Link-Layer Addresses Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6
draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-09

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (dhc WG)
Last updated 2020-09-16 (latest revision 2020-09-03)
Replaces draft-bvtm-dhc-mac-assign
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text xml pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication (wg milestone: Nov 2019 - WGLC Link-Layer Addr... )
Document shepherd Ian Farrer
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2020-04-16)
IESG IESG state RFC Ed Queue
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD √Čric Vyncke
IESG note For information, this MAC-assign document is linked to draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-08 (currently in IETF Last call). Probably better to read them in a row: first MAC assign then SLAP.
Send notices to Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
IANA action state RFC-Ed-Ack
IANA expert review state Expert Reviews OK
RFC Editor RFC Editor state RFC-EDITOR
Details
Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC)                                 B. Volz
Internet-Draft                                                     Cisco
Intended status: Standards Track                            T. Mrugalski
Expires: March 7, 2021                                               ISC
                                                           CJ. Bernardos
                                                                    UC3M
                                                       September 3, 2020

          Link-Layer Addresses Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6
                      draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-09

Abstract

   In certain environments, e.g., large scale virtualization
   deployments, new devices are created in an automated manner.  Such
   devices may have their link-layer addresses assigned in an automated
   fashion.  With sufficient scale, the likelihood of a collision using
   random assignment without duplication detection is not acceptable.
   Therefore an allocation mechanism is required.  This draft proposes
   an extension to DHCPv6 that allows a scalable approach to link-layer
   address assignments where preassigned link-layer address assignments
   (such as by a manufacturer) are not possible or unnecessary.

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 https://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 March 7, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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

Volz, et al.              Expires March 7, 2021                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft    DHCPv6 Link-Layer Address Assignment    September 2020

   (https://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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Deployment scenarios and mechanism overview . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Proxy client mode scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  Direct client mode scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     4.3.  Mechanism Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Design Assumptions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Information Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Requesting Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Renewing Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Releasing Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   10. Option Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     10.1.  Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses Option . .  10
     10.2.  Link-Layer Addresses Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. Selecting Link-Layer Addresses for Assignment to an IA_LL . .  14
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   13. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   14. Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   15. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   16. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     16.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     16.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix A.  IEEE 802c Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19

1.  Introduction

   There are several deployment types that deal with a large number of
   devices that need to be initialized.  One of them is a scenario where
   virtual machines (VMs) are created on a massive scale.  Typically the
   new VM instances are assigned a link-layer address, but random
   assignment does not scale well due to the risk of a collision (see
Show full document text