Homenet
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) D. Migault
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 9527 Ericsson
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track R. Weber
Expires: 4 May 2023
ISSN: 2070-1721 Akamai
T. Mrugalski
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
31 October 2022
ISC
January 2024
DHCPv6 Options for Home Network the Homenet Naming Authority
draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-24
Abstract
This document defines DHCPv6 options so that a Homenet Naming
Authority (HNA) can automatically proceed to set the appropriate configuration
and outsource the authoritative naming service for the home network.
In most cases, the outsourcing mechanism is transparent for the end
user.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum 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 six months this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 4 May 2023.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9527.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 2024 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)
(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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology
3. Procedure Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Options
4.1. Registered Homenet Domain Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Forward Distribution Manager Option . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.3. Reverse Distribution Manager Server Option . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Supported Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. DHCPv6 Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. DHCPv6 Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. DHCPv6 Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. DHCPv6 Relay Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.1. DHCPv6 Option Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6.2. Supported Transport parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.1.
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10.2.
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Scenarios and impact Impact on the End User . . . . . . . . 12
A.1. Base Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.2. Third Party Third-Party Registered Homenet Domain . . . . . . . . . . 12
A.3. Third Party Third-Party DNS Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.4. Multiple ISPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Acknowledgments
Contributors
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Terminology
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The reader should be familiar with
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation].
2. Introduction
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]
[RFC9526] specifies how an entity designated as the Homenet Naming
Authority (HNA) outsources a Public Homenet Zone to an a DNS Outsourcing
Infrastructure (DOI).
This document describes how a network can provision the HNA with a
specific DOI. This could be particularly useful for a DOI partly
managed by an ISP, ISP or to make home networks resilient to HNA
replacement. The ISP delegates an IP prefix to the home network as
well as and the associated
reverse zone. zone to the home network. The ISP is thus aware of the owner
of that IP prefix, and prefix and, as such such, becomes a natural candidate for
hosting the Homenet Reverse Zone - -- that is is, the Reverse Distribution
Manager (RDM) and potentially the Reverse Public Authoritative
Servers.
In addition, ISPs often identify the line of the home network with a
name. Such name is used for their internal network management
operations and is not a name the home network owner has registered
to. ISPs may leverage such infrastructure and provide the home
network with a specific domain name designated as per
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation] a Homenet Registered
Domain.
Homenet Domain [RFC9526]. Similarly to the reverse zone, ISPs are
aware of who owns that domain name and may become a natural candidate
for hosting the Homenet Zone - -- that is is, the Distribution Manager
(DM) and the Public Authoritative Servers.
This document describes DHCPv6 options that enable an ISP to provide
the necessary parameters to the HNA, HNA to proceed. More specifically,
the ISP provides the Registered Homenet Domain, Domain and the necessary
information on the DM and the RDM so the HNA can manage and upload
the Public Homenet Zone and the Reverse Public Homenet Zone as
described in
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. [RFC9526].
The use of DHCPv6 options may make the configuration completely
transparent to the end user and provides a similar level of trust as
the one used to provide the IP prefix - prefix, when provisioned via DHCP.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
The reader should be familiar with [RFC9526].
3. Procedure Overview
This section illustrates how a an HNA receives the necessary
information via DHCPv6 options to outsource its authoritative naming
service to the DOI. For the sake of simplicity, and similarly to
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation],
[RFC9526], this section assumes that the HNA and the home network
DHCPv6 client are colocated on the Customer Edge Premises Equipment (CPE)
router [RFC7368]. Note also Also, note that this is not
mandatory mandatory, and the
DHCPv6 client may instruct remotely instruct the HNA with a protocol that will
be standardized in the future. In addition, this section assumes
that the responsible entity for the DHCPv6 server is provisioned with
the DM and RDM information - information, which is associated with the requested
Registered Homenet Domain . Domain. This means a Registered Homenet Domain
can be associated with the DHCPv6 client.
This scenario is believed to be the most popular scenario. This
document does not ignore scenarios where the DHCPv6 server does not
have privileged relations with the DM or RDM. These cases are
discussed in Appendix A. Such scenarios do not necessarily require
configuration for the end user and can also be zero-config. zero configuration.
