Network Working Group J. Salowey
Internet-Draft R. Droms
Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: January 11, 2007 July 10, 2006
RADIUS Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute
draft-ietf-radext-delegated-prefix-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 January 11, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
This document defines a RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service) attribute that carries an IPv6 prefix that is to be
delegated to the user. This attribute is usable within either RADIUS
or Diameter.
Salowey & Droms Expires January 11, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute July 2006
1. Introduction
The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix is a RADIUS attribute [1] that carries an
IPv6 prefix to be delegated to the user, for use in the user's
network. For example, the prefix in a Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
attribute can be delegated to another node through DHCP Prefix
Delegation [2].
The Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4] serves a similar purpose, but
may also be used for other purposes other than delegating a prefix
for use in a user's network. Definition of the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
allows the simultaneous use of the Framed-IPv6-Prefix for other
purposes and the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix for prefix delegation.
2. Terminology
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 [3].
3. Attribute format
The format of the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Reserved | Prefix-Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
TBD for Delegated-IPv6-Prefix
Salowey & Droms Expires January 11, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute July 2006
Length
The length of the entire attribute, in bytes. At least 4
(to hold Type/Length/Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 0-bit
prefix), and no larger than 20 (to hold Type/Length/
Reserved/Prefix-Length for a 128-bit prefix)
Reserved
Always set to zero by sender; ignored by receiver
Prefix-Length
The length of the prefix being delegated, in bits. At least
0 and no larger than 128 bits (identifying a single IPv6
address)
Note that the prefix field is only required to be long enough to hold
the prefix bits and can be shorter than 16 bytes. Any bits in the
prefix field that are not part of the prefix MUST be zero.
The definition of the Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute is based on the
Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute [4].
The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix MAY appear in an Access-Accept packet, and
can appear multiple times. It MAY appear in an Access-Request packet
as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would prefer these
prefix(es), but the server is not required to honor the hint.
The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute MAY appear in an Accounting-
Request packet.
The Delegated-IPv6-Prefix MUST NOT appear in any other RADIUS
packets.
The following table describes which messages the Delegated-IPv6-
Prefix attribute can appear in and in what quantity.
+------------------------------------------------------+
| Request Accept Accounting # Attribute |
| Request |
| 0+ 0+ 0+ TBD Delegated-IPv6-Prefix |
+------------------------------------------------------+
In this table 0+ means that zero or more instances of this attribute
MAY be present in packet. This attribute MUST NOT appear in any
packet not listed in the table.
Salowey & Droms Expires January 11, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute July 2006
4. Diameter Considerations
When used in Diameter, the attribute defined in this specification
can be used as a Diameter AVP from the Code space 1-255, i.e., RADIUS
attribute compatibility space. No additional Diameter Code values
are therefore allocated. The data types of the attributes are as
follows:
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix OctetString
The attribute in this specification has no special translation
requirements for Diameter to RADIUS or RADIUS to Diameter gateways,
i.e., the attribute is copied as is, except for changes relating to
headers, alignment, and padding. See also RFC 3588 [5], Section 4.1,
and RFC 4005 [6], Section 9.
The text in this specification describing the applicability of the
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Access-Request applies in
Diameter to AA-Request [6] or Diameter-EAP-Request [7].
The text in this specification describing the applicability of the
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Access-Accept applies in
Diameter to AA-Answer or Diameter-EAP-Answer that indicates success.
The text in this specification describing the applicability of the
Delegated-IPv6-Prefix attribute for RADIUS Accounting-Request applies
to Diameter Accounting-Request [6] as well.
5. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a Type value, TBD, for this attribute
from the RADIUS Attribute Types registry.
6. Security Considerations
Known security vulnerabilities of the RADIUS protocol are discussed
in RFC 2607 [8], RFC 2865 [1] and RFC 2869 [9]. Use of IPsec [10]
for providing security when RADIUS is carried in IPv6 is discussed in
RFC 3162.
Security considerations for the Diameter protocol are discussed in
RFC 3588 [5].
Salowey & Droms Expires January 11, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute July 2006
7. Change Log
This section to be removed before publication as an RFC.
The following changes were made in revision -01 of this document:
o Added additional details to Abstract; defined that this attribute
can be used in both RADIUS and Diameter. (Issue 188)
o Moved and clarified text describing which packets this attribute
can appear in adjacent to table in section 3. (Issue 188)
o Fixed RFC 2119 boilerplate in section 2. (Issue 185)
o Fixed table in section 3 to clarify which packets this attribute
cannot appear in. (Issue 188)
o Added section 4, Diameter Considerations. (Issue 188)
o Made some references in section 6, Security Considerations,
Informative rather than Normative. (Issue 188)
o Updated reference to RFC 2401 [9] to RFC 4301. (Issue 188)
o Changed "IP SEC" to "IPsec" in section 6. (Issues 185 and 188)
The following changes were made in revision -02 of this document:
o Added a second paragraph to the Introduction, referencing the
Framed-IPv6-Prefix attribute
o Improved description of attribute fields in section 3
o Added border to table in section 3
o Updated Section 4, Diameter Considerations, to describe how this
attribute would be used in Diameter.
o Added reference to RFC 3588 in Section 6, Security Considerations.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[1] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, "Remote
Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", RFC 2865,
June 2000.
[2] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
December 2003.
[3] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Non-normative References
[4] Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
RFC 3162, August 2001.
Salowey & Droms Expires January 11, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute July 2006
[5] Calhoun, P., Loughney, J., Guttman, E., Zorn, G., and J. Arkko,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 3588, September 2003.
[6] Calhoun, P., Zorn, G., Spence, D., and D. Mitton, "Diameter
Network Access Server Application", RFC 4005, August 2005.
[7] Eronen, P., Hiller, T., and G. Zorn, "Diameter Extensible
Authentication Protocol (EAP) Application", RFC 4072,
August 2005.
[8] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607, June 1999.
[9] Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS Extensions",
RFC 2869, June 2000.
[10] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Joe Salowey
Cisco Systems, Inc.
2901 Third Avenue
Seattle, WA 98121
USA
Phone: +1 206.310.0596
Email: jsalowey@cisco.com
Ralph Droms
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Avenue
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
Phone: +1 978.936.1674
Email: rdroms@cisco.com
Salowey & Droms Expires January 11, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Delegated-IPv6-Prefix Attribute July 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Salowey & Droms Expires January 11, 2007 [Page 7]
