ftp.cc.uoc.gr
rfc4241
This is a purely informative rendering of an RFC that includes verified errata. This rendering may not be used as a reference.

The following 'Verified' errata have been incorporated in this document: EID 153, EID 819, EID 821, EID 1411, EID 3462
Network Working Group                                       Y. Shirasaki
Request for Comments: 4241                                   S. Miyakawa
Category: Informational                                      T. Yamasaki
                                                      NTT Communications
                                                           A. Takenouchi
                                                                     NTT
                                                           December 2005


          A Model of IPv6/IPv4 Dual Stack Internet Access Service

Status of This Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

IESG Note

   This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.  The
   IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for any
   purpose and notes that the decision to publish is not based on IETF
   review apart from IESG review for conflict with IETF work.  The RFC
   Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion.  See
   RFC 3932 for more information.

Abstract

   This memo is a digest of the user network interface specification of
   NTT Communications' dual stack ADSL access service, which provide a
   IPv6/IPv4 dual stack services to home users.  In order to simplify
   user setup, these services have a mechanism to configure IPv6
   specific parameters automatically.  The memo focuses on two basic
   parameters:  the prefix assigned to the user and the addresses of
   IPv6 DNS servers, and it specifies a way to deliver these parameters
   to Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) automatically.

1. Introduction

   This memo is a digest of the user network interface specification of
   NTT Communications' dual stack ADSL access service, which provide
   IPv6/IPv4 dual stack services to home users.  In order to simplify
   user setup, these services have a mechanism to configure IPv6
   specific parameters automatically.  The memo focuses on two basic
   parameters:  the prefix assigned to the user and the addresses of
   IPv6 DNS servers, and it specifies a way to deliver these parameters
   to Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) automatically.

   This memo covers two topics: an architecture for IPv6/IPv4 dual stack
   access service and an automatic configuration function for IPv6-
   specific parameters.

   The architecture is mainly targeted at a leased-line ADSL service for
   home users.  It assumes that there is a Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
   logical link between Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) and Provider
   Edge (PE) equipment.  In order to exclude factors that are specific
   to access lines, this architecture only specifies PPP and its upper
   layers.  To satisfy [RFC3177], the prefix length that is delegated to
   the CPE is /48, but /64 is also a possible option.

   In this architecture, IPv6/IPv4 dual stack service is specified as
   follows.

     o IPv6 and IPv4 connectivities are provided over a single PPP
       logical link.

     o IPv6 connectivity is independent of IPv4 connectivity.  IPV6CP
       and IPCP work independently over a single PPP logical link.

   Figure 1 shows an outline of the service architecture.  NTT
   Communications has been providing a commercial service based on this
   architecture since the Summer 2002.

          |                                             _____________
   [HOST]-+ +-----------+               +----------+   /             \
          | | Customer  |   ADSL line   | Provider |  | ISP core and  |
          +-+ Premises  +---------------+   Edge   |--| The internet  |
          | | Equipment | to subscriber +-----+----+   \_____________/
   [HOST]-+ +-----------+                     |         |   |
          |                             +-----+------+  | +-+----------+
                                        | AAA server |  | | DNS server |
                                        +------------+  | +------------+
                                                      +-+--------------+
                                                      | NTP server etc.|
    Figure 1: Dual Stack Access Service Architecture  +----------------+

   The automatic configuration function aims at simplification of user
   setup.  Usually, users have to configure at least two IPv6-specific
   parameters: prefix(es) assigned to them [RFC3769] and IPv6 DNS
   servers' addresses.  The function is composed of two sub-functions:

     o Delegation of prefix(es) to be used in the user site.

     o Notification of IPv6 DNS server addresses and/or other server
       addresses.

   Section 2 of this memo details the user/network interface.  Section 3
   describes an example connection sequence.

2. User/Network Interface

   This section describes details of the user/network interface
   specification.  Only PPP over Ethernet (PPPoE) and its upper layers
   are mentioned; the other layers, such as Ethernet and lower layers,
   are out of scope.  IPv4-related parameter configuration is also out
   of scope.

