 (padding) | 0 (padding) |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| RDNSS option (RFC 6106) length: 5 ... | RDNSS option (RFC 6106) length: 5 ...
... ... ... ...
... | ... |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Prefix Information Option (RFC 4861) length: 4 ... | Prefix Information Option (RFC 4861) length: 4 ...
... | ... |
... | ... |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 2 Figure 2
3.2. Router Behavior 3.2. Router Behavior
A router MAY send RAs containing one PvD option, but MUST NOT include A router MAY send RAs containing one PvD Option, but MUST NOT include
more than one PvD option in each RA. In particular, the PvD option more than one PvD Option in each RA. The PvD Option MUST NOT contain
MUST NOT contain further PvD options. further PvD Options.
The PvD Option MAY contain zero, one, or more RA options which would The PvD Option MAY contain zero, one, or more RA options which would
otherwise be valid as part of the same RA. Such options are otherwise be valid as part of the same RA. Such options are
processed by PvD-aware hosts, while ignored by others. processed by PvD-aware hosts, while ignored by other hosts per
section 4.2 of [RFC4861].
In order to provide multiple different PvDs, a router MUST send In order to provide multiple different PvDs, a router MUST send
multiple RAs. Different explicit PvDs MAY be advertised with RAs multiple RAs. If more than one different Implicit PvDs are
using the same IPv6 source address; but different implicit PvDs, advertised, the RAs MUST be sent from different link-local source
advertised by different RAs, MUST use different link-local addresses addresses. Explicit PvDs MAY share link-local source addresses with
because these implicit PvDs are identified by the source addresses of an Implicit PvD and any number of other Explicit PvDs.
the RAs.
In other words, different Explicit PvDs MAY be advertised with RAs
using the same link-local source address; but different Implicit
PvDs, advertised by different RAs, MUST use different link-local
addresses because these Implicit PvDs are identified by the source
addresses of the RAs.
As specified in [RFC4861], when the set of options causes the size of As specified in [RFC4861], when the set of options causes the size of
an advertisement to exceed the link MTU, multiple router an advertisement to exceed the link MTU, multiple router
advertisements can be sent, each containing a subset of the options. advertisements can be sent, each containing a subset of the options.
In such cases, the PvD option header (i.e., all fields except the In such cases, the PvD Option header (i.e., all fields except the
'Options' field) MUST be repeated in all the transmitted RAs. The 'Options' field) MUST be repeated in all the transmitted RAs. The
options within the 'Options' field, MAY be transmitted only once, options within the 'Options' field, MAY be transmitted only once,
included in one of the transmitted PvD options. included in one of the transmitted PvD Options.
3.3. Non-PvD-aware Host Behavior 3.3. Non-PvD-aware Host Behavior
As the PvD Option has a new option code, non-PvD-aware hosts will As the PvD Option has a new option code, non-PvD-aware hosts will
simply ignore the PvD Option and all the options it contains. This simply ignore the PvD Option and all the options it contains (see
ensure the backward compatibility required in section 3.3 of section 4.2 of [RFC4861]. This ensure the backward compatibility
[RFC7556]. This behavior allows for a mixed-mode network with a mix required in Section 3.3 of [RFC7556]. This behavior allows for a
of PvD-aware and non-PvD-aware hosts coexist. mixed-mode network with a mix of PvD-aware and non-PvD-aware hosts
coexist.
3.4. PvD-aware Host Behavior 3.4. PvD-aware Host Behavior
Hosts MUST associate received RAs and included configuration Hosts MUST associate received RAs and included configuration
information (e.g., Router Valid Lifetime, Prefix Information information (e.g., Router Valid Lifetime, Prefix Information
[RFC4861], Recursive DNS Server [RFC8106], Routing Information [RFC4861], Recursive DNS Server [RFC8106], Routing Information
[RFC4191] options) with the explicit PvD identified by the first PvD [RFC4191] options) with the Explicit PvD identified by the first PvD
Option present in the received RA, if any, or with the implicit PvD Option present in the received RA, if any, or with the Implicit PvD
identified by the host interface and the source address of the identified by the host interface and the source address of the
received RA otherwise. received RA otherwise.
In case multiple PvD options are found in a given RA, hosts MUST In case multiple PvD Options are found in a given RA, hosts MUST
ignore all but the first PvD option. ignore all but the first PvD Option.
If a host receives PvD options flags that it does not recognize If a host receives PvD Options flags that it does not recognize
(currently in the Reserved field), it MUST ignore these flags. (currently in the Reserved field), it MUST ignore these flags.
Similarly, hosts MUST associate all network configuration objects Similarly, hosts MUST associate all network configuration objects
(e.g., default routers, addresses, more specific routes, DNS (e.g., default routers, addresses, more specific routes, DNS
Recursive Resolvers) with the PvD associated with the RA which last Recursive Resolvers) with the PvD associated with the RA which last
updated the object. For example, addresses that are generated using updated the object. For example, addresses that are generated using
a received Prefix Information option (PIO) are associated with the a received Prefix Information option (PIO) are associated with the
PvD of the last received RA which included the given PIO. PvD of the last received RA which included the given PIO.
PvD IDs MUST be compared in a case-insensitive manner (i.e., A=a), PvD IDs MUST be compared in a case-insensitive manner as defined by
assuming ASCII with zero parity while non-alphabetic codes must match [RFC4343]. For example, "pvd.example.com." or "PvD.Example.coM."
exactly (see also Section 3.1 of [RFC1035]). For example, would refer to the same PvD.
"pvd.example.com." or "PvD.Example.coM." would refer to the same PvD.
While resolving names, executing the default address selection While resolving names, executing the default address selection
algorithm [RFC6724] or executing the default router selection algorithm [RFC6724] or executing the default router selection
algorithm when forwarding packets ([RFC2461], [RFC4191] and algorithm when forwarding packets ([RFC2461], [RFC4191] and
[RFC8028]), hosts MAY consider only the configuration associated with
an arbitrary set of PvDs. [RFC8028]), hosts and applications MAY consider only the
configuration associated with an arbitrary set of PvDs.
For example, a host MAY associate a given process with a specific For example, a host MAY associate a given process with a specific
PvD, or a specific set of PvDs, while associating another process PvD, or a specific set of PvDs, while associating another process
with another PvD. A PvD-aware application might also be able to with another PvD. A PvD-aware application might also be able to
select, on a per-connection basis, which PvDs should be used. In select, on a per-connection basis, which PvDs should be used. In
particular, constrained devices such as small battery operated particular, constrained devices such as small battery operated
devices (e.g. IoT), or devices with limited CPU or memory resources devices (e.g. IoT), or devices with limited CPU or memory resources
may purposefully use a single PvD while ignoring some received RAs may purposefully use a single PvD while ignoring some received RAs
containing different PvD IDs. containing different PvD IDs.
The way an application expresses its desire to use a given PvD, or a The way an application expresses its desire to use a given PvD, or a
set of PvDs, or the way this selection is enforced, is out of the set of PvDs, or the way this selection is enforced, is out of the
scope of this document. Useful insights about these considerations scope of this document. Useful insights about these considerations
can be found in [I-D.kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs]. can be found in [I-D.kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs].
3.4.1. DHCPv6 configuration association 3.4.1. DHCPv6 configuration association
When a host retrieves configuration elements using DHCPv6 (e.g., When a host retrieves stateless configuration elements using DHCPv6
addresses or DNS recursive resolvers), they MUST be associated with (e.g., DNS recursive resolvers or DNS domain search lists [RFC3646]),
the explicit or implicit PvD of the RA received on the same they MUST be associated with all the explicit and implicit PvDs
interface, sent from the same LLA, and with the O-flag or M-flag set received on the same interface and contained in a RA with the O-flag
[RFC4861]. If no such PvD is found, or whenever multiple different set [RFC4861].
PvDs are found, the host behavior is unspecified.
This process requires hosts to keep track of received RAs, associated When a host retrieves stateful assignments using DHCPv6, such
PvD IDs, and routers LLA; it also assumes that the router either acts assignments MUST be associated with the received PvD which was
as a DHCPv6 server or relay and uses the same LLA for DHCPv6 and RA received with RAs with the M-flag set and including a matching PIO.
traffic (which may not be the case when the router uses VRRP to send A PIO is considered to match a DHCPv6 assignment when the IPv6 prefix
its RA). from the PIO includes the assignment from DHCPv6. For example, if a
PvD's associated PIO defines the prefix 2001:db8:cafe::/64, a DHCPv6
IA_NA message that assigns the address 2001:db8:cafe::1234:4567 would
be considered to match.
In cases where an address would be assigned by DHCPv6 and no matching
PvD could be found, hosts MAY associate the assigned address with any
implicit PvD received on the same interface or to multiple of
implicit PvD received on the same interface. This is intended to
resolve backward compatibility issues with rare deployments choosing
to assign addresses with DHCPv6 while not sending any matching PIO.
3.4.2. DHCPv4 configuration association 3.4.2. DHCPv4 configuration association
When a host retrieves configuration elements from DHCPv4, they MUST Associating DHCPv4 [RFC2131] configuration elements with Explicit
be associated with the explicit PvD received on the same interface, PvDs allows hosts to treat a set of IPv4 and IPv6 configurations as a
whose PVD Options L-flag is set and, in the case of a non point-to- single PvD with shared properties. For example, consider a router
point link, using the same datalink address. If no such PvD is that provides two different uplinks. One could be a broadband
found, or whenever multiple different PvDs are found, the network that has data rate and streaming properties described in PvD
additional information and that provides both IPv4 and IPv6 network
access. The other could be a cellular network that provides only
IPv6 network access, and uses NAT64 [RFC6146]. The broadband network
can be represented by an Explicit PvD that points to the additional
information, and also marks association with DHCPv4 information. The
cellular network can be represented by a different Explicit PvD that
is not associated with DHCPv4.
When a PvD-aware host retrieves configuration elements from DHCPv4,
the information is associated either with a single Explicit PvD on
that interface, or else with all Implicit PvDs on the same interface.
An Explicit PvD indicates its association with DHCPv4 information by
setting the L-flag in the PvD RA Option. If there is exactly one
Explicit PvD that sets this flag, hosts MUST associate the DHCPv4
information with that PvD. Multiple Explicit PvDs on the same
interface marking this flag is a misconfiguration, and hosts SHOULD
NOT associate the DHCPv4 information with any Explicit PvD in this
case.
If no single Explicit PvD claims association with DHCPv4, the
configuration elements coming from DHCPv4 MUST be associated with the configuration elements coming from DHCPv4 MUST be associated with the
implicit PvD identified by the interface on which the DHCPv4 all Implicit PvDs identified by the interface on which the DHCPv4
transaction happened. The case of multiple explicit PvD for an IPv4 transaction happened. This maintains existing host behavior.
interface is undefined.
3.4.3. Connection Sharing by the Host 3.4.3. Connection Sharing by the Host
The situation when a host shares connectivity from an upstream The situation when a host shares connectivity from an upstream
interface (e.g. cellular) to a downstream interface (e.g. Wi-Fi) is interface (e.g. cellular) to a downstream interface (e.g. Wi-Fi) is
known as 'tethering'. Techniques such as ND-proxy [RFC4389], 64share known as 'tethering'. Techniques such as ND-proxy [RFC4389], 64share
[RFC7278] or prefix delegation (e.g. using DHCPv6-PD [RFC8415]) may [RFC7278] or prefix delegation (e.g. using DHCPv6-PD [RFC8415]) may
be used for that purpose. be used for that purpose.
Whenever the RAs received from the upstream interface contain a PVD Whenever the RAs received from the upstream interface contain a PVD
RA option, hosts that are sharing connectivity SHOULD include a PVD RA option, hosts that are sharing connectivity SHOULD include a PVD
Option within the RAs sent downstream with: option within the RAs sent downstream with:
The same PVD-ID FQDN. o The same PVD-ID FQDN
The same H-bit, Delay and Sequence Number values. o The same H-bit, Delay and Sequence Number values
The L bit set whenever the host is sharing IPv4 connectivity o The L bit set whenever the host is sharing IPv4 connectivity
received from the same upstream interface. received from the same upstream interface
The bits from the Reserved field set to 0. o The bits from the Reserved field set to 0
The values of the R-bit, Router Advertisement message header and The values of the R-bit, Router Advertisement message header and
Options field depend on whether the connectivity should be shared Options field depend on whether the connectivity should be shared
only with PvD-aware hosts or not (see Section 3.2). In particular, only with PvD-aware hosts or not (see Section 3.2). In particular,
all options received within the upstream PvD option and included in all options received within the upstream PvD Option and included in
the downstream RA SHOULD be included in the downstream PvD option. the downstream RA SHOULD be included in the downstream PvD Option.
3.4.4. Usage of DNS Servers 3.4.4. Usage of DNS Servers
PvD-aware hosts can be provisioned with recursive DNS servers via RA PvD-aware hosts can be provisioned with recursive DNS servers via RA
options passed within an explicit PvD, via RA options associated with options passed within an Explicit PvD, via RA options associated with
an implicit PvD, via DHCPv6 or DHCPv4, or from some other an Implicit PvD, via DHCPv6 or DHCPv4, or from some other
provisioning mechanism that creates an implicit PvD (such as a VPN). provisioning mechanism that creates an Implicit PvD (such as a VPN).
In all of these cases, the DNS server addresses SHOULD be strongly In all of these cases, the DNS server addresses SHOULD be associated
associated with the corresponding PvD. Specificially, queries sent with the corresponding PvD. Specifically, queries sent to a
to a configured recursive DNS server SHOULD be sent from a local IP configured recursive DNS server SHOULD be sent from a local IP
address that belongs to the matching PvD. Answers received from the address that was provisioned by the PvD via RA or DHCP. Answers
DNS server SHOULD only be used on the same PvD. received from the DNS server SHOULD only be used on the same PvD.
PvD-aware applications will be able to select which PvD(s) to use for
DNS resolution and connections, which allows them to effectively use
multiple Explicit PvDs. In order to support non-PvD-aware
applications, however, PvD-aware hosts SHOULD ensure that non-PvD-
aware name resolution APIs like "getaddrinfo" only use resolvers from
a single PvD for each query. More discussion is provided in
Section 5.2.1 of [RFC7556].
Maintaining the correct usage of DNS within PvDs avoids various Maintaining the correct usage of DNS within PvDs avoids various
practical errors, such as: practical errors, such as:
A PvD associated with a VPN or otherwise private network may o A PvD associated with a VPN or otherwise private network may
provide DNS answers that contain addresses inaccessible over provide DNS answers that contain addresses inaccessible over
another PvD. another PvD.
A PvD that uses a NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64 [RFC6147] will o A PvD that uses a NAT64 [RFC6146] and DNS64 [RFC6147] will
synthesize IPv6 addresses in DNS answers that are not globally synthesize IPv6 addresses in DNS answers that are not globally
routable, and cannot be used on other PvDs. Conversely, an IPv4 routable, and would be invalid on other PvDs. Conversely, an IPv4
address resolved via DNS on another PvD cannot be directly used on address resolved via DNS on another PvD cannot be directly used on
a NAT64 network without the host synthesizing an IPv6 address. a NAT64 network.
4. Provisioning Domain Additional Information 4. Provisioning Domain Additional Information
Additional information about the network characteristics can be Additional information about the network characteristics can be
retrieved based on the PvD ID. This set of information is called PvD retrieved based on the PvD ID. This set of information is called PvD
Additional Information, and is encoded as a JSON object [RFC7159]. Additional Information, and is encoded as a JSON object [RFC7159].
This JSON object is restricted to the restricted profile of I-JSON,
as defined in [RFC7493].
The purpose of this additional set of information is to securely The purpose of this JSON object is to provide additional information
provide additional information to applications about the connectivity to applications on a client host about the connectivity that is
that is provided using a given interface and source address pair. It provided using a given interface and source address. It typically
typically includes data that would be considered too large, or not includes data that would be considered too large, or not critical
critical enough, to be provided within an RA option. The information enough, to be provided within an RA option. The information
contained in this object MAY be used by the operating system, network contained in this object MAY be used by the operating system, network
libraries, applications, or users, in order to decide which set of libraries, applications, or users, in order to decide which set of
PvDs should be used for which connection, as described in PvDs should be used for which connection, as described in
Section 3.4. Section 3.4.
The additional information related to a PvD is specifically intended
to be optional, and is targeted at optimizing or informing the
behavior of user-facing hosts. This information can be extended to
provide hints for host system behavior (such as captive portal or
walled-garden PvD detection) or application behavior (describing
application-specific services offered on a given PvD). This content
may not be appropriate for light-weight Internet of Things (IoT)
devices. IoT devices might need only a subset of the information,
and would in some cases prefer a smaller representation like CBOR
([RFC7049]). Delivering a reduced version of the PvD Additional
Information designed for such devices is not defined in this
document.
4.1. Retrieving the PvD Additional Information 4.1. Retrieving the PvD Additional Information
When the H-flag of the PvD Option is set, hosts MAY attempt to When the H-flag of the PvD Option is set, hosts MAY attempt to
retrieve the PvD Additional Information associated with a given PvD retrieve the PvD Additional Information associated with a given PvD
by performing an HTTP over TLS [RFC2818] GET query to https://<PvD- by performing an HTTP over TLS [RFC2818] GET query to https://<PvD-
ID>/.well-known/pvd [RFC5785]. Inversely, hosts MUST NOT do so ID>/.well-known/pvd [RFC5785]. Inversely, hosts MUST NOT do so
whenever the H-flag is not set. whenever the H-flag is not set.
HTTP requests and responses for PvD additional information use the HTTP requests and responses for PvD additional information use the
"application/pvd+json" media type (see Section 8). Clients SHOULD "application/pvd+json" media type (see Section 8). Clients SHOULD
include this media type as an Accept header in their GET requests, include this media type as an Accept header in their GET requests,
and servers MUST mark this media type as their Content-Type header in and servers MUST mark this media type as their Content-Type header in
responses. responses.
Note that the DNS name resolution of the PvD ID, the PKI checks as Note that the DNS name resolution of the PvD ID, the PKI (Public Key
well as the actual query MUST be performed using the considered PvD. Infrastructure) checks as well as the actual query MUST be performed
In other words, the name resolution, PKI checks, source address using the considered PvD. In other words, the name resolution, PKI
selection, as well as the next-hop router selection MUST be performed checks, source address selection, as well as the next-hop router
while using exclusively the set of configuration information attached selection MUST be performed while using exclusively the set of
with the PvD, as defined in Section 3.4. In some cases, it may configuration information attached with the PvD, as defined in
therefore be necessary to wait for an address to be available for use Section 3.4. In some cases, it may therefore be necessary to wait
(e.g., once the Duplicate Address Detection or DHCPv6 processes are for an address to be available for use (e.g., once the Duplicate
complete) before initiating the HTTP over TLS query. If the host has Address Detection or DHCPv6 processes are complete) before initiating
a temporary address per [RFC4941] in this PvD, then hosts SHOULD use the HTTP over TLS query. If the host has a temporary address per
a temporary address to fetch the PvD Additional Information and [RFC4941] in this PvD, then hosts SHOULD use a temporary address to
SHOULD deprecate the used temporary address and generate a new fetch the PvD Additional Information and SHOULD deprecate the used
temporary address afterward. temporary address and generate a new temporary address afterward.
If the HTTP status of the answer is greater than or equal to 400 the If the HTTP status of the answer is greater than or equal to 400 the
host MUST abandon and consider that there is no additional PvD host MUST abandon and consider that there is no additional PvD
information. If the HTTP status of the answer is between 300 and information. If the HTTP status of the answer is between 300 and
399, inclusive, it MUST follow the redirection(s). If the HTTP 399, inclusive, it MUST follow the redirection(s). If the HTTP
status of the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the host MAY status of the answer is between 200 and 299, inclusive, the host MAY
get a file containing a single JSON object. When a JSON object could get a file containing a single JSON object.
not be retrieved, an error message SHOULD be logged and/or displayed
in a rate-limited fashion.
After retrieval of the PvD Additional Information, hosts MUST keep After retrieval of the PvD Additional Information, hosts MUST
track of the Sequence Number value received in subsequent RAs remember the last Sequence Number value received in the RA including
including the same PvD ID. In case the new value is greater than the the same PvD ID. Whenever a new RA for the same PvD is received with
value that was observed when the PvD Additional Information object a different Sequence Number value, or whenever the expiry date for
was retrieved (using serial number arithmetic comparisons [RFC1982]), the additional information is reached, hosts MUST deprecate the
or whenever the validity time included in the PVD Additional additional information and stop using it until a new JSON object is
Information JSON object is expired, hosts MUST either perform a new retrieved.
query and retrieve a new version of the object, or, failing that,
deprecate the object and stop using the additional information
provided in the JSON object.
