datatracker.ietf.org
Sign in
Version 5.3.0, 2014-04-12
Report a bug

Issues with multiple stateful DHCPv6 options
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05

Document type: Active Internet-Draft (dhc WG)
Document stream: IETF
Last updated: 2014-01-20 (latest revision 2014-01-01)
Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard
Other versions: plain text, xml, pdf, html

IETF State: WG Document Mar 2014
Consensus: Unknown
Document shepherd: Tomek Mrugalski

IESG State: I-D Exists
Responsible AD: (None)
Send notices to: No addresses provided

Network Working Group                                           O. Troan
Internet-Draft                                                   B. Volz
Updates: 3315,3633 (if approved)                     Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                         January 1, 2014
Expires: July 5, 2014

              Issues with multiple stateful DHCPv6 options
              draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-05.txt

Abstract

   Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) was not written
   with the expectation that additional stateful DHCPv6 options would be
   developed.  IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration
   Protocol (DHCP) version 6 shoe-horned the new options for Prefix
   Delegation into DHCPv6.  Implementation experience of the CPE model
   described in RFC6204 has shown multiple issues with the DHCPv6
   protocol in supporting multiple stateful options.  This document
   updates RFC3315 and indirectly RFC3633.

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 July 5, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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

Troan & Volz              Expires July 5, 2014                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Multiple Stateful Option            January 2014

   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.  Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Handling of multiple IA options types . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     4.1.  Advertise Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Placement of Status Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  T1/T2 Timers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.4.  Renew Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.5.  Rebind Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.6.  Confirm Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.7.  Release Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.8.  Multiple Provisioning Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   DHCPv6 [RFC3315] was not written with the expectation that additional
   stateful DHCPv6 options would be developed.  DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
   [RFC3633] shoe-horned the new options for Prefix Delegation into
   DHCPv6.  Implementation experience of the CPE model described in
   [RFC6204] has shown multiple issues with the DHCPv6 protocol in
   supporting multiple stateful options.

   This document describes a number of problems encountered with
   multiple IA option types into DHCP and recommended changes to the
   DHCPv6 protocol specifications.

   The intention of this work is to modify the DHCP protocol
   specification to support multiple IA option types within a single
   DHCP session.  This problem can also be solved by implementing a
   separate DHCP session (separate client state machine) per IA option
   type.  This latter approach has a number of issues: additional DHCP

[include full document text]