2.1. Below the IP Layer

   The service uses PPP connection and Challenge Handshake
   Authentication Protocol (CHAP) authentication to identify each CPE.
   The CPE and PE handle both the PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol
   (IPCP) [RFC1332] and the Internet Protocol V6 Control Protocol
   (IPV6CP) [RFC2472] identically and simultaneously over a single PPP
   connection.  This means either the CPE or the PE can open/close any
   Network Control Protocol (NCP) session at any time without any side-
   effect for the other.  It is intended that users can choose among
   three services: IPv4 only, IPv6 only, and IPv4/IPv6 dual stack.  A
   CPE connected to an ADSL line discovers a PE with the PPPoE mechanism
   [RFC2516].

   Note that, because CPE and PE can negotiate only their interface
   identifiers with IPV6CP, PE and CPE can use only link-local-scope
   addresses before the prefix delegation mechanism described below is
   run.

2.2. IP Layer

   After IPV6CP negotiation, the CPE initiates a prefix delegation
   request.  The PE chooses a global-scope prefix for the CPE with
   information from an Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting
   (AAA) server or local prefix pools, and it delegates the prefix to
   the CPE.  Once the prefix is delegated, the prefix is subnetted and
   assigned to the local interfaces of the CPE.  The CPE begins sending

   router advertisements for the prefixes on each link.  Eventually,
   hosts can acquire global-scope prefixes through conventional IPv6
   stateless [RFC2462] or stateful auto-configuration mechanisms
   ([RFC3315], etc.) and begin to communicate using global-scope
   addresses.

2.3. Prefix Delegation

EID 1411 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 2.3

Original Text:

      [ ....mising text ... ]
      IA_PD option and IA_PD Prefix options for the chosen prefix(es)
      back to the PE.

Corrected Text:

       
Notes:
The 3rd paragraph of the indented, bulleted enumeration in
Section 2.3 contains only a fragment of a sentence.

That unbulleted fragment seems to be left over from earlier editing,
the bullet before it says it all here. Delete the fragment.
EID 819 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 2.3

Original Text:

      [ ....mising text ... ]
      IA_PD option and IA_PD Prefix options for the chosen prefix(es)
      back to the PE.

Corrected Text:

     
Notes:
The 3rd paragraph of the indented, bulleted enumeration in
Section 2.3 contains only a fragment of a sentence.

The second bulleted paragraph covers this, the unbulleted third para
seems to be unneccessary, probably a fragment from a former edit;
just delete it.
The PE delegates prefixes to CPE using Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315] with the prefix delegation options [RFC3633]. The sequence for prefix delegation is as follows: o The CPE requests prefix(es) from a PE by sending a DHCPv6 Solicit message that has a link-local source address negotiated by IPV6CP, mentioned in the previous section, and includes an IA_PD option. o An AAA server provides prefix(es) to the PE or the PE chooses prefix(es) from its local pool, and the PE returns an Advertise message that contains an IA_PD option and IA_PD Prefix options. The prefix-length in the IA_PD Prefix option is 48. IA_PD option and IA_PD Prefix options for the chosen prefix(es) back to the PE. o The PE confirms the prefix(es) in the Request message in a Reply message. If IPV6CP is terminated or restarted by any reason, CPE must initiate a Rebind/Reply message exchange as described in [RFC3633]. 2.4. Address Assignment The CPE assigns global-scope /64 prefixes, subnetted from the delegated prefix, to its downstream interfaces. When the delegated prefix has an infinite lifetime, the preferred and valid lifetimes of assigned /64 prefixes should be the default values in [RFC2461]. Because a link-local address is already assigned to the CPE's upstream interface, global-scope address assignment for that interface is optional. 2.5. Routing The CPE and PE use static routing between them, and no routing protocol traffic is necessary. The CPE configures its PPPoE logical interface or the link-local address of PE as the IPv6 default gateway, automatically after the prefix delegation exchange. When the CPE receives packets that are destined for the addresses in the delegated /48 prefix, the CPE must not forward the packets to a PE. The CPE should return an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message to the source address or silently discard the packet when the original packet is destined for an unassigned prefix in the delegated prefix.
EID 153 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 2.5

Original Text:

       The CPE should return ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message to
   a source address or silently discard the packets, when the original
   packet is destined for the unassigned prefix in the delegated prefix.