Hosts retrieving a new PvD Additional Information object MUST check Hosts retrieving a new PvD Additional Information object MUST check
for the presence and validity of the mandatory fields specified in for the presence and validity of the mandatory fields specified in
Section 4.3. A retrieved object including an expiration time that is Section 4.3. A retrieved object including an expiration time that is
already past or missing a mandatory element MUST be ignored. already past or missing a mandatory element MUST be ignored.
In order to avoid synchronized queries toward the server hosting the In order to avoid synchronized queries toward the server hosting the
PvD Additional Information when an object expires, object updates are PvD Additional Information when an object expires, object updates are
delayed by a randomized backoff time. delayed by a randomized backoff time.
When a host performs an object update after it detected a change o When a host performs a JSON object update after it detected a
in the PvD Option Sequence number, it MUST delay the query by a change in the PvD Option Sequence Number, it MUST add a delay
random time between zero and 2**(Delay * 2) milliseconds, where before sending the query. The target time for the delay is
'Delay' corresponds to the 4 bits long unsigned integer in the calculated as a random time between zero and 2**(Delay * 2)
last received PvD Option. milliseconds, where 'Delay' corresponds to the 4-bit unsigned
integer in the last received PvD Option.
When a host last retrieved an object at time A including a o When a host last retrieved a JSON object at time A that includes a
validity time B, and is configured to keep the object up to date, expiry time B using the "expires" key, and the host is configured
it MUST perform the update at a uniformly random time in the to keep the PvD information up to date, it MUST add some
interval [(B-A)/2,B]. randomness into its calculation of the time to fetch the update.
The target time for fetching the updated object is calculated as a
uniformly random time in the interval [(B-A)/2,B].
In the example Figure 2, the delay field value is 5, this means that In the example Figure 2, the delay field value is 5, this means that
host MUST delay the query by a random number between 0 and 2**(5 * 2) host calculates its delay by choosing a random number between 0 and
milliseconds, i.e., between 0 and 1024 milliseconds. 2**(5 * 2) milliseconds, i.e., between 0 and 1024 milliseconds.
Since the 'Delay' value is directly within the PvD Option rather than Since the 'Delay' value is directly within the PvD Option rather than
the object itself, an operator may perform a push-based update by the object itself, an operator may perform a push-based update by
incrementing the Sequence value while changing the Delay value incrementing the Sequence value while changing the Delay value
depending on the criticality of the update and its PvD Additional depending on the criticality of the update and its PvD Additional
Information servers capacity. Information servers capacity.
The PvD Additional Information object includes a set of IPv6 prefixes The PvD Additional Information object includes a set of IPv6 prefixes
(under the key "prefixes") which MUST be checked against all the (under the key "prefixes") which MUST be checked against all the
Prefix Information Options advertised in the RA. If any of the Prefix Information Options advertised in the RA. If any of the
prefixes included in the PIO is not covered by at least one of the prefixes included in the PIO is not covered by at least one of the
listed prefixes, the PvD associated with the tested prefix MUST be listed prefixes, the associated PvD information MUST be considered to
considered unsafe and MUST NOT be used. While this does not prevent be a misconfiguration, and MUST NOT be used by the host. See
a malicious network provider, it does complicate some attack Section 4.4 for more discussion on handling such misconfigurations.
scenarios, and may help detecting misconfiguration.
4.2. Operational Consideration to Providing the PvD Additional 4.2. Operational Consideration to Providing the PvD Additional
Information Information
Whenever the H-flag is set in the PvD Option, a valid PvD Additional Whenever the H-flag is set in the PvD Option, a valid PvD Additional
Information object MUST be made available to all hosts receiving the Information object MUST be made available to all hosts receiving the
RA by the network operator. In particular, when a captive portal is RA by the network operator. In particular, when a captive portal is
present, hosts MUST still be allowed to perform DNS, PKI and HTTP present, hosts MUST still be allowed to perform DNS, PKI and HTTP
over TLS operations related to the retrieval of the object, even over TLS operations related to the retrieval of the object, even
before logging into the captive portal. before logging into the captive portal.
Routers MAY increment the PVD Option Sequence number in order to Routers SHOULD increment the PVD Option Sequence Number by one
inform host that a new PvD Additional Information object is available whenever a new PvD Additional Information object is available and
and should be retrieved. should be retrieved by hosts. If the value exceeds what can be
stored in the Sequence Number field, it SHOULD wrap back to zero.
The server providing the JSON files SHOULD also check whether the The server providing the JSON files SHOULD also check whether the
client address is part of the prefixes listed into the additional client address is part of the prefixes listed into the additional
information and SHOULD return a 403 response code if there is no information and SHOULD return a 403 response code if there is no
match. match.
4.3. PvD Additional Information Format 4.3. PvD Additional Information Format
The PvD Additional Information is a JSON object. The PvD Additional Information is a JSON object.
The following table presents the mandatory keys which MUST be The following table presents the mandatory keys which MUST be
included in the object: included in the object:
+----------+-----------------+-------------+------------------------+ +------------+-----------------+-----------+------------------------+
| JSON key | Description | Type | Example | | JSON key | Description | Type | Example |
+----------+-----------------+-------------+------------------------+ +------------+-----------------+-----------+------------------------+
| name | Human-readable | UTF-8 | "Awesome Wi-Fi" | | identifier | PvD ID FQDN | String | "pvd.example.com." |
| | service name | string | | | | | | |
| | | [RFC3629] | | | expires | Date after | [RFC3339] | "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z" |
| expires | Date after | [RFC3339] | "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z" | | | which this | Date | |
| | which this | | | | | object is no | | |
| | object is not | | | | | longer valid | | |
| | valid | | | | | | | |
| prefixes | Array of IPv6 | Array of | ["2001:db8:1::/48", | | prefixes | Array of IPv6 | Array of | ["2001:db8:1::/48", |
| | prefixes valid | strings | "2001:db8:4::/48"] | | | prefixes valid | strings | "2001:db8:4::/48"] |
| | for this PVD | | | | | for this PvD | | |
+----------+-----------------+-------------+------------------------+ +------------+-----------------+-----------+------------------------+
A retrieved object which does not include a valid string associated
with the "name" key at the root of the object, or a valid date A retrieved object which does not include all three of these keys at
associated with the "expires" key, also at the root of the object, the root of the JSON object MUST be ignored. All three keys need to
MUST be ignored. In such cases, an error message SHOULD be logged be validated, otherwise the object MUST be ignored. The value stored
and/or displayed in a rate-limited fashion. If the PIO of the for "identifier" MUST be matched against the PvD ID FQDN presented in
received RA is not covered by at least one of the "prefixes" key, the the PvD RA option using the comparison mechanism described in
retrieved object SHOULD be ignored. Section 3.4. The value stored for "expires" MUST be a valid date in
the future. If the PIO of the received RA is not covered by at least
one of the "prefixes" key, the retrieved object SHOULD be ignored.
