Prefix Pool Option for DHCPv6 Relay Agents on Provider Edge Routers
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Leaf Yeh , Ted Lemon , Mohamed Boucadair | ||
| Last updated | 2012-10-22 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-01
DHC Working Group L. Yeh
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Standards Track T. Lemon
Expires: April 22, 2013 Nominum, Inc
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
October 19, 2012
Prefix Pool Option for DHCPv6 Relay Agents on Provider Edge Routers
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-01
Abstract
The DHCPv6 Prefix Pool option provides a mechanism for DHCPv6 Prefix
Delegation (DHCPv6-PD), allowing the DHCPv6 server to notify a DHCPv6
relay agent implemented on a Provider Edge (PE) router about active
prefix pools allocated by the DHCPv6 server to the PE router. The
information of active prefix pools can be used to enforce IPv6 route
aggregation on the PE router through adding or removing aggregation
routes according to the status of the prefix pools. The advertising
of the aggregation routes in the routing protocol enabled on the
network-facing interface of PE routers will dramatically decreases
the number of the routing table entries in the ISP network.
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 April 22, 2013.
Copyright Notice
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
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology and Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scenario and Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Prefix Pool Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. Contributors List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
1. Introduction
The DHCPv6 protocol [RFC3315] specifies a mechanism for the
assignment of IPv6 address and configuration information to IPv6
nodes. The DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) [RFC3633] specifies
a mechanism for the delegation of IPv6 prefixes from the Delegating
Router (DR) acting as the DHCPv6 server to the Requesting Routers
(RR) acting as the DHCPv6 clients. DHCPv6 servers always maintain
authoritative information associated with their operations including,
but not limited to, the binding data of the delegated IPv6 prefixes,
the lease data of the delegated IPv6 prefixes, and the status of
their prefix pools. A prefix pool configured and maintained on the
server can usually be a short prefix (e.g., a /40 prefix), out of
which the longer prefixes (e.g., /56 prefixes) are delegated to
customer networks.
In the scenario of a centralized DHCPv6 server, the Provider Edge
(PE) routers act as DHCPv6 relay agents, when the DHCPv6 server and
the Customer Edge (CE) router (a.k.a. Routed-RG or Routed-CPE)
acting as RRs and DHCPv6 clients, are not on the same link. For
ensuring reachability, the PE routers always need to add or withdraw
the route entries directing to each customer network in their routing
table to reflect the status of IPv6 prefixes delegated by the DHCPv6
server to CE routers (see Section 6.2, [BBF TR-177]).
When a routing protocol is enabled on the network-facing interface of
the PE router, all the routes directing to the customer networks are
advertised in the ISP network. It will make the number of route
entries in the routing table on the ISP router be unacceptable large.
Hence, it is desirable to aggregate the routes directing to the
customer networks on the PE router.
Because the prefixes of the customer networks can not be guaranteed
to be active and continuous, the routing protocol enabled on the PE
router in general can not create one aggregation route automatically
to cover all the prefixes delegated within the prefix pool. When the
PE router acts as the relay agent, it in general can not be aware
about the status of the prefix pools. One way to make the
aggregation routes (e.g., black-hole routes) pointing to each of the
prefix pools is to configure them manually and permanently, but it is
meant to a large amount of the handwork on each PE router for its
operation and maintenance.
This document proposes a new Prefix Pool option for the DHCPv6 relay
agent implemented on PE routers, allowing the DHCPv6 server to notify
the DHCPv6 relay agent about the prefix of pools. After the PE
router received information about the prefix pools, the aggregation
route entries can be added or withdrawn in the routing table of the
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
PE router according to the provision status of the prefix pools. The
aggregation routes will then be advertised into the ISP network
through the routing protocol enabled on the PE's network-facing
interface.
DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery [RFC5460] specifies a mechanism for bulk
transfer of the binding data of each delegated prefix from the server
to the requestor, typically a relay agent, to support the replacement
or reboot event of a relay agent. In this document, the capability
of DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery will be extended to support the bulk
transfer of the prefix and its status of the prefix pools for route
aggregation.
The automatic mechanisms described in this document depend on the
existing DHCPv6 protocols and implementations without requiring a new
DHCPv6 message or a new interface for the configuration of the
aggregation route. The administrator of the ISP network can decide
whether to inject the aggregation route or not based on the policies
defined on the DHCPv6 server.
2. Terminology and Conventions
This document defines a new DHCPv6 option to communicate the prefix
and its status of an IPv6 prefix pool. Definitions for terms and
acronyms not specified in this document are defined in [RFC3315],
[RFC3633], [RFC5007] and [RFC5460].
The following terms have been employed in this document:
o Requesting Router (RR): A router defined in [RFC3633] that acts as
a DHCPv6 client, and is requesting prefix to be delegated.
o Delegating Router (DR): A router defined in [RFC3633] that acts as
a DHCPv6 server, and is responding to the prefix request.
o Prefix Pool: An IPv6 address space allocated with a common prefix,
out of which the longer prefixes are delegated via prefix
delegation.
o aggregation route: A route entry created on an edge router, is
based on the knowledge of a prefix pool of the delegated prefixes.
o Requestor: A node defined in [RFC5007] that acts as the leasequery
client.
The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
document, are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, [RFC2119].
3. Scenario and Network Architecture
Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate two typical cases of the targeted
network architectures.
+------+------+ DHCPv6 Server
| DHCPv6 | (e.g. Binding entry
| Server | pe#1 - 2001:db8:1230::/44,
| | extract PE_ID=pe#1
+------+------+ from the Interface_ID=pe#1_cfi#2)
|
_________|_________
/ \
| ISP Core Network |
\___________________/
|
| Network-facing interface
+------+------+
| Provider | DHCPv6 Relay Agent, DHCPv6 Requestor
| Edge | (e.g. prefix pool=2001:db8:1230::/44)
| Router |
+------+------+
| Customer-facing interface
| (e.g. Interface_ID=pe#1_cfi#2)
|
+------+------+
| Customer | DHCPv6 Client
| Edge | DHCPv6-PD Requesting Router
| Router | (e.g. customer network
+------+------+ =2001:db8:1234:5600:/56)
|
_________|_________
/ \
| Customer Network |
\___________________/
Figure 1: Use case of ISP-Customer network where CPE is directly
connected to PE
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
+------+------+
| DHCPv6 | DHCPv6 Server
| Server | (e.g. Binding entry
| | pe#3_cfi#4 - 2001:db8:3400::/40)
+------+------+
|
_________|_________
/ \
| ISP Core Network |
\___________________/
|
| Network-facing interface
+------+------+
| Provider | DHCPv6 Relay Agent, DHCPv6 Requestor
| Edge | (e.g. prefix pool=2001:db8:3400::/40)
| Router |
+------+------+
| Customer-facing interface
| (e.g. Interface_ID=pe#3_cfi#4)
_________|_________
/ \
| Access Network |
\___________________/
|
|
+------+------+
| Customer | DHCPv6 Client
| Edge | DHCPv6-PD Requesting Router
| Router | (e.g. customer network
+------+------+ =2001:db8:1234:5600:/56)
|
_________|_________
/ \
| Customer Network |
\___________________/
Figure 2: Use case of ISP-Customer network where CPE is connected to
PE through access network
4. Prefix Pool Option
The format of the Prefix Pool option is shown in Figure 3.
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
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_PREFIX_POOL | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| status | pfx-pool-len | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
| ipv6-prefix (variable length) |
| |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code: OPTION_PREFIX_POOL (TBA-IANA)
option-length: 2 + length of ipv6-prefix (in Octets)
pfx-pool-len: Length for the prefix pool in bits
status: Status of the prefix pool, indicating the
availability of the prefix pool maintained
on the server.
ipv6-prefix: IPv6 prefix of the prefix pool, which is up to 16
octets in length. Bits outsides of the
pfx-pool-len, if included, MUST be zero.
The codes of the status are defined in the following table.
Name Code
Active 0
Released 1
Reserved 2~255
The 'Active' status of the prefix pool indicated in this option can
be used to add the prefix pool and its associated aggregation route
on the relay agent; while the 'Released' status of prefix pool
indicated in this option can be used to withdraw the prefix pool and
its associated aggregation route on the relay agent.
If the administrative policy on the server permits to support route
aggregation on the relay agent, the status of prefix pool can be
determined by the delegated prefixes within the associated prefix
pool: If there is one delegated prefix within the pool that has a
valid lease, the status of the prefix pool will be 'Active';
otherwise, the status of the prefix pool is 'Released'. If the
administrative policy on the server does not permit to support route
aggregation on the relay agent, the status of the prefix pool will
always be 'Released'.
Prefix Pool Option MAY be included by the DHCPv6 server in RELAY-REPL
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
(13), LEASEQUERY-REPLY (15) and LEASEQUERY-DATA (17) message, and MAY
be included by the DHCPv6 relay agent in the RELAY-FORW (12).
