draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-00.txt   draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01.txt 
Mobile IPv6 Extensions Group R. Droms Mobile IPv6 Extensions Group R. Droms
Internet-Draft P. Thubert Internet-Draft P. Thubert
Intended status: Informational Cisco Intended status: Standards Track Cisco
Expires: December 19, 2008 F. Dupont Expires: May 7, 2009 F. Dupont
ISC ISC
W. Haddad W. Haddad
Qualcomm Qualcomm
June 17, 2008 November 3, 2008
DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-00 draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-01
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
skipping to change at page 1, line 38 skipping to change at page 1, line 38
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://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 19, 2008. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 7, 2009.
Abstract Abstract
One aspect of network mobility support is the assignment of a prefix One aspect of network mobility support is the assignment of a prefix
or prefixes to a Mobile Router (MR) for use on the links in the or prefixes to a Mobile Router (MR) for use on the links in the
Mobile Network. DHCPv6 prefix delegation can be used for this Mobile Network. DHCPv6 prefix delegation can be used for this
configuration task. configuration task.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
skipping to change at page 5, line 45 skipping to change at page 5, line 45
option [RFC3315] to provide DHCPv6 prefix delegation with a two option [RFC3315] to provide DHCPv6 prefix delegation with a two
message exchange between the mobile node and the DHCPv6PD DR. message exchange between the mobile node and the DHCPv6PD DR.
3.6. DHCPv6PD and DHAAD 3.6. DHCPv6PD and DHAAD
The MR acting as RR needs a direct link to the DR (or relay) The MR acting as RR needs a direct link to the DR (or relay)
function. When the MR is away from Home, that link is the MR-HA function. When the MR is away from Home, that link is the MR-HA
tunnel. If a MR needs to obtain a prefix by means of DHCPv6PD, it tunnel. If a MR needs to obtain a prefix by means of DHCPv6PD, it
has to locate a HA that is capable of serving either as a DHCPv6PD has to locate a HA that is capable of serving either as a DHCPv6PD
relay agent or server. Since the use of DHCPv6PD is optional and relay agent or server. Since the use of DHCPv6PD is optional and
comes as an addition to RFC 3775 existing protocols and RFC 3963, it comes as an addition to existing protocols RFC 3775 and RFC 3963, it
can not be expected that all HAs are DHCPv6PD capable. can not be expected that all HAs are DHCPv6PD capable.
This specification extends Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery and This specification extends Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery and
the Home Agent Information Option in order to enable the detection by the Home Agent Information Option in order to enable the detection by
a MR of all HAs that are DHCPv6PD capable. A new 'D' bit is a MR of all HAs that are DHCPv6PD capable. A new 'D' bit is
introduced to let Home Agents advertise that they are willing to introduced to let Home Agents advertise that they are willing to
participate to DHCP. Note that there is no direct way for the MR participate to DHCP. Note that there is no direct way for the MR
acting as RR to know whether a HA is actually a DR or simply acting acting as RR to know whether a HA is actually a DR or simply acting
as a relay. as a relay.
skipping to change at page 6, line 41 skipping to change at page 6, line 41
Delegation. Delegation.
For a description of the other fields in the message, see RFC 3775 For a description of the other fields in the message, see RFC 3775
and RFC 3963. and RFC 3963.
3.6.2. Modified Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery Reply 3.6.2. Modified Dynamic Home Agent Address Discovery Reply
A new flag (D) (Support for DHCPv6PD) is introduced in the DHAAD A new flag (D) (Support for DHCPv6PD) is introduced in the DHAAD
Reply message, defined in RFC 3775 and RFC 3963. If a Home Agent Reply message, defined in RFC 3775 and RFC 3963. If a Home Agent
receives a Dynamic Home Agent Discovery request message with the receives a Dynamic Home Agent Discovery request message with the
DHCPv6PD Support Flag set, it MUST a list of Home Agents DHCPv6PD Support Flag set, it MUST include a list of Home Agents
participating to DHCPv6PD to any replies. participating to DHCPv6PD to any replies.
The DHCPv6PD Support Flag MUST be set if there is at least one Home The DHCPv6PD Support Flag MUST be set if there is at least one Home
Agent participating to DHCPv6PD. In that case, the reply will list Agent participating to DHCPv6PD. In that case, the reply will list
only those HAs that participate to DHCPv6PD, whether they act as only those HAs that participate to DHCPv6PD, whether they act as
servers (DRs) or relays. servers (DRs) or relays.
A HA that supports DHCPv6PD MUST support Mobile Routers as well, so A HA that supports DHCPv6PD MUST support Mobile Routers as well, so
if the 'D' bit is set, then the 'R' bit should be set as well. So if the 'D' bit is set, then the 'R' bit should be set as well. So
there is no need in an implementation to support the case where some there is no need in an implementation to support the case where some
skipping to change at page 9, line 26 skipping to change at page 9, line 26
NEMO explicit mode is recommended to take advantage of the function NEMO explicit mode is recommended to take advantage of the function
already defined for NEMO. already defined for NEMO.
3.8. Other DHCPv6 functions 3.8. Other DHCPv6 functions
The DHCPv6 messages exchanged between the MR and the HA may also be The DHCPv6 messages exchanged between the MR and the HA may also be
used for other DHCPv6 functions in addition to DHCPv6PD. For used for other DHCPv6 functions in addition to DHCPv6PD. For
example, the HA may assign global addresses to the MR and may pass example, the HA may assign global addresses to the MR and may pass
other configuration information such as a list of available DNS other configuration information such as a list of available DNS
recursive name servers [RFC3646]xref> to the MR using the same DHCPv6 recursive name servers [RFC3646] to the MR using the same DHCPv6
messages as used for DHCPV6PD. messages as used for DHCPV6PD.
The HA may act as a DHCPv6 relay agent for MHs while it acts as a DR The HA may act as a DHCPv6 relay agent for MHs while it acts as a DR
for MRs. for MRs.
4. Changes in this draft 4. Changes in this draft
This document is based on draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-03 and includes This document is based on draft-ietf-nemo-dhcpv6-pd-03 and includes
the use of the DHCPv6 relay agent in the MR, as described in the use of the DHCPv6 relay agent in the MR, as described in
Section 3.3, from draft-dupont-mext-dhcrelay-00. Section 3.3, from draft-dupont-mext-dhcrelay-00.
5. Security Considerations 5. Security Considerations
This document describes the use of DHCPv6 for prefix delegation in This document describes the use of DHCPv6 for prefix delegation in
Mobile Networks. It does not introduce any additional security Mobile Networks. It does not introduce any additional security
considerations beyond those described in the "Security considerations for DHCPv6 beyond those described in the "Security
Considerations" section of the DHCPv6 base specification [RFC3315] Considerations" section of the DHCPv6 base specification [RFC3315]
and the "Security Considerations" of the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation and the "Security Considerations" of the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
specification [RFC3633]. specification [RFC3633].
If the network infrastrcuture connecting the various commmunicating The use of DHCPv6, as described in this document, requires only
message integrity protection, which can be provided by the mobile
network infrastructure between the MR and the HA.
If the network infrastructure connecting the various communicating
nodes does not provide message integrity and source authentication nodes does not provide message integrity and source authentication
for the DHCPv6PD messages, HAs and MRs SHOULD use DHCPv6 for the DHCPv6PD messages, HAs and MRs SHOULD use DHCPv6
authentication as described in section "Authentication of DHCP authentication as described in section "Authentication of DHCP
messages" of the DHCPv6 specification [RFC3315], to guard against messages" of the DHCPv6 specification [RFC3315], to guard against
attacks mounted through prefix delegation. attacks mounted through prefix delegation.
If the HA and DHCPv6 PD functions are not provided by the same
physical node, the HA will act as a DHCPv6 relay agent between the MR
and the DHCPv6 server. In this scenario, the mobile network
infrastructure will only protect the DHCPv6 traffic between the RR
(MR) and the relay agent (HA). Section 21.1 of RFC 3315 describes
how appropriate security can be provided between a DHCPv6 relay agent
and server.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document describes the use of DHCPv6 for prefix delegation in This document describes the use of DHCPv6 for prefix delegation in
Mobile Networks. It does not introduce any additional IANA Mobile Networks. It does not introduce any additional IANA
considerations. considerations.
7. Normative References 7. Change Log
This section MUST be removed before this document is published as an
RFC.
7.1. Revision -01
Added detail in "Security Considerations" describing protection
required for DHCPv6 and a mechanism for protecting traffic between
the DHCPv6 relay agent and server.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
skipping to change at page 10, line 41 skipping to change at page 11, line 20
[RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support [RFC3775] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. [RFC3963] Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P.
Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", Thubert, "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol",
RFC 3963, January 2005. RFC 3963, January 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support [RFC4885] Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007. Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.
[RFC4886] Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and [RFC4886] Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and
Requirements", RFC 4886, July 2007. Requirements", RFC 4886, July 2007.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate] [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate]
Droms, R., "DHCPv6 Relay Agent Assignment Notification Droms, R., "DHCPv6 Relay Agent Assignment Notification
(RAAN) Option", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-02 (RAAN) Option", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-02
(work in progress), November 2006. (work in progress), November 2006.
 End of changes. 12 change blocks. 
11 lines changed or deleted 38 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.35. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/