Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) T. Mrugalski
Request for Comments: 7598 ISC
Category: Standards Track O. Troan
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems
I. Farrer
Deutsche Telekom AG
S. Perreault
Jive Communications
W. Dec
Cisco Systems
C. Bao
Tsinghua University
L. Yeh
Freelancer Technologies
X. Deng
The University of New South Wales
July 2015
DHCPv6 Options for Configuration of Softwire Address
and Port-Mapped Clients
Abstract
This document specifies DHCPv6 options, termed Softwire46 options,
for the provisioning of Softwire46 Customer Edge (CE) devices.
Softwire46 is a collective term used to refer to architectures based
on the notion of IPv4 Address plus Port (A+P) for providing IPv4
connectivity across an IPv6 network.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7598.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 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. Conventions .....................................................3
3. Softwire46 Overview .............................................4
4. Common Softwire46 DHCPv6 Options ................................5
4.1. S46 Rule Option ............................................5
4.2. S46 BR Option ..............................................7
4.3. S46 DMR Option .............................................8
4.4. S46 IPv4/IPv6 Address Binding Option .......................9
4.5. S46 Port Parameters Option ................................10
5. Softwire46 Containers ..........................................11
5.1. S46 MAP-E Container Option ................................11
5.2. S46 MAP-T Container Option ................................12
5.3. S46 Lightweight 4over6 Container Option ...................13
6. Softwire46 Options Encapsulation ...............................14
7. DHCPv6 Server Behavior .........................................14
8. DHCPv6 Client Behavior .........................................14
9. Security Considerations ........................................15
10. IANA Considerations ...........................................16
11. References ....................................................16
11.1. Normative References .....................................16
11.2. Informative References ...................................17
Acknowledgements ..................................................18
Authors' Addresses ................................................19
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
1. Introduction
A number of architectural solution proposals discussed in the IETF
Softwire Working Group use Address plus Port (A+P) [RFC6346] as their
technology base for providing IPv4 connectivity to end users using
Customer Edge (CE) devices across a service provider's IPv6 network,
while allowing for shared or dedicated IPv4 addressing of CEs.
An example is Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP-E)
as defined in [RFC7597]. The MAP solution consists of one or more
MAP Border Relay (BR) routers responsible for stateless forwarding
between a MAP IPv6 domain and an IPv4 network, and one or more MAP
Customer Edge (CE) routers responsible for forwarding between a
user's IPv4 network and the MAP IPv6 network domain. Collectively,
the MAP CE and BR form a domain when configured with common service
parameters. This characteristic is common to all of the Softwire46
mechanisms.
To function in such a domain, a CE needs to be provisioned with the
appropriate A+P service parameters for that domain. These consist
primarily of the CE's IPv4 address and transport-layer port range(s).
Furthermore, the IPv6 transport mode (i.e., encapsulation or
translation) needs to be specified. Provisioning of other IPv4
configuration information not derived directly from the A+P service
parameters is not covered in this document. It is expected that
provisioning of other IPv4 configuration information will continue to
use DHCPv4 [RFC2131].
This memo specifies a set of DHCPv6 [RFC3315] options to provision
Softwire46 configuration information to CE routers. Although the
focus is to deliver IPv4 service to an end-user network (such as a
residential home network), it can equally be applied to an individual
host acting as a CE. Configuration of the BR is out of scope for
this document.
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].
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
3. Softwire46 Overview
This document describes a set of common DHCPv6 options for
configuring the Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation
(MAP-E) [RFC7597], Mapping of Address and Port using Translation
(MAP-T) [RFC7599], and Lightweight 4over6 [RFC7596] mechanisms. For
definitions of the terminology used in this document, please see the
relevant terminology sections in [RFC7597], [RFC7599], and [RFC7596].
MAP-E, MAP-T, and Lightweight 4over6 are essentially providing the
same functionality: IPv4 service to a CE router over an IPv6-only
access network. MAP-E and MAP-T may embed parts of the IPv4 address
in IPv6 prefixes, thereby supporting many clients with a fixed set of
mapping rules and Mesh mode (direct CE-to-CE communication). MAP-E
and MAP-T CEs may also be provisioned in hub-and-spoke mode and in
1:1 mode (with no embedded address bits). The difference between
MAP-E and MAP-T is that they use different means to connect to the
IPv6 domain. MAP-E uses IPv4-over-IPv6 tunneling [RFC2473], while
MAP-T uses IPv4-to-IPv6 translation based on [RFC6145]. Lightweight
4over6 is a hub-and-spoke IPv4-over-IPv6 tunneling mechanism, with
complete independence of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing (zero embedded
address bits).