5. Relay Agent Behavior
The DHCPv6 relay agent who needs the information of prefix pools,
MUST include the associated requested-option-code in Option Request
option (OPTION_ORO, 6) to request the Prefix Pool option
(OPTION_PREFIX_POOL, [TBD-IANA]) from the DHCPv6 server, who
maintains the status of the prefix pools associated with the relay
agent itself (Figure 1) or its particular customer-facing interface
(Figure 2), when receiving the DHCPv6-PD message from clients. The
relay agent MAY include this Option Request option for the Prefix
Pool option in the RELAY-FORW (12) message of SOLICIT (1), REQUEST
(3), RENEW(5), REBIND (6) and RELEASE (8). The relay agent MAY also
include the Prefix Pool option with the values of 'pfx-pool-len' and
'ip6-prefix' to indicate its preference for which prefix pool the
relay agent would like the server to return.
The relay agent SHOULD include the Interface ID option
(OPTION_INTERFACE_ID, 18) so that the server can identify the relay
agent itself or its particular customer-facing interface with which
the prefix pool is associated, if the server would not like to use
the link-address field specified in the encapsulation of the DHCPv6
relay-forward message to identify the interface of the link on which
the clients are located.
The relay agent MAY set up a table for the lease or status of the
prefix pool on it according to the leases of the delegated customer
prefixes within it. The lease of the prefix pools MUST dynamically
set to be the maximum lease of the delegated customer prefixes. If
there is no route entry directing to the customer network within the
aggregation route associated with the prefix pool or the lease of
prefix pool runs out, the relay agent Should automatically withdraw
the aggregation route.
After receiving the Prefix Pool option for the relay agent itself or
its particular customer-facing interface in the RELAY-REPL (13)
message of REPLY (7) from the server, the relay agent acting as the
PE router Should confirm the status of the prefix pool according to
the leases of delegated customer prefixes within it. If the status
of the prefix pool received and confirmed is 'Active', the relay
agent Should add an aggregation route entry in its routing table, if
the same entry has not been added before. If the status of the
prefix pool received is 'Released', the relay agent Should withdraw
the associated aggregation route entry in its routing table, if the
same entry has not been withdrawn before.
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
The relay agent advertises its routing table including the entries of
the aggregation routes based on the information of prefix pools when
the routing protocol is enabled on its network-facing interface.
The Relay Agent (i.e., Requestor) can use the DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery
[RFC5460] to query the binding data of prefix pools in the 'Active'
status from the server. After established a TCP connection with the
server, the relay agent MUST include Query option (OPTION_LQ_QUERY,
44) and set the proper query-type (QUERY_BY_RELAY_ID,
QUERY_BY_LINK_ADDRESS or QUERY_BY_REMOTE_ID), link-address and query-
options in the LEASEQUERY (14) message. The query options MUST
include Option Request option (OPTION_ORO, 6) to request the Prefix
Pool option (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL, [TBD]) from the server.
6. Server Behavior
According to DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633], if the prefix of the customer
network requested in RELAY-FORW (12) message of SOLICIT, REQUEST,
RENEW, REBIND from the DHCPv6 client (i.e., the RR) has a valid
lease, the DHCPv6 server (i.e., the DR) will delegate the prefix with
the relevant parameters in the RELAY-REPL (13) message of REPLY. In
order to give a meaningful reply, the server has to maintain the
binding data of the delegated IPv6 prefixes with the identification
of the client. The Interface ID option (OPTION_INTERFACE_ID, 18)
nested in the relay-forward message is usually used to identify the
access line of the client.
After receiving the Option Request option (OPTION_ORO, 6) requesting
the Prefix Pool option (OPTION_PREFIX_POOL, [TBD]) in the relay-
forward messages of the DHCPv6-PD, the server MUST include the Prefix
Pool option with the status indicated for the associated relay agent
itself (Figure 1) or its customer-facing interface (Figure 2) in the
relay-reply messages if the relay-forward messages received are
valid.
The server MAY use the link-address specified in relay-forward
message to identify the relay agent itself or its particular
customer-facing interface where the prefix pool is associated, but
the server has to maintain the binding data of prefix pools in
association with these link-addresses. To be more readable, the
server can alternatively use the Interface ID option included in the
relay-forward message by the relay agent to identify the relay agent
itself or its particular customer-facing interface where the prefix
pool is associated. In order to give a meaningful reply, the server
has to maintain the binding data of prefix pools in association with
the information derived from the Interface ID option. According to
DHCPv6 [RFC3315], the server MUST copy the Interface ID option from
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
the relay-forward message into the relay-reply message.