Corrected Text:

       The CPE should return an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable message
   to the source address or silently discard the packet when the original
   packet is destined for an unassigned prefix in the delegated prefix.
Notes:
(For example, the CPE should install a reject route or null interface as next hop for the delegated prefix.) 2.6. Obtaining Addresses of DNS Servers The service provides IPv6 recursive DNS servers in the ISP site. The PE notifies the global unicast addresses of these servers with the Domain Name Server option that is described in [RFC3646], in Advertise/Reply messages on the prefix delegation message exchange. Devices connected to user network may learn a recursive DNS server address with the mechanism described in [RFC3736]. The CPE may serve as a local DNS proxy server and include its address in the DNS server address list. This is easy to implement, because it is analogous to IPv4 SOHO router (192.168.0.1 is a DNS proxy server and a default router in most sites). 2.7. Miscellaneous Information The PE may notify other IPv6-enabled server addresses, such as Network Time Protocol servers [RFC4075], SIP servers [RFC3319], etc., in an Advertise/Reply message on the prefix delegation message exchange, if those are available. 2.8. Connectivity Monitoring ICMPv6 Echo Request will be sent to the user network for connectivity monitoring in the service. The CPE must return a single IPv6 Echo Reply packet when it receives an ICMPv6 Echo Request packet. The health-check packets are addressed to a subnet-router anycast address for the delegated prefix. The old document of APNIC IPv6 address assignment policy required that APNIC could ping the subnet anycast address to check address usage. To achieve this requirement, for example, once the prefix 2001:db8:ffff::/48 is delegated, the CPE must reply to the ICMPv6 Echo Request destined for 2001:db8:ffff:: any time that IPV6CP and DHCPv6-PD are up for the upstream direction. Because some implementations couldn't reply when 2001:db8:ffff::/64 was assigned to its downstream physical interface and the interface was down, such an implementation should assign 2001:db8:ffff::/64 for the loopback interface, which is always up, and 2001:db8:ffff:1::/64, 2001:db8:ffff:2::/64, etc., to physical interfaces. 3. An Example of Connection Sequence CPE PE | | |----------PADI-------->| \ |<---------PADO---------| | PPPoE |----------PADR-------->| | Discovery Stage |<---------PADS---------| / | | |---Configure-Request-->| \ |<--Configure-Request---| | PPP Link Establishment Phase |<----Configure-Ack-----| | (LCP) |-----Configure-Ack---->| / | | |<------Challenge-------| \ |-------Response------->| | PPP Authentication Phase (CHAP) |<-------Success--------| / | | |---Configure-Request-->| \ |<--Configure-Request---| | |<----Configure-Nak-----| | PPP Network Layer Protocol Phase |-----Configure-Ack---->| | (IPCP) |---Configure-Request-->| | |<----Configure-Ack-----| /
EID 3462 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 3

Original Text:

          |---Configure-Request-->| \
          |<--Configure-Request---|  |
          |<----Configure-Nak-----|  | PPP Network Layer Protocol Phase
          |<----Configure-Ack-----|  | (IPCP)
          |---Configure-Request-->|  |
          |<----Configure-Ack-----| /

Corrected Text:

          |---Configure-Request-->| \
          |<--Configure-Request---|  |
          |<----Configure-Nak-----|  | PPP Network Layer Protocol Phase
          |-----Configure-Ack---->|  | (IPCP)
          |---Configure-Request-->|  |
          |<----Configure-Ack-----| /
Notes:
Wrong IPCP process in Figure 2.
In the IPCP phase of original Figure 2, there're both Configure-Nak and Configure-Ack for the first Configure-Request and it's impossible. The first Configure-Ack in IPCP phase of original Figure 2 should be sent to PE from CPE.
| | |---Configure-Request-->| \ |<--Configure-Request---| | PPP Network Layer Protocol Phase |<----Configure-Ack-----| | (IPV6CP) |-----Configure-Ack---->| / | | |--------Solicit------->| \ |<------Advertise-------| | DHCPv6 |--------Request------->| | |<--------Reply---------| / | | Figure 2: Example of Connection Sequence Figure 2 is an example of a normal link-up sequence, from start of PPPoE to start of IPv6/IPv4 communications. IPv4 communication becomes available after IPCP negotiation. IPv6 communication with link-local scope addresses becomes possible after IPV6CP negotiation. IPv6 communication with global-scope addresses becomes possible after prefix delegation and conventional IPv6 address configuration mechanism. IPCP is independent of IPV6CP and prefix delegation. 4. Security Considerations In this architecture, the PE and CPE trust the point-to-point link between them; they trust that there is no man-in-the-middle and they trust PPPoE authentication. Because of this, DHCP authentication is not considered necessary and is not used. The service provides an always-on global-scope prefix for users. Each device connected to user network has global-scope addresses. Without any packet filters, devices might be accessible from outside the user network in that case. The CPE and each device involved in the service should have functionality to protect against unauthorized accesses, such as a stateful inspection packet filter. The relationship between CPE and devices connected to the user network for this problem should be considered in the future. 5. Acknowledgements Thanks are given for the input and review by Tatsuya Sato, Hideki Mouri, Koichiro Fujimoto, Hiroki Ishibashi, Ralph Droms, Ole Troan, Pekka Savola, and IPv6-ops-IAJapan members. 6. References 6.1. Normative References [RFC3177] IAB and IESG, "IAB/IESG Recommendations on IPv6 Address Allocations to Sites", RFC 3177, September 2001. [RFC1332] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992. [RFC2472] Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472, December 1998. [RFC2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999. [RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633, December 2003. RFC 3633, December 2003. [RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. [RFC3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646, December 2003. [RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004. [RFC4075] Kalusivalingam, V., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP) Configuration Option for DHCPv6", RFC 4075, May 2005. [RFC3319] Schulzrinne, H. and B. Volz, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv6) Options for Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Servers", RFC 3319, July 2003. 6.2. Informative References [RFC3769] Miyakawa, S. and R. Droms, "Requirements for IPv6 Prefix Delegation", RFC 3769, June 2004. Authors' Addresses Yasuhiro Shirasaki NTT Communications Corporation Tokyo Opera City Tower 21F 3-20-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 163-1421, Japan EMail: yasuhiro@nttv6.jp Shin Miyakawa, Ph. D NTT Communications Corporation Tokyo Opera City Tower 21F 3-20-2 Nishi-Shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku Tokyo 163-1421, Japan EMail: miyakawa@nttv6.jp Toshiyuki Yamasaki NTT Communications Corporation 1-1-6 Uchisaiwaicho, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-8019, Japan EMail: t.yamasaki@ntt.com Ayako Takenouchi NTT Cyber Solutions Laboratories, NTT Corporation 3-9-11 Midori-Cho, Musashino-Shi Tokyo 180-8585, Japan EMail: takenouchi.ayako@lab.ntt.co.jp Full Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, 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 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. Acknowledgement Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.
EID 821 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 99

Original Text:

Second paragraph of Section 2.6:

   Devices connected to user network may learn a recursive DNS server
   address with the mechanism described in [RFC3736].


And the first sentence in Section 2.8:

   ICMPv6 Echo Request will be sent to the user network for connectivity
   monitoring in the service.

Corrected Text:

Second paragraph of Section 2.6:

   Devices connected to the user network may learn a recursive DNS
   server address with the mechanism described in [RFC3736].

And the first sentence in Section 2.8:

   ICMPv6 Echo Requests will be sent to the user network for
   connectivity monitoring in the service.
Notes: