Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host
draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

v6ops                                                      J. Brzozowski
Internet-Draft                                             Comcast Cable
Intended status: Best Current Practice                   G. Van De Velde
Expires: November 11, 2016                                         Nokia
                                                            May 10, 2016

                      Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host
            draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-01

Abstract

   In some IPv6 environments the need has arisen for hosts to be able to
   utilise a unique IPv6 prefix even though the link or media may be
   shared.  Typically hosts (subscribers) on a shared network, like Wi-
   Fi or Ethernet, will acquire unique IPv6 addresses from a common IPv6
   prefix that is allocated or assigned for use on a specific link.
   Benefits of a unique IPv6 prefix compared to a unique IPv6 address
   from the service provider are going from enhanced subscriber
   management to improved isolation between subscribers.

   In most deployments today IPv6 address assignment from a single IPv6
   prefix on a shared network is done by either using IPv6 stateless
   address auto-configuration (SLAAC) and/or stateful DHCPv6.  While
   this is still viable and operates as designed there are some large
   scale environments where this concept introduces significant
   performance challenges and implications, specifically related to IPv6
   router and neighbor discovery.  This document outlines an approach
   utilising existing IPv6 protocols to allow hosts to be assigned a
   unique IPv6 prefix (instead of a unique IPv6 address from a shared
   IPv6 prefix).

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 November 11, 2016.

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft         Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host              May 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  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Motivation and Scope of Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Design Princinples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IPv6 Unique Prefix Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  IPv6 Neighbourship Discovery Best Practices . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   The concepts in this document are originally developed as part of a
   large scale, production deployment of IPv6 support for a provider
   managed shared network service.  In this document IPv6 support does
   not preclude support for IPv4, however, the primary objectives for
   this work was to make it so that user equipment (UE) were capable of
   an IPv6 only experience from a network operators perspective.
   Details of IPv4 support are out of scope for this document.  This
   document will also, in general, outline the requirements that must be
   satified by UE to allow for an IPv6 only experience.

   In most deployments today User Equipment (UE) IPv6 address assignment
   is commonly done using either IPv6 SLAAC RFC4862 [RFC4862] and/or
   DHCP IA_NA RFC3315 [RFC3315].  However, at current time there is a
   non-trivial UE/subscriber base not supporting DHCPv6 IA_NA, making
   IPv6 SLAAC based subscriber and address management for provider

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 2]
Internet-Draft         Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host              May 2016

   managed shared network services the technology of choice as it does
   not exclude any known IPv6 implementation.  This document will detail
   the mechanics involved for IPv6 SLAAC based address and subscriber
   management coupled with stateless DHCPv6, where beneficial.

   This document will focus upon the process for UEs to obtain a unique
   IPv6 prefix.

2.  Motivation and Scope of Applicability

   The motivation for this work falls into the following categories:

   o  Deployment advice for IPv6 that will allow stable and secure IPv6
      only experience, even if IPv4 support is present

   o  Ensure support for IPv6 is efficient and does not impact the
      performance of the underlying network and in turn the customer
      experience

   o  Allow for the greatest flexibility across host implementation to
      allow for the widest range of addressing and configuration
      mechanisms to be employed.  The goal here is the ensure that the
      widest population of UE implementations can leverage the
      availability of IPv6

   o  Lay the technological foundation for future work related to the
      use of IPv6 over shared media requiring optimized subscriber
      management

   o  Two devices (subscriber/hosts), both attached to the same provider
      managed shared network should only be able to communicate through
      the provider managed First Hop Router

   o  Provide guidelines regarding best common practices around IPv6
      neighborship discovery and IPv6 address managent settings between
      the First Hop router and directly connected hosts/subscribers.

3.  Design Princinples

   The First Hop router discussed in this document is the L3-Edge router
   responsible for the communication with the devices (hosts and
   subscribers) directly connected to a provider managed shared network,
   and to transport traffic between the directly connected devices and
   between directy connected devices and remote devices.

   The work detailed in this document is focussed to provide details
   regarding best common practices of the IPv6 neighborship discovery
   and related IPv6 address management settings between the First Hop

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 3]
Internet-Draft         Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host              May 2016

   router and directly connected hosts/subscribers.  The documented Best
   Current Practice helps a service provider to better manage the shared
   provider managed network on behalf of the connected devices.

   The Best Current Practice documented in this note is to provide
   hosts/subscribers devices connected to the provider managed shared
   network with a unique IPv6 prefix while at the same functioning as
   control-plane anchor point to make sure that each subscriber is
   receiving the expected subscriber policy and service levels
   (throughput, QoS, security, parental-control, subscriber mobility
   management, etc.).

4.  IPv6 Unique Prefix Assignment

   When a UE connects to the shared provider managed network and is
   attached it will initiate IP configuration phase.  During this phase
   the UE will from an IPv6 perspective attempt to learn the default
   IPv6 gateway, the IPv6 prefix information, the DNS information, and
   the remaining information required to establish globally routable
   IPv6 connectivity.  For that purpose the the UE/subscriber sends a RS
   (Router Solicitation) message.

   The First Hop Router receives this UE/subscriber RS message and
   starts the process to compose the response to the UE/subscriber
   originated RS message.  The First Hop Provider Router will answer
   using a unicast RA (Router Advertisement) to the UE/subscriber.  This
   RA contains a few important parameters for the EU/subscriber to
   consume: (1) a /64 prefix and (2) flags.  The /64 prefix can be
   derived from a locally managed pool or aggregate IPv6 block assigned
   to the First Hop Provider Router or from a centrally allocated pool.
   The flags indicate to the UE/subscriber to use SLAAC and/or DHCPv6
   for address assignment, it may indicate if the autoconfigured address
   is on/off-link and if 'Other' information (e.g.  DNS server address)
   needs to be requested.

   The IPv6 RA flags used for best common practice in IPv6 SLAAC based
   Provider managed shared networks are:

   o  M-flag = 0 (UE/subscriber address is not managed through DHCPv6),
      this flag may be set to 1 in the future if/when DHCPv6 prefix
      delegation support is desired)

   o  O-flag = 1 (DHCPv6 is used to request configuration information
      i.e. DNS, NTP information, not for IPv6 addressing)

   o  A-flag = 1 (The UE/subscriber can configure itself using SLAAC)

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 4]
Internet-Draft         Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host              May 2016

   o  L-flag = 0 (The UE/subscriber is off-link, which means that the
      UE/subscriber will send packets ALWAYS to his default gateway,
      even if the destination is within the range of the /64 prefix)

   The use of a unique IPv6 prefix per UE adds an additional level of
   protection and efficiency as it relates to how IPv6 Neighbor
   Discovery and Router Discovery processing.  Since the UE has a unique
   IPv6 prefix all traffic by default will be directed to the First Hop
   provider router.  Further, the flag combinations documented above
   maximize the IPv6 configurations that are available by hosts
   including the use of privacy IPv6 addressing.

   The architected result of designing the RA as documented above is
   that each UE/subscriber gets its own unique /64 IPv6 prefix for which
   it can use SLAAC or any other method to select its /128 unique
   address.  In addition it will use stateless DHCPv6 to get the IPv6
   address of the DNS server, however it SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6
   to receive a service provider managed IPv6 address.  If the UE/
   subscriber desires to send anything external including other UE/
   subscriber devices (assuming device to device communications is
   enabled and supported), then due to the L-bit set it SHOULD send this
   traffic to the First Hop Provider Router.

   Now that the UE/subscriber received the RA and the associated flags,
   it will assign itself a 128 bit IPv6 address using SLAAC.  Since the
   address is composed by the UE/subscriber device itself it will need
   to verify that the address is unique on the shared network.  The UE/
   subscriber will for that purpose perform Duplicate Address Detection
   algorithm.  This will occur for each address the UE attempts to
   utilize on the shared provider managed network.

5.  IPv6 Neighbourship Discovery Best Practices

   An operational consideration when using IPv6 address assignment using
   IPv6 SLAAC is that after the onboarding procedure the UE/subscriber
   will have a prefix with certain preferred and valid lifetimes.  The
   First Hop Provider Router extends these lifetimes by sending an
   unsolicited RA, the applicable MaxRtrAdvInterval on the WLAN-GW MUST
   therefore be lower than the preferred lifetime.  As a consequence of
   this process is that the First Hop Router never knows when a UE/
   subscriber stops using addresses from a prefix and additional
   procedures are required to help the First Hop Router to gain this
   information.  When using stateful DHCPv6 IA_NA for IPv6 UE/subscriber
   address assignment this uncertainty on the First Hop Router is not of
   impact due to the stateful nature of DHCPv6 IA_NA address assignment.

   Following is reference table of the key IPv6 router discovery and
   neighbor discovery timers for provider managed shared networks:

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 5]
Internet-Draft         Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host              May 2016

   o  IPv6 Router Advertisement Interval = 300s

   o  IPv6 Router LifeTime = 3600s

   o  Reachable time = 30s

   o  IPv6 Valid Lifetime = 3600s

   o  IPv6 Preferred Lifetime = 1800s

   o  Retransmit timer = 0s

   The stateless nature of the UE/subscriber IPv6 SLAAC connectivity
   model provides value to make sure that the UE/subscriber context is
   timely removed from the First Hop Router to avoid ongoing resource
   depletion.  A possible solution is to use a subscriber inactivity
   timer which after tracking a pre-defined (currently unspecified) # of
   minutes deletes the subscriber context on the First Hop Router.

   When employing stateless IPv6 address assignment a number of widely
   deployed operating systems will attempt to utilize RFC 4941 RFC4941
   [RFC4941] temporary 'private' addresses.  This can lead to the
   consequence that a UE has multiple /128 addresses from the same IPv6
   prefix.  The First Hop Provder Router MUST be able to handle the
   presence and use of multiple globally routable IPv6 addresses.

   For accounting purposes the First Hop Provider Router must be able to
   send usage statistics per UE/subscriber using Radius attributes.

6.  Future work

   o  Informational draft regarding WLAN IPv6 Deployment technology
      experiences roll-out

7.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA considerations are defined at this time.

8.  Security Considerations

   No Additional Security Considerations are made in this document.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank the following, in alphabetical order,
   for their contributions:

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 6]
Internet-Draft         Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host              May 2016

   Lorenzo Colitti, Killian Desmedt, Brad Hilgenfeld, Wim Henderickx,
   Erik Kline, Thomas Lynn, Phil Sanderson, Colleen Szymanik, Sanjay
   Wadhwa

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [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>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.

   [RFC6106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 6106, DOI 10.17487/RFC6106, November 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6106>.

   [RFC6180]  Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6
              Transition Mechanisms during IPv6 Deployment", RFC 6180,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6180, May 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6180>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-v4v6tran-framework]
              Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and V. Kuarsingh, "Framework for
              IP Version Transition Scenarios", draft-ietf-v6ops-
              v4v6tran-framework-02 (work in progress), July 2011.

   [RFC6343]  Carpenter, B., "Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment",
              RFC 6343, DOI 10.17487/RFC6343, August 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6343>.

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 7]
Internet-Draft         Unique IPv6 Prefix Per Host              May 2016

Authors' Addresses

   John Jason Brzozowski
   Comcast Cable
   1701 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
   Philadelphia, PA
   USA

   Email: john_brzozowski@cable.comcast.com

   Gunter Van De Velde
   Nokia
   Antwerp
   Belgium

   Email: gunter.van_de_velde@nokia.com

Brzozowski & Van De VeldExpires November 11, 2016               [Page 8]