If the administrative policy on the server permits to support route
aggregation on the relay agent for some particular prefix pool, the
status of prefix pool can be determined by the delegated prefixes
within the associated prefix pool. If there is at least one
delegated prefix within the pool that has a valid lease, the server
Should set the status of the associated prefix pool to be 'Active'.
After the last prefix released in the associated prefix pool, the
server Should set the status of the associated prefix pool to be
'Released'. If the administrative policy on the server does not
permit to support route aggregation on the relay agent, the server
shall set the status of the prefix pools always to be 'Released'.
When the administrator of the server changes the setting to support
route aggregation on the relay agent for the particular prefix pool,
the status of the prefix pool MAY change from 'Released' to be
'Active' if at least one delegated prefix within the prefix pool has
the valid lease. When the administrator of the server changes the
setting not to support route aggregation on the relay agent for the
particular prefix pool, the status of the prefix pool MAY change from
'Active' to be 'Released' if at least one delegated prefix within the
prefix pool has the valid lease. Then the server MAY send a relay-
reply message of RECONFIGURE (10) to initiate immediately a Renew (5)
/ Reply (7) prefix delegation message exchange with Prefix Pool
option between one active client and the server.
Multiple prefix pools MAY be associated with the same PE router
implementing the relay agent, or its customer-facing interface in the
binding table on the server. Note that these prefix pools Should not
overlay, and the delegated customer prefix is only from one prefix
pool.
After receiving the LEASEQUERY (14) message from the relay agent with
the OPTION_LQ_QUERY (44) including the OPTION_ORO (6) to request the
OPTION_PREFIX_POOL (TBD), the server MUST include the Prefix Pool
option in the LEASEQUERY-REPLY (15) and LEASEQUERY-DATA (17) messages
to convey the binding data of the associated prefix pools through the
established TCP connection according to mechanism defined in the
DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery [RFC5460]. Each LEASEQUERY-REPLY (15) and
LEASEQUERY-DATA (17) message only contains one OPTION_PREFIX_POOL or
and the associated OPTION_INTERFACE_ID (18) if the status of the
prefix pool is 'active'. In order to be able to provide meaningful
replies to different query types, the server has to maintain the
relevant association of prefix pools with the RELAY_ID, link
addresses or Remote_ID of the relay agent in its binding database.
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
7. Security Considerations
Security issues related DHCPv6 are described in Section 23 of
[RFC3315] and Section 15 of [RFC3633].
8. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign an option code to Option_Prefix_Pool from
the DHCPv6 registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/
dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xml).
9. Contributors List
Juergen Schoenwaelder
Jacobs University Bremen
Bremen
Germany
Email: j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Jie Hu
China Telecom
Beijing,
P. R. China
Email: huj@ctbri.com.cn
Tina Tsou
Huawei Technologies
Santa Clara, CA
USA
Email: tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com
10. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Ralph Droms for the inspiration from his expired
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-04], to the DHC working group
members, Bernie Volz, Ole Troan and Roberta Maglione for the
discussion in the mailing list, to Christian Jacquenet for pointing
out the draft shall cover one more use case of ISP-Customer network
where CPE is directly connected to PE, to Sven Ooghe for some
revisions in the email review, to Shrinivas Ashok Joshi for pointing
out the draft shall cover the mechanism against the case of reboot,
to Adrian Farrel for the orientation guide on this draft in IETF80 at
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
Prague.
11. References
11.1. 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.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[RFC5007] Brzozowski, J., Kinnear, K., Volz, B., and S. Zeng,
"DHCPv6 Leasequery", RFC 5007, September 2007.
[RFC5460] Stapp, M., "DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery", RFC 5460,
February 2009.
11.2. Informative References
[BBF TR-177]
Broadband Forum, "IPv6 in the context of TR-101, Issue 1",
November 2010.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-04]
Droms, R., Volz, B., and O. Troan, "DHCPv6 Relay Agent
Assignment Notification (RAAN) Option", July 2009.
Authors' Addresses
Leaf Y. Yeh
Huawei Technologies
Shenzhen,
P. R. China
Email: leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Prefix Pool Option October 2012
Ted Lemon
Nominum, Inc
USA
Email: Ted.Lemon@nominum.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
Rennes,
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Yeh, et al. Expires April 22, 2013 [Page 13]