Internet DRAFT - draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis4-hncp
draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis4-hncp
IPv6 Operations (v6ops) J. Palet Martinez
Internet-Draft Consulintel, S.L.
Obsoletes: 7084 (if approved) June 10, 2017
Intended status: Informational
Expires: December 12, 2017
Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers with HNCP
draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis4-hncp-00
Abstract
This document specifies minimum requirements for an IPv6 Customer
Edge (CE) router. Specifically, the current version of this document
focuses on the basic provisioning of an IPv6 CE router and the
provisioning of IPv6 hosts attached to it. Includes support of HNCP
([RFC7788]) for automated provisioning of downstream routers. The
document obsoletes RFC 7084.
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 December 12, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Current IPv4 End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . 4
3.2. IPv6 End-User Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2.1. Local Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. General Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. WAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. LAN-Side Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. ANNEX A: Changes from RFC7084 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Introduction
This document defines basic IPv6 features for a residential or small-
office router, referred to as an "IPv6 CE router", in order to
establish an industry baseline for features to be implemented on such
a router.
These routers typically also support IPv4, at least in the LAN side.
This document specifies how an IPv6 CE router automatically
provisions its WAN interface, acquires address space for provisioning
of its LAN interfaces, and fetches other configuration information
from the service provider network. Automatic provisioning of more
complex topology than a single router with multiple LAN interfaces
may be handled by means of HNCP ([RFC7788]).
This document doesn't cover the specific details of each possible
access technology. For example, if the CE is supporting built-in or
external 3GPP/LTE interfaces, [RFC7849] is a relevant reference. See
[RFC4779] for a discussion of options available for deploying IPv6 in
wireline service provider access networks.
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
1.1. Requirements Language
Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST",
"MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
"RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as
described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. This document uses these keywords
not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the
purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality. As
such, the document points to several other specifications (preferable
in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers
regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a
successful IPv6 CE router that interoperates successfully with a
particular subset of currently deploying and planned common IPv6
access networks.
2. Terminology
End-User Network one or more links attached to the IPv6 CE
router that connect IPv6 hosts.
IPv6 Customer Edge Router a node intended for home or small-office
use that forwards IPv6 packets not
explicitly addressed to itself. The IPv6
CE router connects the end-user network to
a service provider network. In other
documents, the CE is named as CPE (Customer
Premises Equipment or Customer Provided
Equipment). In the context of this
document, both terminologies are
synonymous.
IPv6 Host any device implementing an IPv6 stack
receiving IPv6 connectivity through the
IPv6 CE router.
LAN Interface an IPv6 CE router's attachment to a link in
the end-user network. Examples are
Ethernet (simple or bridged), 802.11
wireless, or other LAN technologies. An
IPv6 CE router may have one or more
network-layer LAN interfaces.
Service Provider an entity that provides access to the
Internet. In this document, a service
provider specifically offers Internet
access using IPv6-only, and it may also
offer IPv4 Internet access, but non
intended to be supported by this IPv6 CE
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
router. The service provider can provide
such access over a variety of different
transport methods such as FTTH, DSL, cable,
wireless, 3GPP/LTE, and others.
WAN Interface an IPv6 CE router's attachment to a link
used to provide connectivity to the service
provider network; example link technologies
include Ethernet (simple or bridged), PPP
links, Frame Relay, or ATM networks.
3. Architecture
3.1. Current IPv4 End-User Network Architecture
An end-user network will likely support both IPv4 and IPv6. It is
not expected that an end user will change their existing network
topology with the introduction of IPv6. There are some differences
in how IPv6 works and is provisioned; these differences have
implications for the network architecture. A typical IPv4 end-user
network consists of a "plug and play" router with NAT functionality
and a single link behind it, connected to the service provider
network.
A typical IPv4 NAT deployment by default blocks all incoming
connections. Opening of ports is typically allowed using a Universal
Plug and Play Internet Gateway Device (UPnP IGD) [UPnP-IGD] or some
other firewall control protocol.
