Network Working Group                                        S. Miyakawa
Internet-Draft                            NTT Communications Corporation
Expires: February 21, 2004                                      R. Droms
                                                         August 23, 2003

                Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 21, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.


   This document describes requirements for how IPv6 address prefixes
   should be delegated to an IPv6 subscriber's network (or "site").

1. Introduction

   With the deployment of IPv6 [1], several Internet Service Providers
   are ready to offer IPv6 access to the public. In conjunction with
   widely deployed "always on" media such as ADSL and the expectation
   that customers will be assigned a /48 IPv6 unicast address prefix
   (see RFC3513 [2] and section 3 of RFC3177 [3]), an efficient
   mechanism for delegating address prefixes to the customers sites is

Miyakawa & Droms       Expires February 21, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft    Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation    August 2003

   needed.  The delegation mechanism will be intended to automate the
   process of informing the customer's networking equipment of the
   prefixes to be used at the customer's site.

   This document clarifies the requirements for IPv6 address prefix
   delegation from the ISP to the site.

2. Scenario and terminology

   The following figure illustrates a likely example for the
   organization of a network providing subscription IPv6 service:

                                                    /        \
                                                   +          |
                                                  / \        /
        +---------------+              +--------+/   \------/
        |ISP Edge Router|Point-to-point|Customer+
        |               +--------------+ Router |  Customer networks
        |     (PE)      |     link     | (CPE)  +
        +---------------+              +--------+\   /------\
                                                  \ /        \
                                                   +          |
                                                    \        /

   Figure 1: Illustration of ISP-customer network architecture


   PE:   Provider edge device; the device connected to the service
      provider's network infrastructure at which the link to the
      customer site is terminated

   CPE:  Customer premises equipment; the device at the customer site at
      which the link to the ISP is terminated

3. Requirements for Prefix Delegation

   The purpose of the prefix delegation mechanism is to delegate and
   manage prefixes to the CPE automatically.

3.1 Number and Length of Delegated Prefixes

   The prefix delegation mechanism should allow for delegation of
   prefixes of lengths between /48 and /64, inclusively.  Other lengths
   may be supported. The mechanism should allow for delegation of more

Miyakawa & Droms       Expires February 21, 2004                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft    Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation    August 2003

   than one prefix to the customer.

3.2 Use of Delegated Prefixes in Customer Network

   The prefix delegation mechanism must not prohibit or inhibit the
   assignment of longer prefixes, created from the delegated prefixes,
   to links within the customer network. The prefix delegation mechanism
   is not required to report any prefix delegations within the
   customer's network back to the ISP.

3.3 Static and Dynamic Assignment

   The prefix delegation mechanism should allow for long-lived static
   pre-assignment of prefixes and for automated, possibly short-lived
   on-demand dynamic assignment of prefixes to a customer.

3.4 Policy-based Assignment

   The prefix delegation mechanism should allow for the use of policy in
   assigning prefixes to a customer.  For example, the customer's
   identity and type of subscribed service may be used to determine the
   address block from which the customer's prefix is selected, and the
   length of the prefix assigned to the customer.

3.5 Security and Authentication

   The prefix delegation mechanism must provide for reliable
   authentication of the identity of the customer to which the prefixes
   are to be assigned, and must provide for reliable, secure
   transmission of the delegated prefixes to the customer.

3.6 Accounting

   The prefix delegation mechanism must allow for the ISP to provide
   accounting information about delegated prefixes.

3.7 Hardware technology Considerations

   The prefix delegation mechanism should work on any hardware
   technology and should be hardware technology independent. The
   mechanism must work on shared links.  The mechanism should work with
   all hardware technologies either with an authentication mechanism or
   without, but ISPs would like to take advantage of the hardware
   technology's authentication mechanism if it exists.

4. IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations in this document.

Miyakawa & Droms       Expires February 21, 2004                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft    Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation    August 2003

5. Security considerations

   Section 3.5 specifies security requirements for the prefix delegation
   mechanism. For point to point links, where one trusts that there is
   no man in the middle, or one trusts layer two authentication,
   authentication may not be necessary.

   A rogue delegating router can issue bogus prefixes to a requesting
   router.  This may cause denial of service due to unreachability.

   A rogue requesting router (CPE) may be able to mount a denial of
   service attack by repeated requests for delegated prefixes that
   exhaust the delegating router's available prefixes.

6. Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to express our thanks to Pekka Savola, Dave
   Thaler, Micheal Py and other members of the IPv6 working group for
   their review and constructive comnents and to the people in the IPv6
   operation group of the Internet Association of Japan and NTT
   Communications IPv6 project, especially Toshi Yamasaki and Yasuhiro
   Shirasaki for their original discussion and suggestions.

Informative References

   [1]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
        Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [2]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
        Addressing Architecture", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [3]  IAB/IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address", RFC
        3177, September 2001.

Authors' Addresses

   Shin Miyakawa
   NTT Communications Corporation

   Phone: +81-3-6800-3262

Miyakawa & Droms       Expires February 21, 2004                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft    Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation    August 2003

   Ralph Droms
   1414 Massachusetts Avenue
   Boxborough, MA  01719

   Phone: +1 978.936.1674

Miyakawa & Droms       Expires February 21, 2004                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft    Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation    August 2003

Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an

Miyakawa & Droms       Expires February 21, 2004                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft    Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation    August 2003



   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.

Miyakawa & Droms       Expires February 21, 2004                [Page 7]