Network Working Group J. Salowey Internet-Draft R. Droms Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc. Expires:
August 29,November 24, 2006 February 25,May 23, 2006 RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-00.txtdraft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-01.txt Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any 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 aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 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. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 29,November 24, 2006. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). Abstract The Delegated-IPv6-PrefixThis document defines a RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User Service) attribute indicatesthat carries an IPv6 prefix that is to be delegated to the user. This attribute is usable within either RADIUS or Diameter. 1. Introduction The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix indicatesis a RADIUS attribute  that carries an IPv6 prefix to be delegated to the user. For example, the prefix in a Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute can be delegated to another node through DHCP Prefix Delegation . The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix MAY be used in Access-Accept packets, and can appear multiple times. It MAY be used in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer these prefix(es), but the server is not required to honor the hint.2. Terminology The key words MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY,"MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and OPTIONAL"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 . 3. Attribute format The format of the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix is: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Type | Length | Reserved | Prefix-Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Prefix +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Prefix +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Prefix +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Prefix | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Type TBD for Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Length At least 4 and no larger than 20 Reserved Always set to zero Prefix-Length The length of the prefix, in bits. At least 0 and no larger than 128 Note that the prefix field is only required to be long enough to hold the prefix bits and can be shorter than 16 bytes. Any bits in the prefix field that are not part of the prefix MUST be zero. The definition of the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute is based on the Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute. The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix MAY appear in an Access-Accept packet, and can appear multiple times. It MAY appear in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer these prefix(es), but the server is not required to honor the hint. The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute MAY appear in an Accounting- Request packet. The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix MUST NOT appear in any other RADIUS packets. The following table describes which messages the Delegated-IPv6- Prefix attribute can appear in and in what quantity. Request Accept Challenge RejectAccounting # Attribute Request 0+ 0+ 0 00+ TBD Delegated-IPv6-Prefix In this table 0 indicates that an attribute MUST NOT be present in the packet and0+ means that zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in packet. This attribute MUST NOT appear in any packet not listed in the table. 4. Diameter Considerations A definition is needed for an identical attribute with the same Type value for Diameter . The attribute should be available as part of the NASREQ application , as well as the Diameter EAP application . 5. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign a Type value, TBD, for this attribute from the RADIUS Types registry. 5.6. Security Considerations Known security vulnerabilities of the RADIUS protocol are discussed in RFC 2607 ,, RFC 2865  and RFC 2869 .. Use of IP SEC IPsec  for providing security when RADIUS is carried in IPv6 is discussed in RFC 3162 .. 7. Change Log The following changes were made in revision -01 of this document: o Added additional details to Abstract; defined that this attribute can be used in both RADIUS and Diameter. (Issue 188) o Moved and clarified text describing which packets this attribute can appear in adjacent to table in section 3. (Issue 188) o Fixed RFC 2119 boilerplate in section 2. (Issue 185) o Fixed table in section 3 to clarify which packets this attribute cannot appear in. (Issue 188) o Added section 4, Diameter Considerations. (Issue 188) o Made some references in section 6, Security Considerations, Informative rather than Normative. (Issue 188) o Updated reference to RFC 2401  to RFC 4301. (Issue 188) o Changed "IP SEC" to "IPsec" in section 6. (Issues 185 and 188) 8. References 8.1. Normative References  Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUSRigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and IPv6",W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 3162, August 2001.2865, June 2000.  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003.  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 8.2. Non-normative References  Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko, "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.  Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005.  Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072, August 2005.  Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865, June 2000.  Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Extensions", RFC 2869, June 2000.  Kent, S. and R. Atkinson,K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.4301, December 2005.  Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6", RFC 3162, August 2001. Authors' Addresses Joe Salowey Cisco Systems, Inc. 2901 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98121 USA Phone: +1 206.310.0596 Email: email@example.com Ralph Droms Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Avenue Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Phone: +1 978.936.1674 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at email@example.com. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA).