Internet DRAFT - draft-bvtm-dhc-mac-assign
draft-bvtm-dhc-mac-assign
Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC) B. Volz
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track T. Mrugalski
Expires: April 23, 2019 ISC
CJ. Bernardos
UC3M
October 20, 2018
Link-Layer Addresses Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6
draft-bvtm-dhc-mac-assign-02
Abstract
In certain environments, e.g. large scale virtualization deployments,
new devices are created in an automated manner. Such devices
typically have their link-layer (MAC) addresses randomized. With
sufficient scale, the likelihood of collision is not acceptable.
Therefore an allocation mechanism is required. This draft proposes
an extension to DHCPv6 that allows a scalable approach to link-layer
address assignments.
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 https://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 April 23, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Deployment scenarios and mechanism overview . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Proxy client mode scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Direct client mode scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. Mechanism Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Design Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Information Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Requesting Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. Renewing Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Releasing Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. Option Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1. Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses Option . . 10
10.2. Link-Layer Addresses Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12. Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
15. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. IEEE 802c Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
There are several new deployment types that deal with a large number
of devices that need to be initialized. One of them is a scenario
where virtual machines (VMs) are created on a massive scale.
Typically the new VM instances are assigned a random link-layer (MAC)
address, but that does not scale well due to the birthday paradox.
Another use case is IoT devices. Typically there is no need to
provide global uniqueness of MAC addresses for such devices. On the
other hand, the huge number of such devices would likely exhaust a
vendor's OUI (Organizationally Unique Identifier) global address
space. For those reasons, it is desired to have some form of local
authority that would be able to assign locally unique MAC addresses.
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
This document proposes a new mechanism that extends DHCPv6 operation
to handle link-layer address assignments.
Since DHCPv6 ([I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]) is a protocol that can
allocate various types of resources (non-temporary addresses,
temporary addresses, prefixes, but also many options) and has
necessary infrastructure (numerous server and client implementations,
large deployed relay infrastructure, supportive solutions, like
leasequery and failover) to maintain such assignment, it is a good
candidate to address the desired functionality.
While this document presents a design that should be usable for any
link-layer address type, some of the details are specific to Ethernet
/ IEEE 802 48-bit MAC addresses. Future documents may provide
specifics for other link-layer address types.
The IEEE originally set aside half of the 48-bit MAC Address space
for local use (where the U/L bit is set to 1). In 2017, the IEEE
specified an optional specification (IEEE 802c) that divides this
space into quadrants (Standards Assigned Identifier, Extended Local
Identifier, Administratively Assigned Identifier, and a Reserved
quadrant) - more details are in Appendix A. The IEEE is also working
to specify protocols and procedures for assignment of locally unique
addresses (IEEE 802.1cq). This work may serve as one such protocol
for assignment. For additional background, see [IEEE-802-Tutorial].
2. Requirements
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
The DHCPv6 terminology relevant to this specification from the DHCPv6
Protocol [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis] applies here.
client A device that is interested in obtaining link-layer
addresses. It implements the basic DHCPv6 mechanisms
needed by a DHCPv6 client as described in
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis] and supports the new options
(IA_LL and LLADDR) specified in this document. The
client may or may not support address assignment and
prefix delegation as specified in
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis].
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
server Software that manages link-layer address allocation and
is able to respond to client queries. It implements
basic DHCPv6 server functionality as described in
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis] and supports the new options
(IA_LL and LLADDR) specified in this document. The
server may or may not support address assignment and
prefix delegation as specified in
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis].
address Unless specified otherwise, an address means a link-
layer (or MAC) address, as defined in IEEE802. The
address is typically 6 bytes long, but some network
architectures may use different lengths.
address block A number of consecutive link-layer addresses. An
address block is expressed as a first address plus a
number that designates the number of additional (extra)
addresses. A single address can be represented by the
address itself and zero extra addresses.
4. Deployment scenarios and mechanism overview
This mechanism is designed to be generic and usable in many
deployments, but there are two scenarios it attempts to address in
particular: (i) proxy client mode, and (ii) direct client mode.
4.1. Proxy client mode scenario
This mode is used when an entity acts as a DHCP client and requests
available DHCP servers to assign one or more MAC addresses (an
address block), to be then assigned for use to the final end-devices.
One relevant example of scenario of application of this mode is large
scale virtualization. In such environments the governing entity is
often called a hypervisor and is frequently required to spawn new
VMs. The hypervisor needs to assign new MAC addresses to those
machines. The hypervisor does not use those addresses for itself,
but rather uses them to create new VMs with appropriate MAC
addresses. It is worth pointing out the cumulative nature of this
scenario. Over time, the hypervisor is likely to increase its MAC
addresses usage. While some obsolete VMs will be deleted and their
MAC addresses will become eligible for release or reuse, it is
unexpected for all MAC addresses to be released.
4.2. Direct client mode scenario
This mode is used when an entity acts as a DHCP client and requests
available DHCP servers to assign one or more MAC addresses (an
address block) for its own use. This usage scenario is related to
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
IoT (Internet of Things). With the emergence of IoT, a new class of
cheap, sometimes short lived and disposable devices, has emerged.
Examples may include various sensors (e.g. medical) and actuators or
controllable LED lights. Upon first boot, the device uses a
temporary MAC address, as described in [IEEE-802.11-02/109r0], to
send initial DHCP packets to available DHCP servers. Such devices
will typically request a single MAC address for each available
network interface, which typically means one MAC address per device.
Once the server assigns a MAC address, the device abandons its
temporary MAC address.
4.3. Mechanism Overview
In all scenarios the protocol operates in fundamentally the same way.
The device requesting an address, acting as a DHCP client, will send
a Solicit message with a IA_LL option to all available DHCP servers.
That IA_LL option MUST include a LLADDR option specifying the link-
layer-type and link-layer-len and may specify a specific address or
address block as a hint for the server. Each available server
responds with an Advertise message with offered link-layer address or
addresses. The client then picks the best server, as governed by
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis], and will send a Request message. The
target server will then assign the link-layer addresses and send a
Reply message. Upon reception, the client can start using those
link-layer addresses.
Normal DHCP mechanisms are in use. The client is expected to
periodically renew the link-layer addresses as governed by T1 and T2
timers. This mechanism can be administratively disabled by the
server sending "infinity" as the T1 and T2 values (see Section 7.7 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]).
The client can release link-layer addresses when they are no longer
needed by sending a Release message (see Section 18.2.7 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]).
Figure 1, taken from [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis], shows a timeline
diagram of the messages exchanged between a client and two servers
for the typical lifecycle of one or more leases
Server Server
(not selected) Client (selected)
v v v
| | |
| Begins initialization |
| | |
start of | _____________/|\_____________ |
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
4-message |/ Solicit | Solicit \|
exchange | | |
Determines | Determines
configuration | configuration
| | |
|\ | ____________/|
| \________ | /Advertise |
| Advertise\ |/ |
| \ | |
| Collects Advertises |
| \ | |
| Selects configuration |
| | |
| _____________/|\_____________ |
|/ Request | Request \|
| | |
| | Commits configuration
| | |
end of | | _____________/|
4-message | |/ Reply |
exchange | | |
| Initialization complete |
| | |
. . .
. . .
| T1 (Renewal) Timer Expires |
| | |
2-message | _____________/|\_____________ |
exchange |/ Renew | Renew \|
| | |
| | Commits extended lease(s)
| | |
| | _____________/|
| |/ Reply |
. . .
. . .
| | |
| Graceful shutdown |
| | |
2-message | _____________/|\_____________ |
exchange |/ Release | Release \|
| | |
| | Discards lease(s)
| | |
| | _____________/|
| |/ Reply |
| | |
v v v
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
Figure 1: Timeline diagram of the messages exchanged between a client
and two servers for the typical lifecycle of one or more leases
Confirm, Decline, and Information-Request messages are not used in
link-layer address assignment.
Clients implementing this mechanism SHOULD use the Rapid Commit
option as specified in Section 5.1 and 18.2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis].
An administrator may make the address assignment permanent by
specifying use of infinite lifetimes, as defined in Section 7.7 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]. An administrator may also the disable the
need for the renewal mechanism by setting the T1 and T2 values to
infinity.
Devices supporting this proposal MAY support reconfigure mechanism,
as defined in Section 18.2.11 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]. If
supported by both server and client, this mechanism allows the
administrator to immediately notify clients that the configuration
has changed and triggers retrieval of relevant changes immediately,
rather than after T1 timer elapses. Since this mechanism requires
implementation of Reconfigure Key Authentication Protocol (See
Section 20.4 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]), small footprint devices
may chose to not support it.
DISCUSSION: A device may send its link-layer address in a LLADDR
option to ask the server to register that address to the client (if
available), making the assignment permanent for the lease duration.
The client MUST be prepared to use a different address if the server
choses not to honor its hint.
5. Design Assumptions
One of the essential aspects of this mechanism is its cumulative
nature, especially in the hypervisor scenario. The server-client
relationship does not look like other DHCP transactions. This is
especially true in the hypervisor scenario. In a typical
environment, there would be one server and a rather small number of
hypervisors, possibly even only one. However, over time the number
of MAC addresses requested by the hypervisor(s) will likely increase
as new VMs are spawned.
Another aspect crucial for efficient design is the observation that a
single client acting as hypervisor will likely use thousands of
addresses. Therefore an approach similar to what is used for address
or prefix assignment (IA container with all assigned addresses
listed, one option for each address) would not work well. Therefore
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
the mechanism should operate on address blocks, rather than single
values. A single address can be treated as an address block with
just one address.
The DHCPv6 mechanisms are reused to large degree, including message
and option formats, transmission mechanisms, relay infrastructure and
others. However, a device wishing to support only link-layer address
assignment is not required to support full DHCPv6. In other words,
the device may support only assignment of link-layer addresses, but
not IPv6 addresses or prefixes.
6. Information Encoding
A client MUST send a LLADDR option encapsulated in a IA_LL option to
specify the link-layer-type and link-layer-len values. For link-
layer-type 1 (Ethernet / IEEE 802 48-bit MAC addresses), a client
sets the link-layer-address field to:
1. 00:00:00:00:00:00 (all zeroes) if the client has no hint as to
the starting address of the unicast address block. This address
has the IEEE 802 individual/group bit set to 0 (individual).
3. Any other value to request a specific block of address starting
with the specified address
A client sets the extra-addresses field to either 0 for a single
address or to the size of the requested address block minus 1.
A client SHOULD set the valid-lifetime field to 0 (as it is ignored
by the server).
7. Requesting Addresses
The link-layer addresses are assigned in blocks. The smallest block
is a single address. To request an assignment, the client sends a
Solicit message with a IA_LL option in the message. The IA_LL option
MUST contain a LLADDR option as specified in Section 6.
The server, upon receiving a IA_LL option, inspects its content and
may offer an address or addresses for each LLADDR option according to
its policy. The server MAY take into consideration the address block
requested by the client in the LLADDR option. However, the server
MAY chose to ignore some or all parameters of the requested address
block. In particular, the server may send a different starting
address than requested, or grant a smaller number of addresses than
requested. The server sends back an Advertise message an IA_LL
option containing an LLADDR option that specifies the addresses being
offered. If the server is unable to provide any addresses it MUST
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
return the IA_LL option containing a Status Code option (see
Section 21.13 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]) with status set to
NoAddrsAvail.
The client MUST be able to handle a response that contains an address
or addresses different than those requested.
The client waits for available servers to send Advertise responses
and picks one server as defined in Section 18.2.9 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]. The client then sends a Request message
that includes the IA_LL container option with the LLADDR option
copied from the Advertise message sent by the chosen server.
Upon reception of a Request message with IA_LL container option, the
server assigns requested addresses. The server MAY alter the
allocation at this time. It then generates and sends a Reply message
back to the client.
Upon receiving a Reply message, the client parses the IA_LL container
option and may start using all provided addresses. It MUST restart
its T1 and T2 timers using the values specified in the IA_LL option.
The client MUST be able to handle a Reply message that contains an
address or addresses different than those requested.