The following table presents some optional keys which MAY be included The following table presents some optional keys which MAY be included
in the object. in the object.
+---------------+-----------------+---------+-----------------------+ +------------+----------------------+----------+--------------------+
| JSON key | Description | Type | Example | | JSON key | Description | Type | Example |
+---------------+-----------------+---------+-----------------------+ +------------+----------------------+----------+--------------------+
| localizedName | Localized user- | UTF-8 | "Wi-Fi Genial" | | dnsZones | DNS zones searchable | Array of | ["example.com", |
| | visible service | string | | | | and accessible | strings | "sub.example.com"] |
| | name, language | | | | | | | |
| | can be selected | | | | noInternet | No Internet, set | Boolean | true |
| | based on the | | | | | when the PvD is | | |
| | HTTP Accept- | | | | | restricted. | | |
| | Language header | | | +------------+----------------------+----------+--------------------+
| | in the request. | | |
| dnsZones | DNS zones | array | ["example.com","sub.e |
| | searchable and | of DNS | xample.org"] |
| | accessible | zones | |
| noInternet | No Internet, | boolean | true |
| | set when the | | |
| | PvD only | | |
| | provides | | |
| | restricted | | |
| | access to a set | | |
| | of services | | |
+---------------+-----------------+---------+-----------------------+
It is worth noting that the JSON format allows for extensions. It is worth noting that the JSON format allows for extensions.
Whenever an unknown key is encountered, it MUST be ignored along with Whenever an unknown key is encountered, it MUST be ignored along with
its associated elements. its associated elements.
Private-use or experimental keys MAY be used in the JSON dictionary. Private-use or experimental keys MAY be used in the JSON dictionary.
In order to avoid such keys colliding with IANA registry keys, In order to avoid such keys colliding with IANA registry keys,
implementers or vendors defining private-use or experimental keys implementers or vendors defining private-use or experimental keys
MUST create sub-dictionaries, where the sub-dictionary is added into MUST create sub-dictionaries, where the sub-dictionary is added into
the top-level JSON dictionary with a key of the format "vendor-*" the top-level JSON dictionary with a key of the format "vendor-*"
where the "*" is replaced by the implementers or vendors where the "*" is replaced by the implementer's or vendor's
denomination. Upon receiving such a sub-dictionary, host MUST ignore identifier. For example, keys specific to the FooBar organization
this sub-dictionary if it is unknown. When the vendor or implementor could use "vendor-foobar". Upon receiving such a sub-dictionary,
is part of an IANA URN namespace [URN], the URN namespace SHOULD be host MUST ignore this sub-dictionary if it is unknown. When the
used rather than the "vendor-*" format. vendor or implementer is part of an IANA URN namespace [URN], the URN
namespace SHOULD be used rather than the "vendor-*" format.
4.3.1. Example 4.3.1. Example
The following examples show how the JSON keys defined in this The following two examples show how the JSON keys defined in this
document can be used: document can be used:
{ {
"name": "Foo Wireless", "identifier": "cafe.example.com",
"localizedName": "Foo-France Wi-Fi",
"expires": "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z",
"prefixes" : ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"],
}
{
"name": "Bar 4G",
"localizedName": "Bar US 4G",
"expires": "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z", "expires": "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z",
"prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"], "prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"],
} }
{ {
"name": "Company Network", "identifier": "company.foo.example.com",
"localizedName": "Company Network",
"expires": "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z", "expires": "2017-07-23T06:00:00Z",
"prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"], "prefixes": ["2001:db8:1::/48", "2001:db8:4::/48"],
"vendor-foo": { "private-key": "private-value" }, "vendor-foo": { "private-key": "private-value" },
} }
4.4. Detecting misconfiguration and misuse 4.4. Detecting misconfiguration and misuse
When a host retrieves the PvD Additional Information, it MUST verify When a host retrieves the PvD Additional Information, it MUST verify
that the TLS server certificate is valid for the performed request that the TLS server certificate is valid for the performed request
(e.g., that the Subject Name is equal to the PvD ID expressed as an (e.g., that the Subject Name is equal to the PvD ID expressed as an
FQDN). This authentication creates a secure binding between the FQDN). This authentication creates a secure binding between the
information provided by the trusted Router Advertisement, and the information provided by the trusted Router Advertisement, and the
HTTPS server. However, this does not mean the Advertising Router and HTTPS server. However, this does not mean the Advertising Router and
the PvD server belong to the same entity. the PvD server belong to the same entity.
Hosts MUST verify that all prefixes in the RA PIO are covered by a Hosts MUST verify that all prefixes in the RA PIO are covered by a
prefix from the PvD Additional Information. An adversarial router prefix from the PvD Additional Information. An adversarial router
willing to fake the use of a given explicit PvD, without any access attempting to spoof the definition of an Explicit PvD, without the
to the actual PvD Additional Information, would need to perform NAT66 ability to modify the PvD Additional Information, would need to
in order to circumvent this check. perform NAT66 in order to circumvent this check. Thus, this check
cannot prevent all spoofing, but it can detect misconfiguration or
It is also RECOMMENDED that the HTTPS server checks the IPv6 source mismatched routers that are not adding a NAT.
addresses of incoming connections (see Section 4.1). This check give
reasonable assurance that neither NPTv6 [RFC6296] nor NAT66 were used
and restricts the information to the valid network users.
Note that this check cannot be performed when the HTTPS query is If NAT66 is being added in order to spoof PvD ownership, the HTTPS
performed over IPv4. Therefore, the PvD ID FQDN SHOULD NOT have a server for additional information can detect this misconfiguration.
DNS A record whenever all hosts using the given PvD have IPv6 The HTTPS server SHOULD validate the source addresses of incoming
connectivity. connections (see Section 4.1). This check gives reasonable assurance
that neither NPTv6 [RFC6296] nor NAT66 were used and restricts the
information to the valid network users. If the PvD does not
provision IPv4 (it does not include the 'L' bit in the RA), the
server cannot validate the source addresses of connections using
IPv4. Thus, the PvD ID FQDN for such PvDs SHOULD NOT have a DNS A
record.
5. Operational Considerations 5. Operational Considerations
This section describes some use cases of PvD. For the sake of This section describes some example use cases of PvD. For the sake
simplicity, the RA messages will not be described in the usual ASCII of simplicity, the RA messages will not be described in the usual
art but rather in an indented list. For example, a RA message ASCII art but rather in an indented list.
containing some options and a PvD option that also contains other
options will be described as: 5.1. Exposing Extra RA Options to PvD-Aware Hosts
In this example, there is one RA message sent by the router. This
message contains some options applicable to all hosts on the network,
and also a PvD Option that also contains other options only visible
to PvD-aware hosts.
o RA Header: router lifetime = 6000 o RA Header: router lifetime = 6000
o Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix = 2001:db8:cafe::/64 o Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix = 2001:db8:cafe::/64
o PvD Option header: length = 3 + 5 + 4 , PvD ID FQDN = o PvD Option header: length = 3 + 5 + 4 , PvD ID FQDN =
example.org., R-flag = 0 (actual length of the header with padding example.org., R-flag = 0 (actual length of the header with padding
24 bytes = 3 * 8 bytes) 24 bytes = 3 * 8 bytes)
* Recursive DNS Server: length = 5, addresses= * Recursive DNS Server: length = 5, addresses =
[2001:db8:cafe::53, 2001:db8:f00d::53] [2001:db8:cafe::53, 2001:db8:f00d::53]
* Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix = * Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix =
2001:db8:f00d::/64 2001:db8:f00d::/64
Note that a PvD-aware host will receive two different prefixes,
2001:db8:cafe::/64 and 2001:db8:f00d::/64, both associated with the
same PvD (identified by "example.org."). A non-PvD-aware host will
only receive one prefix, 2001:db8:cafe::/64.
