DHC Working Group Q. Sun
Internet-Draft Tsinghua University
Intended status: Standards Track Y. Lee
Expires: April 15, 2014 Comcast
Q. Sun
China Telecom
G. Bajko
Nokia
M. Boucadair
France Telecom
October 12, 2013
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Option for Port Set
Assignment
draft-sun-dhc-port-set-option-02
Abstract
Because of the exhaustion of the IPv4 address space, several
techniques have been proposed to share the same IPv4 address among
several uses. As an alternative to introducing a level of NAT in the
provider's core network, this document provides a mechanism to assign
non-overlapping layer 4 port sets to users assigned with the same
IPv4 address: Port Set DHCPv4 Option.
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 April 15, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
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. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. DHCPv4 Port Set Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.1. Port Set Option Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Port Set Option Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Denial-of-Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Port Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Contributors List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
1. Introduction
Currently some large ISPs still have a large enough IPv4 address pool
to be able to allocate public IPv4 addresses for their subscribers.
However, due to the exhaustion of the global IPv4 address space,
these ISPs expect the situation is unsustainable and they will not be
able anymore to assign to every requesting host a public IPv4
address.
Two solutions have been proposed so far: (1) Deploy Network Address
Translation (NAT) or (2) Allocate the same public IPv4 address with
non-overlapped layer 4 port sets directly to multiple connected
devices (which can be CPEs or end hosts). This document focuses on
the second solution.
This document describes a new DHCPv4 option which allows the DHCPv4
server to assign a set of ports to a user device during the IPv4
address provisioning process. By assigning the same IPv4 address
with non-overlapped port sets to multiple clients, the clients is
enabled to share the IPv4 address and continue to deliver IPv4
services to subscribers.
When using this DHCPv4 option, the underlaying forwarding carrier
should be other than IPv4 to avoid affecting the current IPv4-only
architecture, for example IPv6 [I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6],
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6], etc. The server has to manage to
forward DHCP responses to the right client.
The Port Set Option described in this document can be used in various
deployment scenarios, some of which are described in [RFC6346]
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. DHCPv4 Port Set Option
3.1. Port Set Option Format
The format of Port Set Option is shown in Figure 1.
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| OPTION_PORT_SET | option-length |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Port Set Index |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
| Port Set Mask |
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Figure 1 Port Set Option Format
o option-code: OPTION_PORT_SET (TBD)
o option-length: An 8-bit field indicating the length of the option
excluding the 'Option Code' and the 'Option Length' fields. In
this option, the option-length is 4 octets.
o Port Set Index: Port Set Index identifies a set of ports assigned
to a device. The first k bits on the left of the 2-octet field is
the Port Set Index value, with the rest of the field right padding
zeros.
o Port Set Mask: Port Set Mask indicates the position of the bits
used to build the mask. The first k bits on the left is padding
ones while the remained (16-k) bits of the 2-octet field on the
right is padding zeros.
In the context of Port Set Option, the port number should consist of
port set prefix and port number suffix. The port set prefix can be
got from Port Set Index and Port Set Mask, while port number suffix
can change continuously. The format of port number is shown in
Figure 2.
0 15
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
| port set prefix | port number suffix |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+
|<-------k bits-------->|<--------(16-k) bits-------->|
Figure 2 Bit Representation of a port number
In order to exclude the system ports ([I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports]) or
ports saved by SPs, the former port-sets that contains well-known
ports SHOULD NOT be assigned.
For example: If k is 10 (the left 10 bits of Port Set Mask is '1'),
the first 16 port sets is located in well-known port space, which
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
should not be allocated. Or,
For example: If k is 4 (the left 4 bits of Port Set Mask is '1'), the
first port set (0 - 4095) contains the well-know port space. It
should be perceived as well.
3.2. Port Set Option Example
The Port Set Option is used to specify one contiguous port set
pertaining to the given IP address.
Concretely, this option is used to notify a remote DHCP client about
the port set prefix to be applied when selecting a port value as a
source port. The Port Set Option is used to infer a set of allowed
contiguous port values. Two port numbers are said to belong to the
same Port Set if and only if, they have the same port set prefix.
The following Port Set Index and Port Set Mask are conveyed using
DHCP to assign a contiguous port set with excluding well-know ports
(with Port Set Index not zero):
Port Set Index: 0001 0100 0000 0000 (5120)
Port Set Mask: 1111 1100 0000 0000 (64512)
The device will get a contiguous port set: 5120 - 6143
4. Server Behavior
The server will not reply with the option until the client has
explicitly listed the option code in the Parameter Request List
(Option 55).
Server MUST reply with Port Set Option if the client requested
OPTION_PORT_SET in its Parameter Request List. In order to achieve
the dynamic management of IPv4 address and port set in the address
sharing environment, the server MUST run an address & port-set pool
that plays the same role as address pool in regular DHCP server. The
address and port-set pool MUST follow the Port-Mask-format port-set.
The server MUST use a combination of address & port-set as a key to
maintain the state of a lease, and look for an available lease for
assignment. The leasing database MUST also include the information
of the address and port-set.
When a server receives a DHCPDISCOVER message with OPTION_PORT_SET in
the Parameter Request List from a client, the server chooses an IPv4
address and a port-set for the requesting client. The logic of
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
choosing is similar to that in Section 4.3.1 of [RFC2131], while the
difference is the server looks for the client's binding or an
available lease in the server's pool of addresses & port-sets. After
selecting an available combination of an address and a port-set, the
server puts the address into the 'yiaddr' field and the port-set (in
the Port-Mast-format) into the Port Set Option.
If the server receives a DHCPDISCOVER message containing a Port Set
Option, this means the client is requesting a specific port set. The
Port Set Mask field in the option indicates the size of port set that
the client requests. The server MAY reply with a Port Set Option
whose Port Set Mask is as requested, if the server has such one port
set. Or the server can ignore the request and just assign a port set
from the pool.
When a server receives a DHCPREQUEST message with Port Set Option,
the server MUST determine the client's state according to related
parameters (Section 4.3.2 of [RFC2131]) and the value of Port Set
Option.
Upon reception of a DHCPRELEASE message with Port Set Option, the
server looks for the lease using the address and the value in the
Port Set Option, and marks it as unallocated.
The port-set assignment MUST be coupled with the address assignment
process. Therefore server MUST assign the address and port set in
the same DHCP messages. And the lease information for the address is
applicable to the port-set as well.
5. Client Behavior
The DHCP client applying for a port-set MUST include the
OPTION_PORT_SET code in the Parameter Request List (Option 55). The
client retrieves a Port Set Option and use the Port Set Index and
Port Set Mask to perform the port mask algorithm to get the
contiguous port set.
When the client renews or releases the DHCP lease, it MUST put its
Port Set Index and Port Set Mask into the Port Set Option, and send
to the server within corresponding DHCPv4 messages.
The client MAY include a Port Set Option in the DHCPDISCOVER message,
in which the Port Set Mask field indicates the requested size of a
port set from the client.
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
6. Security Consideration
6.1. Denial-of-Service
The solution is generally vulnerable to DoS when used in shared
medium or when access network authentication is not a prerequisite to
IP address assignment. The solution SHOULD only be used on point-to-
point links, tunnels, and/or in environments where authentication at
link layer is performed before IP address assignment, and not shared
medium.
6.2. Port Randomization
Preserving port randomization [RFC6056] may be more or less difficult
depending on the address sharing ratio (i.e., the size of the port
space assigned to a CPE). The host can only randomize the ports
inside a fixed port range [RFC6269].
More discussion to improve the robustness of TCP against Blind In-
Window Attacks can be found at [RFC5961]. Other means than the
(IPv4) source port randomization to provide protection against
attacks should be used (e.g., use [I-D.vixie-dnsext-dns0x20] to
protect against DNS attacks, [RFC5961] to improve the robustness of
TCP against Blind In-Window Attacks, use IPv6).
A proposal to preserve the entropy when selecting port is discussed
in [I-D.bajko-pripaddrassign]
7. IANA Consideration
IANA is kindly requested to allocate DHCP option code to the
OPTION_PORT_SET. The code should be added to the DHCP option code
space.
8. Contributors List
Many thanks for valuable comments and great efforts from the
following contributors:
Peng Wu
Tsinghua University
peng-wu@foxmail.com
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
Teemu Savolainen
Nokia
teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
Ted Lemon
Nominum, Inc.
mellon@nominum.com
Tina Tsou
Huawei Technologies
tena@huawei.com
Pierre Levis
France Telecom
Email: pierre.levis@orange.com
Cong Liu
Tsinghua University
Email: gnocuil@gmail.com
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, March 1997.
[RFC5961] Ramaiah, A., Stewart, R., and M. Dalal, "Improving TCP's
Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks", RFC 5961,
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
August 2010.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and F. Gont, "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", BCP 156, RFC 6056,
January 2011.
[RFC6269] Ford, M., Boucadair, M., Durand, A., Levis, P., and P.
Roberts, "Issues with IP Address Sharing", RFC 6269,
June 2011.
[RFC6346] Bush, R., "The Address plus Port (A+P) Approach to the
IPv4 Address Shortage", RFC 6346, August 2011.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.bajko-pripaddrassign]
Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., Boucadair, M., and P. Levis,
"Port Restricted IP Address Assignment",
draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-04 (work in progress),
April 2012.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6]
Sun, Q., Cui, Y., Siodelski, M., Krishnan, S., and I.
Farrer, "DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 Transport",
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-01 (work in progress),
July 2013.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6]
Cui, Y., Wu, P., Wu, J., and T. Lemon, "DHCPv4 over IPv6
Transport", draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6-07 (work in
progress), September 2013.
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports]
Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S.
Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and
Transport Protocol Port Number Registry",
draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-10 (work in progress),
February 2011.
[I-D.vixie-dnsext-dns0x20]
Vixie, P. and D. Dagon, "Use of Bit 0x20 in DNS Labels to
Improve Transaction Identity",
draft-vixie-dnsext-dns0x20-00 (work in progress),
March 2008.
[RFC6842] Swamy, N., Halwasia, G., and P. Jhingran, "Client
Identifier Option in DHCP Server Replies", RFC 6842,
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
January 2013.
Authors' Addresses
Qi Sun
Tsinghua University
Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-6278-5822
Email: sunqi@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Yiu L. Lee
Comcast
One Comcast Center
Philadelphia PA 19103
USA
Phone:
Email: yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com
Qiong Sun
China Telecom
Room 708, No.118, Xizhimennei Street
Beijing 100035
P.R.China
Phone: +86-10-58552936
Email: sunqiong@ctbri.com.cn
Gabor Bajko
Nokia
Phone:
Email: gabor.Bajko@nokia.com
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DHCP Option for Port Set October 2013
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
2330 Central Expressway
Rennes 35000
France
Phone:
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Sun, et al. Expires April 15, 2014 [Page 11]