|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8947
Last modified on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020
 Permanent link to RFC 8947
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8947
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8947
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) B. Volz
Request for Comments: 8947 Cisco
Category: Standards Track T. Mrugalski
ISSN: 2070-1721 ISC
CJ. Bernardos
UC3M
December 2020
Link-Layer Address Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6
 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 document
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 are
unnecessary.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8947.
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
(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. Requirements Language
3. Terminology
4. Deployment Scenarios
4.1. Scenario: Proxy Client Mode
4.2. Scenario: Direct Client Mode
5. Mechanism Overview
6. Design Assumptions
7. Information Encoding
8. Requesting Addresses
9. Renewing Addresses
10. Releasing Addresses
11. Option Definitions
11.1. Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses Option
11.2. Link-Layer Addresses Option
12. Selecting Link-Layer Addresses for Assignment to an IA_LL
13. IANA Considerations
14. Security Considerations
15. Privacy Considerations
16. References
16.1. Normative References
16.2. Informative References
Appendix A. IEEE 802c Summary
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
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
Appendix A.1 of [RFC 4429]). Another use case is Internet of Things
(IoT) devices (see [RFC 7228]). The huge number of such devices could
strain the IEEE's available Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI)
global address space. While there is typically no need to provide
global link-layer address uniqueness for such devices, a link-layer
assignment mechanism allows for conflicts to be avoided inside an
administrative domain. For those reasons, it is desired to have some
form of mechanism that would be able to assign locally unique Media
Access Control (MAC) addresses.
This document proposes a new mechanism that extends DHCPv6 operation
to handle link-layer address assignments.
Since DHCPv6 [RFC 8415] is a protocol that can allocate various types
of resources (non-temporary addresses, temporary addresses, prefixes,
as well as many options) and has the necessary infrastructure to
maintain such allocations (numerous server and client
implementations, large deployed relay infrastructure, and supportive
solutions such as leasequery and failover), it is a good candidate to
address the desired functionality.
While this document presents a design that should be usable for any
link-layer address type, some of the details are specific to IEEE 802
48-bit MAC addresses [IEEEStd802]. Future documents may provide
specifics for other link-layer address types.
IEEE 802 originally set aside half of the 48-bit MAC address space
for local use (where the Universal/Local (U/L) bit is set to 1). In
2017, IEEE published an amendment [IEEEStd802c] that divides this
space into quadrants with differentiated address rules. More details
are in Appendix A.
IEEE is also developing protocols and procedures for assignment of
locally unique addresses (IEEE 802.1CQ). This work may serve as an
alternative protocol for assignment. For additional background, see
[IEEE-P802.1CQ-Project].
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
The DHCP terminology relevant to this specification from [RFC 8415]
applies here. The following definitions either modify those
definitions as to how they are used in this document or define new
terminology used herein.
address Unless specified otherwise, a link-layer (or MAC)
address, as specified in [IEEEStd802]. The address
is typically six octets long, but some network
architectures may use different lengths.
address block A number of consecutive link-layer addresses. An
address block is expressed as a first address plus a
number that designates the number of additional
(extra) addresses. A single address can be
represented by the address itself and zero extra
addresses.
client A node that is interested in obtaining link-layer
addresses. It implements the basic DHCP mechanisms
needed by a DHCP client, as described in [RFC 8415],
and supports the new options specified in this
document (IA_LL and LLADDR). The client may or may
not support IPv6 address assignment and prefix
delegation, as specified in [RFC 8415].
IA_LL Identity Association for Link-Layer Address, an
identity association (IA) used to request or assign
link-layer addresses. See Section 11.1 for details
on the IA_LL option.
LLADDR Link-layer address option that is used to request or
assign a block of link-layer addresses. See
Section 11.2 for details on the LLADDR option.
server A node that manages link-layer address allocation and
is able to respond to client queries. It implements
basic DHCP server functionality, as described in
[RFC 8415], and supports the new options specified in
this document (IA_LL and LLADDR). The server may or
may not support IPv6 address assignment and prefix
delegation as specified in [RFC 8415].
4. Deployment Scenarios
This mechanism is designed to be generic and usable in many
deployments, but there are two scenarios it attempts to address in
particular: (i) proxy client mode and (ii) direct client mode.
4.1. Scenario: Proxy Client Mode
This mode is used when an entity acts as a DHCP client that requests
that available DHCP servers assign one or more addresses (an address
block) for the DHCP client to then assign to the final end devices to
use. Large-scale virtualization is one application scenario for
proxy client mode. In such environments, this entity is often called
a "hypervisor" and is frequently required to spawn new VMs. The
hypervisor needs to assign new addresses to those machines. The
hypervisor does not use those addresses for itself, but rather it
uses them to create new VMs with appropriate addresses. It is worth
pointing out the cumulative nature of this scenario. Over time, the
hypervisor is likely to increase its address use. Some obsolete VMs
will be deleted; their addresses are potentially eligible for reuse
by new VMs.
4.2. Scenario: Direct Client Mode
This mode can be used when an entity acts as a DHCP client that
requests that available DHCP servers assign one or more addresses (an
address block) for its own use. This usage scenario is related to
IoT (see Section 1). Upon first boot, for each interface, the device
uses a temporary address, as described in [IEEEStd802.11] and IEEE
802.1CQ [IEEE-P802.1CQ-Project], to send initial DHCP packets to
available DHCP servers wherein the device requests a single address
for that network interface. Once the server assigns an address, the
device abandons its temporary address and uses the assigned (leased)
address.
Note that a client that operates as above that does not have a
globally unique link-layer address on any of its interfaces MUST NOT
use a link-layer-based DHCP Unique Identifier (DUID). For more
details, refer to Section 11 of [RFC 8415].
Also, a client that operates as above may run into issues if the
switch it is connected to prohibits or restricts link-layer address
changes. This may limit where this capability can be used or may
require the administrator to adjust the configuration of the
switch(es) to allow a change in address.
5. Mechanism Overview
In the scenarios described in Section 4, the protocol operates in
fundamentally the same way. The device requesting an address, acting
as a DHCP client, will send a Solicit message with an IA_LL option to
all available DHCP servers. That IA_LL option MUST include an LLADDR
option specifying the link-layer-type and link-layer-len, and it may
include a specific address or address block as a hint for the server.
Each available server responds with either a Reply message with
committed address(es) (if Rapid Commit was requested and honored) or
an Advertise message with offered address(es). The client selects a
server's response, as governed by [RFC 8415]. If necessary, the
client sends a Request message; the target server will then assign
the address(es) and send a Reply message. Once a Reply is received,
the client can start using those address(es).
Normal DHCP mechanisms are in use. The client is expected to
periodically renew the addresses as governed by T1 and T2 timers and
to stop using the address once the valid lifetime expires. Renewals
can be administratively disabled by the server sending "infinity" as
the T1 and T2 values (see Section 7.7 of [RFC 8415]). An
administrator may make the address assignment permanent by specifying
use of the "infinity" valid lifetime, as defined in Section 7.7 of
[RFC 8415].
The client can release addresses when they are no longer needed by
sending a Release message (see Section 18.2.7 of [RFC 8415]).
Figure 9 in [RFC 8415] shows a timeline diagram of the messages
exchanged between a client and two servers for the typical life cycle
of one or more leases.
Confirm and Information-request messages are not used in link-layer
address assignment. Decline should technically never be needed, but
see Section 12 for one situation where this message is needed.
Clients implementing this mechanism SHOULD use the Rapid Commit
option, as specified in Sections 5.1 and 18.2.1 of [RFC 8415], to
obtain addresses with a two-message exchange when possible.
Devices supporting this proposal MAY support the reconfigure
mechanism, as defined in Section 18.2.11 of [RFC 8415]. If supported
by both server and client, the reconfigure mechanism allows the
administrator to immediately notify clients that the configuration
has changed and triggers retrieval of relevant changes immediately,
rather than after the T1 timer elapses. Since this mechanism
requires implementation of Reconfiguration Key Authentication
Protocol (see Section 20.4 of [RFC 8415]), small-footprint devices may
choose not to support it.
