The Universal IPv6 Router Advertisement Option (experiment)
draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-01

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-12-28
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html 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)
Network Working Group                                           O. Troan
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Experimental                          December 28, 2018
Expires: July 1, 2019

      The Universal IPv6 Router Advertisement Option (experiment)
                draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-01

Abstract

   One of the original intentions for the IPv6 host configuration, was
   to configure the network-layer parameters only with IPv6 ND, and use
   service discovery for other configuration information.  Unfortunately
   that hasn't panned out quite as planned, and we are in a situation
   where all kinds of configuration options are added to RAs and DHCP.
   This document proposes a new universal RA option in a self-describing
   data format, with the list of elements maintained in an IANA
   registry, with greatly relaxed rules for registration.

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 July 1, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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

Troan                     Expires July 1, 2019                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                                             December 2018

   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.

1.  Introduction

   This document proposes a new universal option for the Router
   Advertisement IPv6 ND message [RFC4861].  It's purpose is to use the
   RA as an opaque carrier for configuration information between an
   agent on a router and host / host application.

   DHCP is suited to give per-client configuration information, while
   the RA mechanism advertises configuration information to all hosts on
   the link.  There is a long running history of "conflict" between the
   two.  The arguments go; there is less fate-sharing in DHCP, DHCP
   doesn't deal with multiple sources of information, or make it more
   difficult to change information independent of the lifetimes, RA
   cannot be used to configure different information to different
   clients and son on.  And of course some options are only available in
   RAs and some options are only available in DHCP.

   While this proposal does not resolve the DHCP vs RA debate, it
   proposes an experimental solution to the problem of a very slow
   process of standardizing new options, and the IETF spending an
   inordinate amount of time arguing over new configuration options.

2.  Conventions

   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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  The Experiment

   This document specifies a new "self-describing" universal RA option.
   Currently new configuration option requires "standards action".  The
   purpose of the experiment is two-fold.  What is the implications of
   an opaque RA option that should not require any code changes for new
   elements within the option?  And what happens when change control is
   relaxed?  The proposal is that no IETF document is required.  The
   configuration option is described directly in the universal RA IANA
   registry.  The other part of the experiment is to

   Duration of experiment: 2 years.

   How to evaluate success?  How many new options have been defined.
   Did expert review suffice to stop "harmful" options?  Was any of the
   options implemented and deployed?  On a successful experiment, the

Troan                     Expires July 1, 2019                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                                             December 2018

   time limit of the registry will be removed and it's experimental
   status will be removed.  If the experiment is deamed a failure, then
   the registry will be removed.
Show full document text