Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6
draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6
Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC) G.R. Ren
Internet-Draft L.H. He
Intended status: Informational Y.L. Liu
Expires: 23 May 2022 Tsinghua University
19 November 2021
DHCPv6 Extension Practices and Considerations
draft-ietf-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6-08
Abstract
IP addresses assume an increasing number of attributes as
communication identifiers to meet different requirements. Privacy
protection, accountability, security, and manageability of networks
can be supported by extending the DHCPv6 protocol as required. This
document provides current extension practices and typical DHCPv6
server software in terms of extensions, defines a general model of
DHCPv6, discusses some extension points, and presents extension
cases.
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 of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 May 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Current Extension Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Standardized and Non-standardized DHCPv6 Extension
Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Current DHCPv6 Server Software Cases . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Extension Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. DHCPv6 General Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2. Extension Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.1. Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.2. Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3. Message Processing Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.4. Address Generation Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Extension Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Extension Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Software Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Option Definition and Server Modification . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Message Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Introduction
IP addresses play an essential role in communication over the
Internet. Their generation and assignment are also closely linked to
the privacy protection, accountability, security, and manageability
of the network [I-D.gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations]. The
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC8415] is an
important network protocol that can be used to dynamically provide
IPv6 addresses and other network configuration parameters to IPv6
nodes. DHCPv6 can be continuously extended and improved through new
options, protocols, and message processing mechanisms.
IP addresses assume an increasing number of properties as
communication identifiers to meet different requirements. For
example, APNA [APNA] and PAVI [PAVI] use addresses to enhance source
responsibility and privacy protection. These requirements often need
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
to be reflected by IP address assignment protocols such as DHCPv6.
Therefore, extensions to DHCPv6 are made to meet a wide variety of
requirements, which is referred to as multi-requirement extensions to
DHCPv6. However, it is not easy to extend DHCPv6 to meet a variety
of requirements. Although DHCPv6 offers increasingly comprehensive
functionality and DHCPv6 server software provides extension
interfaces that allow administrators to change and customize the way
they process and respond to DHCPv6 messages, there is still a lack of
comprehensive understanding of where and how to extend in DHCPv6
effectively. Therefore, a detailed analysis is needed to clarify the
issues and design principles and extract and unify design
specifications to help better address the multi-demand scaling
problem.
In summary, with the large-scale deployment and application of IPv6,
new scenarios such as Data Center Network, Internet of Things,
Industrial Internet, and Integrated satellite-terrestrial networks
put forward new requirements for IP address allocation, e.g., the
scale of address allocation, the efficiency of address update and
synchronization, the address generation algorithms (such as
association with location, identifier, and other information), and
the scope of dynamic address configuration service relay and
collaboration. At the same time, it also puts forward new
requirements in network security, accountability, manageability, and
privacy protection. These are what we call "multiple requirements".
Multi-requirement extensions for DHCPv6 is to meet new scenarios and
new requirements through the expansion of new messages, options,
message processing functions, or address generation mechanisms for
DHCPv6. Based on careful design principles, interfaces can be
defined to support more customized multi-requirement extensions
without sacrificing the stability of DHCPv6.
Some people would suggest that administrators modify the open-source
DHCPv6 server to solve their problems. However, it takes
considerable time to understand the code of an open-source DHCPv6
server, not to mention the time-consuming task of debugging errors,
failures, or system crashes caused by modifying complex modules.
Another problem is that as open-source software evolves, the source
code of the server software may change (new features or bug fixes).
Once the latest version of the open-source server software comes out
[kea_dhcp_hook_developers_guide], users may need to rewrite their
code. Therefore, the multi-requirement extensions to DHCPv6 to
address the specific issues of administrators are essential and
significant.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
This document provides a survey of current extension practices and
typical DHCPv6 server softwares on extensions and gives DHCPv6
extension considerations by defining a DHCPv6 general model,
discussing the extension problems, and presenting extension cases.
2. Terminology
Familiarity with DHCPv6 and its terminology, as defined in [RFC8415],
is assumed.
Multi-requirement extensions: The multi-requirement extensions for
DHCPv6 is to meet new scenarios and requirements by extending
DHCPv6 with new messages, options, message processing features, or
address generation mechanisms.
3. Current Extension Practices
3.1. Standardized and Non-standardized DHCPv6 Extension Cases
Many documents attempt to extend DHCPv6. They can be classified into
three categories.
Extended options Most extensions for DHCPv6 are implemented in
this way. New-defined options carry specific
parameters in DHCPv6 messages, which helps DHCPv6
clients or servers know the detailed situation
with each other.
