SLAAC with prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO (Variable SLAAC)
draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Authors Gyan Mishra  , Alexandre Petrescu  , Naveen Kottapalli  , Dusan Mudric  , Dmytro Shytyi 
Last updated 2020-10-30
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
6MAN Working Group                                             G. Mishra
Internet-Draft                                              Verizon Inc.
Updates: RFC2464, RFC4291, RFC4861,                          A. Petrescu
         RFC4862, RFC7136, RFC8273 (if                         CEA, LIST
         approved)                                         N. Kottapalli
Intended status: Standards Track                           Benu Networks
Expires: May 3, 2021                                       N. Kottapalli
                                                                   Ciena
                                                               D. Shytyi
                                                                     SFR
                                                        October 30, 2020

    SLAAC with prefixes of arbitrary length in PIO (Variable SLAAC)
                  draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01

Abstract

   This draft proposes the use of arbitrary length prefixes in PIO for
   SLAAC.  A prefix of length 65 in PIO, for example, would be permitted
   to form an addresses whose interface identifier length is length 63,
   which allows several benefits.

   In the past, various IPv6 addressing models have been proposed based
   on a subnet hierarchy embedding a 64-bit prefix.  The last remnant of
   IPv6 classful addressing is a inflexible interface identifier
   boundary at /64.  This document proposes flexibility to the fixed
   position of that boundary for interface addressing.

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 May 3, 2021.

Mishra, et al.             Expires May 3, 2021                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               Variable SLAAC                 October 2020

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The History behind the 64 bit fixed boundary  . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  Identifier and Subnet Length Statements . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  Recommendations for implementation of variable SLAAC  . . . .   8
   6.  Recommended use cases where 64 bit prefix should be utilized    8
   7.  Reasons for longer than 64 bit prefix length  . . . . . . . .  12
     7.1.  Insufficient Address Space Delegated  . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.2.  Hierarchical Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.3.  Audit Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     7.4.  Concerns over ND Cache Exhaustion . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     7.5.  Longer prefixes lengths used for embedding information  .  14
   8.  Greater than 64 bit prefix  usage by ISPs is strictly
       prohibited  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Comparison of Static, SLAAC, DHCPv6 and Variable SLAAC  . . .  15
   10. Variable SLAAC Use Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.1.  Permission-less Extension of the Network . . . . . . . .  18
     10.2.  Private Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     10.3.  Mobile IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.4.  Home and SOHO  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.5.  3GPP V2I and V2V networking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     10.6.  6lo  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
     10.7.  Large ISP's backbone POP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   11. Variable SLAAC implementation using RA Flag . . . . . . . . .  20
   12. Applicability Statements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   13. Router and Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
Show full document text