5.2. Different RAs for PvD-Aware and Non-PvD-Aware Hosts
It is expected that for some years, networks will have a mixed It is expected that for some years, networks will have a mixed
environment of PvD-aware hosts and non-PvD-aware hosts. If there is environment of PvD-aware hosts and non-PvD-aware hosts. If there is
a need to give specific information to PvD-aware hosts only, then it a need to give specific information to PvD-aware hosts only, then it
is recommended to send TWO RA messages: one for each class of hosts. is recommended to send two RA messages (one for each class of hosts).
For example, here is the RA for non-PvD-aware hosts: For example, here is the RA sent for non-PvD-aware hosts:
o RA Header: router lifetime = 6000 (non-PvD-aware hosts will use o RA Header: router lifetime = 6000 (non-PvD-aware hosts will use
this router as a default router) this router as a default router)
o Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix = 2001:db8:cafe::/64 o Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix = 2001:db8:cafe::/64
o Recursive DNS Server Option: length = 3, addresses= o Recursive DNS Server Option: length = 3, addresses=
[2001:db8:cafe::53] [2001:db8:cafe::53]
o PvD Option header: length = 3 + 2, PvD ID FQDN = foo.example.org., o PvD Option header: length = 3 + 2, PvD ID FQDN = foo.example.org.,
R-flag = 1 (actual length of the header 24 bytes = 3 * 8 bytes) R-flag = 1 (actual length of the header 24 bytes = 3 * 8 bytes)
* RA Header: router lifetime = 0 (PvD-aware hosts will not use * RA Header: router lifetime = 0 (PvD-aware hosts will not use
this router as a default router), implicit length = 2 this router as a default router), implicit length = 2
And here is a RA example for PvD-aware hosts: And here is the RA sent for PvD-aware hosts:
o RA Header: router lifetime = 0 (non-PvD-aware hosts will not use o RA Header: router lifetime = 0 (non-PvD-aware hosts will not use
this router as a default router) this router as a default router)
o PvD Option header: length = 3 + 2 + 4 + 3, PvD ID FQDN = o PvD Option header: length = 3 + 2 + 4 + 3, PvD ID FQDN =
example.org., R-flag = 1 (actual length of the header 24 bytes = 3 bar.example.org., R-flag = 1 (actual length of the header 24 bytes
* 8 bytes) = 3 * 8 bytes)
* RA Header: router lifetime = 1600 (PvD-aware hosts will use * RA Header: router lifetime = 1600 (PvD-aware hosts will use
this router as a default router), implicit length = 2 this router as a default router), implicit length = 2
* Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix = * Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix =
2001:db8:f00d::/64 2001:db8:f00d::/64
* Recursive DNS Server Option: length = 3, addresses= * Recursive DNS Server Option: length = 3, addresses =
[2001:db8:f00d::53] [2001:db8:f00d::53]
In the above example, non-PvD-aware hosts will only use the first RA In the above example, non-PvD-aware hosts will only use the first RA
sent from their default router and using the 2001:db8:cafe::/64 sent from their default router and using the 2001:db8:cafe::/64
prefix. PvD-aware hosts will autonomously configure addresses from prefix. PvD-aware hosts will autonomously configure addresses from
both PIOs, but will only use the source address in 2001:db8:f00d::/64 both PIOs, but will only use the source address in 2001:db8:f00d::/64
to communicate past the first hop router since only the router to communicate past the first hop router since only the router
sending the second RA will be used as default router; similarly, they sending the second RA will be used as default router; similarly, they
will use the DNS server 2001:db8:f00d::53 when communicating with will use the DNS server 2001:db8:f00d::53 when communicating with
this adress. this address.
5.3. Enabling Multi-homing for PvD-Aware Hosts
In this example, the goal is to have one prefix from one RA be usable
by both non-PvD-aware and PvD-aware hosts; and to have another prefix
usable only by PvD-aware hosts. This allows PvD-aware hosts to be
able to effectively multi-home on the network.
The first RA is usable by all hosts. The only difference for PvD-
aware hosts is that they can explicitly identify the PvD ID
associated with the RA. PvD-aware hosts will also use this prefix to
communicate with non-PvD-aware hosts on the same network.
o RA Header: router lifetime = 6000 (non-PvD-aware hosts will use
this router as a default router)
o Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix = 2001:db8:cafe::/64
o Recursive DNS Server Option: length = 3, addresses=
[2001:db8:cafe::53]
o PvD Option header: length = 3, PvD ID FQDN = foo.example.org.,
R-flag = 0 (actual length of the header 24 bytes = 3 * 8 bytes)
The second RA contains a prefix usable only by PvD-aware hosts. Non-
PvD-aware hosts will ignore this RA.
o RA Header: router lifetime = 0 (non-PvD-aware hosts will not use
this router as a default router)
o PvD Option header: length = 3 + 2 + 4 + 3, PvD ID FQDN =
bar.example.org., R-flag = 1 (actual length of the header 24 bytes
= 3 * 8 bytes)
* RA Header: router lifetime = 1600 (PvD-aware hosts will use
this router as a default router), implicit length = 2
* Prefix Information Option: length = 4, prefix =
2001:db8:f00d::/64
* Recursive DNS Server Option: length = 3, addresses =
[2001:db8:f00d::53]
6. Security Considerations 6. Security Considerations
Although some solutions such as IPsec or SeND [RFC3971] can be used Although some solutions such as IPsec or SeND [RFC3971] can be used
in order to secure the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol, in practice in order to secure the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol, in practice
actual deployments largely rely on link layer or physical layer actual deployments largely rely on link layer or physical layer
security mechanisms (e.g. 802.1x [IEEE8021X]) in conjunction with RA security mechanisms (e.g. 802.1x [IEEE8021X]) in conjunction with RA
Guard [RFC6105]. Guard [RFC6105].
This specification does not improve the Neighbor Discovery Protocol This specification does not improve the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
security model, but extends the purely link-local trust relationship security model, but extends the purely link-local trust relationship
between the host and the default routers with HTTP over TLS between the host and the default routers with HTTP over TLS
communications which servers are authenticated as rightful owners of communications which servers are authenticated as rightful owners of
the FQDN received within the trusted PvD ID RA option. the FQDN received within the trusted PvD ID RA option.
