Softwire S. Jiang, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Fu, Ed.
Expires: January 8, 2017 CNNIC
B. Liu
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
P. Deacon
IEA Software, Inc.
C. Xie
China Telecom
T. Li
Tsinghua University
July 7, 2016
RADIUS Attribute for Softwire
draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07
Abstract
IPv4-over-IPv6 transition mechanisms provide both IPv4 and IPv6
connectivity services simultaneously during the IPv4/IPv6 co-existing
period. The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
options have been defined to configure Customer Edge (CE) in MAP-E,
MAP-T, and Lightweight 4over6. However, in many networks, the
configuration information may be stored in Authentication
Authorization and Accounting (AAA) servers while user configuration
is mainly from Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) through DHCPv6
protocol. This document defines a Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) attribute that carries CE configuration information
from AAA server to BNG.
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 http://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 January 8, 2017.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
(http://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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Configuration process with RADIUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Softwire46-Configuration Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. S46 Container Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. Sub Options for S46 Container Option . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3.1. S46-Rule Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3.2. S46-BR Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.3. S46-DMR Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3.4. S46-V4V6Bind Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.5. S46-PORTPARAMS Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Sub Options for S46-RULE Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.1. Rule-IPv6-Prefix Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4.2. Rule-IPv4-Prefix Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4.3. EA Length Sub Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Softwire46 Sub Options Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Table of attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Diameter Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Additional Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
1. Introduction
Recently providers start to deploy IPv6 and consider how to transit
to IPv6. Many transition mechanisms have been proposed for running
IPv4 over IPv6-only infrastructure, including MAP-E, MAP-T, and
Lightweight 4over6. Mapping of Address and Port with
Encapsulation(MAP-E)[RFC7597], Mapping of Address and Port with using
Translation(MAP-T)[RFC7599] are stateless mechanisms for running IPv4
over IPv6-only infrastructure. Lightweight 4over6[RFC7596] is a hub-
and-spoke IPv4-over-IPv6 tunneling mechanism, with complete
independence of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing. They provide both IPv4 and
IPv6 connectivity services simultaneously during the IPv4/IPv6 co-
existing period. MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6 have adopted
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315] as
auto-configuring protocol. The Customer Edge (CE) uses DHCPv6
options to discover the Border Relay (BR) and get S46 configurations.
In many networks, user configuration information may be stored in AAA
(Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting) servers. Current AAA
servers communicate using the Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) [RFC2865] protocol. In a fixed line broadband
network, the Broadband Network Gateways (BNGs) act as the access
gateway of users. The BNGs are assumed to embed a DHCPv6 server
function that allows them to locally handle any DHCPv6 requests
initiated by hosts.
Since the S46 configuration information is stored in AAA servers and
user configuration is mainly transmitted through DHCPv6 protocol
between BNGs and hosts/CEs, new RADIUS attributes are needed to
propagate the information from AAA servers to BNGs. The RADIUS
attributes designed in this document are especially for the MAP-
E[RFC7597], MAP-T[RFC7599] and Lightweight 4over6[RFC7596], providing
enough information to form the correspondent DHCPv6 configuration
options[RFC7598].
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 [RFC2119].
3. Configuration process with RADIUS
The below Figure 1 illustrates how the RADIUS protocol and DHCPv6
cooperate to provide CE with MAP configuration information. The BNG
acts as a RADIUS client and as a DHCPv6 server.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
CE BNG AAA Server
| | |
|-----1.DHCPv6 Solicit----->| |
| (ORO w/container option) | |
| |-------2.Access-Request------->|
| | (S46-Configuration attriubte) |
| | |
| |<------3.Access-Accept---------|
|<--4.DHCPv6 Advertisement--| (S46-Configuration attriubte) |
| | |
|-----5.DHCPv6 Request---->| |
| (container Option) | |
|<----6.DHCPv6 Reply--------| |
| (cointainer option) | |
| | |
DHCPv6 RADIUS
Figure 1: the cooperation between DHCPv6 and RADIUS combining with
RADIUS authentication
1. First, CE MAY initiate a DHCPv6 Solicit message that includes an
Option Request option(6) [RFC3315] with the S46 Container options as
defined in[RFC7598]. OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE should be included for
MAP-E[RFC7597], OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT for MAP-T[RFC7599], and
OPTION_S46_CONT_LW for Lightweight 4over6[RFC7596]. But note that
the ORO (Option Request option) with the S46 Container options could
be optional if the network was planned as S46-enabled as default.