Extended messages Some documents define new protocols that aim to
achieve specific goals, e.g., active leasequery
[RFC7653], General Address Generation and
Management System [GAGMS].
Extended entities Some documents introduce third-party entities
into the communications of DHCPv6 to achieve
specific goals and provide better services, e.g.,
authentication [RFC7037].
3.2. Current DHCPv6 Server Software Cases
A lot of commercial and open source DHCPv6 servers exist, including
Cisco Prime Network Registrar (CPNR) DHCP [CPNR], DHCP Broadband
[DHCP_Broadband], FreeRADIUS DHCP [FreeRADIUS_DHCP], ISC DHCP
[ISC_DHCP], Kea DHCP [Kea_DHCP], Microsoft DHCP [Microsoft_DHCP],
Nominum DHCP [Nominum_DHCP], VitalQIP [VitalQIP], and WIDE DHCPv6
[WIDE_DHCPv6]. Commercial and open-source DHCPv6 software often
considers the extensions of DHCPv6 servers because they cannot always
meet the requirements that the administrators want. For example,
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
CPNR DHCP server provides extension APIs and allows administrators to
write extensions and functions to alter and customize how it handles
and responds to DHCP requests. A network operator usually decides
what packet process to modify, how to modify, and which extension
point to attach the extension. Then the network operator writes the
extension and adds the well-written extension to the extension point
of the DHCP server. Finally, the network operator reloads the DHCP
server and debugs whether the server runs as it expects. Similarly,
Kea DHCP provides hook mechanisms, a well-designed interface for
third-party code, to solve the problem that the DHCP server does not
quite do what a network operator require.
4. Extension Discussion
This section elaborates multi-requirement extensions for DHCPv6.
Section 4.1 describes the general model of DHCPv6, while Section 4.2
analyzes the extension points and requirements.
4.1. DHCPv6 General Model
Figure 1 summarizes the DHCPv6 general model and its possible
extensions: messages, options, message processing functions, and
address generation mechanisms.
+-----------------+ +----------------+
| DHCPv6 client | DHCPv6 messages | DHCPv6 relay |
| +-------------+ | with options | +------------+ | External inputs
| | Message | |<---------------->| | Message | |<----------------
| | processing | | | | relaying | | e.g., RADIUS
| | functions | | | | functions | | option [RFC7037]
| +-------------+ | | +------------+ |
+-----------------+ +----------------+
^
DHCPv6 messages |
with options |
|
V
+-----------------+ +----------------------------+
| | Extended | DHCPv6 server |
| | messages | +-----------+ +----------+ |
|External entities|<------------->| | Address | | Message | |
| | e.g., Active | | generation| |processing| |
| | leasequery | | mechanisms| |functions | |
| | [RFC7653] | +-----------+ +----------+ |
+-----------------+ +----------------------------+
Figure 1: DHCPv6 general model and its possible extensions.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
4.2. Extension Points
4.2.1. Messages
On the one hand, new messages can be designed and added to the DHCPv6
protocol to enrich its functionalities. For example, [RFC5007]
defines new leasequery messages to allow a requestor to retrieve
information on the bindings for a client from one or more servers.
[RFC5460] expands on the Leasequery protocol by defines new messages
and allowing for bulk transfer of DHCPv6 binding data via TCP.
[RFC7653] defines active leasequery messages to keep the requestor up
to date with DHCPv6 bindings. [RFC8156] defines failover messages to
provide a mechanism for running two servers with the capability for
either server to take over clients' leases in case of server failure
or network partition.
On the other hand, people are concerned about the security and
privacy issues of the DHCPv6 protocol. [RFC7824] describes the
privacy issues associated with the use of DHCPv6, respectively.
DHCPv6 does not provide privacy protection on messages and options.
Other nodes can see the options transmitted in DHCPv6 messages
between DHCPv6 clients and servers. Extended messages can be
designed to secure exchanges between DHCPv6 entities.
4.2.2. Options
DHCPv6 allows defining options to transmit parameters between DHCPv6
entities for common requirements, e.g., DNS configurations [RFC3646],
NIS configurations [RFC3898], SNTP configurations [RFC4075], relay
agent subscriber-id [RFC4580], relay agent remote-id [RFC4649], FQDN
configurations [RFC4704], relay agent echo request [RFC4994], network
boot [RFC5970], Relay-Supplied Options [RFC6422], virtual subnet
selection [RFC6607], client link-layer address [RFC6939], and
softwire source binding prefix hint [RFC8539]. Also, these
parameters may come from external entities. For example, [RFC7037]
defines RADIUS option to exchange authorization and identification
information between the DHCPv6 relay agent and DHCPv6 server.
