IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP
draft-link-dhc-v6only-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
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 "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Lorenzo Colitti , Jen Linkova , Michael Richardson , Tomek Mrugalski | ||
| Last updated | 2019-12-04 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-dhc-v6only, draft-ietf-dhc-v6only, RFC 8925 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Associated None milestones |
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-link-dhc-v6only-00
Dynamic Host Configuration L. Colitti
Internet-Draft J. Linkova
Intended status: Standards Track Google
Expires: June 6, 2020 M. Richardson
Sandelman
T. Mrugalski
ISC
December 4, 2019
IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP
draft-link-dhc-v6only-00
Abstract
This document specifies a DHCP option to indicate that a host
supports an IPv6-only mode and willing to forgo obtaining a IPv4
address if the network provides IPv6 access.
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 June 6, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
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
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
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
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Reasons to Signal IPv6-Only Support in DHCPv4 Packets . . . . 4
3. IPv6-Only Preferred Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Option format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. DHCPv4 Client Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. DHCPv4 Server Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
One of the biggest challenges of deploying IPv6-only LANs is that
such networks might contain rather heterogeneous collection of end
hosts. Some of them are capable of operating in IPv6-only mode
(either because the OS and all applications are IPv6-only capable or
because the host has some form of 464XLAT [RFC6877] deployed). At
the same time some devices might still have IPv4 dependencies and
need IPv4 connectivity to operate properly. To incrementaly rollout
IPv6-only, network operators need to provide IPv4-as-a-service when a
host receives an IPv4 address if it needs it, while IPv6-only capable
devices (such as modern mobile devices) are not allocated IPv4
addresses. Deploying separate LAN segments for IPv6-only and for
dual-stack hosts (such as two WiFi SSIDs or two VLANs) is undesirable
for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:
o Doubling number of network segments which leads to operational
complexity and performance impact, for instance due to TCAM
utilization increase from an increased number of ACL entries.
o Placing a host into correct network segment is problematic. For
example, in the case of 802.11 Wi-Fi the user might select the
wrong SSID. In the case of wired 802.1x authentication the
authentication server might not have all information required to
make the correct decision.
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
Therefore it would be beneficial for IPv6 deployment if operators
could implement IPv4-mostly (or IPv4-as-a-Service) segments where
IPv6-only hosts co-exist with legacy dual-stack devices. The trivial
solution of disabling IPv4 stack on IPv6-only capable hosts is not
feasible as those clients must be able to operate on IPv4-only
networks as well. While IPv6-only capable devices might use a
heuristic approach to learning if the network provdes IPv6-only
functionality and stop using IPv4 if it does, it might be practically
undesirable. One important reason is that when a host connects to a
network, it does not know if the network is IPv4-only, dual-stack or
IPv6-only. To ensure that the connectivity over whatever protocol is
present becomes available as soon as possible the host usually starts
configuring both IPv4 and IPv6 immidiately. If hosts were to delay
requesting IPv4 until IPv6 reachability is confirmed, that would
would penalize IPv4-only and dual-stack networks, which does not seem
practical. Instead it would be useful to have a mechanism which
would allow a host to indicate that IPv4 is optional and a network to
signal that IPv6-only functionality (such as NAT64) is available.
The proposed solution is to introduce a new DHCP option which a
client uses to indicate that it does not need IPv4 if the network
provides IPv6-only connectivty (as NAT64 and DNS64). If the
particular network segment provides IPv4-as-a-service such clients
would not be supplied with IPv4 addresses, while on IPv4-only or
dual-stack segments without NAT64 services IPv4 addresses will be
provided.
1.1. Requirements Language
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.
1.2. Terminology
IPv6-only capable host: a host which does not require IPv4 and can
operate on IPv6-only networks. Strictly speaking IPv6-only
capability is specific to a given interface of the host: if some
applocation on a host require IPv4 and 464XLAT clat [RFC6877] is only
enabled on one interface, the host is IPv6-only capable if connected
to a NAT64 network via that interface.