Another consequence of using private address space in the end-user
network is that it provides stable addressing; that is, it never
changes even when you change service providers, and the addresses are
always there even when the WAN interface is down or the customer edge
router has not yet been provisioned.
Many existing routers support dynamic routing (which learns routes
from other routers), and advanced end-users can build arbitrary,
complex networks using manual configuration of address prefixes
combined with a dynamic routing protocol.
3.2. IPv6 End-User Network Architecture
The end-user network architecture for a simple IPv6-only network
should provide equivalent or better capabilities and functionality
than the current IPv4 architecture.
The end-user network is a stub network, in the sense that is not
providing transit to other external networks. However HNCP
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
([RFC7788]) allows supporting automatic provisioning of downstream
routers. Figure 1 illustrates the model topology for the end-user
network.
+-------+-------+ \
| Service | \
| Provider | | Service
| Router | | Provider
+-------+-------+ | Network
| /
| Customer /
| Internet Connection /
|
+------+--------+ \
| IPv6 | \
| Customer Edge | \
| Router | /
+---+-------+-+-+ /
Network A | | Network B | End-User
---+-------------+----+- --+--+-------------+--- | Network(s)
| | | | \
+----+-----+ +-----+----+ +----+-----+ +-----+----+ \
|IPv6 Host | |IPv6 Host | | IPv6 Host| |IPv6 Host | /
| | | | | | | | /
+----------+ +-----+----+ +----------+ +----------+ /
Figure 1: An Example of a Typical End-User Network
This architecture describes the:
o Basic capabilities of an IPv6 CE router
o Provisioning of the WAN interface connecting to the service
provider
o Provisioning of the LAN interfaces
For IPv6 multicast traffic, the IPv6 CE router may act as a Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD) proxy [RFC4605] and may support a dynamic
multicast routing protocol.
The IPv6 CE router may be manually configured in an arbitrary
topology with a dynamic routing protocol or using HNCP ([RFC7788]).
Automatic provisioning and configuration is described for a single
IPv6 CE router only.
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
3.2.1. Local Communication
Link-local IPv6 addresses are used by hosts communicating on a single
link. Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] are used
by hosts communicating within the end-user network across multiple
links, but without requiring the application to use a globally
routable address. The IPv6 CE router defaults to acting as the
demarcation point between two networks by providing a ULA boundary, a
multicast zone boundary, and ingress and egress traffic filters.
At the time of this writing, several host implementations do not
handle the case where they have an IPv6 address configured and no
IPv6 connectivity, either because the address itself has a limited
topological reachability (e.g., ULA) or because the IPv6 CE router is
not connected to the IPv6 network on its WAN interface. To support
host implementations that do not handle multihoming in a multi-prefix
environment [RFC7157], the IPv6 CE router should not, as detailed in
the requirements below, advertise itself as a default router on the
LAN interface(s) when it does not have IPv6 connectivity on the WAN
interface or when it is not provisioned with IPv6 addresses. For
local IPv6 communication, the mechanisms specified in [RFC4191] are
used.
ULA addressing is useful where the IPv6 CE router has multiple LAN
interfaces with hosts that need to communicate with each other. If
the IPv6 CE router has only a single LAN interface (IPv6 link), then
link-local addressing can be used instead.
Coexistence with IPv4 requires any IPv6 CE router(s) on the LAN to
conform to these recommendations, especially requirements ULA-5 and
L-4 below.
4. Requirements
4.1. General Requirements
The IPv6 CE router is responsible for implementing IPv6 routing; that
is, the IPv6 CE router must look up the IPv6 destination address in
its routing table to decide to which interface it should send the
packet.
In this role, the IPv6 CE router is responsible for ensuring that
traffic using its ULA addressing does not go out the WAN interface
and does not originate from the WAN interface.
G-1: An IPv6 CE router is an IPv6 node according to the IPv6 Node
Requirements specification [RFC6434].