2. When BNG receives the SOLICIT, it SHOULD initiate the radius
Access-Request message, in which the User-Name attribute (1) SHOULD
be filled by the CE MAC address or interface-id or both, to the
RADIUS server and the User-password attribute (2) SHOULD be filled by
the shared password that has been preconfigured on the DHCPv6 server,
requesting authentication as defined in [RFC2865] with the
corresponding Softwire46-Configuration Attribute, which will be
defined in the next Section.
3. If the authentication request is approved by the AAA server, an
Access-Accept message MUST be acknowledged with the corresponding
Softwire46-Configuration Attribute.
4. After receiving the Access-Accept message with the corresponding
Attribute, the BNG SHOULD respond the user an Advertisement message.
5. After receiving the Advertise message, the user can request for
the corresponding S46 Container option, by including the S46
Container option in the Request Message.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
6. After receiving the client's Request messsage, containing the
corresponding S46 Container option the BNG SHOULD reply the user with
the message containing the S46 Container option. The recommended
format of the MAC address is defined as Calling-Station-Id
(Section 3.20 in [RFC3580] without the SSID (Service Set Identifier)
portion.
For Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596], the subscriber's binding state
should be synchronized between AAA server and the lwAFTR. If the
bindings are pre-configured statically in both AAA server and lwAFTR,
the AAA server does not need to configure lwAFTR anymore. Otherwise,
if the bindings are locally creately in AAA server on-demand, it
should inform the lwAFTR with the subscriber's binding state, to
synchronise the binding information of the lwB4 with the lwAFTR. In
the Lightweight 4over6 scenario, the lwB4 could also be configured
through DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 [RFC7341] as well as PCP [RFC6887], in
which the lwB4 act a PCP client and the BNG act as both a Radius
client and a PCP server.
The authorization operation could also be done independently after
the authentication process. In such scenario, after the
authentication operation, the client MAY initiate a DHCPv6 Request
message that includes the corresponding S46 Container options. As
similar to above scenario, the ORO with the corresponding S46
Container option in the initial DHCPv6 request could be optional if
the network was planned as S46-enabled as default. When BNG receives
the DHCPv6 Request, it SHOULD initiate the radius Access-Request
message, which MUST contain a Service-Type attribute (6) with the
value Authorize Only (17), the corresponding Softwire46-Configuration
Attribute, and a State attribute obtained from the previous
authentication process according to [RFC5080]. If the authorization
request is approved by the AAA server, an Access-Accept message MUST
be acknowledged with the corresponding Softwire46-Configuration
Attribute. The BNG SHOULD then send the DHCPv6 Reply message
containing the S46 Container option.
In both above-mentioned scenarios, Message-authenticator (type 80)
[RFC2869] SHOULD be used to protect both Access-Request and Access-
Accept messages.
If the BNG does not receive the corresponding MAP-Configuration
Attribute in the Access-Accept it MAY fallback to a pre-configured
default S46 configuration, if any. If the BNG does not have any pre-
configured default S46 configuration or if the BNG receives an
Access-Reject, then S46 cannot be established.
As specified in [RFC3315], section 18.1.4, "Creation and Transmission
of Rebind Messages ", if the DHCPv6 server to which the DHCPv6 Renew
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
message was sent at time T1 has not responded by time T2, the CE
(DHCPv6 client) SHOULD enter the Rebind state and attempt to contact
any available server. In this situation, the secondary BNG receiving
the DHCPv6 message MUST initiate a new Access-Request towards the AAA
server. The secondary BNG MAY include the MAP-Configuration
Attribute in its Access-Request.
4. Attributes
This section defines S46 Attributes which are used in the MAP
scenario. The attribute design follows [RFC6158] and refers
to[RFC6929].
The S46 attributes are designed following the simplify principle.
Different sub options are required for each type of S46 Container
option.
4.1. Softwire46-Configuration Attribute
The Softwire46-Configuration Attribute is structured as follows:
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ S46 Container Option(s) +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
TBD
Length
2 + the length of the S46 Container option(s)
S46 Container Option (s)
A variable field that may contains one or more S46 Container option(s),
defined in Section 4.2
4.2. S46 Container Options
Depending on the deployment scenario, a client might request for more
than one transition mechanism at a time, at least one S46 Container
option MUST be included in one MAP-Configuration Attribute.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
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 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ Sub Options +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
1 MAP-E Container Option
2 MAP-T Container Option
3 Lightweight 4over6 Container Option
Length
2 + the length of the sub options
Sub Option
A variable field that contains necessary sub options defined in
Section 4.3 and zero or several optional sub options, defined
in Section 4.4
4.3. Sub Options for S46 Container Option
4.3.1. S46-Rule Sub Option
Depending on deployment scenario, one Basic Mapping Rule and zero or
more Forwarding Mapping Rules MUST be included in one MAP-E or MAP-T
Container Option.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| |
+ Sub Options +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
1 Basic Mapping Rule (Not Forwarding Mapping Rule)
2 Forwarding Mapping Rule (Not Basic Mapping Rule)
3 Basic & Forwarding Mapping Rule
SubLen
2 + the length of the sub options
Sub Option
A variable field that contains sub options defined in
Section 4.4
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
4.3.2. S46-BR Sub Option
There MUST be atleast one S46-BR Sub Option included in each MAP-E
Container Option or Lightweight 4over6 Container Option.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen | BR-ipv6-address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| BR-ipv6-address |
+ +
| BR-ipv6-address |
+ +
| BR-ipv6-address |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| BR-ipv6-address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
4 (SubType number, for the S46-BR sub option)
SubLen
18 (the length of the S46-BR sub option)
BR-ipv6-address
a 128-bits field that specifies the IPv6 address for the BR.
4.3.3. S46-DMR Sub Option
There MUST be exactly one S46-DMR Sub Option included in one MAP-T
Container Option.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen |dmr-prefix6-len|dmr-ipv6-prefix|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| dmr-ipv6-prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
5 (SubType number, for the S46-DMR sub option)
SubLen
8 (the length of the Rule-IPv4-Prefix6 sub option)
dmr-prefix6-len
length of the IPv6 prefix, specified in the dmr-ipv6-prefix
field, expressed in bits
dmr-ipv6-prefix
a 32-bits field that specifies an IPv6 prefix that appears in
the Default Mapping Rule
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
4.3.4. S46-V4V6Bind Sub Option
There MUST be atmost one S46-RULE Sub Option included in each
Lightweight 4over6 Container Option.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen | ipv4-address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (Continued) |bindprefix6-len| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| bind-ipv6-prefix |
+ +
| bind-ipv6-prefix |
+ +
| bind-ipv6-prefix |
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| bind-ipv6-prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
6 (SubType number, for the S46-V4V6Bind sub option)
SubLen
23 (the length of the S46-V4V6Bind sub option)
ipv4-address
a 32-bits field that specifies an IPv4 address that appears in
the V4V6Bind Option
bindprefix6-len
length of the IPv6 prefix, specified in the bind-ipv6-prefix
field, expressed in bits
bind-ipv6-prefix
a 128-bits field that specifies an IPv6 prefix that appears in
the V4V6Bind Option
4.3.5. S46-PORTPARAMS Sub Option
The S46-PORTPARAMS sub option specifies optional port set information
that MAY be provided to CEs. The S46-PORTPARAMS sub option canbe
included optionally by each type of S46 Container Option.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen | PSID-Offset | PSID-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
7 (SubType number, for the S46-PORTPARAMS Sub Option sub option)
SubLen
6 (the length of the S46-PORTPARAMS Sub Option sub option)
PSID Offset
8 bits long field that specifies the numeric value for the S46 algorithm's excluded
port range/ offset bits (a bits), as per Section 5.1 of RFC 7597.
Allowed values are between 0 and 15. Default values for this field are specific to the
Softwire mechanism being implemented and are defined in the relevant specification document.
PSID-len
Bit length value of the number of significant bits in the PSID
field. (also known as 'k'). When set to 0, the PSID field is to
be ignored. After the first 'a' bits, there are k bits in the
port number representing valid of PSID. Subsequently, the
address sharing ratio would be 2 ^k.
PSID (Port-set ID)
Explicit 16-bit (unsigned word) PSID value. The PSID value
algorithmically identifies a set of ports assigned to a CE. The
first k-bits on the left of this 2-octets field is the PSID
value. The remaining (16-k) bits on the right are padding zeros.
4.4. Sub Options for S46-RULE Sub Option
4.4.1. Rule-IPv6-Prefix Sub Option
The Rule-IPv6-Prefix Sub Option is necessary for every S46-RULE sub
option. It should appear for once and only once.
The IPv6 Prefix sub option is followed the framed IPv6 prefix
designed in [RFC3162].
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen | Reserved | prefix6-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| rule-ipv6-prefix |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
8 (SubType number, for the Rule-IPv6-Prefix6 sub option)
SubLen
20 (the length of the Rule-IPv6-Prefix6 sub option)
Reserved
Reserved for future usage. It should be set to all zero
prefix6-len
length of the IPv6 prefix, specified in the rule-ipv6-prefix
field, expressed in bits
rule-ipv6-prefix
a 128-bits field that specifies an IPv6 prefix that appears in
a MAP rule
4.4.2. Rule-IPv4-Prefix Sub Option
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen | Reserved | prefix4-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| rule-ipv4-prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
9 (SubType number, for the Rule-IPv4-Prefix6 sub option)
SubLen
8 (the length of the Rule-IPv4-Prefix6 sub option)
Reserved
Reserved for future usage. It should be set to all zero
Prefix4-len
length of the IPv6 prefix, specified in the rule-ipv6-prefix
field, expressed in bits
rule-ipv4-prefix
a 32-bits field that specifies an IPv4 prefix that appears in
a MAP rule
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
4.4.3. EA Length Sub Option
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| SubType | SubLen | EA-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
SubType
10 (SubType number, for the EA Length sub option)
SubLen
4 (the length of the EA Length sub option)
EA-len
16 bits long field that specifies the Embedded-Address (EA)
bit length. Allowed values range from 0 to 48
4.5. Softwire46 Sub Options Encapsulation
The table below shows which encapsulated Sub Options are mandatory,
optional, or not permitted for each defined S46 Container Option.
+----------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| Sub Option | MAP-E | MAP-T | Lightweight 4over6 |
+----------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| S46-Rule | M | M | N/P |
+----------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| S46-BR | M | N/P | M |
+----------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| S46-DMR | N/P | M | N/P |
+----------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| S46-V4V6Bind | N/P | N/P | O |
+----------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| S46-PORTPARAMS | O | O | O |
+----------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
M - Maandabdatory, O - Optional, N/P - Not Permitted
4.6. Table of attributes
The following table provides a guide to which attributes may be found
in which kinds of packets, and in what quantity.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
Request Accept Reject Challenge Accounting # Attribute
Request
0-1 0-1 0 0 0-1 TBD1 Softwire46-
Configuration
0-1 0-1 0 0 0-1 1 User-Name
0-1 0 0 0 0 2 User-Password
0-1 0-1 0 0 0-1 6 Service-Type
0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 80 Message-Authenticator
The following table defines the meaning of the above table entries.
0 This attribute MUST NOT be present in packet.
0+ Zero or more instances of this attribute MAY be present in
packet.
0-1 Zero or one instance of this attribute MAY be present in
packet.
1 Exactly one instance of this attribute MUST be present in
packet.
5. Diameter Considerations
S46 Configuration using Diameter [RFC6733] is specified in [RFC7678].
6. IANA Considerations
This document requires the assignment of one new RADIUS Attributes
Type in the "Radius Types" registry (currently located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/radius-types for the following
attributes:
o Softwire46-Configuration Attribute TBD1
IANA should allocate the numbers from the standard RADIUS Attributes
space using the "IETF Review" policy [RFC5226].
7. Security Considerations
Known security vulnerabilities of the RADIUS protocol are discussed
in [RFC2607], [RFC2865], and[RFC2869]. Use of IPsec [RFC4301] for
providing security when RADIUS is carried in IPv6 is discussed in
[RFC3162].
A malicious user may use MAC address proofing and/or dictionary
attack on the shared password that has been preconfigured on the
DHCPv6 server to get unauthorized configuration information.
Security considerations for MAP specific between MAP CE and BNG are
discussed in [RFC7597]. Security considerations for Lightweight
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
4over6 are discussed in [RFC7596]. Furthermore, generic DHCPv6
security mechanisms can be applied DHCPv6 intercommunication between
CE and BNG.
Security considerations for the Diameter protocol are discussed in
[RFC6733].