In other cases, network operators may require DHCPv6 messages to
transmit some self-defined options between clients and servers.
Currently, the vendor-specific information option allows clients and
servers to exchange vendor-specific information. Therefore,
administrative domains can define and use the sub-options of the
vendor-specific information option to serve their private purposes.
The content of the self-defined options may come from two sources:
devices and users. If the content of self-defined options comes from
users, two methods can be used to solve the problem. The first one
is that the clients provide related interfaces to receive such
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
information, which is currently merely supported. The second one is
that DHCPv6 relays obtain such information and add it to the clients'
requests. But this always depends on other protocols to allow DHCPv6
relays to get the information first.
4.2.3. Message Processing Functions
Although current commercial or open-source DHCPv6 server softwares
provide comprehensive functionalities, they still cannot meet all
customers' requirements of processing DHCPv6 requests. Therefore,
they will offer interfaces that customers can use to write their
specific extensions to affect the way how DHCPv6 servers handle and
respond to DHCP requests. For example, a network operator may want
his DHCPv6 server to communicate with external servers. Thus, he may
alter his DHCPv6 server through the given extensions to achieve such
a goal. However, not all DHCPv6 software considers this extension.
4.2.4. Address Generation Mechanisms
Currently, the DHCPv6 servers assign addresses, prefixes and other
configuration options according to their configured policies.
Generally, different networks may prefer different address generation
mechanisms. Several address generation mechanisms for SLAAC
[RFC4862] (e.g., IEEE 64-bit EUI-64 [RFC2464], Constant, semantically
opaque [Microsoft], Temporary [RFC4941], and Stable, semantically
opaque [RFC7217]) proposed for different requirements can be utilized
in DHCPv6 protocol as well. Note that [RFC7943] is the DHCPv6
version of Stable, semantically opaque [RFC7217]. The many types of
IPv6 address generation mechanisms available have brought about
flexibility and diversity. Therefore, corresponding interfaces could
be open and defined to allow other address generation mechanisms to
be configured.
Moreover, several basic operations are defined to support the design
of IPv6 addresses generation mechanisms. A new IPv6 address
generation mechanism can be made up of the combination of the
following basic operations. Also, new basic operations can be
defined to support new functions.
Invert(x, n) invert bit n of input x.
Insert(x, n, s) insert s after bit n of input x.
Concatenate(x, y, ...) concatenate input [x, y, ...] sequentially.
Replace(x, n, m, s) change from bit n to bit m of input x into s.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
Note that the length of s must be equal to
m-n+1. When n=m, change only one bit of input
x.
Truncate(x, n, m) truncate from bit n to bit m of input x as the
output
Encrypt(x, k) use some specific encryption algorithm to
encrypt input x with key k. Encryption
algorithms can be IDEA, AES, RSA, etc.
Hash(x) calculate the hash digest value of input x.
Hash algorithms can be MD5, SHA1, SHA256, etc.
For example, temporary addresses in [RFC4941] can be expressed as
tempAddr(eui64, history) = Replace(Truncate(Hash(Concatenate(eui64,
history)), 0, 63), 6, 6, 0), where eui64 means the EUI-64 identifier
defined in [RFC2464] and history means a history value defined in
[RFC4941].
4.3. Extension Principles
The principles used to conduct multi-requirement extensions for
DHCPv6 are summarized as follows:
1) Do not change the basic design of DHCPv6.
2) Use simpler interfaces to define and support more extensions.
5. Extension Cases
Administrative domains may enforce local policies according to their
requirements, e.g., authentication, accountability. Several kinds of
multi-requirement extensions are presented in this section, including
configurations in current DHCPv6 software, option definition and
server modification, and message definition between DHCPv6 entities
and third-party entities. IPv6 addresses are related to
manageability, security, traceability, and accountability of
networks. As DHCPv6 assigns IPv6 addresses to IPv6 nodes, it is
important that DHCPv6 provides interfaces to allow administrative
domains to conduct extensions to meet their multi-requirements.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
5.1. Software Configurations
Currently, many DHCPv6 servers provide administrative mechanisms,
e.g., host reservation and client classification. Host reservation
is often used to assign certain parameters (e.g., IP addresses) to
specific devices. For example, a client with special access rights
(e.g., a firewall rule that allows access based on the source's IP
address) needs to keep its address allowed in the firewall
configuration. Another use case is a device with a mission-critical
network service that needs access by IP address in case a DNS lookup
fails. Client classification is often used to differentiate between
different types of clients and treat them accordingly in certain
cases. This classification allows DHCP addresses or options to be
assigned based on specific device characteristics or some network
identifier. Grouping devices by client class makes it more
convenient to perform bulk configuration settings. A typical example
is the network access security policy. For example, a client class
can be configured so that devices in that class are assigned IP
addresses in subnets that are restricted to the public Internet due
to security policies applied to the subnet/network on the router or
firewall.
5.2. Option Definition and Server Modification
More complicated extensions of DHCPv6 are needed to meet specific
requirements. For example, considering such a requirement that
DHCPv6 servers assign IPv6 addresses generated by user identifiers to
the clients in a network to hold users accountable, two extensions
should be fulfilled to meet this requirement. The first one is that
clients send their user identifiers to servers. This can be achieved
by defining and using sub-options of vendor-specific information
option. The second one is that servers use user identifiers to
generate IP addresses. To achieve this goal, extension mechanisms
provided by the server software such as extension points in CPNR
[CPNR] and hook mechanisms in Kea DHCP [Kea_DHCP] can be used.
5.3. Message Definition
Some extensions for DHCPv6 may need the support of third-party
entities. For example, [RFC7037] introduces RADIUS entities into the
message exchanges between DHCPv6 entities for better service
provision. The authentication in [RFC7037] can also be used to meet
the accountability requirement mentioned above because it is
important to authenticate users first before assigning IP addresses
generated from user identifiers. Usually, this kind of extension
requires the definition of messages communicated between DHCPv6
entities and third-party entities, e.g., active leasequery [RFC7653].
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
6. Security Considerations
Security issues related with DHCPv6 are described in Section 22 of
[RFC8415].
7. IANA Considerations
This document does not include an IANA request.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bernie Volz, Tomek Mrugalski, Sheng
Jiang, and Jinmei Tatuya for their comments and suggestions that
improved the [I-D.ren-dhc-mredhcpv6]. Some ideas and thoughts of
[I-D.ren-dhc-mredhcpv6] are contained in this document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
[APNA] Lee, T.L., Pappas, C.P., Barrera, D.B., Szalachowski,
P.S., and A.P. Perrig, "Source Accountability with Domain-
brokered Privacy", December 2016.
[CPNR] Cisco, "Cisco Prime Network Registrar", 2018,
<https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/cloud-systems-
management/prime-network-registrar/index.html>.
[DHCP_Broadband]
Weird Solutions, "DHCP Broadband", 2018,
<https://www.weird-solutions.com/carrier-solutions/dhcp-
broadband>.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
[FreeRADIUS_DHCP]
FreeRADIUS, "FreeRADIUS DHCP", 2017,
<https://wiki.freeradius.org/features/DHCP>.
[GAGMS] Liu, Y.L., He, L.H., and G.R. Ren, "GAGMS: A Requirement-
Driven General Address Generation and Management System",
November 2017.
[I-D.gont-v6ops-ipv6-addressing-considerations]
Gont, F.G. and G.G. Gont, "IPv6 Addressing
Considerations", February 2021.
[I-D.jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing]
Jia, Y., Trossen, D., Iannone, L., Shenoy, N., Mendes, P.,
and P. Liu, "Challenging Scenarios and Problems in
Internet Addressing", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing-02, 23
October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-jia-
intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing-02.txt>.
[I-D.lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net]
Han, L. and R. Li, "Problems and Requirements of Satellite
Constellation for Internet", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net-01,
19 October 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-
lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net-01.txt>.
[I-D.ren-dhc-mredhcpv6]
Ren, G.R., He, L.H., and Y.L. Liu, "Multi-requirement
Extensions for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", March 2017.
[ISC_DHCP] Internet System Consortium, "ISC DHCP", 2018,
<http://www.isc.org/downloads/dhcp/>.
[Kea_DHCP] Internet System Consortium, "Kea DHCP", 2018,
<https://www.isc.org/kea/>.
[kea_dhcp_hook_developers_guide]
Internet Systems Consortium, "Hook Developer's Guide",
2018, <https://jenkins.isc.org/job/Kea_doc/doxygen/df/d46/
hooksdgDevelopersGuide.html>.
[Microsoft]
Microsoft, "IPv6 interface identifiers", 2013, <https://ww
w.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/
proddocs/en-us/sag_ip_v6_imp_addr7.mspx?mfr=true>.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
[Microsoft_DHCP]
Microsoft, "Microsoft DHCP", 2008,
<https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
cc896553(v=ws.10).aspx>.
