Network Working Group S. Miyakawa Internet-Draft NTT Communications Corporation Expires: Aug 25, 2003 R. Droms Cisco Systems Feb 2003 Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-01.txt Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on Aug 25, 2003. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. Abstract This document describes requirements for how IPv6 address prefixes should be delegated to an IPv6 subscriber's network (or "site"). 1. Introduction With the deployment of IPv6 [2], several Internet Service Providers are ready to offer IPv6 access to the public. In conjunction with widely deployed "always on" media as ADSL, and the expectation that customers will be assigned a /48 IPv6 address prefix, an efficient mechanism for delegating address prefixes to the customers sites is needed. The delegation mechanism will be intended to automate the Miyakawa and Droms Expires Aug 25, 2003 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation Feb 2003 process of informing the customer's networking equipment of the prefixes to be used at the customer's site. This document clarifies the requirements for IPv6 address prefix delegation from the ISP to the site. 2. Requirements 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 [1]. 3. Scenario and terminology The following figure illustrates a likely example for the organization of a network providing subscription IPv6 service: /------\ / \ + | / \ / +---------------+ +--------+/ \------/ |ISP Edge Router|Point-to-point|Customer+ | +--------------+ Router | Customer networks | (PE) | link | (CPE) + +---------------+ +--------+\ /------\ \ / \ + | \ / \------/ Illustration of ISP-customer network architecture Terminology: PE Provider edge device; the device at which the link to the customer site is terminated CPE Customer provided equipment; the device at the customer site at which the link to the ISP is terminated 4. Requirements for Prefix Delegation The purpose of the prefix delegation mechanism is to communicate prefixes to the CPE automatically. Miyakawa and Droms Expires Aug 25, 2003 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation Feb 2003 4.1 Number and Length of Delegated Prefixed The prefix delegation mechanism SHOULD allow for delegation of prefixes of length /48, /64 and other lengths, and SHOULD allow for delegation of more than one prefix to the customer. 4.2 Use of Delegated Prefixes in Customer Network The prefix delegation mechanism MUST NOT prohibit or inhibit the assignment of longer prefixes, created from the delegated prefixes, to links within the customer network. It is not a requirement that the prefix delegation mechanism provide for the reporting of prefix delegation within the customer network back to the ISP. 4.3 Automated Assignment The prefix delegation mechanism SHOULD allow for long-lived pre- assignment of one or more prefix(es) to a customer and for automated, possibly short-lived assignment of a prefix to a customer on demand. 4.4 Policy-based Assignment The prefix delegation mechanism SHOULD allow for the use of policy in assigning prefixes to a customer. For example, the customer's identity and type of subscribed service may be used to determine the address block from which the customer's prefix is selected, and the length of the prefix assigned to the customer. 4.5 Security and Authentication The prefix delegation mechanism MUST provide for reliable authentication of the identity of the customer to which the prefixes are to be assigned, and MUST provide for reliable, secure transmission of the delegated prefixes to the customer. 4.6 Accounting The prefix delegation mechanism MUST allow for the ISP to provide accounting information about delegated prefixes. 4.7 Layer 2 Considerations The method SHOULD work on any layer 2 technologies. In other words, it should be layer 2 technology independent. Though, at the same time, it should be noted that now ISP would like to have a solution for Point-to-Point link which has own authentication mechanism first. PPP link with CHAP authentication is a good example. (Simulated) Ethernet and IEEE802.11 (wireless LAN) should be covered in near Miyakawa and Droms Expires Aug 25, 2003 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation Feb 2003 future, but they have low priority (just) for now. It should be clarified that the method should work with all L2 protocols either with authentication mechanism or without, but ISP would like to take advantage of a L2 protocol's authentication mechanism if it exits. 5. IANA Considerations There are no IANA considerations in this document. 6. Security considerations Section 4.5 specifies security requirements for the prefix delegation mechanism. References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. Author's Address Shin Miyakawa Innovative IP Architecture Center, NTT Communications Corporation Tokyo Opera City Tower 21F, 3-20-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan Phone: +81-3-6800-3262 EMail: miyakawa@nttv6.jp Ralph Droms Cisco Systems 300 Apollo Drive Chelmsford, MA 01886 Phone: +1-978-497-4733 EMail: rdroms@cisco.com Miyakawa and Droms Expires Aug 25, 2003 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation Feb 2003 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Miyakawa and Droms Expires Aug 25, 2003 [Page 5]