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
G-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST implement ICMPv6 according to
[RFC4443]. In particular, point-to-point links MUST be handled
as described in Section 3.1 of [RFC4443].
G-3: The IPv6 CE router MUST NOT forward any IPv6 traffic between
its LAN interface(s) and its WAN interface until the router has
successfully completed the IPv6 address and the delegated
prefix acquisition process.
G-4: By default, an IPv6 CE router that has no default router(s) on
its WAN interface MUST NOT advertise itself as an IPv6 default
router on its LAN interfaces. That is, the "Router Lifetime"
field is set to zero in all Router Advertisement messages it
originates [RFC4861].
G-5: By default, if the IPv6 CE router is an advertising router and
loses its IPv6 default router(s) and/or detects loss of
connectivity on the WAN interface, it MUST explicitly
invalidate itself as an IPv6 default router on each of its
advertising interfaces by immediately transmitting one or more
Router Advertisement messages with the "Router Lifetime" field
set to zero [RFC4861].
G-6: The IPv6 CE router MUST comply with [RFC7608].
4.2. WAN-Side Configuration
The IPv6 CE router will need to support connectivity to one or more
access network architectures. This document describes an IPv6 CE
router that is not specific to any particular architecture or service
provider and that supports all commonly used architectures.
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and DHCPv6 protocols operate over any type of
IPv6-supported link layer, and there is no need for a link-layer-
specific configuration protocol for IPv6 network-layer configuration
options as in, e.g., PPP IP Control Protocol (IPCP) for IPv4. This
section makes the assumption that the same mechanism will work for
any link layer, be it Ethernet, the Data Over Cable Service Interface
Specification (DOCSIS), PPP, or others.
WAN-side requirements:
W-1: When the IPv6 CE router is attached to the WAN interface link,
it MUST act as an IPv6 host for the purposes of stateless
[RFC4862] or stateful [RFC3315] interface address assignment.
W-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST generate a link-local address and
finish Duplicate Address Detection according to [RFC4862] prior
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
to sending any Router Solicitations on the interface. The
source address used in the subsequent Router Solicitation MUST
be the link-local address on the WAN interface.
W-3: Absent other routing information, the IPv6 CE router MUST use
Router Discovery as specified in [RFC4861] to discover a
default router(s) and install a default route(s) in its routing
table with the discovered router's address as the next hop.
W-4: The IPv6 CE router MUST act as a requesting router for the
purposes of DHCPv6 prefix delegation ([RFC3633]).
W-5: The IPv6 CE router MUST use a persistent DHCP Unique Identifier
(DUID) for DHCPv6 messages. The DUID MUST NOT change between
network-interface resets or IPv6 CE router reboots.
W-6: The WAN interface of the IPv6 CE router SHOULD support a Port
Control Protocol (PCP) client as specified in [RFC6887] for use
by applications on the IPv6 CE router. The PCP client SHOULD
follow the procedure specified in Section 8.1 of [RFC6887] to
discover its PCP server. This document takes no position on
whether such functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms
by which users would configure the functionality. Handling PCP
requests from PCP clients in the LAN side of the IPv6 CE router
is out of scope.
Link-layer requirements:
WLL-1: If the WAN interface supports Ethernet encapsulation, then
the IPv6 CE router MUST support IPv6 over Ethernet [RFC2464].
WLL-2: If the WAN interface supports PPP encapsulation, the IPv6 CE
router MUST support IPv6 over PPP [RFC5072].
WLL-3: If the WAN interface supports PPP encapsulation, in a dual-
stack environment with IPCP and IPV6CP running over one PPP
logical channel, the Network Control Protocols (NCPs) MUST be
treated as independent of each other and start and terminate
independently.
Address assignment requirements:
WAA-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST support Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862].
WAA-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST follow the recommendations in
Section 4 of [RFC5942], and in particular the handling of
the L flag in the Router Advertisement Prefix Information
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
option.