A client that has included a Rapid Commit option in the Solicit, may
receive a Reply in response to the Solicit and skip the Advertise and
Request steps above (see Section 18.2.1 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]).
8. Renewing Addresses
Address renewals follow the normal DHCPv6 renewals processing
described in Section 18.2.4 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]. Once the
T1 timer elapses, the client starts sending Renew messages with the
IA_LL option containing a LLADDR option for the address block being
renewed. The server responds with a Reply message that contains the
renewed address block. The server SHOULD NOT alter the address block
being renewed, unless its policy has changed. The server MUST NOT
shrink or expand the address block - once a block is assigned and has
a non-zero valid lifetime, its size, starting address, and ending
address MUST NOT change.
If the requesting client needs additional MAC addresses -- e.g., in
the hypervisor scenario because addresses need to be assigned to new
VMs -- the simpler approach is for the requesting device to keep the
address blocks as atomic once "leased". Therefore, if a client wants
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
more addresses at a later stage, it SHOULD send an IA_LL option with
a different IAID to create another "container" for more addresses.
If the client is unable to Renew before the T2 timer elapses, it
starts sending Rebind messages as described in 18.2.5 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis].
9. Releasing Addresses
The client may decide to release a leased address block. A client
MUST release the whole block in its entirety. A client releases an
address block by sending a Release message that includes the IA_LL
option containing the LLADDR option for the address block to release.
The Release transmission mechanism is described in Section 18.2.7 of
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis].
10. Option Definitions
This mechanism uses an approach similar to the existing mechanisms in
DHCP. There is one container option (the IA_LL option) that contains
the actual link-layer address or addresses, represented by an LLADDR
option. Each such option represents an address block, which is
expressed as a first address with a number that specifies how many
additional addresses are included.
10.1. Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses Option
The Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses option (IA_LL
option) is used to carry one or more IA_LL options, the parameters
associated with the IA_LL, and the address blocks associated with the
IA_LL.
The format of the IA_LL option is:
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_IA_LL | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IAID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| T1 (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| T2 (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IA_LL-options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: IA_LL Option Format
option-code OPTION_IA_LL (tbd1).
option-len 12 + length of IA_LL-options field.
IAID The unique identifier for this IA_LL; the IAID must
be unique among the identifiers for all of this
client's IA_LLs. The number space for IA_LL IAIDs is
separate from the number space for other IA option
types (i.e., IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD). A four octets
long field.
T1 The time at which the client should contact the
server from which the addresses in the IA_LL were
obtained to extend the valid lifetime of the
addresses assigned to the IA_LL; T1 is a time
duration relative to the current time expressed in
units of seconds. A four octets long field.
T2 The time at which the client should contact any
available server to extend the valid lifetime of the
addresses assigned to the IA_LL; T2 is a time
duration relative to the current time expressed in
units of seconds. A four octets long field.
IA_LL-options Options associated with this IA_LL. A variable
length field (12 octets less than the value in the
option-len field).
An IA_LL option may only appear in the options area of a DHCP
message. A DHCP message may contain multiple IA_LL options (though
each must have a unique IAID).
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
The status of any operations involving this IA_LL is indicated in a
Status Code option (see Section 21.13 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis])
in the IA_LL-options field.
Note that an IA_LL has no explicit "lifetime" or "lease length" of
its own. When the valid lifetimes of all of the addresses in an
IA_LL have expired, the IA_LL can be considered as having expired.
T1 and T2 are included to give servers explicit control over when a
client recontacts the server about a specific IA_LL.
In a message sent by a client to a server, the T1 and T2 fields
SHOULD be set to 0. The server MUST ignore any values in these
fields in messages received from a client.
In a message sent by a server to a client, the client MUST use the
values in the T1 and T2 fields for the T1 and T2 times, unless those
values in those fields are 0. The values in the T1 and T2 fields are
the number of seconds until T1 and T2.
As per Section 7.7 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]), the value
0xffffffff is taken to mean "infinity" and should be used carefully.