The scenario considered in this section is as follows:
1. The HNA is willing to outsource the Public Homenet Zone or
Homenet Reverse Zone. The DHCPv6 client is configured to include
in its Option Request Option (ORO) the Registered Homenet Domain
Option (OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN), the Forward Distribution
Manager Option (OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER) (OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER), and the Reverse
Distribution Manager Option (OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MANAGER) option
codes.
2. The DHCPv6 server responds to the DHCPv6 client with the
requested DHCPv6 options based on the identified homenet. The
DHCPv6 client passes the information to the HNA.
3. The HNA is authenticated (see Section "Securing the Control Channel"
(Section 6.6) of [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]) [RFC9526]) by the DM and the RDM. The HNA
builds the Homenet Zone (or the Homenet Reverse Zone) and proceed
proceeds as described in
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. [RFC9526]. The DHCPv6 options provide
the necessary non optional non-optional parameters described in Appendix B of [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation].
[RFC9526]. The HNA may complement the configurations with
additional parameters via means not yet defined. Appendix B of
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]
[RFC9526] describes such parameters that may take some specific non default
non-default value.
4. DHCPv6 Option Options
This section details the payload of the DHCPv6 options following the
guidelines of [RFC7227].
4.1. Registered Homenet Domain Option
The Registered Domain Option (OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN) indicates the
FQDN
fully qualified domain name (FQDN) associated with the home network.
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_REGISTERED_DOMAIN | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
/ Registered Homenet Domain /
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Registered Domain Option
*
option-code (16 bits): OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN, OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN; the option code for
the Registered Homenet Domain (TBD1).
* (145).
option-len (16 bits): length Length in octets of the Registered Homenet
Domain field as described in [RFC8415].
*
Registered Homenet Domain (variable): the The FQDN registered for the
homenet encoded as described in Section 10 of [RFC8415].
4.2. Forward Distribution Manager Option
The Forward Distributed Distribution Manager Option (OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER)
provides the HNA with the FQDN of the DM as well as the transport
protocols for the communication between the HNA and the DM. As
opposed to IP addresses, the FQDN requires a DNS resolution before
establishing the communication between the HNA and the DM. However,
the use of a an FQDN provides multiple advantages over IP addresses.
Firstly, it makes the DHCPv6 Option option easier to parse and smaller - smaller,
especially when IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are expected to be provided.
Then
Then, the FQDN can reasonably be seen as a more stable identifier
than IP addresses, addresses as well as a pointer to additional information that
may be useful, in the future, to establish the communication between
the HNA and the DM.
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_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Supported Transport | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
/ Distribution Manager FQDN /
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Forward Distribution Manager Option
*
option-code (16 bits): OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER, OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER; the option code
for the Forward Distribution Manager Option (TBD2).
* (146).
option-len (16 bits): length Length in octets of the enclosed data as
described in [RFC8415].
*
Supported Transport (16 bits): defines Defines the supported transport Supported Transport by
the DM (see Section 4.4). Each bit represents a supported
transport, and a DM MAY indicate the support of multiple modes.
The bit for DNS over mutually authenticated TLS (DomTLS) MUST be
set.
*
Distribution Manager FQDN (variable): the The FQDN of the DM encoded as
described in Section 10 of [RFC8415].
It is worth noticing noting that the DHCP Option DHCPv6 option specifies the Supported
Transport without specifying any explicit port. Unless the HNA and
the DM have agreed on using a specific port - -- for example example, by
configuration, or any out of band out-of-band mechanism -, -- the default port is
used and must be specified. The specification of such default port
may be defined in the specification of the designated Supported
Transport or in any other document. In the case of DNS over mutually
authenticated TLS (DomTLS), DomTLS, the
default port value is 853 as per DNS over TLS [RFC7858] and DNS Zone
Transfer over TLS [RFC9103].
The need to associate in the DHCP Option the port value to each Supported Transport in
the DHCPv6 option has been balanced with the difficulty of handling a
list of tuples ( transport, port ) as well as (transport, port) and the possibility to
use of using a
dedicated IP address for the DM in case the default port was is already
in use.
4.3. Reverse Distribution Manager Server Option
The Reverse Distribution Manager Option (OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MANAGER)
provides the HNA with the FQDN of the DM as well as the transport
protocols for the communication between the HNA and the DM.
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_REVERSE_DIST_MANAGER | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Supported Transport | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
/ Reverse Distribution Manager FQDN /
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Reverse Distribution Manager Option
*
option-code (16 bits): OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MANAGER, OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MANAGER; the option code
for the Reverse Distribution Manager Option (TBD3).
* (147).
option-len (16 bits): length Length in octets of the option-data field as
described in [RFC8415].
*
Supported Transport (16 bits): defines Defines the supported transport Supported Transport by
the RDM (see Section 4.4). Each bit represents a supported
transport, and a an RDM MAY indicate the support of multiple modes.
The bit for DNS over mutually authenticated TLS DomTLS [RFC7858] MUST be set.
*
Reverse Distribution Manager FQDN (variable): the The FQDN of the RDM
encoded as described in section Section 10 of [RFC8415].
For the port number associated to the Supported Transport, the same
considerations as described in Section 4.2 holds. apply.
4.4. Supported Transport
The Supported Transport field of the DHCPv6 option indicates the
supported transport
Supported Transport protocols. Each bit represents a specific
transport mechanism. A bit sets set to 1 indicates the associated
transport protocol is supported. The corresponding bits are assigned
as described in Figure 4 and Section 6.
Bit Position | Transport Protocol | Mnemonic | Reference
left to right| Description | |
-------------+--------------------+-----------+-----------
0 | DNS over mutually | DomTLS | This-RFC
| authenticated TLS | |
1-15 | unallocated | - | -
Figure 4: Supported Transport Table 2.
DNS over mutually authenticated TLS (DomTLS): indicates Indicates the support
of DNS over TLS [RFC7858], [RFC7858] and DNS Zone Transfer over TLS [RFC9103]
as described in [I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. [RFC9526].
As an example, the Supported Transport field expressing support for
DomTLS looks as follows and has a numeric value of 0x0001:
0 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| must be zero |1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5. DHCPv6 Behavior
5.1. DHCPv6 Server Behavior
Sections 17.2.2 and 18.2
Section 18.3 of [RFC8415] govern governs server operation regarding option
assignment. As a convenience to the reader, we mention here that the
server will send option foo only if configured with specific values
for foo and if the client requested it. In particular, when configured
configured, the DHCPv6 server sends the Registered Homenet Domain
Option, Distribution Manager Option, the and Reverse Distribution Manager
Option when requested by the DHCPv6 client by including necessary
option codes in its ORO.
5.2. DHCPv6 Client Behavior
The DHCPv6 client includes the Registered Homenet Domain Option,
Distribution Manager Option, the and Reverse Distribution Manager Option
in an ORO as specified in Sections 18.2.1, 18.2.2, 18.2.4, 18.2.5,
18.2.6, 18.2 and 21.7 of [RFC8415].
Upon receiving a DHCPv6 option option, as described in this document document, in the
Reply message, the HNA SHOULD proceed as described in
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]. [RFC9526].
5.3. DHCPv6 Relay Agent Behavior
There are no additional requirements for the DHCPv6 Relay agents.
6. IANA Considerations
6.1. DHCPv6 Option Codes
IANA is requested to assign has assigned the following new DHCPv6 Option Codes in the
"Option Codes" registry maintained in: https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-
parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml#dhcpv6-parameters-2.
Value at
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters>.
+=====+=============================+======+===========+===========+
|Value| Description Client ORO |Client| Singleton Option | Reference
TBD1 |
| | |ORO | Option | |
+=====+=============================+======+===========+===========+
|145 | OPTION_REGISTERED_DOMAIN Yes |Yes | No [This-RFC] | RFC 9527, |
| | | | | Section |
| | | | | 4.1
TBD2 |
+-----+-----------------------------+------+-----------+-----------+
|146 | OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER |Yes | Yes Yes [This-RFC] | RFC 9527, |
| | | | | Section |
| | | | | 4.2
TBD3 |
+-----+-----------------------------+------+-----------+-----------+
|147 | OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MANAGER |Yes | Yes Yes [This-RFC] | RFC 9527, |
| | | | | Section |
| | | | | 4.3 |
+-----+-----------------------------+------+-----------+-----------+
Table 1: Option Codes Registry
6.2. Supported Transport parameter
IANA is requested to maintain has created and maintains a new registry of called "Supported
Transport" under the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)" registry at <https://www.iana.org/assignments/
dhcpv6-parameters>. This registry contains Supported Transport
parameter
parameters in the Distributed Manager Option
(OPTION_FORWARD_DIST_MANAGER) or the Reverse Distribution Manager
Option (OPTION_REVERSE_DIST_MANAGER). The different parameters are
defined in Figure 4 in Section 4.4.
