6man Working Group                                          A. Matsumoto
Internet-Draft                                               T. Fujisaki
Intended status: Standards Track                                 J. Kato
Expires: June 9, December 30, 2011                                           NTT
                                                        December 6, 2010
                                                                T. Chown
                                               University of Southampton
                                                           June 28, 2011

           Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
                 draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-00.txt
                 draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-01.txt

Abstract

   RFC 3484 defines default address selection mechanisms for IPv6 that
   allow nodes to select appropriate address when faced with multiple
   source and/or destination addresses to choose between.  The RFC
   allowed for the future definition of methods to administratively
   configure the address selection policy information.  This document describes
   defines a new DHCPv6 option for distributing address
   selection policy information defined in RFC3484 to such configuration, allowing a client.  With
   this option, site administrators can
   administrator to distribute address selection
   policy to policy, and thus
   control the node's address selection behavior. behavior of nodes in their site.  While
   RFC 3484 is in the process of being updated, with a revised default
   policy table, that table may not suit every scenario, and thus the
   DHCPv6 option defined in this text may be used to override that
   policy where desired.

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 June 9, December 30, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 2011 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
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   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

   RFC3484

   RFC 3484 [RFC3484] describes default algorithms for selecting a default an
   address when a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses
   to choose between by using an address selection policy.  However, there are some  In Section 2
   of RFC 3484, it is suggested that the default policy table may be
   administratively configured to suit the specific needs of a site.
   This text defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration.

   Some problems have been identified with the default address selection
   policy detailed in RFC3484 RFC 3484 [RFC5220], and as a result the RFC is in
   the process of being updated, as per [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise].
   While this update provides a better default address selection policy,
   it is unlikely that such a default will suit all scenarios, and thus
   mechanisms to control a proper the source address selection policy will be
   necessary.  Requirements for those mechanisms are described in [RFC5221].  Solutions
   [RFC5221], while solutions are discussed in
   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol] and
   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations].  This document describes
   an option for distributing address selection policy information using
   DHCPv6, which is referred as `most proactive approach' in  Those documents have
   helped shape the
   solution document, and `preferable protocol to deliver RFC3848
   policies' improvements in consideration document.

1.1.  Conventions [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise] as
   well as the DHCPv6 option defined here.

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 [RFC2119].

1.2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terminology defined in [RFC2460] and the DHCP
   DHCPv6 specification defined in [RFC3315]

2.  Address Selection Policy Option

   The Address Selection Policy Option provides the policy information table for
   address selection rules.  Specifically, it transmits a set of IPv6
   source and destination address prefixes and some parameters that are
   used to control address selection rules as described in RFC 3484. 3484 and updated in
   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise].

   Each end node is expected to configure its policy table, as described
   in RFC 3484, using the Address Selection Policy option information as
   an reference.
   described in the section below on processing the option.

   The format of the Address Selection Policy 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_DASP          |         option-len            |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    label      |  precedence   |z|n|   |z|  reserved   |   prefix-len  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               zone-index (if present (z = 1))                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Prefix   (Variable Length)                  |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    label      |  precedence   |z|n|   |z|  reserved   |   prefix-len  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               zone-index (if present (z = 1))                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Prefix   (Variable Length)                  |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      .                                                               .
      .                                                               .
      .                                                               .
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    label      |  precedence   |z|n|   |z|  reserved   |   prefix-len  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |               zone-index (if present (z = 1))                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |                   Prefix   (Variable Length)                  |
      |                                                               |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                                [Fig. 1]

   Fields:

   option-code:  OPTION_DASP (TBD)

   option-len:  The total length of the label fields, precedence fields,
        zone-index fields, prefix-len fields, and prefix fields in
        octets.

   label:  An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used to make a
        combination of source address prefixes and destination address
        prefixes.

   precedence:  An 8-bit unsigned integer; this value is used for
        sorting destination addresses.

   z bit:  'zone-index' bit.  If z bit is set to 1, 32 bit zone-index
        value is included right after the "prefix-len" field, and
        "Prefix" value continues after the "zone-index" field.  If z bit
        is 0, "Prefix" value continues right after the "prefix-len"
        value.

   n bit:  'no privacy iid' bit.  If n bit is set to 1, RFC 4941
        [RFC4941] privacy extensions MUST NOT be used for this prefix.
        If n bit is 0, interface ID may use RFC4941.

   reserved:  6-bit reserved field.  Initialized to zero by sender, and
        ignored by receiver.

   zone-index:  If the z-bit is set to 1, this field is inserted between
        "prefix-len" field and "Prefix" field.  Zone-index  The zone-index field is
        an 32-bit unsigned integer and used to specify zones for scoped
        addresses.  This bit length is defined in RFC3493 [RFC3493] as
        'scope ID'.

   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.  The
        Prefix field is 0, 4, 8, 12, or 16 octets, depending on the
        length.

   Prefix:  A variable-length field containing an IP address or the
        prefix of an IP address.  An IPv4-mapped address [mapped] [RFC4291] must
        be used to represent an IPv4 address as a prefix value.

3.  Appearance of this Option

   The Address Selection Policy option MUST NOT appear in any messages
   other than the following ones : ones: Solicit, Advertise, Request, Renew,
   Rebind, Information-Request, and Reply.

4.  Implementation Considerations

   o  The value 'label'  Processing the Address Selection Policy Option

   This section describes how to process received Address Selection
   Policy Options at the DHCPv6 client.

   This option's concept is passed to serve as an unsigned integer, but there is
      no special meaning a hint for a node about how to
   behave in the value, that is whether network.  So, basically, it is a large or
      small number.  It is used should be up to select a preferred source address
      prefix corresponding the node's
   administrator how to a destination address prefix by matching make use of or even ignore the same label value within this DHCP message.  DHCPv6 clients received policy
   information.

   However, we need to convert this label to a representation specified by each
      implementation (e.g., string).

   o  Currently, define the value label, precedence are defined as 8-bit
      unsigned integers.  In almost all cases, this value will be
      enough.

   o  The maximum number default behavior of address selection rules in one DHCPv6
      message depend on the prefix length of each rules and maximum
      DHCPv6 message size defined receiving node
   in RFC3315.  It is possible order to carry
      over 3,000 rules (e.g. default reduce operational complexity.

4.1.  Handling the local policy table defined in

   RFC3484
      contains 5 rules) in one DHCPv6 message (maximum UDP message
      size).

   o  Since defines the number of selection rules would be large, default policy
      distributer should be care about for the DHCPv6 message size.

   o  If there are multiple DHCPv6 servers (e.g. policy table.  Also, a
   user is usually able to configure the policy table to satisfy his
   requirement.

   The client node SHOULD provide the following choices:

   a) It receives distributed policy table, and replaces the existing
      policy tables with that.
   b) It preserves the default policy table, or manually configured
      policy.

4.2.  Processing multiple
      interface), a received policy tables

   The policy table is node-global information by its nature.  So, the
   node may have cannot use multiple address selection policies.
      Since RFC3484 received policy tables at the same time.

   It should be noted that adopting a received policy table as the node-
   global information can cause security problems, such as DOS attack,
   and leak of privacy information.

   Moreover, it also should be noted that, when a node is one single-homed
   and global for has only one upstream line, adopting a node, received policy table does
   not degrade the node
      have to decide security level.

   Under the above assumptions, we specify how to process handle multiple policies.  This
   received policy
      conflict is discussed tables below.

   A node MAY use OPTION_DASP in
      [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations].

5.  Discussion

   o any of the following two cases:

   1: The 'zone index' value address selection option is used to specify delivered across a particular zone for
      scoped addresses.  This can be used effectively to control secure, trusted
      channel.
   2: The address selection in option is not secured, but the site scope (e.g., node is
      single-homed.

   In other cases the node MUST NOT use OPTION_DASP unless the node is
   specifically configured to tell do so.