IPv4-as-a-Service: a deployment scenario when end hosts are expected
to operate in IPv6-only mode by default and IPv4 addresses can be
assigned to some hosts if those hosts explicitly opt-in to receiving
IPv4 addresses;
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
IPv6-mostly network: a network which provides NAT64 (possibly with
DNS64) service as well as IPv4 connectivity. Such deployment
scenario allows operators to incrementaly turn off IPv4 on end hosts,
while still providing IPv4 to devices which require IPv4 to operate.
But, IPv6-only capable devices need not be assigned IPv4 addresses.
IPv6-Only network: a network which does not provide routing
functionality for IPv4 packets. Such network may or may not allow
intra-LAN IPv4 connectivity. IPv6-Only network usually provide
access to IPv4-only resources via NAT64 [RFC6147].
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to
IPv4 Servers [RFC6146];
RA: Router Advertisement, a message used by IPv6 routers to advertise
their presence together with various link and Internet parameters
[RFC4861];
DNS64: a mechanism for synthesizing AAAA records from A records
[RFC6147];
2. Reasons to Signal IPv6-Only Support in DHCPv4 Packets
For networks which contains both IPv6-capable and IPv4-requiring
devices and utilizes DHCP for configuring IPv4 network stack on
hosts, it seems only natural to leverage the same protocol to signal
that IPv4 is discretional on the given segment. Such approach limits
the attack surface to DHCP-related attacks without introducing new
vulnerable elements.
Another benefit of using DHCPv4 for signalling is that IPv4 will be
disabled only if both the client and the server indicate IPv6-only
capability. It allows IPv6-only capable clients to turn off IPv6
only upon receiving an explicit signal from the network and operate
in dual-stack or IPv4-only mode otherwise.
Coexistence of IPv6-only, dual-stack and even IPv4-only hosts on the
same LAN would not only allow network administrators to preserve
scarce IPv4 addresses but would also drastically simplify incremental
deployment of IPv6-only networks, positively impacting IPv6 adoption.
3. IPv6-Only Preferred Option
3.1. Option format
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IPv6-Only Preferred Option Format
Fields:
Type 8-bit identifier of the IPv6-Only Preferred option type as
assigned by IANA: TBD
Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option (excluding
the Type and Length Fields. The server MUST set the length
field to 0. The receiver MUST ignore the IPv6-Only Preferred
option if the the length field value is not 0.
3.2. DHCPv4 Client Behaviour
A DHCP client SHOULD allow a device administrator to configure
IPv6-only preferred mode either for a specific interface (to indicate
that the device is IPv6-only capable if connected to a NAT64 network
via that interface) or for all interfaces. If only a specific
interface is configured as IPv6-only capable the DHCP client MUST NOT
be considered as an IPv6-capable for the purpose of sending/receiving
DHCP packets over any other interfaces.
Clients not capable of operating in an IPv6-only NAT64 environment
MUST NOT include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the Parameter
Request List of any DHCP packets and MUST ignore that option in
packets received from DHCP servers.
IPv6-only capable clients SHOULD include the IPv6-only Preferred
option in the Parameter Request List in DHCPDISCOVER and DHCPREQUEST
messages.
If the client did not include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
DHCPDISCOVER or DHCPREQUEST message it MUST ignore the the IPv6-only
Preferred option in any messages received from the server.
If the client includes the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
Parameter Request List and the DHCPOFFER message from the server
contains a valid IPv6-only Preferred option, the client MUST NOT
configure the IPv4 address provided in the DHCPOFFER. The client
SHOULD stop the DHCP configuration process for at least V6ONLY_WAIT
seconds or until a network attachement event happens. The host MAY
disable IPv4 stack completely for V6ONLY_WAIT seconds or until the
network disconnection event heppens.
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
The client SHOULD include the IPv6-only Preferred option in
DHCPREQUEST messages (after receiving a DHCPOFFER without this
option, for a INIT-REBOOT, or when renewing or rebinding a leased
address). If the DHCP server responds with a DHCPACK that includes
the IPv6-only Preferred option, the client MAY send a DHCPRELEASE
message and MAY either stop the DHCP configuration process or disable
IPv4 stack completely for V6ONLY_WAIT seconds or until the network
disconnection event heppens. Alternatively the client MAY continue
to use the assigned IPv4 address until further DHCP reconfiguration
events.
