draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-00.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-01.txt 
Internet Engineering Task Force Shin Miyakawa Network Working Group S. Miyakawa
INTERNET-DRAFT NTT Communications Internet-Draft NTT Communications Corporation
<draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-00.txt> Expires: Aug 25, 2003 R. Droms
Cisco Systems
Expires: May 1, 2003 Feb 2003
Nov 1, 2002
Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation
draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-01.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
To view the list Internet-Draft Shadow Directories, see The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This Internet-Draft will expire on Aug 25, 2003.
The internet-draft will expire in 6 months. The date of expiration will Copyright Notice
be May 1, 2003.
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes requirements about how an IPv6 address prefix This document describes requirements for how IPv6 address prefixes
should be delegated to an IPv6 subscriber's network (or "site"). should be delegated to an IPv6 subscriber's network (or "site").
Motivation 1. Introduction
With the deployment of IPv6 [Deering, 1998] ,several commercial ISPs With the deployment of IPv6 [2], several Internet Service Providers
are ready to offer their services to the public in conjunction with are ready to offer IPv6 access to the public. In conjunction with
widely deployed IP subscription method such as ADSL and so on. But, widely deployed "always on" media as ADSL, and the expectation that
thinking about following situation of IPv6 commercial service as one customers will be assigned a /48 IPv6 address prefix, an efficient
of the most likely examples, mechanism for delegating address prefixes to the customers sites is
needed. The delegation mechanism will be intended to automate the
process of informing the customer's networking equipment of the
prefixes to be used at the customer's site.
IPv6 ISP router This document clarifies the requirements for IPv6 address prefix
| delegation from the ISP to the site.
| point-to-point link
|
User's Site router
|
----+----- User's Site Network
though it is needed a standardized way to delegate one or more IPv6 2. Requirements
address prefix(es) from the IPv6 ISP to the User's site
automatically, it is not identified clearly yet.
Originally, it seemed that just RA (Router Avertisement) considered The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
as good enough to be used for P-P link between ISP and User's site, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL in this document are to be
but according to the NCCs' recommendations, one site should be interpreted as described in RFC2119 [1].
delegated /48 usually.
So, ISP which now would like to start its own IPv6 commercial service 3. Scenario and terminology
TODAY, need to have some method other than RA protocol which only can
handle one signle /64 prefix but something else or enhanced
- to delegate not just one signle /64 prefix to the user - to satisfy The following figure illustrates a likely example for the
all the other (standard) requirements which is needed to realize organization of a network providing subscription IPv6 service:
commercial service
Therefore, this documents clarifies requirements for IPv6 address /------\
prefix delegation from the ISP to the site, especially from the / \
(commercial) ISP point of view to boost IPv6 business quick as + |
possible. / \ /
+---------------+ +--------+/ \------/
|ISP Edge Router|Point-to-point|Customer+
| +--------------+ Router | Customer networks
| (PE) | link | (CPE) +
+---------------+ +--------+\ /------\
\ / \
+ |
\ /
\------/
Requirements for prefix delegation management Illustration of ISP-customer network architecture
Focusing commercial IPv6 ISP service, there are several kinds of
category of requirements for the mechanism / protocol to delegate one
or more IPv6 prefixes from ISP to a site.
- layer 2 consideration Terminology:
The method should work on any layer 2 technologies. In other words, PE Provider edge device; the device at which the link to the customer
site is terminated
CPE Customer provided equipment; the device at the customer site at
which the link to the ISP is terminated
4. Requirements for Prefix Delegation
The purpose of the prefix delegation mechanism is to communicate
prefixes to the CPE automatically.
4.1 Number and Length of Delegated Prefixed
The prefix delegation mechanism SHOULD allow for delegation of
prefixes of length /48, /64 and other lengths, and SHOULD allow for
delegation of more than one prefix to the customer.
4.2 Use of Delegated Prefixes in Customer Network
The prefix delegation mechanism MUST NOT prohibit or inhibit the
assignment of longer prefixes, created from the delegated prefixes,
to links within the customer network. It is not a requirement that
the prefix delegation mechanism provide for the reporting of prefix
delegation within the customer network back to the ISP.
4.3 Automated Assignment
The prefix delegation mechanism SHOULD allow for long-lived pre-
assignment of one or more prefix(es) to a customer and for
automated, possibly short-lived assignment of a prefix to a customer
on demand.