It must be noted that Section 4.4 of this document only provides It must be noted that Section 4.4 of this document only provides
reasonable assurance against misconfiguration but does not prevent an reasonable assurance against misconfiguration but does not prevent an
hostile network access provider to advertize wrong information that hostile network access provider to advertise wrong information that
could lead applications or hosts to select an hostile PvD. Users could lead applications or hosts to select a hostile PvD.
should always apply caution when connecting to an unknown network.
Users cannot be assumed to be able to meaningfully differentiate
between "safe" and "unsafe" networks. This is a known attack surface
that is present whether or not PvDs are in use, and hence cannot be
addressed by this document. However, a host that correctly
implements the MPvD architecture ([RFC7556]) using the mechanism
described in this document will be less susceptible to such attacks
than a host that does not by being able to check for the various
misconfigurations described in this document.
7. Privacy Considerations 7. Privacy Considerations
Retrieval of the PvD Additional Information over HTTPS requires early Retrieval of the PvD Additional Information over HTTPS requires early
communications between the connecting host and a server which may be communications between the connecting host and a server which may be
located further than the first hop router. Although this server is located further than the first hop router. Although this server is
likely to be located within the same administrative domain as the likely to be located within the same administrative domain as the
default router, this property can't be ensured. Therefore, hosts default router, this property can't be ensured. Therefore, hosts
willing to retrieve the PvD Additional Information before using it willing to retrieve the PvD Additional Information before using it
without leaking identity information, SHOULD make use of an IPv6 without leaking identity information, SHOULD make use of an IPv6
skipping to change at page 18, line 36 skipping to change at page 21, line 50
refrain from accessing servers that are located outside a certain refrain from accessing servers that are located outside a certain
network boundary. In practice, this could be implemented as a network boundary. In practice, this could be implemented as a
whitelist of 'trusted' FQDNs and/or IP prefixes that the host is whitelist of 'trusted' FQDNs and/or IP prefixes that the host is
allowed to communicate with. In such scenarios, the host SHOULD allowed to communicate with. In such scenarios, the host SHOULD
check that the provided PvD ID, as well as the IP address that it check that the provided PvD ID, as well as the IP address that it
resolves into, are part of the allowed whitelist. resolves into, are part of the allowed whitelist.
8. IANA Considerations 8. IANA Considerations
Upon publication of this document, IANA is asked to remove the Upon publication of this document, IANA is asked to remove the
'reclaimable' tag off the value 21 for the PvD option (from the IPv6 'reclaimable' tag off the value 21 for the PvD Option (from the IPv6
Neighbor Discovery Option Formats registry). Neighbor Discovery Option Formats registry).
IANA is asked to assign the value "pvd" from the Well-Known URIs IANA is asked to assign the value "pvd" from the Well-Known URIs
registry. registry.
8.1. Additional Information PvD Keys Registry 8.1. Additional Information PvD Keys Registry
IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry called IANA is asked to create and maintain a new registry called
"Additional Information PvD Keys", which will reserve JSON keys for "Additional Information PvD Keys", which will reserve JSON keys for
use in PvD additional information. The initial contents of this use in PvD additional information. The initial contents of this
registry are given in Section 4.3. registry are given in Section 4.3.
New assignments for Additional Information PvD Keys Registry will be New assignments for Additional Information PvD Keys Registry will be
administered by IANA through Expert Review RFC8126 [RFC8126]. administered by IANA through Expert Review [RFC8126].
8.2. PvD Option Flags Registry 8.2. PvD Option Flags Registry
IANA is also asked to create and maintain a new registry entitled IANA is also asked to create and maintain a new registry entitled
"PvD Option Flags" reserving bit positions from 0 to 15 to be used in "PvD Option Flags" reserving bit positions from 0 to 15 to be used in
the PvD option bitmask. Bit position 0, 1 and 2 are reserved by this the PvD Option bitmask. Bit position 0, 1 and 2 are reserved by this
document (as specified in Figure 1). Future assignments require document (as specified in Figure 1). Future assignments require
Standards Action RFC8126 [RFC8126], via a Standards Track RFC Standards Action [RFC8126], via a Standards Track RFC document.
document.
8.3. PvD JSON Media Type Registration 8.3. PvD JSON Media Type Registration
This document registers the media type for PvD JSON text, This document registers the media type for PvD JSON text,
"application/pvd+json". "application/pvd+json".
Type Name: application Type Name: application
Subtype Name: pvd+json Subtype Name: pvd+json
skipping to change at page 20, line 5 skipping to change at page 23, line 18
Authors' Addresses section Authors' Addresses section
Intended usage: COMMON Intended usage: COMMON
Restrictions on usage: None Restrictions on usage: None
Author: IETF Author: IETF
Change controller: IETF Change controller: IETF
9. Acknowledgements 9. Acknowledgments
Many thanks to M. Stenberg and S. Barth for their earlier work: Many thanks to M. Stenberg and S. Barth for their earlier work:
[I-D.stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns], as well as to Basile Bruneau who was [I-D.stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns], as well as to Basile Bruneau who was
author of an early version of this document. author of an early version of this document.
Thanks also to Marcus Keane, Mikael Abrahamsson, Ray Bellis, Zhen Thanks also to Marcus Keane, Mikael Abrahamsson, Ray Bellis, Zhen
Cao, Tim Chow, Lorenzo Colitti, Michael Di Bartolomeo, Ian Farrer, Cao, Tim Chown, Lorenzo Colitti, Michael Di Bartolomeo, Ian Farrer,
Phillip Hallam-Baker, Bob Hinden, Tatuya Jinmei, Erik Kline, Ted Phillip Hallam-Baker, Bob Hinden, Tatuya Jinmei, Erik Kline, Ted
Lemon, Jen Lenkova, Veronika McKillop, Mark Townsley and James Lemon, Paul Hoffman, Dave Thaler, Suresh Krishnan, Gorry Fairhurst,
Woodyatt for useful and interesting discussions and reviews. Jen Lenkova, Veronika McKillop, Mark Townsley and James Woodyatt for
useful and interesting discussions and reviews.
Finally, special thanks to Thierry Danis and Wenqin Shao for their Finally, special thanks to Thierry Danis and Wenqin Shao for their
valuable inputs and implementation efforts ([github]), Tom Jones for valuable inputs and implementation efforts, Tom Jones for his
his integration effort into the NEAT project and Rigil Salim for his integration effort into the NEAT project and Rigil Salim for his
implementation work. implementation work.
10. References 10. References
10.1. Normative references 10.1. Normative References
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035, specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>. November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2461, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2461>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2461>.
[RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO [RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>. DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.
[RFC4343] Eastlake 3rd, D., "Domain Name System (DNS) Case
Insensitivity Clarification", RFC 4343,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4343, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4343>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data [RFC7159] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March Interchange Format", RFC 7159, DOI 10.17487/RFC7159, March
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>. 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7159>.