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the valuable comments made by Peter
Lothberg, Wojciech Dec, and Suresh Krishnan for this document. This
document was merged with draft-sun-softwire-lw4over6-radext-01,
thanks to everyone who contributed to this draft.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC7749].
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.
[RFC2869] Rigney, C., Willats, W., and P. Calhoun, "RADIUS
Extensions", RFC 2869, DOI 10.17487/RFC2869, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2869>.
[RFC3162] Aboba, B., Zorn, G., and D. Mitton, "RADIUS and IPv6",
RFC 3162, DOI 10.17487/RFC3162, August 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3162>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3580] Congdon, P., Aboba, B., Smith, A., Zorn, G., and J. Roese,
"IEEE 802.1X Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
(RADIUS) Usage Guidelines", RFC 3580,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3580, September 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3580>.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
[RFC5080] Nelson, D. and A. DeKok, "Common Remote Authentication
Dial In User Service (RADIUS) Implementation Issues and
Suggested Fixes", RFC 5080, DOI 10.17487/RFC5080, December
2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5080>.
[RFC6158] DeKok, A., Ed. and G. Weber, "RADIUS Design Guidelines",
BCP 158, RFC 6158, DOI 10.17487/RFC6158, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6158>.
[RFC6929] DeKok, A. and A. Lior, "Remote Authentication Dial In User
Service (RADIUS) Protocol Extensions", RFC 6929,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6929, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6929>.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2607] Aboba, B. and J. Vollbrecht, "Proxy Chaining and Policy
Implementation in Roaming", RFC 2607,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2607, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2607>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7341] Sun, Q., Cui, Y., Siodelski, M., Krishnan, S., and I.
Farrer, "DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 (DHCP 4o6) Transport",
RFC 7341, DOI 10.17487/RFC7341, August 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7341>.
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
[RFC7596] Cui, Y., Sun, Q., Boucadair, M., Tsou, T., Lee, Y., and I.
Farrer, "Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the Dual-
Stack Lite Architecture", RFC 7596, DOI 10.17487/RFC7596,
July 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7596>.
[RFC7597] Troan, O., Ed., Dec, W., Li, X., Bao, C., Matsushima, S.,
Murakami, T., and T. Taylor, Ed., "Mapping of Address and
Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)", RFC 7597,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7597, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7597>.
[RFC7598] Mrugalski, T., Troan, O., Farrer, I., Perreault, S., Dec,
W., Bao, C., Yeh, L., and X. Deng, "DHCPv6 Options for
Configuration of Softwire Address and Port-Mapped
Clients", RFC 7598, DOI 10.17487/RFC7598, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598>.
[RFC7599] Li, X., Bao, C., Dec, W., Ed., Troan, O., Matsushima, S.,
and T. Murakami, "Mapping of Address and Port using
Translation (MAP-T)", RFC 7599, DOI 10.17487/RFC7599, July
2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7599>.
[RFC7678] Zhou, C., Taylor, T., Sun, Q., and M. Boucadair,
"Attribute-Value Pairs for Provisioning Customer Equipment
Supporting IPv4-Over-IPv6 Transitional Solutions",
RFC 7678, DOI 10.17487/RFC7678, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7678>.
[RFC7749] Reschke, J., "The "xml2rfc" Version 2 Vocabulary",
RFC 7749, DOI 10.17487/RFC7749, February 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7749>.
Additional Authors
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
Qiong Sun
China Telecom
Beijing China
Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
Qi Sun
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: sunqibupt@gmail.com
Cathy Zhou
Huawei Technologies
Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129
Email: cathy.zhou@huawei.com
Tina Tsou
Huawei Technologies(USA)
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com
ZiLong Liu
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: liuzilong8266@126.com
Yong Cui
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-62603059
Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Authors' Addresses
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
Sheng Jiang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com
Yu Fu
CNNIC
No.4 South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100190
P.R. China
Email: fuyu@cnnic.cn
Bing Liu
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Q14, Huawei Campus, No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing, 100095
P.R. China
Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com
Peter Deacon
IEA Software, Inc.
P.O. Box 1170
Veradale, WA 99037
USA
Email: peterd@iea-software.com
Chongfeng Xie
China Telecom
Beijing
P.R. China
Email: xiechf@ctbri.com.cn
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-07 July 2016
Tianxiang Li
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Email: peter416733@gmail.com
Jiang, Ed., et al. Expires January 8, 2017 [Page 19]
