rfc9762v2.txt | rfc9762.txt | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
skipping to change at line 275 ¶ | skipping to change at line 275 ¶ | |||
* When the length of the list increases to one, the client SHOULD | * When the length of the list increases to one, the client SHOULD | |||
start requesting prefixes via DHCPv6 prefix delegation unless it | start requesting prefixes via DHCPv6 prefix delegation unless it | |||
is already doing so. | is already doing so. | |||
* When the length of the list decreases to zero, the client SHOULD | * When the length of the list decreases to zero, the client SHOULD | |||
stop requesting or renewing prefixes via DHCPv6 prefix delegation | stop requesting or renewing prefixes via DHCPv6 prefix delegation | |||
if it has no other reason to do so. The lifetimes of any prefixes | if it has no other reason to do so. The lifetimes of any prefixes | |||
already obtained via DHCPv6 are unaffected. | already obtained via DHCPv6 are unaffected. | |||
* If the client has already received delegated prefix(es) from one | * If the client has already received delegated prefix(es) from one | |||
or more servers, then any time a prefix is added to or removed | or more servers, then any time one or more prefix(es) are added to | |||
from the list, the client MUST consider this to be a change in | or removed from the list, the client MUST consider this to be a | |||
configuration information as described in Section 18.2.12 of | change in configuration information as described in | |||
[RFC8415]. In that case, the client MUST perform a REBIND, unless | Section 18.2.12 of [RFC8415]. In that case, the client MUST | |||
the list is now empty. This is in addition to performing a REBIND | perform a REBIND, unless the list is now empty. This is in | |||
in the other cases required by that section. Issuing a REBIND | addition to performing a REBIND in the other cases required by | |||
allows the client to obtain new prefixes if necessary, for | that section. Issuing a REBIND allows the client to obtain new | |||
example, when the network is being renumbered. It also refreshes | prefixes if necessary, for example, when the network is being | |||
the state related to the delegated prefix(es). | renumbered. It also refreshes the state related to the delegated | |||
prefix(es). | ||||
When a client requests a prefix via DHCPv6-PD, it MUST use the prefix | When a client requests a prefix via DHCPv6-PD, it MUST use the prefix | |||
length hint (Section 18.2.4 of [RFC8415]) to request a prefix that is | length hint (Section 18.2.4 of [RFC8415]) to request a prefix that is | |||
short enough to form addresses via SLAAC. | short enough to form addresses via SLAAC. | |||
In order to achieve the scalability benefits of using DHCPv6-PD, the | In order to achieve the scalability benefits of using DHCPv6-PD, the | |||
client SHOULD prefer to form addresses from the delegated prefix | client SHOULD prefer to form addresses from the delegated prefix | |||
instead of using individual addresses in the on-link prefix(es). | instead of using individual addresses in the on-link prefix(es). | |||
Therefore, when the client requests a prefix using DHCPv6-PD, the | Therefore, when the client requests a prefix using DHCPv6-PD, the | |||
client SHOULD NOT use SLAAC to obtain IPv6 addresses from PIOs with | client SHOULD NOT use SLAAC to obtain IPv6 addresses from PIOs with | |||
skipping to change at line 357 ¶ | skipping to change at line 358 ¶ | |||
carry any kind of signal to the opposite and MUST NOT be processed to | carry any kind of signal to the opposite and MUST NOT be processed to | |||
mean that DHCPv6-PD is absent. In particular, nodes that run | mean that DHCPv6-PD is absent. In particular, nodes that run | |||
DHCPv6-PD due to explicit configuration or by default (e.g., to | DHCPv6-PD due to explicit configuration or by default (e.g., to | |||
extend the network) MUST NOT disable DHCPv6-PD on the absence of PIOs | extend the network) MUST NOT disable DHCPv6-PD on the absence of PIOs | |||
with the P bit set. A very common example of this are CE routers as | with the P bit set. A very common example of this are CE routers as | |||
described by [RFC7084]. | described by [RFC7084]. | |||
7.4. On-Link Communication | 7.4. On-Link Communication | |||
When the network delegates unique prefixes to clients, each client | When the network delegates unique prefixes to clients, each client | |||
will consider other client's destination addresses to be off-link, | will consider other clients' destination addresses to be off-link, | |||
because those addresses are from the delegated prefixes and are not | because those addresses are from the delegated prefixes and are not | |||
within any on-link prefix. When a client sends traffic to another | within any on-link prefix. When a client sends traffic to another | |||
client, packets will initially be sent to the default router. The | client, packets will initially be sent to the default router. The | |||
router may respond with an ICMPv6 redirect message (Section 4.5 of | router may respond with an ICMPv6 redirect message (Section 4.5 of | |||
[RFC4861]). If the client receives and accepts the redirect, then | [RFC4861]). If the client receives and accepts the redirect, then | |||
traffic can flow directly from device to device. Therefore, hosts | traffic can flow directly from device to device. Therefore, hosts | |||
supporting the P flag SHOULD process redirects unless configured | supporting the P flag SHOULD process redirects unless configured | |||
otherwise. Hosts that do not process ICMPv6 redirects, and routers | otherwise. Hosts that do not process ICMPv6 redirects, and routers | |||
that do not act on ICMPv6 redirects, may experience higher latency | that do not act on ICMPv6 redirects, may experience higher latency | |||
while communicating to prefixes delegated to other clients on the | while communicating to prefixes delegated to other clients on the | |||
skipping to change at line 440 ¶ | skipping to change at line 441 ¶ | |||
| "equal" means the two prefix lengths are the same and the | | "equal" means the two prefix lengths are the same and the | |||
| first prefix-length bits of the prefixes are identical), and | | first prefix-length bits of the prefixes are identical), and | |||
| if the Valid Lifetime is not 0, form an address (and add it to | | if the Valid Lifetime is not 0, form an address (and add it to | |||
| the list) by combining the advertised prefix with an interface | | the list) by combining the advertised prefix with an interface | |||
| identifier of the link as follows: | | identifier of the link as follows: | |||
NEW TEXT: | NEW TEXT: | |||
| For each Prefix Information Option in the Router Advertisement: | | For each Prefix Information Option in the Router Advertisement: | |||
| | | | |||
| a) If the P flag is set and the node implements RFC 9762, it | | a) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the | |||
| Prefix Information Option. | ||||
| | ||||
| b) If the P flag is set and the node implements RFC 9762, it | ||||
| SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset and use | | SHOULD treat the Autonomous flag as if it was unset and use | |||
| prefix delegation to obtain addresses as described in RFC | | prefix delegation to obtain addresses as described in RFC | |||
| 9762. | | 9762. | |||
| | | | |||
| b) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix | | c) If the Autonomous flag is not set, silently ignore the Prefix | |||
| Information Option. | | Information Option. | |||
| | | | |||
| c) If the prefix is the link-local prefix, silently ignore the | ||||
| Prefix Information Option. | ||||
| | ||||
| d) If the preferred lifetime is greater than the valid lifetime, | | d) If the preferred lifetime is greater than the valid lifetime, | |||
| silently ignore the Prefix Information Option. A node MAY | | silently ignore the Prefix Information Option. A node MAY | |||
| wish to log a system management error in this case. | | wish to log a system management error in this case. | |||
| | | | |||
| e) If the prefix advertised is not equal to the prefix of an | | e) If the prefix advertised is not equal to the prefix of an | |||
| address configured by stateless autoconfiguration already in | | address configured by stateless autoconfiguration already in | |||
| the list of addresses associated with the interface (where | | the list of addresses associated with the interface (where | |||
| "equal" means the two prefix lengths are the same and the | | "equal" means the two prefix lengths are the same and the | |||
| first prefix-length bits of the prefixes are identical) and if | | first prefix-length bits of the prefixes are identical) and if | |||
| the Valid Lifetime is not 0, form an address (and add it to | | the Valid Lifetime is not 0, form an address (and add it to | |||
skipping to change at line 504 ¶ | skipping to change at line 505 ¶ | |||
11. Privacy Considerations | 11. Privacy Considerations | |||
The privacy implications of implementing the P flag and using | The privacy implications of implementing the P flag and using | |||
DHCPv6-PD to assign prefixes to hosts are similar to the privacy | DHCPv6-PD to assign prefixes to hosts are similar to the privacy | |||
implications of using DHCPv6 for assigning individual addresses. If | implications of using DHCPv6 for assigning individual addresses. If | |||
the DHCPv6 infrastructure assigns the same prefix to the same client, | the DHCPv6 infrastructure assigns the same prefix to the same client, | |||
then an observer might be able to identify clients based on the | then an observer might be able to identify clients based on the | |||
highest 64 bits of the client's address. Those implications and | highest 64 bits of the client's address. Those implications and | |||
recommended countermeasures are discussed in Section 13 of [RFC9663]. | recommended countermeasures are discussed in Section 13 of [RFC9663]. | |||
Implementing the P flag support on a host and receiving side enables | Implementing the P flag support on a host and receiving will enable | |||
DHCPv6 on that host. Sending DHCPv6 packets may reveal some minor | DHCPv6 on that host if the host receives an RA containing a PIO with | |||
the P bit set. Sending DHCPv6 packets may reveal some minor | ||||
additional information about the host, most prominently the hostname. | additional information about the host, most prominently the hostname. | |||
This is not a new concern and would apply for any network that uses | This is not a new concern and would apply for any network that uses | |||
DHCPv6 and sets the M flag in RAs. | DHCPv6 and sets the M flag in RAs. | |||
No privacy considerations result from supporting the P flag on the | No privacy considerations result from supporting the P flag on the | |||
sender side. | sender side. | |||
12. IANA Considerations | 12. IANA Considerations | |||
IANA has made the following allocation in the "IPv6 Neighbor | IANA has made the following allocation in the "IPv6 Neighbor | |||
skipping to change at line 618 ¶ | skipping to change at line 620 ¶ | |||
DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) to Allocate Unique | DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) to Allocate Unique | |||
IPv6 Prefixes per Client in Large Broadcast Networks", | IPv6 Prefixes per Client in Large Broadcast Networks", | |||
RFC 9663, DOI 10.17487/RFC9663, October 2024, | RFC 9663, DOI 10.17487/RFC9663, October 2024, | |||
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9663>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9663>. | |||
Acknowledgements | Acknowledgements | |||
Thanks to Nick Buraglio, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, David Farmer, | Thanks to Nick Buraglio, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, David Farmer, | |||
Fernando Gont, Susan Hares, Mahesh Jethanandani, Suresh Krishnan, Ted | Fernando Gont, Susan Hares, Mahesh Jethanandani, Suresh Krishnan, Ted | |||
Lemon, Andrew McGregor, Tomek Mrugalski, Erik Nordmark, Michael | Lemon, Andrew McGregor, Tomek Mrugalski, Erik Nordmark, Michael | |||
Richardson, John Scudder, Ole Trøan, Dirk Von Hugo, Éric Vyncke and | Richardson, Patrick Rohr, John Scudder, Ole Trøan, Dirk Von Hugo, | |||
Timothy Winters for the discussions, reviews, input, and | Éric Vyncke and Timothy Winters for the discussions, reviews, input, | |||
contributions. | and contributions. | |||
Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
Lorenzo Colitti | Lorenzo Colitti | |||
Shibuya 3-21-3, | Shibuya 3-21-3, | |||
Japan | Japan | |||
Email: lorenzo@google.com | Email: lorenzo@google.com | |||
Jen Linkova | Jen Linkova | |||
End of changes. 7 change blocks. | ||||
20 lines changed or deleted | 22 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. |