4.4 Policy-based Assignment
The prefix delegation mechanism SHOULD allow for the use of policy in
assigning prefixes to a customer. For example, the customer's
identity and type of subscribed service may be used to determine the
address block from which the customer's prefix is selected, and the
length of the prefix assigned to the customer.
4.5 Security and Authentication
The prefix delegation mechanism MUST provide for reliable
authentication of the identity of the customer to which the prefixes
are to be assigned, and MUST provide for reliable, secure
transmission of the delegated prefixes to the customer.
4.6 Accounting
The prefix delegation mechanism MUST allow for the ISP to provide
accounting information about delegated prefixes.
4.7 Layer 2 Considerations
The method SHOULD work on any layer 2 technologies. In other words,
it should be layer 2 technology independent. Though, at the same it should be layer 2 technology independent. Though, at the same
time, it should be noted that now ISP would like to have a solution time, it should be noted that now ISP would like to have a solution
for Point-to-Point link which has own authentication mechanism first. for Point-to-Point link which has own authentication mechanism first.
PPP link with CHAP authentication is a good example. (Simulated) PPP link with CHAP authentication is a good example. (Simulated)
Ethernet and IEEE802.11 (wireless LAN) should be covered in near Ethernet and IEEE802.11 (wireless LAN) should be covered in near
future, but they have low priority (just) for now. It should be future, but they have low priority (just) for now. It should be
clarified that the method should work with all L2 protocols either clarified that the method should work with all L2 protocols either
with authentication mechanism or without, but ISP would like to take with authentication mechanism or without, but ISP would like to take
advantage of a L2 protocol's authentication mechanism if it exits. advantage of a L2 protocol's authentication mechanism if it exits.
- accounting 5. IANA Considerations
It should provide accounting capability such as logging about by There are no IANA considerations in this document.
whom, when and what prefix(es) is used for the service with proper
authentication techniques.
- kinds of prefixes 6. Security considerations
It should be able to delegate both statically and dynamically Section 4.5 specifies security requirements for the prefix delegation
assigned prefix assignment by authenticated identification, depended mechanism.
by resources and/or any reasons.
- negotiation between ISP and site References
ISP may deny the service, due to various reasons such as there is no [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
contract or bad financial credit etc. Also ISP should be able to use Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
one single technique to pass parameters of the prefix such as scope
(global and/or site), prefix length (/48, /64 or any other length)
and any other appropriate related information to the site. On the
other hand, a site should be able to request multiple prefixes to the
ISP. Also a site should be able to pass parameters of the prefix
such as scope (global and/or site), prefix length (/48, /64 or any
other length), number of prefixes and so on to the ISP to negotiate.
- less impact on ISP equipments [2] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
ISP usualy use some kind of equipment to provide subscription service Author's Address
to the users such as access concentrating router, PPP server and so
on. This may aggregate thousands or more connections toward the
ISP's backbone. Prefix delegation mechanism must be compatible with
this situation.
References Deering, 1998. S. Deering and R. Hinden, "Internet Shin Miyakawa
Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC2460 (December 1998). Innovative IP Architecture Center, NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Opera City Tower 21F, 3-20-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo,
Japan
Phone: +81-3-6800-3262
EMail: miyakawa@nttv6.jp
History Ralph Droms
Jun 2002, first draft was presented as personal submission. Cisco Systems
At the IETF-54th at Yokohama, it became a working group draft. 300 Apollo Drive
Nov 2003, the draft published as -01 draft. Chelmsford, MA 01886
Phone: +1-978-497-4733
EMail: rdroms@cisco.com
Acknowledgements Full Copyright Statement
People in Internet Association of Japan have gave me a lot of good input.
Team members of NTT Communications IPv6 project, especially Toshi Yamasaki
and Yasuhiro Shirasaki, gave me quite useful suggestions for this
document. Chairs of IETF IPv6 working group especially Bob Hinden
who gave me a good suggestions before I submitted this draft.
Also communications with other folks in the IPv6 community, such
as WIDE/KAME project, IPv6 and DHCP teams in Cisco systems and so on have
been quite helpful. Thanks a lot.
Author's address Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
Shin Miyakawa, Ph.D
Innovative IP Architecture Center, NTT Communications Corporation This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
Tokyo, Japan others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
Tel: +81-3-6800-3262 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
Fax: +81-3-5265-2990 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
Email: miyakawa@nttv6.jp kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
 End of changes. 

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