DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-01

DHC Working Group                                                 Y. Cui
Internet-Draft                                                     T. Li
Intended status: Informational                                    C. Liu
Expires: October 30, 2016                            Tsinghua University
                                                          April 28, 2016

                    DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues
           draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-01

Abstract

   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] allows a requesting router to
   include a prefix-length hint value in the IA_PD option to indicate a
   preference for the size of the prefix to be delegated, but is unclear
   about how the requesting router and delegating router should act in
   different situations involving the prefix-length hint.  This document
   provides a summary of the existing problems with the prefix-length
   hint and guidance on what the requesting router and delegating router
   could do in different situations.

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 October 30, 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

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

   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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Description and Proposed Solutions  . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Creation of Solicit Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.2.  Receipt of Solicit message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Receipt of Advertise Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.4.  Creation of Renew/Rebind Message  . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.5.  Receipt of Renew/Rebind Message . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Contributors List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction

   DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633] allows a requesting router to
   include a prefix-length hint value in the message sent to the
   delegating router, to indicate a preference for the size of the
   prefix to be delegated.  A prefix-length hint is communicated by a
   requesting router to the delegating router by including an IA_PD
   Prefix Option(OPTION_IAPREFIX), encapsulated in an IA_PD option, with
   the "IPv6 prefix" field set to zero and the "prefix-length" field set
   to a non-zero value.  The delegating routers are free to ignore the
   prefix-length hint values depending on server policy.  However, some
   requesting routers can't function normally when they're provided with
   a prefix which length is different from what they requested.  E.g.
   If the requesting router is asking for a /56 and the delegating
   router returns a /64, the functionality of the requesting router
   might be limited because it might not be able to split the prefix for
   all its interfaces.

   [RFC3633] is unclear about how the requesting router and delegating
   router should act in different situations involving the prefix-length
   hint.  From the requesting router perspective, it should be able to
   use the prefix-length hint to signal to the delegating router its
   real time need and it should be able to handle the prefixes which
   lengths are different from the prefix-length hint.  This document
   provides guidance on what a requesting router should do in different
   situations to help it operate properly.  From the delegating router
   perspective, the delegating router is free to ignore the prefix-

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

   length hints depending on server policy, but in cases where the
   delegating router has a policy for considering the hint, this
   document provides guidance on how the prefix-length hint should be
   handled by the delegating router in different situations.

2.  Requirements Language

   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.  Problem Description and Proposed Solutions

3.1.  Creation of Solicit Message

   Problem:

   The Solicit message allows a requesting router to ask delegating
   routers for prefixes and other configuration parameters.  When the
   requesting router's configuration changes, it might require a prefix
   length different from what it had previously gotten.  The delegating
   router usually has a record of the prefix it delegated to the
   requesting router during previous interactions.  How should the
   requesting router avoid getting the same prefix back from the
   delegating router?

   The delegating router could decide whether to provide the requesting
   router with the preferred prefix depending on server policy, but the
   requesting router should be able to signal to the delegating router
   whether it wants a different prefix or the same prefix.  The best way
   to assure a completely new delegated prefix is to send a new IAID in
   the IA_PD.  However, this would require the requesting router device
   to have persistant storage, since rebooting the device would cause
   the requesting router to use the original IAID in the IA_PD.

   Solution:

   When the requesting router prefers a prefix of specific length from
   the delegating router, the requesting router SHOULD send a Solicit
   message including the preferred prefix-length value in the "prefix-
   length" field of the OPTION_IAPREFIX option, and set the "IPv6
   prefix" field to zero.  This is an indiction to the delegating router
   that the requesting router prefers a prefix of specific length,
   regardless of what it had gotten before.

   When the requesting router wants the same prefix back from the
   delegating router, it SHOULD include the prefix value in the "IPv6
   prefix" field of the OPTION_IAPREFIX option, and the length of the

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

   prefix in the "prefix-length" field.  This is an indication to the
   delegating router that the requesting router wants the same prefix
   back.

3.2.  Receipt of Solicit message

   Problem:

   [RFC3633] allows a requesting router to include a prefix-length hint
   in the Solicit message, to signal its preference to the delegating
   router.  It is unclear about how this prefix-length hint should be
   handled by the delegating router, whether to honor the prefix-length
   hint or provide the prefix from previous interactions with the
   requesting router.  The requesting router might want a different
   prefix length due to configuration changes or it might just want the
   same prefix again after reboot.  The delegating router should
   interpret these cases differently.

   Many delegating routers are configured to provide only prefixes of
   specific lengths to the requesting router.  E.g.  If the requesting
   router requested for a /54, and the delegating router could only
   provide /30, /48, and /56.  How should these delegating routers
   decide which prefix to give to the requesting router based on the
   prefix-length hint?

   Solution:

   Upon the receipt of Solicit message, if the requesting router
   included only a prefix-length hint in the message, the delegating
   router SHOULD try to honor the prefix-length hint within bounds of
   what the delegating router is configured to return, regardless of the
   prefix record from previous interactions with the requesting router.
   The delegating router SHOULD regard the prefix-length hint in the
   Solicit message as the prefix length most preferred by the requesting
   router at the time.

   If the requesting router included a specific prefix value and the
   corresponding prefix-length value in the Solicit message, the
   delegating router SHOULD first try to provide the requested prefix to
   the requesting router.  If the requested prefix is not available in
   the delegating router's prefix pool, then the delegating router
   SHOULD try to provide a prefix matching the prefix-length value.

   The delegating router might not have prefixes exactly matching the
   prefix-length hint.  In this situation, the delegating router SHOULD
   provide the shortest prefix length possible which is closest to the
   prefix-length hint.  E.g.  If the delegating router could only
   provide prefixes of lengths /30, /48, and /56, and the requesting

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

   router is requesting for a /50 in the prefix-length hint, then the
   delegating router should provide the /48 to the requesting router.

3.3.  Receipt of Advertise Message

   Problem:

   The delegating router might not be able to honor the prefix-length
   hint due to server policy.  If the prefix length provided by the
   delegating router in the Advertise message is different from what the
   requesting router requested in the Solicit message, the question
   would be whether the requesting router should use the provided prefix
   length or continue to ask for its preferred prefix length.  There are
   certain situations where the requesting router could not operate
   properly if it used a prefix which length is different from what it
   requested in the prefix-length hint.  However, if the requesting
   router ignores the Advertise messages, and continues to solicit for
   the preferred prefix length, the requesting router might be stuck in
   the DHCP process.

   Solution:

   If none of the prefixes provided by the delegating router in the
   Advertise messages are equal or shorter than the prefix-length hint
   the requesting router included in the Solicit message, the requesting
   router could choose to either accept or ignore the prefixes provided
   by the delegating routers depending on functional need.

   If the requesting router could use the prefixes provided by the
   delegating routers despite being different from the prefix-length
   hint, the requesting router SHOULD choose the shortest prefix length
   which is closest to the prefix-length hint.

   There are certain situations where the requesting router could not
   operate if it used a prefix which length does not meet its
   requirement.  If the requesting router cannot use the prefixes
   provided by the delegating routers, it SHOULD ignore the Advertise
   messages and continue to send Solicit messages until it gets the
   preferred prefix.  To avoid traffic congestion, the requesting router
   SHOULD send Solicit messages at defined intervals, as specified in
   [RFC7083].  If the requesting router also Solicited for IA_NAs, the
   requesting router SHOULD accept the IA_NA addresses and continue to
   request for the desired IA_PD prefix in subsequent DHCPv6 messages as
   specified in [RFC7550]..

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

3.4.  Creation of Renew/Rebind Message

   Problem:

   Delegating routers might not be able to provide a prefix with length
   equal or shorter than the prefix-length hint.  If the requesting
   router decided to use the prefix provided by the delegating router
   despite being longer than the prefix-length hint, but would still
   prefer the prefix-length hint it originally requested in the Solicit
   message, there should be some way for the requesting router to
   express this preference during Renew/Rebind.  E.g.  If the requesting
   router requested for a /60 but got a /64, the requesting router
   should be able to signal to the delegating router during Renew/Rebind
   that it would still prefer a /60.  This is to see whether the
   delegating router has the prefix preferred by the requesting router
   available in its prefix pool during Renew/Rebind.  [RFC3633] is not
   completely clear on whether the requesting router is allowed to
   include a prefix-length hint in the Renew/Rebind message.

   Solution:

   During Renew/Rebind, if the requesting router prefers a prefix length
   different from the prefix it is currently using, then the requesting
   router SHOULD send the Renew/Rebind message with the same IA_PD, and
   include two OPTION_IAPREFIX options, one containing the currently
   delegated prefix and the other containing the prefix-length hint.
   This is to extend the lifetime of the prefix the requesting router is
   currently using and also get the prefix the requesting router
   prefers, and go through a graceful switch over.

   If the delegating router is unable to provide the requesting router
   with the newly requested prefix, but is able to extend lifetime of
   the old prefix, the requesting router SHOULD continue using the old
   prefix.

3.5.  Receipt of Renew/Rebind Message

   Problem:

   The prefix preferred by the requesting router might become available
   in the delegating router's prefix pool during Renew/Rebind, but was
   unavailable during Solicit.  This might be due to delegating router
   configuration change or because some other requesting router stopped
   using the prefix.

   The question is whether the delegating router should remember the
   prefix-length hint the requesting router originally included in the
   Solicit message and check during Renew/Rebind to see if it has the

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

   prefix length the requesting router preferred.  This would require
   the delegating router to keep extra information about the requesting
   router.  There is also the possibility that the requesting router's
   preference for the prefix length might have changed during this time
   interval, so the prefix-length hint remembered by the delegating
   router might not be what the requesting router prefers during Renew/
   Rebind.

   Instead of having the delegating router remember the prefix-length
   hint of the requesting router, another option is for the requesting
   router to include the prefix-length hint in the Renew/Rebind message.
   The current specification is unclear about what the delegating router
   should do if the requesting router also included in the Renew/Rebind
   message a prefix-length hint value, and whether the delegating router
   could provide a different prefix to the requesting router during
   Renew/Rebind.

   Solution:

   Upon the receipt of Renew/Rebind, if the requesting router included
   in the IA_PD both OPTION_IAPREFIX option with the delegated prefix
   value and an OPTION_IAPREFIX option with a prefix-length hint value,
   the delegating router SHOULD check to see whether it could extend the
   lifetime of the original delegated prefix and whether it has any
   available prefix matching the prefix-length hint, or as close a
   possible to the prefix-length hint, within the delegating router's
   limit.

   If the delegating router assigned the prefix included in IA_PD to the
   requesting router, the delegating router SHOULD do one of the
   following, depending on its policy:

   1.  Extend lifetime of the original delegated prefix.

   2.  Extend lifetime of the original delegated prefix and assign a new
   prefix of the requested length.

   3.  Mark the original delegated prefix as invalid by giving it 0
   lifetimes, and assign a new prefix of requested length.  This avoids
   the complexity of handling multiple delegated prefixes, but may break
   all the existing connections of the requesting router.

   4.  Assign the original delegated prefix with 0 preferred-lifetime, a
   short non-zero valid-lifetime, and assign a new prefix of requested
   length.  This allows the requesting router to finish up existing
   connections with the original prefix, and use the new prefix to
   establish new connections.

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

   5.  Do not include the original delegated prefix in the Reply
   message, and assign a new prefix of requested length.  The original
   prefix would be valid until it's lifetime expires.  This avoids
   sudden renumbering on the requesting router.

   If the delegating router does not know the requesting router's
   bindings(e.g. a different delegating router receiving the message
   during Rebind), then the delegating router SHOULD ignore the original
   delegated prefix, and try to assign a new prefix of requested length.

   It's unnecessary for the delegating router to remember the prefix-
   length hint the requesting router requested during Solicit.  It is
   possible that the requesting router's preference for the prefix
   length might have changed during this time interval, so the prefix-
   length hint in the Renew message is reflecting what the requesting
   router prefers at the time.

4.  Security Considerations

   This document introduces no new security considerations over those
   already discussed in section 15 of RFC3633, as this document provides
   guidance on how the requesting routers and delegating routers
   interact with regard to the prefix-length hint mechanism introduced
   in RFC3633.

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document does not include an IANA request.

6.  Contributors List

   Many thanks to Qi Sun, Bernie Volz, Ole Troan, Sunil Gandhewar,
   Marcin Siodelski.

7.  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>.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      DHCPv6 prefix-length hint Issues          April 2016

   [RFC7083]  Droms, R., "Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT
              and INF_MAX_RT", RFC 7083, DOI 10.17487/RFC7083, November
              2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7083>.

   [RFC7550]  Troan, O., Volz, B., and M. Siodelski, "Issues and
              Recommendations with Multiple Stateful DHCPv6 Options",
              RFC 7550, DOI 10.17487/RFC7550, May 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7550>.

Authors' Addresses

   Yong Cui
   Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6260-3059
   Email: yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn

   Tianxiang Li
   Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-18301185866
   Email: peter416733@gmail.com

   Cong Liu
   Tsinghua University
   Beijing  100084
   P.R.China

   Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
   Email: gnocuil@gmail.com

Cui, et al.             Expires October 30, 2016                [Page 9]