The Name of the registry is: Supported Transport parameter
The registry description is: Table 2 (Section 6.2).
The Supported Transport field of the DHCPv6 option is a two octet two-octet
field that indicates the supported
transport Supported Transport protocols. Each bit
represents a specific transport mechanism.
The parent grouping is Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) at https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/
dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml#dhcpv6-parameters-2.
New entry entries MUST specify the bit position, the Transport Protocol
Description transport protocol
description, a Mnemonic mnemonic, and a Reference as defined in Figure 5.
The initial registry is reference as specified shown in Figure 5. Table 2.
Changes of to the format or policies of the registry is left to are managed by the
IETF via the IESG.
Future code points are assigned under RFC Required as per [RFC8126].
The initial registry is as specified in Table 2 below.
+======================+====================+==========+===========+
| Bit Position (least | Transport Protocol | Mnemonic | Reference
left |
| to right| most significant) | Description | |
-------------+--------------------+-----------+----------- |
+======================+====================+==========+===========+
| 0 | DNS over mutually | DomTLS | This-RFC RFC 9527 |
| | authenticated TLS | | |
+----------------------+--------------------+----------+-----------+
| 1-15 | unallocated Unassigned | - | -
Figure 5: |
+----------------------+--------------------+----------+-----------+
Table 2: Supported Transport Registry
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations in [RFC8415] are to be considered. The
trust associated with the information carried by the DHCPv6 Options options
described in this document is similar to the one associated with the
IP prefix - prefix, when configured via DHCPv6.
In some cases, the ISP MAY identify the HNA by its wire line, that is
to say physically line (i.e.,
physically), which may not require to rely relying on TLS to authenticate the
HNA. As the use of TLS is mandatory to be used, mandatory, it is expected that the HNA is
will be provisioned with a certificate. In some cases, the HNA may
use a self signed self-signed certificate.
8. Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Marcin Siodelski, Bernie Volz and Ted Lemon
for their comments on the design of the DHCPv6 options. We would
also like to thank Mark Andrews, Andrew Sullivan and Lorenzo Colliti
for their remarks on the architecture design. The designed solution
has been largely been inspired by Mark Andrews's document
[I-D.andrews-dnsop-pd-reverse] as well as discussions with Mark. We
also thank Ray Hunter and Michael Richardson for its reviews, its
comments and for suggesting an appropriated terminology.
9. Contributors
The co-authors would like to thank Chris Griffiths and Wouter
Cloetens that provided a significant contribution in the early
versions of the document.
10. References
10.1.
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation]
Migault, D., Weber, R., Richardson, M., and R. Hunter,
"Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential
Networks", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
homenet-front-end-naming-delegation-22, 31 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/v1/doc/document/draft-
ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation/>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7858] Hu, Z., Zhu, L., Heidemann, J., Mankin, A., Wessels, D.,
and P. Hoffman, "Specification for DNS over Transport
Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 7858, DOI 10.17487/RFC7858, May
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7858>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8415] 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/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
[RFC9103] Toorop, W., Dickinson, S., Sahib, S., Aras, P., and A.
Mankin, "DNS Zone Transfer over TLS", RFC 9103,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9103, August 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9103>.
10.2.
[RFC9526] Migault, D., Weber, R., Richardson, M., and R. Hunter,
"Simple Provisioning of Public Names for Residential
Networks", RFC 9526, DOI 10.17487/RFC9526, January 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9526>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.andrews-dnsop-pd-reverse]
[CNAME-PLUS-DNAME]
Surý, O., "CNAME+DNAME Name Redirection", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-sury-dnsop-cname-plus-
dname-01, 15 July 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sury-dnsop-
cname-plus-dname-01>.
