The Universal IPv6 Router Advertisement Option (experiment)
draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Ole Trøan | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-17 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-00
Network Working Group O. Troan
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Intended status: Experimental December 17, 2018
Expires: June 20, 2019
The Universal IPv6 Router Advertisement Option (experiment)
draft-troan-6man-universal-ra-option-00
Abstract
The intentions for the IPv6 host configuration design, was to
configure the core network layer parameters with IPv6 ND, and use
service discovery for other configuration parameters. Unfortunately
that hasn't panned out as planned, and we are in a situation where
all kinds of configuration options are requested in RAs and in DHCP.
This document proposes an a new universal option, formatted in JSON.
The list of elements are maintained in an IANA registry, with greatly
relaxed rules for registration.
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 June 20, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(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
Troan Expires June 20, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft December 2018
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.
1. Introduction
The intentions for the IPv6 host configuration design, was to
configure the core network layer parameters with IPv6 ND, and use
service discovery for other configuration parameters. Unfortunately
that hasn't panned out as planned, and we are in a situation where
all kinds of configuration options are requested in RAs and in DHCP.
This document proposes an a new universal option, formatted in JSON.
The list of elements are maintained in an IANA registry, with greatly
relaxed rules for registration.
DHCP is suited to give per-client configuration information, while
the RA mechanism advertises configuration information to all hosts on
the link. There is a long running history of "conflict" between the
two. The arguments go; there is less fate-sharing in DHCP, DHCP
doesn't deal with multiple sources of information, or make it more
difficult to change information independent of the lifetimes, RA
cannot be used to configure different information to different
clients and son on. And of course some options are only available in
RAs and some options are only available in DHCP.
While this proposal does not resolve the DHCP vs RA debate, it
proposes an experimental solution to the problem of a very slow
process of standardizing new options, and the IETF spending an
inordinate amount of time arguing over new configuration options.
2. The Experiment
This document specifies a new "self-describing" universal RA option.
Currently any new configuration option requires "standards action".
The experiment is to find out what happens when change control is
relaxed. The proposal is that no document is required. The
configuration option is described directly in the universal RA IANA
registry.
Duration of experiment: 2 years.
How to evaluate success? How many new options have been defined.
Did expert review suffice to stop "harmful" options? Was any of the
options implemented and deployed? On a successful experiment, the
time limit of the registry will be removed and it's experimental
status will be removed. If the experiment is deamed a failure, then
the registry will be removed.
Troan Expires June 20, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft December 2018
3. The Universal RA 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | JSON object
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Universal RA Option Format
Fields:
Type 42 for Universal RA Option
Length The length of the option (including the type and length
fields) in units of 8 octets.
JSON object JSON [RFC8259] in ASCII space padded to nearest 8 octet
boundary. A JSON object with each option as JSON objects under
the main key "ietf".
Example:
{
"ietf": {
"dns": {
"dnssl": [
"example.com"
],
"lifetime": 86400,
"rdnss": [
"2001:db8::1",
"2001:db8::2"
]
},
"nat64": {
"lifetime": 86400,
"prefix": "64:ff9b::/96"
}
}
}
Figure 2
Troan Expires June 20, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft December 2018
4. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to add a new registry for the Universal RA option.
The registry should be named "IPv6 ND RA Universal option
(experimental)". Changes and additions to the registry require
expert review.
The schema field follows the JSON schema definition in
[I-D.handrews-json-schema].
The IANA is requested to add the universal option to the "IPv6
Neighbor Discovery Option Formats" registry with the value of 42.
4.1. Initial objects in the registry
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| JSON key | Description | Reference |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
| dns |"dns": { | [RFC8106] |
| | "dnssl": { | |
| | "items": { | |
| | "type": "domain-name"| |
| | }, | |
| | "type": "array" | |
| | }, | |
| | "lifetime": { | |
| | "type": "integer" | |
| | }, | |
| | "rdnss": { | |
| | "items": { | |
| | "type": "ipv6-address"| |
| | }, | |
| | "type": "array" | |
| | } | |
| |}, | |
| nat64 |"nat64": { | [RFC7050] |
| | "lifetime": { | |
| | "type": "integer" | |
| | }, | |
| | "prefix": { | |
| | "type": "ipv6-prefix" | |
| | } | |
| |} | |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-----------+
Figure 3
Troan Expires June 20, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft December 2018
5. References
[I-D.handrews-json-schema]
Wright, A. and H. Andrews, "JSON Schema: A Media Type for
Describing JSON Documents", draft-handrews-json-schema-01
(work in progress), March 2018.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8259] Bray, T., Ed., "The JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Data
Interchange Format", STD 90, RFC 8259,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8259, December 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8259>.
Author's Address
Ole Troan
Cisco Systems
Philip Pedersens vei 1
Lysaker 1366
Norway
Email: ot@cisco.com
Troan Expires June 20, 2019 [Page 5]