5.  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 node large or
      small number.  It is used to use select a
      specified preferred source address
      prefix corresponding to a site-scoped multicast
      address).  However, in some cases such as a link-local scope
      address, destination address prefix by matching
      the same label value specifying one zone is only meaningful locally within that node.  There might be some cases where the
      administrator knows which DHCP message.  DHCPv6 clients are on the network and wants
      specific interfaces to be used though.  However, in general case,
      it is hard need
      to use convert this value.

   o  Since we got label to a comment that some implementations use 32-bit
      integers for zone index value, we extended the bit length of representation specified by each
      implementation (e.g., string).

   o  Currently, the
      'zone index' field.  However, as described above, there might be
      few cases to specify 'zone index' in policy distribution, we label and precedence values are defined this field as optional, controlled by a flag.

   o  There may 8-bit
      unsigned integers.  In almost all cases, this value will be some demands to control the use
      enough.

   o  The maximum number of special address
      types such as the temporary addresses described selection rules that may be conveyed
      in RFC4941
      [RFC4941], address assigned by one DHCPv6 message depends on the prefix length of each rule
      and so on. (e.g., informing
      not to use a temporary address when it communicate within the an
      organization's network). maximum DHCPv6 message size defined in RFC 3315.  It is
      possible to indicate carry over 3,000 rules in one DHCPv6 message (maximum
      UDP message size), but the type usual number would be much smaller,
      e.g. the default policy table defined in RFC 3484 contains 5
      rules.

   o  Since the number of
      addresses using reserved field value. selection rules could be large, an
      administrator configuring the policy to be distributed should
      consider the resulting DHCPv6 message size.

6.  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.  Alternatively, an IPv6 transition
   mechanism might be preferred over native IPv6, even if it is
   available.

   To guard against such attacks, both DCHP clients and servers SHOULD
   use DHCP authentication, as described in section 21 of RFC 3315,
   "Authentication of DHCP messages."

7.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to assign option codes to OPTION_DASP from the
   option-code space as defined in section "DHCPv6 Options" of RFC 3315.

8.  References

8.1.  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.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]
              Chown, T., "Considerations for IPv6 Address Selection
              Policy Changes",
              draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02
              draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-03 (work in
              progress), July 2010. March 2011.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-sol]
              Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and R. Hiromi, "Solution
              approaches for address-selection problems",
              draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-03 (work in progress),
              March 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise]
              Matsumoto, A., Kato, J., and T. Fujisaki, "Update to RFC
              3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6",
              draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-03 (work in progress),
              June 2011.

   [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.

   [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-
              Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484
              Default Rules", RFC 5220, July 2008.

   [RFC5221]  Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
              "Requirements for Address Selection Mechanisms", RFC 5221,
              July 2008.

Appendix A.  Past Discussion

   o  The 'zone index' value is used to specify a particular zone for
      scoped addresses.  This can be used effectively to control address
      selection in the site scope (e.g., to tell a node to use a
      specified source address corresponding to a site-scoped multicast
      address).  However, in some cases such as a link-local scope
      address, the value specifying one zone is only meaningful locally
      within that node.  There might be some cases where the
      administrator knows which clients are on the network and wants
      specific interfaces to be used though.  However, in general case,
      it is hard to use this value.

   o  Since we got a comment that some implementations use 32-bit
      integers for zone index value, we extended the bit length of the
      'zone index' field.  However, as described above, there might be
      few cases to specify 'zone index' in policy distribution, we
      defined this field as optional, controlled by a flag.

   o  There may be some demands to control the use of special address
      types such as the temporary addresses described in RFC4941
      [RFC4941], address assigned by DHCPv6 and so on. (e.g., informing
      not to use a temporary address when it communicate within the an
      organization's network).  It is possible to indicate the type of
      addresses using reserved field value.

Authors' Addresses

   Arifumi Matsumoto
   NTT SI Lab
   3-9-11 Midori-Cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 3334
   Email: arifumi@nttv6.net

   Tomohiro Fujisaki
   NTT PF Lab
   3-9-11 Midori-Cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 7351
   Email: fujisaki@nttv6.net

   Jun-ya Kato
   NTT SI Lab
   3-9-11 Midori-Cho
   Musashino-shi, Tokyo  180-8585
   Japan

   Phone: +81 422 59 2939
   Email: kato@syce.net

   Tim Chown
   University of Southampton
   Southampton, Hampshire  SO17 1BJ
   United Kingdom

   Email: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk