draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-03.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-04.txt 
Network Working Group S. Miyakawa Network Working Group S. Miyakawa
Internet-Draft NTT Communications Corporation Internet-Draft NTT Communications Corporation
Expires: February 21, 2004 R. Droms Expires: August 9, 2004 R. Droms
Cisco Cisco
August 23, 2003 February 9, 2004
Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation
draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-03.txt draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-04.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 21, 2004. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2004.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
This document describes requirements for how IPv6 address prefixes 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").
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
With the deployment of IPv6 [1], several Internet Service Providers With the deployment of IPv6 [1], several Internet Service Providers
are ready to offer IPv6 access to the public. In conjunction with are ready to offer IPv6 access to the public. In conjunction with
widely deployed "always on" media such as ADSL and the expectation widely deployed "always on" media such as ADSL and the expectation
that customers will be assigned a /48 IPv6 unicast address prefix that customers will be assigned a /48 IPv6 unicast address prefix
(see RFC3513 [2] and section 3 of RFC3177 [3]), an efficient (see RFC3513 [3] and section 3 of RFC3177 [2]), an efficient
mechanism for delegating address prefixes to the customers sites is mechanism for delegating address prefixes to the customers sites is
needed. The delegation mechanism will be intended to automate the needed. The delegation mechanism will be intended to automate the
process of informing the customer's networking equipment of the process of informing the customer's networking equipment of the
prefixes to be used at the customer's site. prefixes to be used at the customer's site.
This document clarifies the requirements for IPv6 address prefix This document clarifies the requirements for IPv6 address prefix
delegation from the ISP to the site. delegation from the ISP to the site.
2. Scenario and terminology 2. Scenario and terminology
skipping to change at page 2, line 50 skipping to change at page 2, line 50
3. Requirements for Prefix Delegation 3. Requirements for Prefix Delegation
The purpose of the prefix delegation mechanism is to delegate and The purpose of the prefix delegation mechanism is to delegate and
manage prefixes to the CPE automatically. manage prefixes to the CPE automatically.
3.1 Number and Length of Delegated Prefixes 3.1 Number and Length of Delegated Prefixes
The prefix delegation mechanism should allow for delegation of The prefix delegation mechanism should allow for delegation of
prefixes of lengths between /48 and /64, inclusively. Other lengths prefixes of lengths between /48 and /64, inclusively. Other lengths
may be supported. The mechanism should allow for delegation of more should also be supported. The mechanism should allow for delegation
than one prefix to the customer. of more than one prefix to the customer.
3.2 Use of Delegated Prefixes in Customer Network 3.2 Use of Delegated Prefixes in Customer Network
The prefix delegation mechanism must not prohibit or inhibit the The prefix delegation mechanism must not prohibit or inhibit the
assignment of longer prefixes, created from the delegated prefixes, assignment of longer prefixes, created from the delegated prefixes,
to links within the customer network. The prefix delegation mechanism to links within the customer network. The prefix delegation mechanism
is not required to report any prefix delegations within the is not required to report any prefix delegations within the
customer's network back to the ISP. customer's network back to the ISP.
3.3 Static and Dynamic Assignment 3.3 Static and Dynamic Assignment
skipping to change at page 3, line 28 skipping to change at page 3, line 28
on-demand dynamic assignment of prefixes to a customer. on-demand dynamic assignment of prefixes to a customer.
3.4 Policy-based Assignment 3.4 Policy-based Assignment
The prefix delegation mechanism should allow for the use of policy in The prefix delegation mechanism should allow for the use of policy in
assigning prefixes to a customer. For example, the customer's assigning prefixes to a customer. For example, the customer's
identity and type of subscribed service may be used to determine the identity and type of subscribed service may be used to determine the
address block from which the customer's prefix is selected, and the address block from which the customer's prefix is selected, and the
length of the prefix assigned to the customer. length of the prefix assigned to the customer.
3.5 Security and Authentication 3.5 Expression of Requirements or Preferences by the CPE
The CPE must be able to express requirements or preferences in its
request to the PE. For example, the CPE should be able to express a
preference for a prefix length.
3.6 Security and Authentication
The prefix delegation mechanism must provide for reliable The prefix delegation mechanism must provide for reliable
authentication of the identity of the customer to which the prefixes authentication of the identity of the customer to which the prefixes
are to be assigned, and must provide for reliable, secure are to be assigned, and must provide for reliable, secure
transmission of the delegated prefixes to the customer. transmission of the delegated prefixes to the customer.
3.6 Accounting The prefix delegation should provide for reliable authentication of
the identity of the service provider's edge router.
The prefix delegation mechanism must allow for the ISP to provide 3.7 Accounting
accounting information about delegated prefixes.
3.7 Hardware technology Considerations The prefix delegation mechanism must allow for the ISP to obtain
accounting information about delegated prefixes from the PE.
The prefix delegation mechanism should work on any hardware 3.8 Hardware technology Considerations
technology and should be hardware technology independent. The
mechanism must work on shared links. The mechanism should work with The prefix delegation mechanism should work on any hardware link
all hardware technologies either with an authentication mechanism or technology between the PE and the CPE and should be hardware
without, but ISPs would like to take advantage of the hardware technology independent. The mechanism must work on shared links. The
technology's authentication mechanism if it exists. mechanism should work with all hardware technologies either with an
authentication mechanism or without, but ISPs would like to take
advantage of the hardware technology's authentication mechanism if it
exists.
4. IANA Considerations 4. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this document. There are no IANA considerations in this document.
5. Security considerations 5. Security considerations
Section 3.5 specifies security requirements for the prefix delegation Section 3.6 specifies security requirements for the prefix delegation
mechanism. For point to point links, where one trusts that there is mechanism. For point to point links, where one trusts that there is
no man in the middle, or one trusts layer two authentication, no man in the middle, or one trusts layer two authentication,
authentication may not be necessary. authentication may not be necessary.
A rogue delegating router can issue bogus prefixes to a requesting A rogue PE can issue bogus prefixes to a requesting router. This may
router. This may cause denial of service due to unreachability. cause denial of service due to unreachability.
A rogue requesting router (CPE) may be able to mount a denial of A rogue CPE may be able to mount a denial of service attack by
service attack by repeated requests for delegated prefixes that repeated requests for delegated prefixes that exhaust the PE's
exhaust the delegating router's available prefixes. available prefixes.
6. Acknowledgments 6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express our thanks to Pekka Savola, Dave The authors would like to express our thanks to Randy Bush, Thomas
Thaler, Micheal Py and other members of the IPv6 working group for Narten, Micheal Py, Pekka Savola, Dave Thaler, as well as other
their review and constructive comnents and to the people in the IPv6 members of the IPv6 working group and the IESG for their review and
operation group of the Internet Association of Japan and NTT constructive comnents and to the people in the IPv6 operation group
Communications IPv6 project, especially Toshi Yamasaki and Yasuhiro of the Internet Association of Japan and NTT Communications IPv6
Shirasaki for their original discussion and suggestions. project, especially Toshi Yamasaki and Yasuhiro Shirasaki for their
original discussion and suggestions.
Informative References Informative References
[1] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) [1] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[2] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) [2] IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address", RFC
Addressing Architecture", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[3] IAB/IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address", RFC
3177, September 2001. 3177, September 2001.
[3] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Shin Miyakawa Shin Miyakawa
NTT Communications Corporation NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo Tokyo
Japan Japan
Phone: +81-3-6800-3262 Phone: +81-3-6800-3262
EMail: miyakawa@nttv6.jp EMail: miyakawa@nttv6.jp
Ralph Droms Ralph Droms
Cisco Cisco
1414 Massachusetts Avenue 1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719 Boxborough, MA 01719
USA USA
Phone: +1 978.936.1674 Phone: +1 978.936.1674
EMail: rdroms@cisco.com EMail: rdroms@cisco.com
Intellectual Property Statement Intellectual Property Statement
skipping to change at page 6, line 29 skipping to change at page 6, line 29
be obtained from the IETF Secretariat. be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
Director. Director.
Full Copyright Statement Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
 End of changes. 

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