[RFC7493] Bray, T., Ed., "The I-JSON Message Format", RFC 7493,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7493, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7493>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
10.2. Informative references 10.2. Informative References
[github] Cisco, "IPv6-mPvD github repository",
<https://github.com/IPv6-mPvD>.
[I-D.kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs] [I-D.kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs]
Kline, E., "Multiple Provisioning Domains API Kline, E., "Multiple Provisioning Domains API
Requirements", draft-kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs-00 (work in Requirements", draft-kline-mif-mpvd-api-reqs-00 (work in
progress), November 2015. progress), November 2015.
[I-D.stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns] [I-D.stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns]
Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Multiple Provisioning Domains Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Multiple Provisioning Domains
using Domain Name System", draft-stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns-00 using Domain Name System", draft-stenberg-mif-mpvd-dns-00
(work in progress), October 2015. (work in progress), October 2015.
[IEEE8021X] [IEEE8021X]
IEEE, "IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area "IEEE Standards for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks,
Networks: Port based Network Access Control, IEEE Std". Port-based Network Access Control, IEEE Std", n.d..
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: [RFC3339] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002, Timestamps", RFC 3339, DOI 10.17487/RFC3339, July 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3339>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
skipping to change at page 22, line 44 skipping to change at page 26, line 14
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix [RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011, Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6 [RFC7278] Byrne, C., Drown, D., and A. Vizdal, "Extending an IPv6
/64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278, (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link", RFC 7278,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7278, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7278>.
[RFC7556] Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain [RFC7556] Anipko, D., Ed., "Multiple Provisioning Domain
Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015, Architecture", RFC 7556, DOI 10.17487/RFC7556, June 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7556>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7556>.
[RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by [RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028, Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016, DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
[RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli, [RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration", "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017, RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., [RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018, RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
[URN] IANA, "URN Namespaces", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ [URN] "URN Namespaces", n.d..
urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1>.
Appendix A. Changelog
Note to RFC Editors: Remove this section before publication.
A.1. Version 00
Initial version of the draft. Edited by Basile Bruneau + Eric Vyncke
and based on Basile's work.
A.2. Version 01
Major rewrite intended to focus on the the retained solution based on
corridors, online, and WG discussions. Edited by Pierre Pfister.
The following list only includes major changes.
PvD ID is an FQDN retrieved using a single RA option. This option
contains a sequence number for push-based updates, a new H-flag,
and a L-flag in order to link the PvD with the IPv4 DHCP server.
A lifetime is included in the PvD ID option.
Detailed Hosts and Routers specifications.
Additional Information is retrieved using HTTP-over-TLS when the
PvD ID Option H-flag is set. Retrieving the object is optional.
The PvD Additional Information object includes a validity date.
DNS-based approach is removed as well as the DNS-based encoding of
the PvD Additional Information.
Major cut in the list of proposed JSON keys. This document may be
extended later if need be.
Monetary discussion is moved to the appendix.
Clarification about the 'prefixes' contained in the additional
information.
Clarification about the processing of DHCPv6.
A.3. Version 02
The FQDN is now encoded with ASCII format (instead of DNS binary)
in the RA option.
The PvD ID option lifetime is removed from the object.
Use well known URI "https://<PvD-ID>/.well-known/pvd"
Reference RFC3339 for JSON timestamp format.
The PvD ID Sequence field has been extended to 16 bits.
Modified host behavior for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6.
Removed IKEv2 section.
Removed mention of RFC7710 Captive Portal option. A new I.D.
will be proposed to address the captive portal use case.
A.4. WG Document version 00
Document has been accepted as INTAREA working group document
IANA considerations follow RFC8126 [RFC8126]
PvD ID FQDN is encoded as per RFC 1035 [RFC1035]
PvD ID FQDN is prepended by a one-byte length field
Marcus Keane added as co-author
dnsZones key is added back
draft of a privacy consideration section and added that a
temporary address should be used to retrieve the PvD additional
information
per Bob Hinden's request: the document is now aiming at standard
track and security considerations have been moved to the main
section
A.5. WG Document version 01
Removing references to 'metered' and 'characteristics' keys.
Those may be in scope of the PvD work, but this document will
focus on essential parts only.
Removing appendix section regarding link quality and billing
information.
The PvD RA Option may now contain other RA options such that PvD-
aware hosts may receive configuration information otherwise
invisible to non-PvD-aware hosts.
Clarify that the additional PvD Additional Information is not
intended to modify host's networking stack behavior, but rather
provide information to the Application, used to select which PvDs
must be used and provide configuration parameters to the transport
layer.
The RA option padding is used to increase the option size to the
next 64 (was 32) bits boundary.
Better detail the Security model and Privacy considerations.
A.6. WG Document version 02
Use the IANA value of 21 in the text and update the IANA
considerations section accordingly
add the Delay field to avoid the thundering herd effect
add Wenqin Shao as author
keep the 1 PvD per RA model
changed the intro (per Zhen Cao) "when choosing which PvD and
transport should be used" => "when choosing which PvD should be
used"
rename A-flag in R-flag to avoid A-flag of PIO
use the wording "PvD Option", removing the ID token as it is now a
container with more then just an ID, removing 'RA' in the option
name to be consistent with other IANA NDP option
use "non-PvD-aware" rather than "PvD-ignorant"
added more reference to RFC 7556 (notably for PvD being globally
unique, introducing PvD-aware host vs. PvD-aware node)
Section 3.4.3 renamed from "interconnection shared by node" to
'connection shared by node"
Section 3.4 renamed into "PvD-aware Host Behavior"
Added a section "Non-PvD-aware Host Behavior"
A.7. WG Document version 04
Updated reference for DHCPv6-PD from RFC 3633 to RFC 8415.
Enhanced IANA considerations to clarify review process and new
registries.
Added a section on considerations for handling DNS on a PvD-aware
host.
A.7.1. WG Document version 05
Fixed nits about IPSEC and WiFi
Added use case per Phillip Hallam-Baker
Clarified some sentences
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Pierre Pfister Pierre Pfister
Cisco Cisco
11 Rue Camille Desmoulins 11 Rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130
France France
Email: ppfister@cisco.com Email: ppfister@cisco.com
Eric Vyncke (editor)
Eric Vyncke
Cisco Cisco
De Kleetlaan, 6 De Kleetlaan, 6
Diegem 1831 Diegem 1831
Belgium Belgium
Email: evyncke@cisco.com Email: evyncke@cisco.com
Tommy Pauly Tommy Pauly
Apple Apple Inc.
One Apple Park Way One Apple Park Way
Cupertino, California 95014 Cupertino, California 95014
USA United States of America
Email: tpauly@apple.com Email: tpauly@apple.com
David Schinazi David Schinazi
Google LLC Google LLC
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043 Mountain View, California 94043
USA United States of America
Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com Email: dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com
Wenqin Shao Wenqin Shao
Cisco Cisco
11 Rue Camille Desmoulins 11 Rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130
France France
Email: wenshao@cisco.com Email: wenshao@apple.com
 End of changes. 122 change blocks. 
547 lines changed or deleted 531 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/