Network Working Group S. Miyakawa
Internet-Draft NTT Communications Corporation
Expires: August 9, 2004 R. Droms
Cisco
February 9, 2004
Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation
draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-04.txt
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 http://
www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 9, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
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 [3] and section 3 of RFC3177 [2]), an efficient
mechanism for delegating address prefixes to the customers sites is
Miyakawa & Droms Expires August 9, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation February 2004
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
Terminology:
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
should also be supported. The mechanism should allow for delegation
Miyakawa & Droms Expires August 9, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation February 2004
of more 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 Expression of Requirements or Preferences by the CPE
The CPE must be able to express requirements or preferences in its
request to the PE. For example, the CPE should be able to express a
preference for a prefix length.
3.6 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.
The prefix delegation should provide for reliable authentication of
the identity of the service provider's edge router.
3.7 Accounting
The prefix delegation mechanism must allow for the ISP to obtain
accounting information about delegated prefixes from the PE.
3.8 Hardware technology Considerations
The prefix delegation mechanism should work on any hardware link
Miyakawa & Droms Expires August 9, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation February 2004
technology between the PE and the CPE 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.
5. Security considerations
Section 3.6 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 PE can issue bogus prefixes to a requesting router. This may
cause denial of service due to unreachability.
A rogue CPE may be able to mount a denial of service attack by
repeated requests for delegated prefixes that exhaust the PE's
available prefixes.
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express our thanks to Randy Bush, Thomas
Narten, Micheal Py, Pekka Savola, Dave Thaler, as well as other
members of the IPv6 working group and the IESG 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] IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address", RFC
3177, September 2001.
[3] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.
Miyakawa & Droms Expires August 9, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation February 2004
Authors' Addresses
Shin Miyakawa
NTT Communications Corporation
Tokyo
Japan
Phone: +81-3-6800-3262
EMail: miyakawa@nttv6.jp
Ralph Droms
Cisco
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978.936.1674
EMail: rdroms@cisco.com
Miyakawa & Droms Expires August 9, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation February 2004
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
Director.
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). 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
English.
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
"AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
Miyakawa & Droms Expires August 9, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation February 2004
HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Miyakawa & Droms Expires August 9, 2004 [Page 7]