WAA-3: The IPv6 CE router MUST support DHCPv6 [RFC3315] client
behavior.
WAA-4: The IPv6 CE router MUST be able to support the following
DHCPv6 options: Identity Association for Non-temporary
Address (IA_NA), Reconfigure Accept [RFC3315], and
DNS_SERVERS [RFC3646]. The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be able to
support the DNS Search List (DNSSL) option as specified in
[RFC3646].
WAA-5: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement the Network Time
Protocol (NTP) as specified in [RFC5905] to provide a time
reference common to the service provider for other
protocols, such as DHCPv6, to use. If the IPv6 CE router
implements NTP, it requests the NTP Server DHCPv6 option
[RFC5908] and uses the received list of servers as primary
time reference, unless explicitly configured otherwise. LAN
side support of NTP is out of scope for this document.
WAA-6: If the IPv6 CE router receives a Router Advertisement
message (described in [RFC4861]) with the M flag set to 1,
the IPv6 CE router MUST do DHCPv6 address assignment
(request an IA_NA option).
WAA-7: If the IPv6 CE router does not acquire a global IPv6
address(es) from either SLAAC or DHCPv6, then it MUST create
a global IPv6 address(es) from its delegated prefix(es) and
configure those on one of its internal virtual network
interfaces, unless configured to require a global IPv6
address on the WAN interface.
WAA-8: The IPv6 CE router MUST support the SOL_MAX_RT option
[RFC7083] and request the SOL_MAX_RT option in an Option
Request Option (ORO).
WAA-9: As a router, the IPv6 CE router MUST follow the weak host
(Weak End System) model [RFC1122]. When originating packets
from an interface, it will use a source address from another
one of its interfaces if the outgoing interface does not
have an address of suitable scope.
WAA-10: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement the Information Refresh
Time option and associated client behavior as specified in
[RFC4242].
Prefix delegation requirements:
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
WPD-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST support DHCPv6 prefix delegation
requesting router behavior as specified in [RFC3633]
(Identity Association for Prefix Delegation (IA_PD) option).
WPD-2: The IPv6 CE router MAY indicate as a hint to the delegating
router the size of the prefix it requires. If so, it MUST
ask for a prefix large enough to assign one /64 for each of
its interfaces, rounded up to the nearest nibble, and SHOULD
be configurable to ask for more.
WPD-3: The IPv6 CE router MUST be prepared to accept a delegated
prefix size different from what is given in the hint. If the
delegated prefix is too small to address all of its
interfaces, the IPv6 CE router SHOULD log a system management
error. [RFC6177] covers the recommendations for service
providers for prefix allocation sizes.
WPD-4: By default, the IPv6 CE router MUST initiate DHCPv6 prefix
delegation when either the M or O flags are set to 1 in a
received Router Advertisement (RA) message. Behavior of the
IPv6 CE router to use DHCPv6 prefix delegation when the IPv6
CE router has not received any RA or received an RA with the
M and the O bits set to zero is out of scope for this
document.
WPD-5: Any packet received by the IPv6 CE router with a destination
address in the prefix(es) delegated to the IPv6 CE router but
not in the set of prefixes assigned by the IPv6 CE router to
the LAN must be dropped. In other words, the next hop for
the prefix(es) delegated to the IPv6 CE router should be the
null destination. This is necessary to prevent forwarding
loops when some addresses covered by the aggregate are not
reachable [RFC4632].
(a) The IPv6 CE router SHOULD send an ICMPv6 Destination
Unreachable message in accordance with Section 3.1 of
[RFC4443] back to the source of the packet, if the
packet is to be dropped due to this rule.
WPD-6: If the IPv6 CE router requests both an IA_NA and an IA_PD
option in DHCPv6, it MUST accept an IA_PD option in DHCPv6
Advertise/Reply messages, even if the message does not
contain any addresses, unless configured to only obtain its
WAN IPv6 address via DHCPv6; see [RFC7550].