[PD-REVERSE]
Andrews, M., "Automated Delegation of IP6.ARPA reverse
zones with Prefix Delegation", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-andrews-dnsop-pd-reverse-02, 4 5 November 2013,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-andrews-dnsop-pd-
reverse-02.txt>.
[I-D.sury-dnsext-cname-dname]
Sury, O., "CNAME+DNAME Name Redirection", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-sury-dnsext-cname-dname-
00, 15 April 2010, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
sury-dnsext-cname-dname-00.txt>.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-andrews-
dnsop-pd-reverse-02>.
[RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities",
STD 13, RFC 1034, DOI 10.17487/RFC1034, November 1987,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1034>.
[RFC2181] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Clarifications to the DNS
Specification", RFC 2181, DOI 10.17487/RFC2181, July 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2181>.
[RFC6672] Rose, S. and W. Wijngaards, "DNAME Redirection in the
DNS", RFC 6672, DOI 10.17487/RFC6672, June 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6672>.
[RFC7227] Hankins, D., Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Jiang, S., and
S. Krishnan, "Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options",
BCP 187, RFC 7227, DOI 10.17487/RFC7227, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7227>.
[RFC7368] Chown, T., Ed., Arkko, J., Brandt, A., Troan, O., and J.
Weil, "IPv6 Home Networking Architecture Principles",
RFC 7368, DOI 10.17487/RFC7368, October 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7368>.
Appendix A. Scenarios and impact Impact on the End User
This appendix details various scenarios and discuss discusses their impact on
the end user. This appendix is not normative and limits the
description of a limited scope of scenarios that are assumed to be
representative. Many other scenarios may be derived from these.
A.1. Base Scenario
The base scenario is the one scenario, as described in Section 3 3, is one in which an ISP
manages the DHCPv6 server, the DM DM, and RDM.
The end user subscribes to the ISP (foo), and at subscription time time,
it registers for foo.example as its Registered Homenet Domain
foo.example. Domain.
In this scenario, the DHCPv6 server, DM DM, and RDM are managed by the
ISP
ISP, so the DHCPv6 server and as such can provide authentication
credentials of the HNA to enable secure authenticated transaction
with the DM and the Reverse DM.
The main advantage of this scenario is that the naming architecture
is configured automatically and transparently for the end user. The
drawbacks are that the end user uses a Registered Homenet Domain
managed by the ISP and that it relies on the ISP naming
infrastructure.
A.2. Third Party Third-Party Registered Homenet Domain
This appendix considers the case when where the end user wants its home
network to use example.com but does not want it to be managed by her the
ISP (foo) as a Registered Homenet Domain. This appendix still considers Domain, and the ISP manages the
home network and still provides foo.example as a Registered Homenet
Domain.
When the end user buys the domain name example.com, it may request to
redirect the name example.com to foo.example using static redirection with
CNAME [RFC1034] [RFC2181], [RFC1034], DNAME [RFC6672] [RFC6672], or CNAME+DNAME
[I-D.sury-dnsext-cname-dname].
[CNAME-PLUS-DNAME]. The only information the end user needs to know
is the domain name assigned by the ISP. Once the redirection has
been configured, the HNA may be changed, and the zone can be updated
as described in Appendix A.1 without any additional configuration
from the end user.
The main advantage of this scenario is that the end user benefits
from the Zero Configuration zero configuration of the Base Scenario base scenario in Appendix A.1.
Then, the end user is able to register for its home network an unlimited number of domain
names provided by an unlimited number of different
third party providers. third-party
providers for its home network. The drawback of this scenario may be
that the end user still needs to rely on the ISP naming
infrastructure. Note that the
only case this may be inconvenient is when in the case where
the DNS servers provided by the ISPs results result in high latency.
A.3. Third Party Third-Party DNS Infrastructure
This scenario considers that involves the end user uses using example.com as a Registered
Homenet Domain, Domain and does not want to rely relying on the authoritative servers provided
by the ISP.