The server selects the T1 and T2 times to allow the client to extend
the lifetimes of any address block in the IA_LL before the lifetimes
expire, even if the server is unavailable for some short period of
time. Recommended values for T1 and T2 are .5 and .8 times the
shortest valid lifetime of the address blocks in the IA that the
server is willing to extend, respectively. If the "shortest" valid
lifetime is 0xffffffff ("infinity"), the recommended T1 and T2 values
are also 0xffffffff. If the time at which the addresses in an IA_LL
are to be renewed is to be left to the discretion of the client, the
server sets T1 and T2 to 0. The client MUST follow the rules defined
in Section 14.2 in [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis].
If a client receives an IA_LL with T1 greater than T2, and both T1
and T2 are greater than 0, the client discards the IA_LL option and
processes the remainder of the message as though the server had not
included the invalid IA_LL option.
10.2. Link-Layer Addresses Option
The Link-Layer Addresses option is used to specify an address block
associated with a IA_LL. The option must be encapsulated in the
IA_LL-options field of an IA_LL option. The LLaddr-options fields
encapsulates those options that are specific to this address block.
The format of the Link-Layer Addresses option is:
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
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_LLADDR | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| link-layer-type | link-layer-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| link-layer-address |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| extra-addresses |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| valid-lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. LLaddr-options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: LLADDR Option Format
option-code OPTION_LLADDR (tbd2).
option-len 12 + link-layer-len field (typically 6) + length of
LLaddr-options field. Assuming a typical link-layer
address of 6 is used and there are no extra options,
length should be equal to 18.
link-layer-type The link-layer type MUST be a valid hardware type
assigned by the IANA, as described in [RFC5494]. The
type is stored in network byte order.
link-layer-len Specifies the length of the link-layer-address field
(typically 6, for a link-layer-type of 1 (Ethernet)).
A two octets long field.
link-layer-address Specifies the link-layer address that is being
requested or a special value to request any address.
For a link-layer type of 1 (Ethernet / IEEE 802
48-bit MAC addresses), see Section 6 for details on
these values. This value can be only sent by a
client that requests a new block. In responses from
a server, this value specifies the first address
allocated.
extra-addresses Number of additional addresses that follow address
specified in link-layer-address. For requesting a
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
single address, use 0. For example: link-layer-
address: 02:04:06:08:0a and extra-addresses 3
designates a block of 4 addresses, starting from
02:04:06:08:0a (inclusive) and ending with
02:04:06:08:0d (inclusive). In responses from a
server, this value specifies the number of additional
addresses allocated. A four octets long field.
valid-lifetime The valid lifetime for the address(es) in the option,
expressed in units of seconds. A four octets long
field.
LLaddr-options any encapsulated options that are specific to this
particular address block. Currently there are no
such options defined, but they may appear in the
future.
In a message sent by a client to a server, the valid lifetime field
SHOULD be set to 0. The server MUST ignore any received value.
In a message sent by a server to a client, the client MUST use the
value in the valid lifetime field for the valid lifetime for the
address block. The value in the valid lifetime field is the number
of seconds remaining in the lifetime.
As per Section 7.7 of [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis], the valid lifetime
of 0xffffffff is taken to mean "infinity" and should be used
carefully.
More than one LLADDR option can appear in an IA_LL option.
11. Client Behavior
TODO: We need start this section by clearly defining what 'client'
means in this context (either hypervisor acting on behalf of the
client to be spawned or the IOT device acting on its own behalf).
12. Server Behavior
TODO: Need to describe server operation. Likely also recommend
assigning MAC addresses from an appropriate quadrant (see Appendix).
13. IANA Considerations
IANA is kindly requested to assign new value for options OPTION_LL
(tbd1) and OPTION_LLADDR (tbd2) and add those values to the DHCPv6
Option Codes registry maintained at http://www.iana.org/assignments/
dhcpv6-parameters.
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
14. Security Considerations
See [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis] for the DHCPv6 security considerations.
TODO: Do we need more?
15. Privacy Considerations
See [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis] for the DHCPv6 privacy considerations.
