| Softwire WG | T. Mrugalski |
| Internet-Draft | ISC |
| Intended status: Standards Track | O. Troan |
| Expires: February 23, 2013 | Cisco |
| C.X. Bao | |
| Tsinghua University | |
| W. Dec | |
| Cisco | |
| L. Yeh | |
| Huawei | |
| August 24, 2012 |
DHCPv6 Options for Mapping of Address and Port
draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01
This document specifies DHCPv6 options for the provisioning of Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) Customer Edge (CE) devices, based on the MAP paramaters defined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map].
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 February 23, 2013.
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) defined in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] is a mechanism for providing IPv4 connectivity service to end users over a service provider's IPv6 network, allowing for shared or dedicated IPv4 addressing. It consists of a set of one or more MAP Border Relay (BR) routers, responsible for stateless forwarding, and one or more MAP Customer Edge (CE) routers, that collectively form a MAP Domain when configured with common MAP rule-sets. In a residential broadband deployment the CE is sometimes referred to as a Residential Gateway (RG) or Customer Premises Equipment (CPE).
A typical MAP CE will serve its end-user with one WAN side interface connected to an operator domain providing a MAP service. To function in the MAP domain, the CE requires to be provisioned with the appropiate MAP service paramaters for that domain. Particularly in larger networks it is not feasible to configure such parameters manually, which forms the requirement for a dynamic MAP provisioning mechanism that is defined in this document based on the existing DHCPv6 [RFC3315] protocol. The configuration of the MAP BR is outside of scope of this document.
This document specifies the DHCPv6 options that allow MAP CE provisioning, based on the definitions of parameters provided in [I-D.ietf-softwire-map], and is applicable to both MAP-E and MAP-T transport variants. The definition of DHCPv6 options for MAP CE provisioning does not preclude the definition of other dynamic methods for configuring MAP devices, or supplementing such configuration, nor is the use of DHCPv6 provisioning mandatory for MAP operation.
Since specification of MAP architecture is still expected to evolve, DHCPv6 options may have to evolve too to fit the revised MAP specification.
Described proposal is not a dynamic port allocation mechanism.
Readers interested in deployment considerations are encouraged to read [I-D.mdt-softwire-map-deployment].
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
The following presents the information parameters that are used to configure a MAP CE:
The DHCPv6 protocol is used for MAP CE provisioning following regular DHCPv6 notions, with the MAP CE assuming a DHCPv6 client role, and the MAP parameters provided by the DHCPv6 server following server side policies. The format and usage of the MAP options is defined in the following sections.
Discussion: As the exact parameters required to configure MAP rules and MAP in general are expected to change, this section is expected to be updated and follow change in the [I-D.ietf-softwire-map].
Discussion: It should be noted that initial concept of 4rd/MAP provisioning was presented in DHC working group meeting. It used one complex option to convey all required parameters. Strong suggestion from DHC WG was to use several simpler options. Options (possibly nested) are preferred over conditional option formatting. See DHCP option guidelines document [I-D.ietf-dhc-option-guidelines]).
Server that supports MAP configuration and is configured to provision requesting CE MUST include exactly one OPTION_MAP option in a REPLY message for each MAP domain. It is envisaged that in typical network, there will be only one MAP domain deployed.
This MAP Option specifies the container option used to group all rules for a specified MAP domain.
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_MAP | option-length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | flags | . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ sub-options (variable length) . . . +---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 1: MAP Option
The sub options field encapsulates those options that are specific to this MAP Option. For example, all of the MAP Rule Options are in the sub-options field. A DHCP message may contain multiple MAP Options.
The Format of the MAP Option Flags field is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Reserved |T|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: MAP Option Flags
It was suggested to also provision information whether MAP network is working in hub and spoke or mesh mode. That is not necessary, as mesh mode is assumed when there is at least one FMR present.
Figure X shows the format of the MAP Rule option used for conveying the BMR and FMR.
Server includes one or more MAP Rule Options in MAP Flags option.
Server MAY send more than one MAP Rule Option, if it is configured to do so. Clients MUST NOT send MAP Rule Option.
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_MAP_RULE | option-length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | prefix6-len | ea-len | prefix4-len | rule-flags | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | rule-ipv4-prefix | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | rule-ipv6-prefix | | (variable length) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . sub-options (variable length) . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: MAP Rule Option
The value of the EA-len and prefix4-len SHOULD be equal to or greater than 32.
The Format of the MAP Rule Flags field is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Reserved |F| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: MAP Rule Flags
It is expected that in a typical MAP deployment scenarios, there will be a single DMR and a single BMR, which could also be designated as an FMR using the F-Flag.
Figure X shows the format of the MAP Rule option used for conveying the DMR.
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_MAP_DMR | option-length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |dmr-prefix6-len| dmr-ipv6-prefix | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (variable length) | . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | . sub-options (variable length) . . . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: MAP DMR Option
Port Parameters Option specifies optional Rule Port Parameters that MAY be provided as part of the Mapping Rule. It MAY appear as sub-option in OPTION_MAP_RULE option. It MUST NOT appear directly in a message.