[Nominum_DHCP]
Nominum, "Nominum DHCP", 2012,
<https://www.nominum.com/press_item/nominum-releases-new-
version-of-carrier-grade-dhcp-software-for-telecom-
providers/>.
[PAVI] He, L.H., Ren, G.R., Liu, Y.L., and J.Y. Yang, "PAVI:
Bootstrapping Accountability and Privacy to IPv6
Internet", April 2021.
[RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
Networks", RFC 2464, DOI 10.17487/RFC2464, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2464>.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., Ed., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3646, December 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3646>.
[RFC3898] Kalusivalingam, V., "Network Information Service (NIS)
Configuration Options for Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3898,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3898, October 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3898>.
[RFC4075] Kalusivalingam, V., "Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP)
Configuration Option for DHCPv6", RFC 4075,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4075, May 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4075>.
[RFC4580] Volz, B., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) Relay Agent Subscriber-ID Option", RFC 4580,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4580, June 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4580>.
[RFC4649] Volz, B., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) Relay Agent Remote-ID Option", RFC 4649,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4649, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4649>.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
[RFC4704] Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN)
Option", RFC 4704, DOI 10.17487/RFC4704, October 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4704>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC4994] Zeng, S., Volz, B., Kinnear, K., and J. Brzozowski,
"DHCPv6 Relay Agent Echo Request Option", RFC 4994,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4994, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4994>.
[RFC5007] Brzozowski, J., Kinnear, K., Volz, B., and S. Zeng,
"DHCPv6 Leasequery", RFC 5007, DOI 10.17487/RFC5007,
September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5007>.
[RFC5460] Stapp, M., "DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery", RFC 5460,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5460, February 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5460>.
[RFC5970] Huth, T., Freimann, J., Zimmer, V., and D. Thaler, "DHCPv6
Options for Network Boot", RFC 5970, DOI 10.17487/RFC5970,
September 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5970>.
[RFC6422] Lemon, T. and Q. Wu, "Relay-Supplied DHCP Options",
RFC 6422, DOI 10.17487/RFC6422, December 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6422>.
[RFC6607] Kinnear, K., Johnson, R., and M. Stapp, "Virtual Subnet
Selection Options for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6", RFC 6607,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6607, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6607>.
[RFC6939] Halwasia, G., Bhandari, S., and W. Dec, "Client Link-Layer
Address Option in DHCPv6", RFC 6939, DOI 10.17487/RFC6939,
May 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6939>.
[RFC7037] Yeh, L. and M. Boucadair, "RADIUS Option for the DHCPv6
Relay Agent", RFC 7037, DOI 10.17487/RFC7037, October
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7037>.
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7653] Raghuvanshi, D., Kinnear, K., and D. Kukrety, "DHCPv6
Active Leasequery", RFC 7653, DOI 10.17487/RFC7653,
October 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7653>.
[RFC7824] Krishnan, S., Mrugalski, T., and S. Jiang, "Privacy
Considerations for DHCPv6", RFC 7824,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7824, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7824>.
[RFC7943] Gont, F. and W. Liu, "A Method for Generating Semantically
Opaque Interface Identifiers (IIDs) with the Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 7943,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7943, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7943>.
[RFC8156] Mrugalski, T. and K. Kinnear, "DHCPv6 Failover Protocol",
RFC 8156, DOI 10.17487/RFC8156, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8156>.
[RFC8539] Farrer, I., Sun, Q., Cui, Y., and L. Sun, "Softwire
Provisioning Using DHCPv4 over DHCPv6", RFC 8539,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8539, March 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8539>.
[VitalQIP] Nokia, "Nokia VitalQIP", 2017,
<https://networks.nokia.com/products/vitalqip-ip-address-
management>.
[WIDE_DHCPv6]
KAME project, "WIDE DHCPv6", 2008,
<http://ipv6int.net/software/wide_dhcpv6.html>.
Authors' Addresses
Gang Ren
Tsinghua University
Beijing
Phone: +86-010 6260 3227
Email: rengang@cernet.edu.cn
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft problem statement of mredhcpv6 November 2021
Lin He
Tsinghua University
Beijing
Email: he-lin@tsinghua.edu.cn
Ying Liu
Tsinghua University
Beijing
Email: liuying@cernet.edu.cn
Ren, et al. Expires 23 May 2022 [Page 15]