For a client requesting a link-layer address directly from a server,
as the link-layer address assigned to a client will likely be used by
the client to communicate on the link, the address will be exposed to
those able to listen in on this communication. For those peers on
the link that are able to listen in on the DHCPv6 exchange, they
would also be able to correlate the client's identity (based on the
DUID used) with the assigned address. Additional mechanisms, such as
the ones described in [RFC7844] can also be used.
TODO: Do we need more?
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]
Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
bis", draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-13 (work in progress),
April 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
16.2. Informative References
[IEEE-802-Tutorial]
Thaler, P., "Emerging IEEE 802 Work on MAC Addressing,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/96/materials/
slides-96-edu-ieee802work-0/".
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
[IEEE-802.11-02/109r0]
Edney, J., Haverinen, H., Honkanen, J-P., and P. Orava,
"Temporary MAC address for anonymity,
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/02/11-02-0109-00-000i-
temporary-mac-address-for-anonymity.ppt".
[IEEEStd802c-2017]
IEEE Computer Society, "IEEE Standard for Local and
Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture,
Amendment 2: Local Medium Access Control (MAC) Address
Usage, IEEE Std 802c-2017".
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC5494] Arkko, J. and C. Pignataro, "IANA Allocation Guidelines
for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)", RFC 5494,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5494, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5494>.
[RFC7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.
Appendix A. IEEE 802c Summary
This appendix provides a brief summary of IEEE802c from
[IEEEStd802c-2017].
The original IEEE 802 specifications assigned half of the 48-bit MAC
address space to local use -- these addresses have the U/L bit set to
1 and are locally administered with no imposed structure.
In 2017, the IEEE issued the 802c specification which defines a new
"optional Structured Local Address Plan (SLAP) that specifies
different assignment approaches in four specified regions of the
local MAC address space." Under this plan, there are 4 SLAP
quadrants that use different assignment policies.
The first octet of the MAC address Z and Y bits define the quadrant
for locally assigned addresses (X-bit is 1). In IEEE representation,
these bits are as follows:
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
LSB MSB
M X Y Z - - - -
| | | |
| | | +------------ SLAP Z-bit
| | +--------------- SLAP Y-bit
| +------------------ X-bit (U/L) = 1 for locally assigned
+--------------------- M-bit (I/G) (unicast/group)
Figure 4: SLAP Bits
The SLAP quadrants are:
+----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+----------------+
| Quadrant | Y-bit | Z-bit | Local Identifier Type | Local |
| | | | | Identifier |
+----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+----------------+
| 01 | 0 | 1 | Extended Local | ELI |
| 11 | 1 | 1 | Standard Assigned | SAI |
| 00 | 0 | 0 | Administratively | AAI |
| | | | Assigned | |
| 10 | 1 | 0 | Reserved | Reserved |
+----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+----------------+
SLAP Quadrants
Extended Local Identifier (ELI) derived MAC addresses are based on an
assigned Company ID (CID), which is 24-bits (including the M, X, Y,
and Z bits) for 48-bit MAC addresses. This leaves 24-bits for the
locally assigned address for each CID for unicast (M-bit = 0) and
also for multicast (M-bit = 1). The CID is assigned by the IEEE RA.
Standard Assigned Identifier (SAI) derived MAC addresses are assigned
by a protocol specified in an IEEE 802 standard. For 48-bit MAC
addresses, 44 bits are available. Multiple protocols for assigning
SAIs may be specified in IEEE standards. Coexistence of multiple
protocols may be supported by limiting the subspace available for
assignment by each protocol.
Administratively Assigned Identifier (AAI) derived MAC addresses are
assigned locally. Administrators manage the space as needed. Note
that multicast IPv6 packets ([RFC2464]) use a destination address
starting in 33-33 and this falls within this space and therefore
should not be used to avoid conflict with IPv6 multicast addresses.
For 48-bit MAC addresses, 44 bits are available.
The last quadrant is reserved for future use. While this quadrant
may also be used for AAI space, administrators should be aware that
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment October 2018
future specifications may define alternate uses that could be
incompatible.
Authors' Addresses
Bernie Volz
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Email: volz@cisco.com
Tomek Mrugalski
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
USA
Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
Volz, et al. Expires April 23, 2019 [Page 18]
