6man Working Group A.M. Matsumoto
Internet-Draft T.F. Fujisaki
Intended status: Standards Track NTT
Expires: November 01, 2013 T.C. Chown
University of Southampton
April 30, 2013
Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6
draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-10.txt
Abstract
RFC 6724 defines default address selection mechanisms for IPv6 that
allow nodes to select an appropriate address when faced with multiple
source and/or destination addresses to choose between. The RFC 6724
allowed for the future definition of methods to administratively
configure the address selection policy information. This document
defines a new DHCPv6 option for such configuration, allowing a site
administrator to distribute address selection policy overriding the
default address selection parameters and policy table, and thus
control the address selection behavior of nodes in their site.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on November 01, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
Matsumoto, et al. Expires November 01, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Address Selection Policy Opt April 2013
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
RFC 3484 [RFC3484] describes default algorithms for selecting an
address when a node has multiple destination and/or source addresses
to choose from by using an address selection policy. In Section 2 of
RFC 6724, it is suggested that the default policy table may be
administratively configured to suit the specific needs of a site.
This specification defines a new DHCPv6 option for such
configuration.
Some problems have been identified with the default RFC 3484 address
selection policy [RFC5220]. It is unlikely that any default policy
will suit all scenarios, and thus mechanisms to control the source
address selection policy will be necessary. Requirements for those
mechanisms are described in [RFC5221], while solutions are discussed
in [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]. Those documents have
helped shape the improvements in the default address selection
algorithm [RFC6724] as well as the DHCPv6 option defined in this
specification.
1.1. Conventions Used in This Document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
datatracker.ietf.org