WPD-7: By default, an IPv6 CE router MUST NOT initiate any dynamic
routing protocol on its WAN interface.
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
WPD-8: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support the [RFC6603] Prefix
Exclude option.
4.3. LAN-Side Configuration
The IPv6 CE router distributes configuration information obtained
during WAN interface provisioning to IPv6 hosts and assists IPv6
hosts in obtaining IPv6 addresses. It also supports connectivity of
these devices in the absence of any working WAN interface.
An IPv6 CE router is expected to support an IPv6 end-user network and
IPv6 hosts that exhibit the following characteristics:
1. Link-local addresses may be insufficient for allowing IPv6
applications to communicate with each other in the end-user
network. The IPv6 CE router will need to enable this
communication by providing globally scoped unicast addresses or
ULAs [RFC4193], whether or not WAN connectivity exists.
2. IPv6 hosts should be capable of using SLAAC and may be capable of
using DHCPv6 for acquiring their addresses.
3. IPv6 hosts may use DHCPv6 for other configuration information,
such as the DNS_SERVERS option for acquiring DNS information.
Unless otherwise specified, the following requirements apply to the
IPv6 CE router's LAN interfaces only.
ULA requirements:
ULA-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD be capable of generating a ULA
prefix [RFC4193].
ULA-2: An IPv6 CE router with a ULA prefix MUST maintain this prefix
consistently across reboots.
ULA-3: The value of the ULA prefix SHOULD be configurable.
ULA-4: By default, the IPv6 CE router MUST act as a site border
router according to Section 4.3 of [RFC4193] and filter
packets with local IPv6 source or destination addresses
accordingly.
ULA-5: An IPv6 CE router MUST NOT advertise itself as a default
router with a Router Lifetime greater than zero whenever all
of its configured and delegated prefixes are ULA prefixes.
LAN requirements:
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
L-1: The IPv6 CE router MUST support router behavior according to
Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 [RFC4861].
L-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST assign a separate /64 from its
delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide
ULA addressing) for each of its LAN interfaces.
L-3: An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a router for the
delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide
ULA addressing) using the "Route Information Option" specified
in Section 2.3 of [RFC4191]. This advertisement is
independent of having or not having IPv6 connectivity on the
WAN interface.
L-4: An IPv6 CE router MUST NOT advertise itself as a default
router with a Router Lifetime [RFC4861] greater than zero if
it has no prefixes configured or delegated to it.
L-5: The IPv6 CE router MUST make each LAN interface an advertising
interface according to [RFC4861].
L-6: In Router Advertisement messages ([RFC4861]), the Prefix
Information option's A and L flags MUST be set to 1 by
default.
L-7: The A and L flags' ([RFC4861]) settings SHOULD be user
configurable.
L-8: The IPv6 CE router MUST support a DHCPv6 server capable of
IPv6 address assignment according to [RFC3315] OR a stateless
DHCPv6 server according to [RFC3736] on its LAN interfaces.
L-9: Unless the IPv6 CE router is configured to support the DHCPv6
IA_NA option, it SHOULD set the M flag to zero and the O flag
to 1 in its Router Advertisement messages [RFC4861].
L-10: The IPv6 CE router MUST support providing DNS information in
the DHCPv6 DNS_SERVERS and DOMAIN_LIST options [RFC3646].
L-11: The IPv6 CE router MUST support providing DNS information in
the Router Advertisement Recursive DNS Server (RDNSS) and DNS
Search List options. Both options are specified in [RFC6106].
L-12: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD implement a DNS proxy as described
in [RFC5625].
L-13: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD make available a subset of DHCPv6
options (as listed in Section 5.3 of [RFC3736]) received from
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
the DHCPv6 client on its WAN interface to its LAN-side DHCPv6
server.
L-14: If the delegated prefix changes, i.e., the current prefix is
replaced with a new prefix without any overlapping time
period, then the IPv6 CE router MUST immediately advertise the
old prefix with a Preferred Lifetime of zero and a Valid
Lifetime of either a) zero or b) the lower of the current
Valid Lifetime and two hours (which must be decremented in
real time) in a Router Advertisement message as described in
Section 5.5.3, (e) of [RFC4862].
L-15: The IPv6 CE router MUST send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable
message, code 5 (Source address failed ingress/egress policy)
for packets forwarded to it that use an address from a prefix
that has been invalidated.
L-16: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD provide HNCP (Home Networking
Control Protocol) services, as specified in [RFC7788].
4.4. Security Considerations
It is considered a best practice to filter obviously malicious
traffic (e.g., spoofed packets, "Martian" addresses, etc.). Thus,
the IPv6 CE router ought to support basic stateless egress and
ingress filters. The IPv6 CE router is also expected to offer
mechanisms to filter traffic entering the customer network; however,
the method by which vendors implement configurable packet filtering
is beyond the scope of this document.
Security requirements:
S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support [RFC6092]. In particular,
the IPv6 CE router SHOULD support functionality sufficient for
implementing the set of recommendations in [RFC6092],
Section 4. This document takes no position on whether such
functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms by which
users would configure it.
S-2: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support ingress filtering in
accordance with BCP 38 [RFC2827]. Note that this requirement
was downgraded from a MUST from RFC 6204 due to the difficulty
of implementation in the IPv6 CE router and the feature's
redundancy with upstream router ingress filtering.
S-3: If the IPv6 CE router firewall is configured to filter incoming
tunneled data, the firewall SHOULD provide the capability to
filter decapsulated packets from a tunnel.
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
5. Acknowledgements
This document is an update of RFC7084, whose original authors were:
Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, Chris Donley and Barbara Stark. The rest
of the text on this section and the Contributors section, are the
original acknowledgements and Contributors sections of the earlier
version of this document.
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
guidance and feedback:
Mikael Abrahamsson, Tore Anderson, Merete Asak, Rajiv Asati, Scott
Beuker, Mohamed Boucadair, Rex Bullinger, Brian Carpenter, Tassos
Chatzithomaoglou, Lorenzo Colitti, Remi Denis-Courmont, Gert Doering,
Alain Durand, Katsunori Fukuoka, Brian Haberman, Tony Hain, Thomas
Herbst, Ray Hunter, Joel Jaeggli, Kevin Johns, Erik Kline, Stephen
Kramer, Victor Kuarsingh, Francois-Xavier Le Bail, Arifumi Matsumoto,
David Miles, Shin Miyakawa, Jean-Francois Mule, Michael Newbery,
Carlos Pignataro, John Pomeroy, Antonio Querubin, Daniel Roesen,
Hiroki Sato, Teemu Savolainen, Matt Schmitt, David Thaler, Mark
Townsley, Sean Turner, Bernie Volz, Dan Wing, Timothy Winters, James
Woodyatt, Carl Wuyts, and Cor Zwart.
This document is based in part on CableLabs' eRouter specification.
The authors wish to acknowledge the additional contributors from the
eRouter team:
Ben Bekele, Amol Bhagwat, Ralph Brown, Eduardo Cardona, Margo Dolas,
Toerless Eckert, Doc Evans, Roger Fish, Michelle Kuska, Diego
Mazzola, John McQueen, Harsh Parandekar, Michael Patrick, Saifur
Rahman, Lakshmi Raman, Ryan Ross, Ron da Silva, Madhu Sudan, Dan
Torbet, and Greg White.
6. Contributors
The following people have participated as co-authors or provided
substantial contributions to this document: Ralph Droms, Kirk
Erichsen, Fred Baker, Jason Weil, Lee Howard, Jean-Francois Tremblay,
Yiu Lee, John Jason Brzozowski, and Heather Kirksey. Thanks to Ole
Troan for editorship in the original RFC 6204 document.
