--- 1/draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.txt 2013-08-07 06:14:24.794177892 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-11.txt 2013-08-07 06:14:24.822178575 -0700 @@ -1,49 +1,49 @@ -6man Working Group A.M. Matsumoto -Internet-Draft T.F. Fujisaki +6man Working Group A. Matsumoto +Internet-Draft T. Fujisaki Intended status: Standards Track NTT -Expires: November 01, 2013 T.C. Chown +Expires: February 08, 2014 T. Chown University of Southampton - April 30, 2013 + August 07, 2013 Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6 - draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.txt + draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-11.txt Abstract RFC 6724 defines default address selection mechanisms for IPv6 that allow nodes to select an appropriate address when faced with multiple - source and/or destination addresses to choose between. The RFC 6724 - allowed for the future definition of methods to administratively + source and/or destination addresses to choose between. RFC 6724 + allows for the future definition of methods to administratively configure the address selection policy information. This document defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration, allowing a site administrator to distribute address selection policy overriding the - default address selection parameters and policy table, and thus + default address selection parameters and policy table, and thus to control the address selection behavior of nodes in their site. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 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." - This Internet-Draft will expire on November 01, 2013. + This Internet-Draft will expire on February 08, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents @@ -60,57 +60,61 @@ modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. 1. Introduction - RFC 3484 [RFC3484] describes default algorithms for selecting an - address when a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses - to choose from by using an address selection policy. In Section 2 of - RFC 6724, it is suggested that the default policy table may be - administratively configured to suit the specific needs of a site. - This specification defines a new DHCPv6 option for such - configuration. + [RFC6724] describes default algorithms for selecting an address when + a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses to choose + from by using an address selection policy. In Section 2 of RFC 6724, + it is suggested that the default policy table may be administratively + configured to suit the specific needs of a site. This specification + defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration. - Some problems have been identified with the default RFC 3484 address - selection policy [RFC5220]. It is unlikely that any default policy - will suit all scenarios, and thus mechanisms to control the source - address selection policy will be necessary. Requirements for those - mechanisms are described in [RFC5221], while solutions are discussed - in [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]. Those documents have + Some problems were identified with the default address selection + policy as originally defined in [RFC3484]. As a result, RFC 3484 was + updated and obsoleted by [RFC6724]. While this update corrected a + number of issues identifed from operational experience, it is + unlikely that any default policy will suit all scenarios, and thus + mechanisms to control the source address selection policy will be + necessary. Requirements for those mechanisms are described in + [RFC5221], while solutions are discussed in + [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]. Those documents have helped shape the improvements in the default address selection - algorithm [RFC6724] as well as the DHCPv6 option defined in this - specification. + algorithm in [RFC6724] as well as the requirements for the DHCPv6 + option defined in this specification. 1.1. Conventions Used in This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 1.2. Terminology + This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC2460] and the DHCPv6 specification defined in [RFC3315] 2. Address Selection options The Address Selection option provides the address selection policy table, and some other configuration parameters. An Address Selection option contains zero or more policy table - options. Multiple Policy Table options in an Address Selection - option constitute a single policy table. When it does not contain - policy table option, it is used to convey the A and P flags. + options. Multiple policy table options in an Address Selection + option constitute a single policy table. When an Address Selection + option does not contain a policy table option, it may be used to just + convey the A and P flags. The format of the Address Selection option is given below. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OPTION_ADDRSEL | option-len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved |A|P| | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ POLICY TABLE OPTIONS | @@ -118,43 +122,44 @@ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Address Selection option format option-code: OPTION_ADDRSEL (TBD). option-len: The total length of the Reserved field, A, P flags, and POLICY TABLE OPTIONS in octets. - Reserved: Reserved field. Server MUST set this value to zero and - client MUST ignore its content. + Reserved: Reserved field. The server MUST set this value to zero + and the client MUST ignore its content. A: Automatic Row Addition flag. This flag toggles the Automatic - Row Addition flag at client hosts, which is described in the - section 2.1 in RFC 6724 [RFC6724]. If this flag is set to 1, it - does not change client host behavior, that is, a client MAY - automatically add additional site-specific rows to the policy - table. If set to 0, the Automatic Row Addition flag is - disabled, and a client SHOULD NOT automatically add rows to the - policy table. + Row Addition flag at client hosts, which is described in section + 2.1 of [RFC6724]. If this flag is set to 1, it does not change + client host behavior, that is, a client MAY automatically add + additional site-specific rows to the policy table. If set to 0, + the Automatic Row Addition flag is disabled, and a client SHOULD + NOT automatically add rows to the policy table. If the option + contains a POLICY TABLE option, this flag is meaningless, and + automatic row addition SHOULD NOT be performed against the + distributed policy table. P: Privacy Preference flag. This flag toggles the Privacy - Preference flag at client hosts, which is described in the - section 5 in RFC 6724 [RFC6724]. If this flag is set to 1, it - does not change client host behavior, that is, a client will - prefer temporary addresses. If set to 0, the Privacy Preference - flag is disabled, and a client will prefer public addresses. + Preference flag on client hosts, which is described in section 5 + of [RFC6724]. If this flag is set to 1, it does not change + client host behavior, that is, a client will prefer temporary + addresses [RFC4941]. If set to 0, the Privacy Preference flag + is disabled, and a client will prefer public addresses. POLICY TABLE OPTIONS: Zero or more Address Selection Policy Table - options described below. This option corresponds to a row in - the policy table defined in the section 2.1 in RFC 6724 - [RFC6724]. + options, as described below. This option corresponds to a row + in the policy table defined in section 2.1 of [RFC6724]. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE | option-len | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | label | precedence | prefix-len | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | | | prefix (variable length) | @@ -163,201 +168,201 @@ Figure 2: Address Selection Policy Table option format option-code: OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE (TBD). option-len: The total length of the label field, precedence field, prefix-len field, and prefix field. label: An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is for correlation of source address prefixes and destination address prefixes. This - field is used to deliver a label value in RFC 6724 policy table. + field is used to deliver a label value in the [RFC6724] policy + table. precedence: An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used for sorting destination addresses. This field is used to to deliver - a precedence value in RFC 6724 policy table. + a precedence value in [RFC6724] policy table. prefix-len: An 8-bit unsigned integer; the number of leading bits in the prefix that are valid. The value ranges from 0 to 128. prefix: A variable-length field containing an IP address or the prefix of an IP address. An IPv4-mapped address [RFC4291] must be used to represent an IPv4 address as a prefix value. This field is padded with zeros up to the nearest octet boundary when - prefix6-len is not divisible by 8. This can be expressed using + prefix-len is not divisible by 8. This can be expressed using the following equation: (prefix-len+7)/8 So the length of this field should be between 0 and 16 bytes. For example, the prefix 2001:db8::/60 would be encoded with an prefix-len of 60, the prefix would be 8 octets and would contains octets 20 01 0d b8 00 00 00 00. -3. Processing the Policy Table option +3. Processing the Address Selection option - This section describes how to process received Policy Table option at - the DHCPv6 client. + This section describes how to process a received Address Selection + option at the DHCPv6 client. This option's concept is to serve as a hint for a node about how to - behave in the network. Ultimately, it can be controlled by the - node's administrator how to deal with the received policy - information, but the implementation SHOULD follow the way described - below uniformly to ease diagnose brokenness and to reduce operational - costs. + behave in the network. Ultimately, while the node's administrator + can control how to deal with the received policy information, the + implementation SHOULD follow the method described below uniformly, to + ease troubleshooting and to reduce operational costs. -3.1. Handling of the local policy table +3.1. Handling local configurations - RFC 6724 defines the default policy table. Also, users are usually - able to configure the policy table to satisfy their own requirements. + [RFC6724] defines two flags (A, P) and the default policy table. + Also, users are usually able to configure the flags and the policy + table to satisfy their own requirements. The client implementation SHOULD provide the following choices to the - user. The choice a SHOULD be default, as far as the policy table is - not configured by the user. + user. - a) replace the existing active policy table with the DHCPv6 - distributed policy table. + (a) replace the existing flags and active policy table with the + DHCPv6 distributed flags and policy table. - b) preserve the existing active policy table, whether this be the - default policy table, or user configured policy. + (b) preserve the existing flags and active policy table, whether + this be the default policy table, or user configured policy. -3.2. Handling of the stale policy table + Choice (a) SHOULD be the default, i.e. that the policy table is not + explictly configured by the user. + +3.2. Handling stale policy tables When the information from the DHCP server goes stale, the policy - received form the DHCP server SHOULD be deprecated. + received from the DHCP server SHOULD be deprecated. The received information can be considered stale in several cases, - such as, when the interface goes down, the DHCP server does not - respond for a certain amount of time, and the Information Refresh - Time is expired. + e.g., when the interface goes down, the DHCP server does not respond + for a certain amount of time, and the Information Refresh Time is + expired. -3.3. Multi-interface situation +3.3. Handling multiple interfaces - The policy table, and other parameters specified in this document are - node-global information by their nature. One reason being that the - outbound interface is usually chosen after destination address - selection. So, a host cannot make use of multiple address selection + The policy table, and other parameters specified in this document, + are node-global information by their nature. One reason being that + the outbound interface is usually chosen after destination address + selection. So a host cannot make use of multiple address selection policies even if they are stored per interface. - Even if the received policy from one source is merged with one from - another source, the effect of both policy are more or less changed. The policy table is defined as a whole, so the slightest addition/ - deletion from the policy table brings a change in semantics of the - policy. + deletion from the policy table brings a change in the semantics of + the policy. - It also should be noted that absence of the distributed policy from a - certain network interface should not be treated as absence of policy - itself, because it may mean preference for the default address - selection policy. + It also should be noted that the absence of a DHCP-distributed policy + from a certain network interface should not infer that the network + administrator does not care about address selection policy at all, + because it may mean there is a preference to use the default address + selection policy. So, it should be safe to assume that the default + address selection policy should be used where no overriding policy is + provided. - Under the above assumptions, how to handle received policy is - specified below. + Under the above assumptions, we can specify how to handle received + policy as follows. - A node SHOULD use Address Selection options by default in any of the - following two cases: + In the absence of distributed policy for a certain network interface, + the default address selection policy SHOULD be used. A node should + use Address Selection options by default in any of the following two + cases: - 1: The host is single-homed, where the host belongs to one - administrative network domain exclusively usually through one - active network interface. + 1: A single-homed host SHOULD use default address selection options, + where the host belongs exclusively to one administrative network + domain, usually through one active network interface. - 2: The host implements some advanced heuristics to deal with multiple - received policy, which is outside the scope of this document. + 2: Hosts that use advanced heuristics to deal with multiple received + policies that are defined outside the scope of this document + SHOULD use Address Selection options. - The above restrictions do not preclude implementations from providing - configuration options to enable this option on a certain network - interface. + Implementations MAY provide configuration options to enable this + protocol on a per interface basis. - Nor, they do not preclude implementations from storing distributed - address selection policies per interface. They can be used - effectively on such implementations that adopt per-application - interface selection. + Implementations MAY store distributed address selection policies per + interface. They can be used effectively on implementations that + adopt per-application interface selection. 4. Implementation Considerations o The value 'label' is passed as an unsigned integer, but there is no special meaning for the value, that is whether it is a large or small number. It is used to select a preferred source address prefix corresponding to a destination address prefix by matching the same label value within the DHCP message. DHCPv6 clients SHOULD convert this label to a representation appropriate for the local implementation (e.g., string). - o Currently, the label and precedence values are defined as 8-bit - unsigned integers. In almost all cases, this value will be - enough. - o The maximum number of address selection rules that may be conveyed in one DHCPv6 message depends on the prefix length of each rule - and the maximum DHCPv6 message size defined in RFC 3315. It is + and the maximum DHCPv6 message size defined in [RFC3315]. It is possible to carry over 3,000 rules in one DHCPv6 message (maximum UDP message size). However, it should not be expected that DHCP clients, servers and relay agents can handle UDP fragmentation. Network adiministrators SHOULD consider local limitations to the maximum DHCPv6 message size that can be reliably transported via their specific local infrastructure to end nodes; and therefore they SHOULD consider the number of options, the total size of the options, and the resulting DHCPv6 message size, when defining - their Policy Table. + their policy table. 