6. Design Assumptions
One of the essential aspects of this mechanism is its cumulative
nature, especially in the hypervisor scenario. The server-client
relationship does not look like other DHCP transactions in the
hypervisor scenario. In a typical environment, there would be one
server and a rather small number of hypervisors, possibly even only
one. However, over time, the number of addresses requested by the
hypervisor(s) will increase as more VMs are spawned.
Another aspect crucial for efficient design is the observation that a
single client acting as hypervisor will likely use thousands of
addresses. An approach similar to what is used for IPv6 address or
prefix assignment (IA container with all assigned addresses listed,
one option for each address) would not work well. Therefore, the
mechanism should operate on address blocks rather than single values.
A single address can be treated as an address block with just one
address.
The DHCP mechanisms are reused to a large degree, including message
and option formats, transmission mechanisms, relay infrastructure,
and others. However, a device wishing to support only link-layer
address assignment is not required to support full DHCP. In other
words, the device may support only assignment of link-layer addresses
but not IPv6 addresses or prefixes.
7. Information Encoding
A client MUST send an LLADDR option encapsulated in an IA_LL option
to specify the link-layer-type and link-layer-len values. For link-
layer-type 1 (Ethernet) and 6 (IEEE 802 Networks), a client sets the
link-layer-address field to:
1. All zeroes if the client has no hint as to the starting address
of the unicast address block. This address has the IEEE 802
individual/group bit set to 0 (individual).
2. Any other value to request a specific block of address starting
with the specified address.
Encoding information for other link-layer-types may be added in the
future by publishing an RFC that specifies those values.
A client sets the extra-addresses field to either 0 for a single
address or the size of the requested address block minus 1.
A client MUST set the valid-lifetime field to 0 (this field MUST be
ignored by the server).
8. Requesting Addresses
The addresses are assigned in blocks. The smallest block is a single
address. To request an assignment, the client sends a Solicit
message with an IA_LL option inside. The IA_LL option MUST contain
an LLADDR option, as specified in Section 7.
The server, upon receiving an IA_LL option, inspects its content and
may offer an address or addresses for each LLADDR option according to
its policy. The server MAY take into consideration the address block
requested by the client in the LLADDR option. However, the server
MAY choose to ignore some or all parameters of the requested address
block. In particular, the server may send either a different
starting address or a smaller number of addresses than requested.
The server sends back an Advertise message with an IA_LL option
containing an LLADDR option that specifies the addresses being
offered. If the server is unable to provide any addresses, it MUST
return the IA_LL option containing a Status Code option (see
Section 21.13 of [RFC 8415]) with status set to NoAddrsAvail.
Note that servers that do not support the IA_LL option will ignore
the option and not return it in Advertise (and Reply) messages.
Clients that send IA_LL options MUST treat this as if the server
returned the NoAddrsAvail status for these IA_LL option(s).
The client waits for available servers to send Advertise responses
and picks one server, as defined in Section 18.2.9 of [RFC 8415]. The
client then sends a Request message that includes the IA_LL container
option with the LLADDR option copied from the Advertise message sent
by the chosen server.
The client MUST process the address block(s) returned in the
Advertise, rather than what it included in the Solicit message, and
may consider the offered address block(s) in selecting the Advertise
message to accept. The server may offer a smaller number of
addresses or different addresses from those requested. A client MUST
NOT use resources returned in an Advertise message except to select a
server and in sending the Request message to that server; resources
are only useable by a client when returned in a Reply message.
Upon reception of a Request message with the IA_LL container option,
the server assigns the requested addresses. The server allocates a
block of addresses according to its configured policy. The server
MAY assign a different block or smaller block size than requested in
the Request message. The server then generates and sends a Reply
message back to the client.
Upon receiving a Reply message, the client parses the IA_LL container
option and may start using all provided addresses. It MUST restart
its T1 and T2 timers using the values specified in the IA_LL option.
The client MUST use the address block(s) returned in the Reply
message, which may be a smaller block(s) or may have a different
address(es) than requested.
A client that has included a Rapid Commit option in the Solicit
message may receive a Reply in response to the Solicit message and
skip the Advertise and Request message steps above (see
Section 18.2.1 of [RFC 8415]).
A client that changes its link-layer address on an interface SHOULD
follow the recommendations in Section 7.2.6 of [RFC 4861] to inform
its neighbors of the new link-layer address quickly.
9. Renewing Addresses
Address renewals follow the normal DHCP renewals processing described
in Section 18.2.4 of [RFC 8415]. Once the T1 timer elapses, the
client starts sending Renew messages with the IA_LL option containing
an LLADDR option for the address block being renewed. The server
responds with a Reply message that contains the renewed address
block. The server MUST NOT shrink or expand the address block. Once
a block is assigned and has a non-zero valid lifetime, its size,
starting address, and ending address MUST NOT change.
If the requesting client needs additional addresses (e.g., in the
hypervisor scenario because addresses need to be assigned to new
VMs), it MUST send an IA_LL option with a different Identity
Association IDentifier (IAID) to create another "container" for more
addresses.
If the client is unable to renew before the T2 timer elapses, it
starts sending Rebind messages, as described in Section 18.2.5 of
[RFC 8415].
10. Releasing Addresses
The client may decide to release a leased address block. A client
MUST release the block in its entirety. A client releases an address
block by sending a Release message that includes an IA_LL option
containing the LLADDR option for the address block to release. The
Release transmission mechanism is described in Section 18.2.7 of
[RFC 8415].
Note that if the client is releasing the link-layer address it is
using, it MUST stop using this address before sending the Release
message (as per [RFC 8415]). In order to send the Release message,
the client MUST use another address (such as the one originally used
to initiate DHCPv6 to provide an allocated link-layer address).
11. Option Definitions
This mechanism uses an approach similar to the existing mechanisms in
DHCP. There is one container option (the IA_LL option) that contains
the actual address or addresses, represented by an LLADDR option.
Each LLADDR option represents an address block, which is expressed as
a first address with a number that specifies how many additional
addresses are included.
11.1. Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses Option
The Identity Association for Link-Layer Addresses option (the IA_LL
option) is used to carry an IA_LL, the parameters associated with the
IA_LL, and the address blocks associated with the IA_LL.
The format of the IA_LL option is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_IA_LL | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IAID (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| T1 (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| T2 (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. IA_LL-options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: IA_LL Option Format
option-code OPTION_IA_LL (138).
option-len 12 + length of IA_LL-options field.
IAID The unique identifier for this IA_LL; the IAID must
be unique among the identifiers for all of this
client's IA_LLs. The number space for IA_LL IAIDs is
separate from the number space for other IA option
types (i.e., IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD). A 4-octet
field containing an unsigned integer.
T1 The time interval after which the client should
contact the server from which the addresses in the
IA_LL were obtained to extend the valid lifetime of
the addresses assigned to the IA_LL; T1 is a time
duration relative to the current time expressed in
units of seconds. A 4-octet field containing an
unsigned integer.
T2 The time interval after which the client should
contact any available server to extend the valid
lifetime of the addresses assigned to the IA_LL; T2
is a time duration relative to the current time
expressed in units of seconds. A 4-octet field
containing an unsigned integer.
IA_LL-options Options associated with this IA_LL. A variable-
length field (12 octets less than the value in the
option-len field).
An IA_LL option may only appear in the options area of a DHCP
message. A DHCP message may contain multiple IA_LL options (though
each must have a unique IAID).
The status of any operations involving this IA_LL is indicated in a
Status Code option (see Section 21.13 of [RFC 8415]) in the IA_LL-
options field.
Note that an IA_LL has no explicit "lifetime" or "lease length" of
its own. When the valid lifetimes of all of the addresses in an
IA_LL have expired, the IA_LL can be considered to be expired. T1
and T2 are included to give servers explicit control over when a
client recontacts the server about a specific IA_LL.
In a message sent by a client to a server, the T1 and T2 fields MUST
be set to 0. The server MUST ignore any values in these fields in
messages received from a client.
In a message sent by a server to a client, the client MUST use the
values in the T1 and T2 fields for the T1 and T2 times, unless those
values in those fields are 0. The values in the T1 and T2 fields are
the number of seconds until T1 and T2.
As per Section 7.7 of [RFC 8415], the value 0xffffffff is taken to
mean "infinity" and should be used carefully.
The server selects the T1 and T2 times to allow the client to extend
the lifetimes of any address block in the IA_LL before the lifetimes
expire, even if the server is unavailable for some short period of
time. Recommended values for T1 and T2 are .5 and .8 times the
shortest valid lifetime of the address blocks in the IA that the
server is willing to extend, respectively. If the "shortest" valid
lifetime is 0xffffffff ("infinity"), the recommended T1 and T2 values
are also 0xffffffff. If the time at which the addresses in an IA_LL
are to be renewed is to be left to the discretion of the client, the
server sets T1 and T2 to 0. The client MUST follow the rules defined
in Section 14.2 of [RFC 8415].
If a client receives an IA_LL with T1 greater than T2, and both T1
and T2 are greater than 0, the client discards the IA_LL option and
processes the remainder of the message as though the server had not
included the invalid IA_LL option.
The IA_LL-options field typically contains one or more LLADDR options
(see Section 11.2). If a client does not include an LLADDR option in
a Solicit or Request message, the server MUST treat this as a request
for a single address and that the client has no hint as to the
address it would like.
11.2. Link-Layer Addresses Option
The Link-Layer Addresses option is used to specify an address block
associated with an IA_LL. The option must be encapsulated in the
IA_LL-options field of an IA_LL option. The LLaddr-options field
encapsulates those options that are specific to this address block.
The format of the Link-Layer Addresses option is:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_LLADDR | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| link-layer-type | link-layer-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. link-layer-address .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| extra-addresses |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| valid-lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. LLaddr-options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: LLADDR Option Format
option-code OPTION_LLADDR (139).
option-len 12 + link-layer-len field value + length of
LLaddr-options field. Assuming a link-layer-
address length of 6 and no extra options, the
option-len would be 18.
link-layer-type The link-layer type MUST be a valid hardware
type assigned by IANA, as described in
[RFC 5494], and registered in the "Hardware
Types" registry at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-
parameters>. A 2-octet field containing an
unsigned integer.
link-layer-len Specifies the length, in octets, of the link-
layer-address field (typically 6 for a link-
layer-type of 1 (Ethernet) and 6 (IEEE 802
Networks)). This is to accommodate link layers
that may have variable-length addresses. A
2-octet field containing an unsigned integer.
link-layer-address Specifies the address of the first link-layer
address that is being requested or assigned
depending on the message. A client MAY send a
special value to request any address. For link-
layer types 1 and 6, see Section 7 for details
on this field. A link-layer-len length octet
field containing an address.
extra-addresses Specifies the number of additional addresses
that follow the address specified in link-layer-
address. For a single address, 0 is used. For
example, link-layer-address 02:04:06:08:0a and
extra-addresses 3 designate a block of four
addresses, starting from 02:04:06:08:0a and
ending with 02:04:06:08:0d (inclusive). A
4-octet field containing an unsigned integer.
valid-lifetime The valid lifetime for the address(es) in the
option, expressed in units of seconds. A
4-octet field containing an unsigned integer.
LLaddr-options Any encapsulated options that are specific to
this particular address block. Currently, there
are no such options defined, but there may be in
the future.
In a message sent by a client to a server, the valid lifetime field
MUST be set to 0. The server MUST ignore any received value.
In a message sent by a server to a client, the client MUST use the
value in the valid lifetime field for the valid lifetime for the
address block. The value in the valid lifetime field is the number
of seconds remaining in the lifetime.
As per Section 7.7 of [RFC 8415], the valid lifetime of 0xffffffff is
taken to mean "infinity" and should be used carefully.
More than one LLADDR option can appear in an IA_LL option.
12. Selecting Link-Layer Addresses for Assignment to an IA_LL
A server selects link-layer addresses to be assigned to an IA_LL
according to the assignment policies determined by the server
administrator and the requirements of that address space.
Link-layer addresses are typically specific to a link and the server
SHOULD follow the steps in Section 13.1 of [RFC 8415] to determine the
client's link.
For IEEE 802 MAC addresses (see [IEEEStd802] as amended by
[IEEEStd802c]):
1. Server administrators SHOULD follow the IEEE 802 Specifications
with regard to the unicast address pools made available for
assignment (see Appendix A and [IEEEStd802c]) -- only address
space reserved for local use or with the authorization of the
assignee may be used.
2. Servers MUST NOT allow administrators to configure address pools
that would cross the boundary of 2^(42) bits (for 48-bit MAC
addresses) to avoid issues with changes in the first octet of the
address and the special bits therein (see Appendix A). Clients
MUST reject assignments where the assigned block would cross this
boundary (they MUST decline the allocation -- see Section 18.2.8
of [RFC 8415]).
3. A server MAY use options supplied by a relay agent or client to
select the quadrant (see Appendix A) from which addresses are to
be assigned. This MAY include options like those specified in
[RFC 8948].
13. IANA Considerations
IANA has assigned the OPTION_IA_LL (138) option code from the "Option
Codes" subregistry of the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry maintained at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters>:
Value: 138
Description: OPTION_IA_LL
Client ORO: No
Singleton Option: No
Reference: RFC 8947
IANA has assigned the OPTION_LLADDR (139) option code from the
"Option Codes" subregistry of the "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)" registry maintained at
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters>:
Value: 139
Description: OPTION_LLADDR
Client ORO: No
Singleton Option: No
Reference: RFC 8947
14. Security Considerations
See Section 22 of [RFC 8415] and Section 23 of [RFC 7227] for the DHCP
security considerations. See [RFC 8200] for the IPv6 security
considerations.
As discussed in Section 22 of [RFC 8415]:
| DHCP lacks end-to-end encryption between clients and servers;
| thus, hijacking, tampering, and eavesdropping attacks are all
| possible as a result.
In some network environments, it is possible to secure them, as
discussed later in Section 22 of [RFC 8415].
If not all parties on a link use this mechanism to obtain an address
from the space assigned to the DHCP server, there is the possibility
of the same link-layer address being used by more than one device.
Note that this issue would exist on these networks even if DHCP were
not used to obtain the address.
Server implementations SHOULD consider configuration options to limit
the maximum number of addresses to allocate (both in a single request
and in total) to a client. However, note that this does not prevent
a bad client actor from pretending to be many different clients and
consuming all available addresses.
15. Privacy Considerations
See Section 23 of [RFC 8415] for the DHCP privacy considerations.
For a client requesting a link-layer address directly from a server,
as the address assigned to a client will likely be used by the client
to communicate on the link, the address will be exposed to those able
to listen in on this communication. For those peers on the link that
are able to listen in on the DHCP exchange, they would also be able
to correlate the client's identity (based on the DUID used) with the
assigned address. Additional mechanisms, such as the ones described
in [RFC 7844], can also be used to improve anonymity by minimizing
what is exposed.
As discussed in Section 23 of [RFC 8415], DHCP servers and hypervisors
may need to consider the implications of assigning addresses
sequentially. Though in general, this is only of link-local concern
unlike for IPv6 address assignment and prefix delegation, as these
may be used for communication over the Internet.
16. References
16.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
[RFC 4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4861>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[RFC 8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8415>.
16.2. Informative References
[IEEE-P802.1CQ-Project]
IEEE, "P802.1CQ - Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Multicast and Local Address Assignment",
<https://standards.ieee.org/project/802_1CQ.html>.
[IEEEStd802]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks: Overview and Architecture, IEEE Std 802", IEEE
STD 802-2014, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2014.6847097>.
[IEEEStd802.11]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Information technology--
Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems Local and metropolitan area networks--Specific
requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
(MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", IEEE Std
802.11, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7786995>.
[IEEEStd802c]
IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks:Overview and Architecture--Amendment 2: Local
Medium Access Control (MAC) Address Usage", IEEE Std 802c-
2017, DOI 10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8016709,
<https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2017.8016709>.
[RFC 2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2464, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2464>.
[RFC 4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4429, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4429>.
[RFC 5494] Arkko, J. and C. Pignataro, "IANA Allocation Guidelines
for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)", RFC 5494,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5494, April 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5494>.
[RFC 7227] Hankins, D., Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Jiang, S., and
S. Krishnan, "Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options",
BCP 187, RFC 7227, DOI 10.17487/RFC 7227, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7227>.
[RFC 7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7228, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7228>.
[RFC 7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7844, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7844>.
[RFC 8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8200>.
[RFC 8948] Bernardos, CJ. and A. Mourad, "Structured Local Address
Plan (SLAP) Quadrant Selection Option for DHCPv6",
RFC 8948, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8948, December 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8948>.
Appendix A. IEEE 802c Summary
This appendix provides a brief summary of IEEE 802c [IEEEStd802c].
The original IEEE 802 specifications assigned half of the 48-bit MAC
address space to local use -- these addresses have the U/L bit set to
1 and are locally administered with no imposed structure.
In 2017, the IEEE issued the IEEE Std 802c specification, which
defines a new optional "Structured Local Address Plan (SLAP) that
specifies different assignment approaches in four specified regions
of the local MAC address space". Under this plan, there are four
SLAP quadrants that use different assignment policies.
The first octet of the MAC address Z and Y bits define the quadrant
for locally assigned addresses (X-bit is 1). In IEEE representation,
these bits are as follows:
LSB MSB
M X Y Z - - - -
| | | |
| | | +------------ SLAP Z-bit
| | +--------------- SLAP Y-bit
| +------------------ X-bit (U/L) = 1 for locally assigned
+--------------------- M-bit (I/G) (unicast/group)
Figure 3: SLAP Bits
The SLAP quadrants are:
+==========+=======+=======+=======================+============+
| Quadrant | Y-bit | Z-bit | Local Identifier Type | Local |
| | | | | Identifier |
+==========+=======+=======+=======================+============+
| 01 | 0 | 1 | Extended Local | ELI |
+----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+------------+
| 11 | 1 | 1 | Standard Assigned | SAI |
+----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+------------+
| 00 | 0 | 0 | Administratively | AAI |
| | | | Assigned | |
+----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+------------+
| 10 | 1 | 0 | Reserved | Reserved |
+----------+-------+-------+-----------------------+------------+
Table 1: SLAP Quadrants
MAC addresses derived from an Extended Local Identifier (ELI) are
based on an assigned Company ID (CID), which is 24 bits (including
the M, X, Y, and Z bits) for 48-bit MAC addresses. This leaves 24
bits for the locally assigned address for each CID for unicast (M-bit
= 0) and also for multicast (M-bit = 1). The CID is assigned by the
IEEE Registration Authority (RA).
MAC addresses derived from a Standard Assigned Identifier (SAI) are
assigned by a protocol specified in an IEEE 802 standard. For 48-bit
MAC addresses, 44 bits are available. Multiple protocols for
assigning SAIs may be specified in IEEE standards. Coexistence of
multiple protocols may be supported by limiting the subspace
available for assignment by each protocol.
MAC addresses derived from an Administratively Assigned Identifier
(AAI) are assigned locally. Administrators manage the space as
needed. Note that multicast IPv6 packets [RFC 2464] use a destination
address starting in 33-33, so AAI addresses in that range should not
be assigned. For 48-bit MAC addresses, 44 bits are available.
The last quadrant is reserved for future use. While this quadrant
may also be used similar to AAI space, administrators should be aware
that future specifications may define alternate uses that could be
incompatible.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to the DHC Working Group participants that reviewed this
document and provided comments and support. With special thanks to
Ian Farrer for his thorough reviews and shepherding of this document
through the IETF process. Thanks also to directorate reviewers
Samita Chakrabarti, Roni Even, and Tianran Zhou and IESG members
Martin Duke, Benjamin Kaduk, Murray Kucherawy, Warren Kumari, Barry
Leiba, Alvaro Retana, Éric Vyncke, and Robert Wilton for their
suggestions. And thanks to Roger Marks, Robert Grow, and Antonio de
la Oliva for comments related to IEEE work and references.
Authors' Addresses
Bernie Volz
Cisco Systems, Inc.
300 Beaver Brook Rd
Boxborough, MA 01719
United States of America
Email: volz@cisco.com
Tomek Mrugalski
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
PO Box 360
Newmarket, NH 03857
United States of America
Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com
Carlos J. Bernardos
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Phone: +34 91624 6236
Email: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es/cjbc/
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 45192 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Wednesday, December 2nd, 2020
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