7. ANNEX A: Changes from RFC7084
The -bis-4-hncp version of this document has some minor text edits
here and there. Significant updates are:
1. G-6 added in order to comply with [RFC7608].
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
2. L-12 added to support for DNS proxy [RFC5625] as general LAN
requirement.
3. Added support of HNCP ([RFC7788]) in LAN (L-16).
4. Removed transition support.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, DOI 10.17487/RFC3736,
April 2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3736>.
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, DOI 10.17487/RFC4191,
November 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4191>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[RFC4242] Venaas, S., Chown, T., and B. Volz, "Information Refresh
Time Option for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 4242, DOI 10.17487/RFC4242, November
2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4242>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", BCP 122, RFC 4632, DOI 10.17487/RFC4632, August
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4632>.
[RFC4779] Asadullah, S., Ahmed, A., Popoviciu, C., Savola, P., and
J. Palet, "ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband
Access Networks", RFC 4779, DOI 10.17487/RFC4779, January
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4779>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC5072] Varada, S., Ed., Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6
over PPP", RFC 5072, DOI 10.17487/RFC5072, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5072>.
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
[RFC5625] Bellis, R., "DNS Proxy Implementation Guidelines",
BCP 152, RFC 5625, DOI 10.17487/RFC5625, August 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5625>.
[RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch,
"Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms
Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>.
[RFC5908] Gayraud, R. and B. Lourdelet, "Network Time Protocol (NTP)
Server Option for DHCPv6", RFC 5908, DOI 10.17487/RFC5908,
June 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5908>.
[RFC5942] Singh, H., Beebee, W., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Subnet
Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet
Prefixes", RFC 5942, DOI 10.17487/RFC5942, July 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5942>.
[RFC6092] Woodyatt, J., Ed., "Recommended Simple Security
Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) for
Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service", RFC 6092,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6092, January 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6092>.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 6106, DOI 10.17487/RFC6106, November 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6106>.
[RFC6177] Narten, T., Huston, G., and L. Roberts, "IPv6 Address
Assignment to End Sites", BCP 157, RFC 6177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6177, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6177>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC6603] Korhonen, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., Krishnan, S., and O.
Troan, "Prefix Exclude Option for DHCPv6-based Prefix
Delegation", RFC 6603, DOI 10.17487/RFC6603, May 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6603>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
[RFC7083] Droms, R., "Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT
and INF_MAX_RT", RFC 7083, DOI 10.17487/RFC7083, November
2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7083>.
[RFC7608] Boucadair, M., Petrescu, A., and F. Baker, "IPv6 Prefix
Length Recommendation for Forwarding", BCP 198, RFC 7608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7608, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7608>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC7157] Troan, O., Ed., Miles, D., Matsushima, S., Okimoto, T.,
and D. Wing, "IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address
Translation", RFC 7157, DOI 10.17487/RFC7157, March 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7157>.
[RFC7550] Troan, O., Volz, B., and M. Siodelski, "Issues and
Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 Options",
RFC 7550, DOI 10.17487/RFC7550, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7550>.
[RFC7849] Binet, D., Boucadair, M., Vizdal, A., Chen, G., Heatley,
N., Chandler, R., Michaud, D., Lopez, D., and W. Haeffner,
"An IPv6 Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices", RFC 7849,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7849, May 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7849>.
[TR-069] Broadband Forum, "CPE WAN Management Protocol", TR-069
Amendment 4, July 2011,
<http://www.broadband-forum.org/technical/trlist.php>.
[UPnP-IGD]
UPnP Forum, "InternetGatewayDevice:2 Device Template
Version 1.01", December 2010,
<http://upnp.org/specs/gw/igd2/>.
Author's Address
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 HNCP CE Router Requirements June 2017
Jordi Palet Martinez
Consulintel, S.L.
Molino de la Navata, 75
La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420
Spain
EMail: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
URI: http://www.consulintel.es/
Palet Martinez Expires December 12, 2017 [Page 19]