5. Security Considerations A rogue DHCPv6 server could issue bogus address selection policies to a client. This might lead to incorrect address selection by the client, and the affected packets might be blocked at an outgoing ISP because of ingress filtering, incur additional network charges, or be misdirected to an attacker's machine. Alternatively, an IPv6 transition mechanism might be preferred over native IPv6, even if it is available. To guard against such attacks, a legitimate DHCPv6 server should communicate through a secure, trusted channel, such as a channel protected by IPsec, SEND and DHCP authentication, as - described in section 21 of RFC 3315, + described in section 21 of [RFC3315]. A commonly used alternative + mitigation is to employ DHCP snooping at Layer 2. - Another threat is about privacy concern. As in the security - consideration section of RFC 6724, at least a part of, the address - selection policy stored in a host can be leaked by a packet from a - remote host. This issue will not be modified by the introduction of - this option, regardless of whether the host is multihomed or not. + Another threat surrounds the potential privacy concern as described + in the security considerations section of [RFC6724], whereby an + attacker can send packets with different source addresses to a + destination to solicit different source addresses in the responses + from that destination. This issue will not be modified by the + introduction of this option, regardless of whether the host is + multihomed or not. 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign option codes to OPTION_ADDRSEL and OPTION_ADDRSEL_TABLE from the "DHCP Option Codes" registry (http:// www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xml). 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. - [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet - Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. - [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations] Chown, T. and A. Matsumoto, "Considerations for IPv6 Address Selection Policy Changes", draft-ietf-6man-addr- select-considerations-05 (work in progress), April 2013. - [RFC2460] Deering, S.E. and R.M. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version - 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. + [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 + (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. - [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. - Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC - 3493, February 2003. + [RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet + Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. [RFC5220] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama, "Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi- @@ -369,20 +374,108 @@ July 2008. Appendix A. Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank to Dave Thaler, Pekka Savola, Remi Denis- Courmont, Francois-Xavier Le Bail, Ole Troan, Bob Hinden, Dmitry Anipko, Ray Hunter, Rui Paulo, Brian E Carpenter, Tom Petch, and the members of 6man's address selection design team for their invaluable contributions to this document. +Appendix B. Examples + + [RFC5220] gives several cases where address selection problems + happen. This section contains some examples for solving those cases + by using the DHCP option defined in this text to update the hosts' + policy table in a network accordingly. There is also some discussion + of example policy tables in sections 10.3 to 10.7 of RFC 6724. + +B.1. Ingress Filtering Problem + + In the case described in section 2.1.2 of [RFC5220], the following + policy table should be distributed, when Router performs static + routing and directs the default route to ISP1 as per Figure 2. By + putting the same label value to all IPv6 addresses (::/0) and the + local subnet (2001:db8:1000:1::/64), a host picks a source address in + this subnet to send a packet via the default route. + + Prefix Precedence Label + ::1/128 50 0 + ::/0 40 1 + 2001:db8:1000:1::/64 45 1 + 2001:db8:8000:1::/64 45 14 + ::ffff:0:0/96 35 4 + 2002::/16 30 2 + 2001::/32 5 5 + fc00::/7 3 13 + ::/96 1 3 + fec0::/10 1 11 + 3ffe::/16 1 12 + +B.2. Half-Closed Network Problem + + In the case described in section 2.1.3 of [RFC5220], the following + policy table should be distributed. By splitting the closed network + prefix (2001:db8:8000::/36) from all IPv6 addresses (::/0) and giving + different labels, the closed network prefix will only be used when + packets are destined for the closed network. + + Prefix Precedence Label + ::1/128 50 0 + ::/0 40 1 + 2001:db8:8000::/36 45 14 + ::ffff:0:0/96 35 4 + 2002::/16 30 2 + 2001::/32 5 5 + fc00::/7 3 13 + ::/96 1 3 + fec0::/10 1 11 + 3ffe::/16 1 12 + +B.3. IPv4 or IPv6 Prioritization + + In the case described in section 2.2.1 of [RFC5220], the following + policy table should be distributed to prioritize IPv6. This case is + also described in [RFC6724] + + Prefix Precedence Label + ::1/128 50 0 + ::/0 40 1 + ::ffff:0:0/96 100 4 + 2002::/16 30 2 + 2001::/32 5 5 + fc00::/7 3 13 + ::/96 1 3 + fec0::/10 1 11 + 3ffe::/16 1 12 + +B.4. ULA or Global Prioritization + + In the case described in section 2.2.3 of [RFC5220], the following + policy table should be distributed, or Automatic Row Addition flag + should be set to 1. By splitting the ULA in this site + (fc12:3456:789a::/48) from all IPv6 addresses (::/0) and giving it + higher precendence, the ULA will be used to connect to servers in the + same site. + + Prefix Precedence Label + ::1/128 50 0 + fc12:3456:789a::/48 45 14 + ::/0 40 1 + ::ffff:0:0/96 35 4 + 2002::/16 30 2 + 2001::/32 5 5 + fc00::/7 3 13 + ::/96 1 3 + fec0::/10 1 11 + 3ffe::/16 1 12 + Authors' Addresses Arifumi Matsumoto NTT NT Lab 3-9-11 Midori-Cho Musashino-shi, Tokyo 180-8585 Japan Phone: +81 422 59 3334 Email: arifumi@nttv6.net