In this appendix appendix, we limit the outsourcing to of the DM and Public
Authoritative Server(s) to a third party. The Reverse Public
Authoritative Server(s) and the RDM remain managed by the ISP as the
IP prefix is managed by the ISP.
Outsourcing to a third party third-party DM can be performed in the following
ways:
1. Updating the DHCPv6 server Information. information. One can imagine a GUI
interface that enables the end user to modify its profile
parameters. Again, this configuration update is done once-for-
ever. only needs to be
performed one time.
2. Upload Uploading the configuration of the DM to the HNA. In some cases,
the provider of the CPE router hosting the HNA may be the
registrar
registrar, and the registrar may provide the CPE router already
configured. In other cases, the CPE router may request the end
user to log into the registrar to validate the ownership of the
Registered Homenet Domain and agree on the necessary credentials
to secure the communication between the HNA and the DM. As
described in
[I-D.ietf-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation], [RFC9526], such settings could be performed in an
almost automatic way as to limit the necessary interactions with
the end user.
A.4. Multiple ISPs
This scenario considers a involves an HNA connected to multiple ISPs.
Suppose the HNA has been configured each of its interfaces independently
with each ISPS ISP as described in Appendix A.1. Each ISP provides a
different Registered Homenet Domain.
The protocol and DHCPv6 options described in this document are fully
compatible with a an HNA connected to multiple ISPs with multiple
Registered Homenet Domains. However, the HNA should be able to
handle different Registered Homenet Domains. This is an
implementation issue issue, which is outside the scope of the current this document.
If a an HNA is not able to handle multiple Registered Homenet Domains,
the HNA may remain connected to multiple ISP ISPs with a single
Registered Homenet Domain. In this case, one entity is chosen to
host the Registered Homenet Domain. This entity may be one of the an ISP or a
third party. Note that having multiple ISPs can be motivated motivation for
bandwidth aggregation, aggregation or connectivity fail-over. failover. In the case of
connectivity fail-over, failover, the fail-over failover concerns the access network network, and
a failure of the access network may not impact the core network where
the DM and Public Authoritative Primaries are hosted. In that sense,
choosing one of the ISP ISPs even in a scenario of multiple ISPs may make
sense. However, for the sake of simplicity, this scenario assumes
that a third party has been chosen to host the Registered Homenet
Domain. Configuration is performed as described in Appendix Appendices A.2
and
Appendix A.3.
With the configuration described in Appendix A.2, the HNA is expected
to be able to handle multiple Homenet Registered Domain, Homenet Domains as the third
party
third-party redirect to one of the ISPs ISP's servers. With the
configuration described in Appendix A.3, DNS zone zones are hosted and
maintained by the third party. A single DNS(SEC) Homenet Zone is
built and maintained by the HNA. This latter configuration is likely
to match most HNA implementations.
The protocol and DHCPv6 options described in this document are fully
compatible with a an HNA connected to multiple ISPs. To Whether to
configure the HNA or
not not, and how to configure the HNA HNA, depends on
the HNA facilities.
Appendix Appendices A.1 and Appendix A.2 require the HNA to handle
multiple Registered Homenet Domain, Domains, whereas Appendix A.3 does not
have such a requirement.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Marcin Siodelski, Bernie Volz, and Ted Lemon
for their comments on the design of the DHCPv6 options. We would
also like to thank Mark Andrews, Andrew Sullivan, and Lorenzo Colliti
for their remarks on the architecture design. The designed solution
has been largely inspired by Mark Andrews's document [PD-REVERSE] as
well as discussions with Mark. We also thank Ray Hunter and Michael
Richardson for their reviews and comments and for suggesting
appropriate terminology.
Contributors
The coauthors would like to thank Chris Griffiths and Wouter Cloetens
for providing significant contributions to the early draft versions
of this document.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
8275 Trans Canada Route
Saint Laurent, Laurent QC 4S 0B6
Canada
Email: daniel.migault@ericsson.com
Ralf Weber
Akamai
Email: ralf.weber@akamai.com
Tomek Mrugalski
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
950 Charter Street
Redwood City, 94063
PO Box 360
Newmarket, NH 03857
United States of America
Email: tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com