Network Working Group                                         J. Salowey
Internet-Draft                                                  R. Droms
Intended status: Standards Track                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: April 13, 19, 2007                                 October 10, 16, 2006

                 RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute

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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 19, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).


   This document defines a RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User
   Service) attribute that carries an IPv6 prefix that is to be
   delegated to the user.  This attribute is usable within either RADIUS
   or Diameter.

1.  Introduction

   This document defines the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute as a RADIUS
   [1] attribute that carries an IPv6 prefix to be delegated to the
   user, for use in the user's network.  For example, the prefix in a
   Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute can be delegated to another node
   through DHCP Prefix Delegation [2].

   The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute can be used in DHCP Prefix
   Delegation between the delegating router and a RADIUS server, as
   illustrated in the following message sequence.


  Requesting Router    Delegating Router                   RADIUS Server
         |                     |                                 |
         |-Solicit------------>|                                 |
         |                     |-Request------------------------>|
         |                     |<--Accept(Delegated-IPv6-Prefix)-|
         |<--Advertise(Prefix)-|                                 |
         |-Request(Prefix)---->|                                 |
         |<--Reply(Prefix)-----|                                 |
         |                     |                                 |
                DHCP PD                      RADIUS

   The Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4] is not designed to support
   delegation of IPv6 prefixes to be used in the user's network, and
   therefore Framed-IPv6-Prefix and Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attributes may
   be included in the same RADIUS packet.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [3].

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                             |


            TBD for Delegated-IPv6-Prefix


            The length of the entire attribute, in bytes.  At least 4
            (to hold Type/Length/Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 0-bit
            prefix), and no larger than 20 (to hold Type/Length/
            Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 128-bit prefix)


            Always set to zero by sender; ignored by receiver


            The length of the prefix being delegated, in bits.  At least
            0 and no larger than 128 bits (identifying a single IPv6

   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 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

4.  Table of Attributes

   The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found
   in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity.

| Request Accept Reject Challenge Accounting  #   Attribute             |
|                                 Request                               |
| 0+      0+     0      0         0+          TBD Delegated-IPv6-Prefix |

   The meaning of the above table entries is as follows:
      0 This attribute MUST NOT be present.
      0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present.
      0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present.
      1 Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present.
      1+ One or more of these attributes MUST be present.

5.  Diameter Considerations

   When used in Diameter, the attribute defined in this specification
   can be used as a Diameter AVP from the Code space 1-255, i.e., RADIUS
   attribute compatibility space.  No additional Diameter Code values
   are therefore allocated.  The data types of the attributes are as

        Delegated-IPv6-Prefix             OctetString

   The attribute in this specification has no special translation
   requirements for Diameter to RADIUS or RADIUS to Diameter gateways,
   i.e., the attribute is copied as is, except for changes relating to
   headers, alignment, and padding.  See also RFC 3588 [5], Section 4.1,
   and RFC 4005 [6], Section 9.

   The text in this specification describing the applicability of the
   Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Access-Request applies in
   Diameter to AA-Request [6] or Diameter-EAP-Request [7].

   The text in this specification describing the applicability of the
   Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Access-Accept applies in
   Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer that indicates success.

   The text in this specification describing the applicability of the
   Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Accounting-Request applies
   to Diameter Accounting-Request [6] as well.

   The AVP flag rules [5] for the Delegate-IPv6-Prefix Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute are:

                                      |    AVP Flag rules   |
                     AVP              |    |     |SHLD| MUST|    |
     Attribute Name  Code  Value Type |MUST| MAY | NOT|  NOT|Encr|
     Delegated-IPv6- TBD   OctetString| M  |  P  |    |  V  | Y  |
       Prefix                         |    |     |    |     |    |

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign a Type value, TBD, for this attribute
   from the RADIUS Attribute Types registry.

7.  Security Considerations

   Known security vulnerabilities of the RADIUS protocol are discussed
   in RFC 2607 [8], RFC 2865 [1] and RFC 2869 [9].  Use of IPsec [10]
   for providing security when RADIUS is carried in IPv6 is discussed in
   RFC 3162.

   Security considerations for the Diameter protocol are discussed in
   RFC 3588 [5].

8.  Change Log

   This section to be removed before publication as an RFC.

   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 [9] to RFC 4301.  (Issue 188)
   o  Changed "IP SEC" to "IPsec" in section 6.  (Issues 185 and 188)

   The following changes were made in revision -02 of this document:
   o  Added a second paragraph to the Introduction, referencing the
      Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute
   o  Improved description of attribute fields in section 3
   o  Added border to table in section 3
   o  Updated Section 4, Diameter Considerations, to describe how this
      attribute would be used in Diameter.
   o  Added reference to RFC 3588 in Section 6, Security Considerations.

   The following changes, based on Issues 201 and 204 on the RADEXT WG
   Issues list:, were made in
   revision -03 of this document:
   o  Updated Section 5, Diameter Considerations, to describe the AVP
      flag rules for this attribute.
   o  Edited Section 1, to clarify the relationship between the
      Delegated-IPv6-Prefix and Framed-IPv6-Prefix attributes.
   o  Edited table of attributes and moved to a separate section.

   Revision -04 includes the following changes:
   o  Editorial changes in the AVP flag rules table
   o  Editorial changes in the description of the relationship between
      the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix and Framed-IPv6-Prefix attributes (last
      paragraph of section 1)
   o  Editorical  Editorial changes in the first paragraph of section 1 to clarify
      that this document defines a new attribute not already defined in
      RFC 2865
   o  Added a text and a diagram to section 1 to illustrate the use of
      the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute

   Revision -05 includes the following changes:
   o  Corrected the spelling of "Reqesting" to "Requesting" in section
      1, Introduction
   o  Corrected the spelling of "Delegate-IPv6-Prefix" to "Delegated-
      IPv6-Prefix" in section 5, Diameter Consideration

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [1]  Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote
        Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865,
        June 2000.

   [2]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host
        Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
        December 2003.

   [3]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
        Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2.  Non-normative References

   [4]   Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
         RFC 3162, August 2001.

   [5]   Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko,
         "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.

   [6]   Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter
         Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005.

   [7]   Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
         Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
         August 2005.

   [8]   Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
         Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.

   [9]   Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Extensions",
         RFC 2869, June 2000.

   [10]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet
         Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

Authors' Addresses

   Joe Salowey
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   2901 Third Avenue
   Seattle, WA  98121

   Phone: +1 206.310.0596
   Ralph Droms
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA  01719

   Phone: +1 978.936.1674

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

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

   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


   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).