See [I-D.ietf-softwire-map], Section 5.1 for detailed description of Port mapping algorithm.
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_MAP_PORTPARAMS | option-length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | rsv |offset | rsv | PSID-len| PSID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: MAP Port Parameters Option
When receiveing the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its MAP interface.
DHCPv6 server provisioning a single MAP Rule to a CE (DHCPv6 client) will convey the following MAP options in its messages:
TODO: Reflect example in section 5.2 of MAP draft
Figure 7: BMR Option Example
TODO: Reflect example in section 5.3 of MAP draft
Figure 8: FMR Option Example
TODO: Reflect example in section 5.4 of MAP draft
Figure 9: DMR Option Examples
RFC 3315 Section 17.2.2 [RFC3315] describes how a DHCPv6 client and server negotiate configuration values using the ORO. As a convenience to the reader, we mention here that a server will by default not reply with a MAP Rule Option if the client has not explicitly enumerated it on its Option Request Option.
A Server following this specification MUST allow the configuration of one or more MAP Rule Options, and SHOULD send such options grouped under a single MAP_OPTION.
Server MUST transmit all configured instances of the Mapping Rule Options with all sub-options, if client requested it using OPTION_MAP_RULE in its Option Request Option (ORO). Server MUST transmit MAP Flags Option if client requested OPTION_MAP in its ORO.
The server MUST be capable of following per client assignment rules when assigning MAP options.
A MAP CE acting as DHCPv6 client will request MAP configuration to be assigned by the DHCPv6 server located in the ISP network. A client supporting MAP functionality SHOULD request OPTION_MAP, OPTION_MAP_RULE and OPTION_MAP_DMR options in its ORO in SOLICIT, REQUEST, RENEW, REBIND and INFORMATION-REQUEST messages.
When processing received MAP options the following behaviour is expected:
The client MUST be capable of applying the received MAP option parameters for the configuration of the local MAP instance.
Note that system implementing MAP CE functionality may have multiple network interfaces, and these interfaces may be configured differently; some may be connected to networks that call for MAP, and some may be connected to networks that are using normal dual stack or other means. The MAP CE system should approach this specification on an interface-by-interface basis. For example, if the CE system is attached to multiple networks that provide the MAP Mapping Rule Option, then the CE system MUST configure a MAP connection (i.e. a translation or encapsulation) for each interface separately as each MAP provides IPv4 connectivity for each distinct interface. Means to bind a MAP configuration to a given interface in a multiple interfaces device are out of scope of this document.
The defined MAP options contain a number of flags and parameters that are intended to provide full flexibility in the configuration of a MAP CE. Some usage examples are:
Usage of PSID Option should be avoided if possible and PSID embedded in the delegated prefix should be used instead. This allows MAP deployment to not introduce any additional state in DHCP server. PSID Option must be assigned on a per CE basis, thus requiring more complicated server configuration.
In a typical environment, there will be only one MAP domain, so server will provide only a single instance of MAP option that acts a container for MAP Rule Options and other options that are specific to that MAP domain.
In case of multiple provisioning domains, as defined in [I-D.ietf-homenet-arch], one server may be required to provide information about more than one MAP domain. In such case, server will provide two or more instances of MAP Options, each with its own set of sub-option that define MAP rules for each specific MAP domain. Details of mulitple provisioning domains are discussed in Section 4.1 of [I-D.mdt-softwire-map-deployment].
IANA is kindly requested to allocate DHCPv6 option codes for TBD1 for OPTION_MAP, TBD2 for OPTION_MAP_RULE, TBD3 for OPTION_MAP_DMR, and TBD4 for OPTION_MAP_PORTPARAMS. All values should be added to the DHCPv6 option code space defined in Section 24.3 of [RFC3315].
Implementation of this document does not present any new security issues, but as with all DHCPv6-derived configuration state, it is completely possible that the configuration is being delivered by a third party (Man In The Middle). As such, there is no basis to trust that the access over the MAP can be trusted, and it should not therefore bypass any security mechanisms such as IP firewalls.
Readers concerned with security of MAP provisioning over DHCPv6 are encouraged to familiarize with [I-D.ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6].
Section XX of [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] discusses security issues of the MAP mechanism.
Section 23 of [RFC3315] discusses DHCPv6-related security issues.
This document was created as a product of a MAP design team. Following people were members of that team: Congxiao Bao, Mohamed Boucadair, Gang Chen, Maoke Chen, Wojciech Dec, Xiaohong Deng, Jouni Korhonen, Xing Li, Satoru Matsushima, Tomasz Mrugalski, Tetsuya Murakami, Jacni Qin, Necj Scoberne, Qiong Sun, Tina Tsou, Dan Wing, Leaf Yeh and Jan Zorz.
Former MAP design team members are: Remi Despres.
| [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] | Troan, O, Dec, W, Li, X, Bao, C, Zhai, Y, Matsushima, S and T Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port (MAP)", Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-01, June 2012. |
| [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. |
| [RFC3633] | Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003. |
| [RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |