Network Working Group B. Volz Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. Intended status: Standards Track February 19, 2007 Expires: August 23, 2007 DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. 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 August 23, 2007. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). Abstract This document requests a vendor-specific DHCPv6 message assignment. It also requests that a range of options be reserved. This message and reserved options can be used for vendor specific and experimental purposes. Volz Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 1] Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message February 2007 Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Vendor-specific Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Reserved Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 7 Volz Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 2] Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message February 2007 1. Introduction The DHCPv6 [2] protocol specifies a mechanism for the assignment of both IPv6 address and configuration information to IPv6 nodes. The protocol provides for 256 possible message codes, of which [2] assigns 13. And, 65536 possible option codes, of which less than 50 are assigned at the time of this writing. Each of these message and option codes have specific purposes. New message and option codes are assigned through IETF Standards Action as defined in [4] (see Section 24 of [2]). There may be a need for vendors of DHCPv6 clients, relay agents, or servers to experiment with new capabilities that require new messages to be exchanged between these elements. Thus, this document defines the format for and requests that a new message code, and a range of options, be reserved for vendor-specific and experimental purposes. 2. Terminology 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 [1]. 3. Vendor-specific Message The vendor-specific message may be exchanged between clients, relay agents, and/or servers and allows multiple vendors to make use of the message for completely different and independent purposes. Clients and servers MAY chose to support this message; those that do not, MUST discard the message. Relay agents SHOULD relay these messages as they would other DHCPv6 messages unless the relay agent understands the specific message and knows that the message was directed at it. Applications using these messages MUST NOT assume that all DHCPv6 clients, relay agents, and servers support them and MUST use good networking practices when transmitting and retransmitting these messages (see Section 14 of [2] for recommendations). For some applications, it may be appropriate to use a Vendor Class or Vendor- specific Information Option ([2]) in a standard DHCPv6 exchange to negotiate whether the end-points support this new message. Volz Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 3] Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message February 2007 The format of the Vendor-specific Message is shown below: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | msg-type | enterprise-number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | enterprise- | | | number (contd)| . +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ . . vendor-data . . (variable length) . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ msg-type VENDOR-SPECIFIC (to-be-assigned) enterprise-number The vendor's registered Enterprise Number as registered with IANA [3]. vendor-data The vendor's message data. The contents and format of the vendor-data field is up to the vendor. 4. Reserved Options This document also requests IANA to reserve 256 option codes (65024 to 65279, inclusive) for use only within the Vendor-specific message. These option codes MUST NOT be used within the DHCPv6 messages specified in [2], and clients and servers SHOULD discard any of these messages containing one or more of these option codes. The reason for reserving these option codes is so that Vendor- specific messages that wish to encapsulate DHCPv6 options and also make use of "private" options, do not have to encode "private" options within the Vendor-specific Information Option (as that would duplicate the enterprise-number and potentially many times if options are needed at multiple encapsulation levels). 5. Security Considerations The Security Considerations of [2] apply. This new message does potentially open up new avenues of attacking Volz Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 4] Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message February 2007 clients, relay agents, or servers. The exact nature of these attacks will depend on what functions and capabilities the message exposes and are thus not possible to describe in this document. Clients and servers that have no use for these messages SHOULD discard them and thus the threat is no different than before this message was assigned. Vendors using this new message should use the DHCPv6 security mechansims (the Auth option or IPsec [2] as appropriate) and carefully consider the security implications of the functions and capabilities exposed. 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to assign DHCPv6 Message type 254 to the Vendor- specific Message in the registry maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters: 254 VENDOR-SPECIFIC IANA is requested to reserve DHCPv6 Option Codes from 65024 to 65279, inclusive, as VENDOR-SPECIFIC message options in the registry maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters: 65025 - 65279 - VENDOR-SPECIFIC message option codes (MUST NOT appear in other DHCPv6 messages) 7. References 7.1. Normative References [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [2] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [3] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers. http://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers.html". 7.2. Informative References [4] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434, October 1998. Volz Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 5] Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message February 2007 Author's Address Bernard Volz Cisco Systems, Inc. 1414 Massachusetts Ave. Boxborough, MA 01719 USA Phone: +1 978 936 0000 Email: volz@cisco.com Volz Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 6] Internet-Draft DHCPv6 Vendor-specific Message February 2007 Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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. Intellectual Property The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA). Volz Expires August 23, 2007 [Page 7]