If the client includes the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
Parameter Request List and the server responds with DHCPOFFER message
without a valid IPv6-only Preferred option, the client MUST proceed
as normal with a DHCPREQUEST.
If the client waits for multiple responses and the server the client
sends the DHCPREQUEST to did not include the IPv6-only Preferred
option in the DHCPOFFER, the client MUST NOT stop the DHCP
configuration process or disable IPv4 stack even if other servers
include the IPv6-only Preferred option in their responses.
When an IPv6-only capable client receives the IPv6-Only Preferred
option from the server, The client MAY configure IPv4 link-local
address [RFC3927]. In that case IPv6-Only capable devices might
still be able to communicate over IPv4 to other devices on the link.
3.3. DHCPv4 Server Behaviour
The DHCP server SHOULD have a configuration option to mark the given
DHCP pool as belonging to an IPv6-mostly network segment.
The server MUST NOT include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the
DHCPOFFER or DHCPACK message if the YIADDR field in the message does
not belong to a pool configured as IPv6-mostly. The server MUST NOT
include the IPv6-only Preferred option in the DHCPOFFER or DHCPACK
message if the option was not present in the Parameter Request List
sent by the client.
If the IPv6-only Preferred option is present in the Parameter Request
List received from the client and the corresponding DHCP pool is
explicitly configured as belonging to an IPv6-mostly network segment,
the server MUST include respond with the DHPCOFFER or DHCPACK
message. If the pool is explicitly configured with a dedicated IPv4
address to be returned to IPv6-only capable clients the server MUST
specify that address as the client's network address and MUST NOT
verify its uniqueness. Otherwise the server SHOULD follow the
recommendations in [RFC2131]. The client is not expected to use that
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
IPv4 address so if the client responds with the DHCPREQUEST message
for that address the server SHOULD respond with DHCPNAK.
If a client includes both a Rapid-Commit option [RFC4039] and
IPv6-Only Preferred option in the DHCPDISCOVER message the server
SHOULD NOT honor the Rapid-Commit option if the response woul contain
the IPv6-only Preferred option to the client. It SHOULD instead
respond with a DHCPOFFER so that the IP address does not need to be
reserved for the client until the lease expires.
3.4. Configuration Variables
V6ONLY_WAIT The minimum time the client SHOULD stop the DHCP
configuration process for. MUST be no less than 300
seconds. Default: 1800 seconds
4. IANA Considerations
The IANA is requested to assign a new DHCP Option code for the
IPv6-Only Preferred option from the BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP
Options registry, located at https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-
dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml#options . If possible,
please assign option code 108.
+----------------------------+-------+
| Option Name | Type |
+----------------------------+-------+
| IPv6-only Preferred option | (TBD) |
+----------------------------+-------+
Table 1
5. Security Considerations
The proposed mechanism is not introducing any new security
implications. While clients using the IPv6-only Preferred option are
vunerable to attacks related to a rogue DHCP server, enabling
IPv6-only Preferred option does not provide an attacker with any
additional mechanisms.
It should be noted that disabling IPv4 on a host upon receiving the
IPv6-only Preferred option from the DHCP server protects the host
from IPv4-related attacks and therefore could be considered a
security feature.
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
review and feedback: Bernie Volz.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3927, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3927>.
[RFC4039] Park, S., Kim, P., and B. Volz, "Rapid Commit Option for
the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 4
(DHCPv4)", RFC 4039, DOI 10.17487/RFC4039, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4039>.
[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,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6-Only-Preferred Option for DHCP December 2019
[RFC6147] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. van
Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS Extensions for Network Address
Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6147,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6147, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6147>.
[RFC6877] Mawatari, M., Kawashima, M., and C. Byrne, "464XLAT:
Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation",
RFC 6877, DOI 10.17487/RFC6877, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6877>.
Authors' Addresses
Lorenzo Colitti
Google
Shibuya 3-21-3
Shibuya, Tokyo 150-0002
JP
Email: lorenzo@google.com
Jen Linkova
Google
1 Darling Island Rd
Pyrmont, NSW 2009
AU
Email: furry@google.com
Michael C. Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
URI: http://www.sandelman.ca/
Tomek Mrugalski
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
USA
Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com
Colitti, et al. Expires June 6, 2020 [Page 9]