The DHCPv6 options described here tie the provisioning parameters,
and hence the IPv4 service itself, to the End-user IPv6 prefix
lifetime. The validity of a Softwire46's IPv4 address, prefix, or
shared IPv4 address; port set; and any authorization and accounting
are tied to the lifetime of its associated End-user IPv6 prefix.
To support more than one mechanism at a time and to allow for a
possibility of transition between them, the DHCPv6 Option Request
Option (ORO) [RFC3315] is used. Each mechanism has a corresponding
DHCPv6 container option. A DHCPv6 client can request a particular
mechanism by including the option code for a particular container
option in its ORO. The provisioning parameters for that mechanism
are expressed by embedding the common format options within the
respective container option.
This approach implies that all of the provisioning options appear
only within the container options. Softwire46 DHCPv6 clients that
receive provisioning options that are not encapsulated in container
options MUST silently ignore these options. DHCPv6 server
administrators are advised to ensure that DHCPv6 servers are
configured to send these options in the proper encapsulation.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
This document is organized with the common encapsulated options
described first (Section 4), followed by the three container options
(Section 5). Some encapsulated options are mandatory in some
containers, some are optional, and some are not permitted. This is
shown in Table 1 (Section 6).
4. Common Softwire46 DHCPv6 Options
The DHCPv6 protocol is used for Softwire46 CE provisioning following
regular DHCPv6 notions, with the CE assuming the role of a DHCPv6
client, and the DHCPv6 server providing options following DHCPv6
server-side policies. The format and usage of the options are
defined in the following subsections.
Each CE needs to be provisioned with enough information to calculate
its IPv4 address, IPv4 prefix, or shared IPv4 address. MAP-E and
MAP-T use the OPTION_S46_RULE option, while Lightweight 4over6 uses
the OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND option. A CE that needs to communicate
outside of the A+P domain also needs the address or prefix of the BR.
MAP-E and Lightweight 4over6 use the OPTION_S46_BR option to
communicate the IPv6 address of the BR. MAP-T forms an IPv6
destination address by embedding an IPv4 destination address into the
BR's IPv6 prefix conveyed via the OPTION_S46_DMR option. Optionally,
all mechanisms can include the OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS option to
specify parameters and port sets for the port-range algorithm.
Softwire46 options use addresses rather than Fully Qualified Domain
Names (FQDNs). For the rationale behind this design choice, see
Section 8 of [RFC7227].
4.1. S46 Rule Option
Figure 1 shows the format of the S46 Rule option (OPTION_S46_RULE)
used for conveying the Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) and Forwarding
Mapping Rule (FMR).
This option follows behavior described in Sections 17.1.1 and 18.1.1
of [RFC3315]. Clients can send those options, encapsulated in their
respective container options, with specific values as hints for the
server. See Section 5 for details. Depending on the server
configuration and policy, it may accept or ignore the hints. Clients
MUST be able to process received values that are different than the
hints it sent earlier.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_RULE | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| flags | ea-len | prefix4-len | ipv4-prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| (continued) | prefix6-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ipv6-prefix |
| (variable length) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. S46_RULE-options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: S46 Rule Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_RULE (89)
o option-length: length of the option, excluding option-code and
option-length fields, including length of all encapsulated
options; expressed in octets.
o flags: 8 bits long; carries flags applicable to the rule. The
meanings of the specific bits are explained in Figure 2.
o ea-len: 8 bits long; specifies the Embedded Address (EA) bit
length. Allowed values range from 0 to 48.
o prefix4-len: 8 bits long; expresses the prefix length of the
Rule IPv4 prefix specified in the ipv4-prefix field. Allowed
values range from 0 to 32.
o ipv4-prefix: a fixed-length 32-bit field that specifies the IPv4
prefix for the S46 rule. The bits in the prefix after prefix4-len
number of bits are reserved and MUST be initialized to zero by the
sender and ignored by the receiver.
o prefix6-len: 8 bits long; expresses the length of the
Rule IPv6 prefix specified in the ipv6-prefix field. Allowed
values range from 0 to 128.
o ipv6-prefix: a variable-length field that specifies the IPv6
domain prefix for the S46 rule. The field is padded on the right
with zero bits up to the nearest octet boundary when prefix6-len
is not evenly divisible by 8.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
o S46_RULE-options: a variable-length field that may contain zero or
more options that specify additional parameters for this S46 rule.
This document specifies one such option: OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS.
The format of the S46 Rule Flags field is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Reserved |F|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: S46 Rule Flags
o Reserved: 7 bits; reserved for future use as flags.
o F-flag: 1-bit field that specifies whether the rule is to be used
for forwarding (FMR). If set, this rule is used as an FMR; if not
set, this rule is a BMR only and MUST NOT be used for forwarding.
Note: A BMR can also be used as an FMR for forwarding if the
F-flag is set. The BMR is determined by a longest-prefix match of
the Rule IPv6 prefix against the End-user IPv6 prefix(es).
It is expected that in a typical mesh deployment scenario there will
be a single BMR, which could also be designated as an FMR using the
F-flag.
4.2. S46 BR Option
The S46 BR option (OPTION_S46_BR) is used to convey the IPv6 address
of the Border Relay. Figure 3 shows the format of the OPTION_S46_BR
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_BR | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| br-ipv6-address |
| |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: S46 BR Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_BR (90)
o option-length: 16
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
o br-ipv6-address: a fixed-length field of 16 octets that specifies
the IPv6 address for the S46 BR.
BR redundancy can be implemented by using an anycast address for the
BR IPv6 address. Multiple OPTION_S46_BR options MAY be included in
the container; this document does not further explore the use of
multiple BR IPv6 addresses.
4.3. S46 DMR Option
The S46 DMR option (OPTION_S46_DMR) is used to convey values for the
Default Mapping Rule (DMR). Figure 4 shows the format of the
OPTION_S46_DMR option used for conveying a DMR.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_DMR | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|dmr-prefix6-len| dmr-ipv6-prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (variable length) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: S46 DMR Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_DMR (91)
o option-length: 1 + length of dmr-ipv6-prefix specified in octets.
o dmr-prefix6-len: 8 bits long; expresses the bitmask length of the
IPv6 prefix specified in the dmr-ipv6-prefix field. Allowed
values range from 0 to 128.
o dmr-ipv6-prefix: a variable-length field specifying the IPv6
prefix or address for the BR. This field is right-padded with
zeros to the nearest octet boundary when dmr-prefix6-len is not
divisible by 8.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
4.4. S46 IPv4/IPv6 Address Binding Option
The S46 IPv4/IPv6 Address Binding option (OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND) MAY be
used to specify the full or shared IPv4 address of the CE. The IPv6
prefix field is used by the CE to identify the correct prefix to use
for the tunnel source.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ipv4-address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|bindprefix6-len| bind-ipv6-prefix |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ (variable length) |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. S46_V4V6BIND-options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: S46 IPv4/IPv6 Address Binding Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND (92)
o option-length: length of the option, excluding option-code and
option-length fields, including length of all encapsulated
options; expressed in octets.
o ipv4-address: a fixed-length field of 4 octets specifying an IPv4
address.
o bindprefix6-len: 8 bits long; expresses the bitmask length of the
IPv6 prefix specified in the bind-ipv6-prefix field. Allowed
values range from 0 to 128.
o bind-ipv6-prefix: a variable-length field specifying the IPv6
prefix or address for the S46 CE. This field is right-padded with
zeros to the nearest octet boundary when bindprefix6-len is not
divisible by 8.
o S46_V4V6BIND-options: a variable-length field that may contain
zero or more options that specify additional parameters. This
document specifies one such option: OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
4.5. S46 Port Parameters Option
The S46 Port Parameters option (OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS) specifies
optional port set information that MAY be provided to CEs.
See Section 5.1 of [RFC7597] for a description of the MAP algorithm
and detailed explanation of all of the parameters.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| offset | PSID-len | PSID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 6: S46 Port Parameters Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS (93)
o option-length: 4
o offset: Port Set Identifier (PSID) offset. 8 bits long; specifies
the numeric value for the S46 algorithm's excluded port range/
offset bits (a-bits), as per Section 5.1 of [RFC7597]. 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.
o PSID-len: 8 bits long; specifies 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 the value of the PSID. Consequently,
the address-sharing ratio would be 2^k.
o PSID: 16 bits long. The PSID value algorithmically identifies a
set of ports assigned to a CE. The first k bits on the left of
this field contain the PSID binary value. The remaining (16 - k)
bits on the right are padding zeros.
When receiving the OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS option with an explicit
PSID, the client MUST use this explicit PSID when configuring its
softwire interface. The OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS option with an
explicit PSID MUST be discarded if the S46 CE isn't configured with a
full IPv4 address (e.g., IPv4 prefix).
The OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS option is contained within an
OPTION_S46_RULE option or an OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND option.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
5. Softwire46 Containers
5.1. S46 MAP-E Container Option
The S46 MAP-E Container option (OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE) specifies the
container used to group all rules and optional port parameters for a
specified domain.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. encapsulated-options (variable length) .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 7: S46 MAP-E Container Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE (94)
o option-length: length of encapsulated options, expressed in
octets.
o encapsulated-options: options associated with this Softwire46
MAP-E domain.
The encapsulated-options field conveys options specific to the
OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE option. Currently, there are two encapsulated
options specified: OPTION_S46_RULE and OPTION_S46_BR. There MUST be
at least one OPTION_S46_RULE option and at least one OPTION_S46_BR
option.
Other options applicable to a domain may be defined in the future. A
DHCPv6 message MAY include multiple OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE options
(representing multiple domains).
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
5.2. S46 MAP-T Container Option
The S46 MAP-T Container option (OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT) specifies the
container used to group all rules and optional port parameters for a
specified domain.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. encapsulated-options (variable length) .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 8: S46 MAP-T Container Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT (95)
o option-length: length of encapsulated options, expressed in
octets.
o encapsulated-options: options associated with this Softwire46
MAP-T domain.
The encapsulated-options field conveys options specific to the
OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT option. Currently, there are two options
specified: the OPTION_S46_RULE and OPTION_S46_DMR options. There
MUST be at least one OPTION_S46_RULE option and exactly one
OPTION_S46_DMR option.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
5.3. S46 Lightweight 4over6 Container Option
The S46 Lightweight 4over6 Container option (OPTION_S46_CONT_LW)
specifies the container used to group all rules and optional port
parameters for a specified domain.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_S46_CONT_LW | option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ encapsulated-options (variable length) .
. .
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Figure 9: S46 Lightweight 4over6 Container Option
o option-code: OPTION_S46_CONT_LW (96)
o option-length: length of encapsulated options, expressed in
octets.
o encapsulated-options: options associated with this Softwire46
Lightweight 4over6 domain.
The encapsulated-options field conveys options specific to the
OPTION_S46_CONT_LW option. Currently, there are two options
specified: OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND and OPTION_S46_BR. There MUST be at
most one OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND option and at least one OPTION_S46_BR
option.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
6. Softwire46 Options Encapsulation
The table below shows which encapsulated options are mandatory,
optional, or not permitted for each defined container option.
+-----------------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| Option | MAP-E | MAP-T | Lightweight 4over6 |
+-----------------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
| OPTION_S46_RULE | M | M | N/P |
| OPTION_S46_BR | M | N/P | M |
| OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS | O | O | O |
| OPTION_S46_DMR | N/P | M | N/P |
| OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND | N/P | N/P | O |
+-----------------------+-------+-------+--------------------+
M - Mandatory, O - Optional, N/P - Not Permitted
Table 1: Options for Container Mappings
Softwire46 DHCPv6 clients that receive container options that violate
any of the above rules MUST silently ignore such container options.
7. DHCPv6 Server Behavior
Section 17.2.2 of [RFC3315] describes how a DHCPv6 client and server
negotiate configuration values using the ORO. As a convenience for
the reader, we mention here that by default a server will not reply
with a Softwire46 container option if the client has not explicitly
enumerated one in its ORO.
A CE router may support several (or all) of the mechanisms mentioned
here. In the case where a client requests multiple mechanisms in its
ORO, the server will reply with the corresponding Softwire46
container options for which it has configuration information.
8. DHCPv6 Client Behavior
An S46 CE acting as a DHCPv6 client will request S46 configuration
parameters from the DHCPv6 server located in the IPv6 network. Such
a client MUST request the S46 container option(s) that it is
configured for in its ORO in SOLICIT, REQUEST, RENEW, REBIND, and
INFORMATION-REQUEST messages.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
When processing received S46 container options, the following
behavior is expected:
o A client MUST support processing multiple received OPTION_S46_RULE
options in a container OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE or
OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT option.
o A client receiving an unsupported S46 option or an invalid
parameter value SHOULD discard that S46 container option and log
the event.
The behavior of a client that supports multiple Softwire46 mechanisms
is out of scope for this document. [Unified-v4-in-v6] describes
client behavior for the prioritization and handling of multiple
mechanisms simultaneously.
Note that a system implementing CE functionality may have multiple
network interfaces, and these interfaces may be configured
differently; some may be connected to networks using a Softwire46
mechanism, and some may be connected to networks that are using
normal dual-stack or other means. The CE should approach this
specification on an interface-by-interface basis. For example, if
the CE system is MAP-E capable and is attached to multiple networks
that provide the OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE option, then the CE MUST
configure MAP-E for each interface separately.
Failure modes are out of scope for this document. Failure recovery
mechanisms may be defined in the future. See Section 5 of [RFC7597]
for a discussion of valid MAP Rule combinations. See Section 11 of
[RFC7227] and Sections 18.1.3, 18.1.4, and 19.1 of [RFC3315] for
parameter-update mechanisms in DHCPv6 that can be leveraged to update
configuration after a failure.
9. Security Considerations
Section 23 of [RFC3315] discusses DHCPv6-related security issues.
As with all DHCPv6-derived configuration states, it is possible that
configuration is actually being delivered by a third party (Man in
the Middle). As such, there is no basis on which access over MAP or
Lightweight 4over6 can be trusted. Therefore, softwires should not
bypass any security mechanisms such as IP firewalls.
In IPv6-only networks that lack IPv4 firewalls, a device that
supports MAP could be tricked into enabling its IPv4 stack and
directing IPv4 traffic to the attacker, thus exposing itself to
previously infeasible IPv4 attack vectors.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
Section 10 of [RFC7597] discusses security issues related to the
MAP-E mechanism, Section 9 of [RFC7596] discusses security issues
related to the Lightweight 4over6 mechanism, and Section 13 of
[RFC7599] discusses security issues related to the MAP-T mechanism.
Readers concerned with the security of Softwire46 provisioning over
DHCPv6 are encouraged to read [Secure-DHCPv6].
10. IANA Considerations
IANA has allocated the following DHCPv6 option codes:
89 for OPTION_S46_RULE
90 for OPTION_S46_BR
91 for OPTION_S46_DMR
92 for OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND
93 for OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS
94 for OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE
95 for OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPT
96 for OPTION_S46_CONT_LW
All values have been added to the "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" option code space defined in Section 24.3
of [RFC3315].
11. References
11.1. 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>.
[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>.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
11.2. Informative References
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation
Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6145>.
[RFC6346] Bush, R., Ed., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to
the IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6346, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6346>.
[RFC7227] Hankins, D., Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Jiang, S., and
S. Krishnan, "Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options",
BCP 187, RFC 7227, DOI 10.17487/RFC7227, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7227>.
[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>.
[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>.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
[Secure-DHCPv6]
Jiang, S., Ed., Shen, S., Zhang, D., and T. Jinmei,
"Secure DHCPv6", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-08, June 2015.
[Unified-v4-in-v6]
Boucadair, M., Farrer, I., Perreault, S., Ed., and S.
Sivakumar, Ed., "Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE", Work
in Progress, draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01, May 2013.
Acknowledgements
This document was created as a product of a MAP design team. The
following people were members of that team: Congxiao Bao, Mohamed
Boucadair, Gang Chen, Maoke Chen, Wojciech Dec, Xiaohong Deng, Jouni
Korhonen, Xing Li, Satoru Matsushima, Tomek Mrugalski, Tetsuya
Murakami, Jacni Qin, Necj Scoberne, Qiong Sun, Tina Tsou, Dan Wing,
Leaf Yeh, and Jan Zorz.
The authors would like to thank Bernie Volz and Tom Taylor for their
insightful comments and suggestions.
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
Authors' Addresses
Tomek Mrugalski
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
United States
Phone: +1 650 423 1345
Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com
URI: http://www.isc.org/
Ole Troan
Cisco Systems
Philip Pedersens vei 1
Lysaker 1366
Norway
Email: ot@cisco.com
Ian Farrer
Deutsche Telekom AG
CTO-ATI, Landgrabenweg 151
Bonn, NRW 53227
Germany
Email: ian.farrer@telekom.de
Simon Perreault
Jive Communications
Quebec, QC
Canada
Email: sperreault@jive.com
Wojciech Dec
Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Netherlands
Email: wdec@cisco.com
URI: http://cisco.com
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 7598 DHCPv6 for Softwire 46 CEs July 2015
Congxiao Bao
CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
Room 225, Main Building, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
China
Phone: +86 10-62785983
Email: congxiao@cernet.edu.cn
Leaf Y. Yeh
Freelancer Technologies
China
Email: leaf.y.yeh@hotmail.com
Xiaohong Deng
The University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW 2052
Australia
Email: dxhbupt@gmail.com
URI: https://www.unsw.edu.au/
Mrugalski, et al. Standards Track [Page 20]