summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc6221.txt
blob: 70e17ccda110d1942d8cd52c14020949cbe873f0 (plain) (blame)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                     D. Miles, Ed.
Request for Comments: 6221                                      S. Ooghe
Updates: 3315                                             Alcatel-Lucent
Category: Standards Track                                         W. Dec
ISSN: 2070-1721                                            Cisco Systems
                                                             S. Krishnan
                                                             A. Kavanagh
                                                                Ericsson
                                                                May 2011


                     Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent

Abstract

   This document proposes a Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (LDRA) that
   is used to insert relay agent options in DHCPv6 message exchanges
   identifying client-facing interfaces.  The LDRA can be implemented in
   existing access nodes (such as Digital Subscriber Link Access
   Multiplexers (DSLAMs) and Ethernet switches) that do not support IPv6
   control or routing functions.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6221.
















Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 1]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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
   (http://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 Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ....................................................3
      1.1. Requirements Language ......................................3
   2. Background ......................................................3
   3. Terminology .....................................................3
   4. Server Considerations ...........................................5
   5. Message Format ..................................................5
      5.1. Relay-Forward Message ......................................5
      5.2. Relay-Reply Message ........................................6
      5.3. Mandatory DHCP Options .....................................6
           5.3.1. Relay-Message Option ................................6
           5.3.2. Interface-ID Option .................................6
   6. Agent Behaviour .................................................7
      6.1. Relaying a Client Message ..................................7
           6.1.1. Client Message Validation ...........................8
           6.1.2. Trusted and Untrusted Interfaces ....................8
      6.2. Relaying a Relay-Reply Message from the Network ............8
   7. Network Topology ................................................9
      7.1. Client and Server on Same Link .............................9
      7.2. Client and Server behind Relay Agent ......................11
      7.3. Relay Agent in Front of LDRA ..............................12
   8. Contributors ...................................................15
   9. Security Considerations ........................................15
   10. References ....................................................15
      10.1. Normative References .....................................15
      10.2. Informative References ...................................16









Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 2]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


1.  Introduction

   DHCPv6 Relay Agents [RFC3315] are deployed to forward DHCPv6 messages
   between clients and servers when they are not on the same IPv6 link
   and are often implemented alongside a routing function in a common
   node.  A Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (LDRA) allows Relay Agent
   Information to be inserted by an access node that performs a link-
   layer bridging (i.e., non-routing) function.  An LDRA resides on the
   same IPv6 link as the client and a DHCPv6 Relay Agent or server, and
   is functionally the equivalent of the Layer 2 Relay Agent proposed
   for DHCPv4 operation in [L2RA].

   Unlike a DHCPv6 Relay Agent specified in [RFC3315], an LDRA does not
   implement any IPv6 control functions (e.g., ICMPv6) or have any
   routing capability in the node.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Background

   A variety of different link-layer network topologies exist for the
   aggregation of IPv6 nodes into one or more routers.  In Layer 2
   aggregation networks (IEEE 802.1D bridging or similar) that have many
   nodes on a single link, a DHCPv6 server or DHCP Relay Agent would
   normally be unaware of how a DHCP client is attached to the network.
   The LDRA allows Relay Agent Information, including the Interface-ID
   option [RFC3315], to be inserted by the access node so that it may be
   used by the DHCPv6 server for client identification.  A typical
   application in a broadband service provider could be equivalent to a
   Layer 2 DHCP Relay Agent as described in the Broadband Forum TR-101
   report [TR-101] and in [L2RA].

3.  Terminology

   Access Node               A device that combines many interfaces onto
                             one link.  An access node is not IP-aware
                             in the data path.

   Address                   An IP layer identifier for an interface or
                             set of interfaces.

   Client-facing             An interface on the access node that
                             carries traffic towards the DHCPv6 client.




Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 3]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


   Host                      A non-routing IPv6 node that is
                             participating in a DHCPv6 message exchange.

   IP                        Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6).

   LDRA                      Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent.

   Lightweight Relay Agent   A function on the access node that
                             intercepts DHCP messages between clients
                             and servers.  The function exists as a bump
                             in the wire on the IP link.

   Link                      A communication facility or medium over
                             which nodes can communicate at the link
                             layer.

   Link-local address        An IP address having only local scope,
                             indicated by having the address prefix
                             fe80::/10, that can be used to reach
                             neighbouring nodes attached to the same
                             link.  Every interface has a link-local
                             address.

   Network-facing            An interface on the access node that
                             carries traffic towards the DHCPv6
                             server(s).

   Node                      A device that implements IPv6.

   Router                    A node that forwards packets not directly
                             addressed to itself.

   Relay Agent               A node that acts as an intermediary to
                             deliver DHCP messages between clients and
                             servers and being on the same link as the
                             client.

   Unspecified address       An IPv6 address that is comprised entirely
                             of zeros.












Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 4]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


4.  Server Considerations

   This document updates the behaviour specified in Section 11 of DHCP
   for IPv6 [RFC3315].  RFC 3315 states, in part:

      If the server receives the message from a forwarding relay agent,
      then the client is on the same link as the one to which the
      interface, identified by the link-address field in the message
      from the relay agent, is attached.

   DHCP server implementations conforming to this specification MUST,
   for the purposes of address selection, ignore any link-address field
   whose value is zero.  In the above text from RFC 3315, "link-address"
   refers to both the link-address field of the Relay-Forward message,
   and the link-address fields in any Relay-Forward messages that may be
   nested within the Relay-Forward message.

5.  Message Format

   The Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (LDRA) exchanges DHCP messages
   between clients and servers using the message formats established in
   [RFC3315].

   To maintain interoperability with existing DHCP relays and servers,
   the message format is unchanged from [RFC3315].  The LDRA implements
   the same message types as a normal DHCPv6 Relay Agent.  They are:

   o  Relay-Forward Messages

   o  Relay-Reply Messages

5.1.  Relay-Forward Message

   The Relay-Forward message is created by any DHCPv6 Relay Agent,
   including an LDRA, to forward messages between clients and servers or
   other relay agents.  These messages are built as specified in
   [RFC3315].

   The Relay-Forward message contains relay agent parameters that
   identify the client-facing interface on which any reply messages
   should be forwarded.  These parameters are link-address, peer-
   address, and Interface-ID.  The link-address parameter MUST be set to
   the unspecified address.  The peer-address parameter MUST be set as
   specified in Section 6.1.  The Interface-ID Relay Agent option MUST
   be included in the Relay-Forward message.  The LDRA MAY insert
   additional relay agent options.





Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 5]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


5.2.  Relay-Reply Message

   The Relay-Reply message is constructed by a DHCPv6 server to send
   parameters to a DHCP client when a relay agent is present between the
   server and the client.  The Relay-Reply message may be sent after an
   initial Relay-Forward message as the parameters link-address, peer-
   address, and Interface-ID, as well as the relay agent's IP address,
   are learnt from the Relay-Forward message.

   The server MUST include the Interface-ID option in the Relay-Reply
   Message to indicate to the LDRA the interface on which the
   decapsulated message should be forwarded.

5.3.  Mandatory DHCP Options

   Parameters are exchanged between the DHCP client, Relay Agent, and
   server through the use of DHCP options.  There is a set of mandatory
   DHCP options that MUST be included by the LDRA in all Relay-Forward
   messages.  These are the:

   o  Relay-Message Option

   o  Interface-ID Option

5.3.1.  Relay-Message Option

   A DHCPv6 Relay Agent relays messages between clients and servers or
   other relay agents through Relay-Forward and Relay-Reply message
   types.  The original client DHCP message (i.e., the packet payload,
   excluding UDP and IP headers) is encapsulated in a Relay Message
   option [RFC3315].

   If a Relay-Message would exceed the MTU of the outgoing interface, it
   MUST be discarded, and an error condition SHOULD be logged.

5.3.2.  Interface-ID Option

   The LDRA MUST include the Interface-ID option [RFC3315] in all Relay-
   Forward messages.  When an LDRA receives a Relay-Reply message with
   an Interface-ID option present and link-address unspecified, the LDRA
   MUST relay the decapsulated message to the client on the interface
   identified in the Interface-ID option.

   Servers MAY use the Interface-ID for parameter assignment policies.
   The format of the Interface-ID is outside the scope of this
   contribution.  The Interface-ID SHOULD be considered an opaque value;
   i.e., the server SHOULD NOT try to parse the contents of the
   Interface-ID option.  The LDRA SHOULD use the same Interface-ID value



Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 6]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


   for a given interface, and this value SHOULD be retained across
   restarts.  This is because if the Interface-ID changes, a server will
   not be able to use it reliably in parameter assignment policies.

6.  Agent Behaviour

   The LDRA MUST have each of its interfaces configured as either
   client-facing or network-facing.  The LDRA uses the notion of client-
   facing and network-facing interfaces to process DHCPv6 messages.

6.1.  Relaying a Client Message

   The LDRA MUST intercept and process all IP traffic received on any
   client-facing interface that has:

   o  destination IP address set to All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers
      (ff02::1:2);

   o  protocol type UDP; and

   o  destination port 547.

   The LDRA MUST also prevent the original message from being forwarded
   on the network-facing interface.

   The lightweight relay agent adds any other options it is configured
   or required to include in the Relay-Forward message.  The LDRA MUST
   set the link-address field of the Relay-Forward message to the
   Unspecified Address (::) and MUST include the Interface-ID option in
   all DHCP Relay-Forward messages.

   If the message received on the client-facing interface is a Relay-
   Forward message, the LDRA MUST set the hop-count field in the newly
   created Relay-Forward message to the value of the hop-count field in
   the received message, incremented by 1 as specified in [RFC3315].

   The LDRA MUST copy the IP destination and link-layer destination
   addresses from the client-originated message into the IP destination
   address and link-layer destination address of the Relay-Forward
   message.

   The LDRA MUST copy the IP source address from the client-originated
   message into the peer-address field of the Relay-Forward message.
   The LDRA MUST copy the link-layer source address from the client-
   originated message into the link-layer source address of the Relay-
   Forward message.





Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 7]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


6.1.1.  Client Message Validation

   On receipt of a DHCP message on a client-facing interface, the LDRA
   MUST discard a message if it is of one of the following message
   types:

   o  ADVERTISE (2)

   o  REPLY (7)

   o  RECONFIGURE (10)

   o  RELAY-REPL (13)

   Options contained in the DHCPv6 message MUST NOT be validated by the
   LDRA, making it the responsibility of the DHCP server to check
   message option validity and allow new options to be introduced
   without changes on the LDRA.

6.1.2.  Trusted and Untrusted Interfaces

   In [RFC3046], DHCPv4 Relay Agents had their client-facing interfaces
   set to "trusted" and "untrusted".  An LDRA MUST implement a
   configuration setting for all client-facing interfaces, marking them
   either as trusted or as untrusted.  This setting SHOULD be
   configurable per interface.  When a client-facing interface is deemed
   untrusted, the LDRA MUST discard any message of type RELAY-FORW (12)
   received from the client-facing interface.

6.2.  Relaying a Relay-Reply Message from the Network

   The LDRA MUST intercept and process all IP traffic received on the
   network-facing interface that has:

   o  a link-local scoped source address;

   o  a link-local scoped destination address;

   o  protocol type UDP; and

   o  destination port 547

   An LDRA MUST inspect the DHCP message type and only forward Relay-
   Reply messages.  Other DHCP message types MUST be silently discarded.







Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 8]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


   The Relay-Reply message is considered valid by the LDRA if it passes
   the validity checks to be performed by a relay agent per [RFC3315]
   and

   -  the Interface-ID option is present, and the value corresponds to a
      valid interface in the access node;

   -  the Relay-Reply peer-address and the destination IP address are
      identical, and it is a link-local scoped address when no IP
      address is configured on the LDRA; and

   -  the link-address is the Unspecified Address when no IP address is
      configured on the LDRA.

   If the Relay-Reply message is valid, the LDRA copies the peer-address
   into the destination IP address field.  The LDRA SHOULD forward the
   packet to the correct client-facing interface using the destination
   link-layer (Media Access Control (MAC)) address or the Interface-ID
   in the Relay-Reply.  The LDRA SHOULD NOT retransmit the packet on any
   other interface.  The contents of the Relay Message option are put
   into an IP/UDP packet and then forwarded to the client.

   The LDRA MUST copy the link-layer and IP source address from the
   Relay-Reply message into the IP/UDP packet that is forwarded to the
   client.

7.  Network Topology

   The LDRA intercepts any DHCPv6 message received on client-facing
   interfaces with the traffic pattern specified in Section 6.1.  The
   LDRA MUST NOT forward the original client message to a network-facing
   interface; it MUST process the message and add the appropriate Relay-
   Forward options as described in previous sections.

7.1.  Client and Server on Same Link

   The access node acts as a bridge; it has no information about any IP
   prefixes that are valid on the link.  Thus, a server should consider
   address and parameter assignment as if the client DHCP message were
   not relayed.











Miles, et al.                Standards Track                    [Page 9]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


                 +--------+
   Client -------|        |
                 | Access |
   Client -------|  Node  |-----+
                 | (LDRA) |     |
   Client -------|        |     |
                 +--------+     |
                                |      +--------+
                                |------| Server |
                                |      +--------+
                 +--------+     |
   Client -------|        |     |
                 | Access |     |
   Client -------|  Node  |-----+
                 | (LDRA) |
   Client -------|        |
                 +--------+

          <--------- IPv6 Link -------->

   For example, if a client sent a DHCP Solicit message that was relayed
   by the LDRA to the server, the server would receive the following
   Relay-Forward message from the LDRA:

   src-ip:              client link-local address

   dst-ip:              All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers

     msg-type:          RELAY-FORW

     hop-count:         0

     link-address:      Unspecified_Address

     peer-address:      client link-local address

     Interface-ID Option:

       interface-id:    LDRA-inserted interface-id

     Relay-Message Option, which contains:

       msg-type:        SOLICIT

       Solicit Message Options: <from client>






Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 10]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


7.2.  Client and Server behind Relay Agent

   The client and server are on different IPv6 links, separated by one
   or more relay agents that will typically act as a router.  The LDRA
   will send Relay-Forward messages upstream towards the second relay
   agent, which in turn will process the messages.

                 +--------+
   Client -------|        |
                 | Access |
   Client -------|  Node  |-----+
                 | (LDRA) |     |
   Client -------|        |     |
                 +--------+     |
                                |      +--------+       +--------+
                                |------| RelayB |-------| Server |
                                |      +--------+       +--------+
                 +--------+     |
   Client -------|        |     |
                 | Access |     |
   Client -------|  Node  |-----+
                 | (LDRA) |
   Client -------|        |
                 +--------+

          <------- IPv6 Link A ------->      <--IPv6 Link B-->

   For example, if a client sent a DHCP Solicit message that was relayed
   by the LDRA to another relay agent and then to the server, the server
   would receive the following Relay-Forward message from the LDRA:





















Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 11]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


   src-ip:              relayB

   dst-ip:              server

     msg-type:          RELAY-FORW

     hop-count:         1

     link-address:      relayB address from link A

     peer-address:      client link-local address

     Relay-Message Option, which contains:

       msg-type:        RELAY-FORW

       hop-count:       0

       link-address:    Unspecified_Address

       peer-address:    client link-local address

       Interface-ID Option:

         interface-id:  LDRA-inserted interface-id

       Relay-Message Option, which contains:

         msg-type:      SOLICIT

         Solicit Message Options: <from client>

7.3.  Relay Agent in Front of LDRA

   The client and server are on different IPv6 links, separated by one
   or more relay agents that will typically act as a router, and there
   is an [RFC3315] Relay Agent on the client-facing interface of the
   LDRA.  The LDRA will send Relay-Forward messages upstream towards the
   second relay agent, which in turn will process the messages.












Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 12]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


                 +--------+
   RelayC -------|        |
                 | Access |
   RelayC -------|  Node  |-----+
                 | (LDRA) |     |
   RelayC -------|        |     |
                 +--------+     |
                                |      +--------+       +--------+
                                |------| RelayB |-------| Server |
                                |      +--------+       +--------+
                 +--------+     |
   RelayC -------|        |     |
                 | Access |     |
   RelayC -------|  Node  |-----+
                 | (LDRA) |
   RelayC -------|        |
                 +--------+

         <------- IPv6 Link A ------->      <--IPv6 Link B-->

   For example, if a client sent a DHCP Solicit message that was relayed
   by RelayC and the LDRA to another relay agent, RelayB, and then to
   the server, the server would receive the following Relay-Forward
   message:



























Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 13]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


   src-ip:               relayB

   dst-ip:               server

     msg-type:           RELAY-FORW

     hop-count:          2

     link-address:       relayB address from link A

     peer-address:       relayC

     Relay-Message Option, which contains:

       msg-type:         RELAY-FORW

       hop-count:        1

       link-address:     Unspecified_Address

       peer-address:     relayC

       Interface-ID Option:

         interface-id:   LDRA-inserted interface-id

       Relay-Message Option, which contains:

         msg-type:       RELAY-FORW

         hop-count:      0

         link-address:   global or Unspecified_Address

         peer-address:   end client address

         Interface-ID Option: (if required)

           interface-id: relayC-inserted Interface-ID

         Relay-Message Option, which contains:

           msg-type:      SOLICIT

           Solicit Message Options: <from end client>






Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 14]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


8.  Contributors

   The authors would like to thank the following for their support:
   Lieven Levrau, Alastair Johnson, Robert Haylock, Mickey Vucic, Ludwig
   Pauwels, Fernando Cuervo, John Kaippallimalil, Fredrik Garneij,
   Alfred Hoenes, Ted Lemon, Tatuya Jinmei, David Hankins, and Ralph
   Droms.

   Comments are solicited and should be addressed to the DHC WG mailing
   list (dhcwg@ietf.org) and/or the authors.

9.  Security Considerations

   The security issues pertaining to DHCPv6 Relay Agents as specified in
   Section 23 of [RFC3315] are also applicable to LDRAs.  The LDRA
   SHOULD implement some form of rate-limiting on client-originated
   traffic in order to prevent excessive process utilisation.  The
   traffic to be rate-limited can be easily identified since the LDRA
   listens only to client-originated IPv6 traffic sent to the
   All_DHCPv6_Servers_and_Relay_Agents address on UDP port 547 and does
   not process any other client-originated traffic.  As DHCP is session-
   oriented, messages in excess of the rate-limit may be silently
   discarded.

   The hop-count-based determination of the trustworthiness of the LDRA
   can be easily defeated by a rogue relay agent on the network-facing
   interface of the LDRA.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
              C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
              for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.













Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 15]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


10.2.  Informative References

   [L2RA]     Joshi, B. and P. Kurapati, "Layer 2 Relay Agent
              Information", Work in Progress, April 2011.

   [RFC3046]  Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option",
              RFC 3046, January 2001.

   [TR-101]   The Broadband Forum, "Migration to Ethernet-Based DSL
              Aggregation", Technical Report TR-101, April 2006.









































Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 16]
^L
RFC 6221                          LDRA                          May 2011


Authors' Addresses

   David Miles (editor)
   Alcatel-Lucent
   L3 / 215 Spring St.
   Melbourne, Victoria  3000
   Australia

   Phone: +61 3 9664 3308
   EMail: david.miles@alcatel-lucent.com


   Sven Ooghe
   Alcatel-Lucent
   Copernicuslaan 50
   2018 Antwerp,
   Belgium

   EMail: sven.ooghe@alcatel-lucent.com


   Wojciech Dec
   Cisco Systems
   Haarlerberdweg 13-19
   1101 CH Amsterdam,
   The Netherlands

   EMail: wdec@cisco.com


   Suresh Krishnan
   Ericsson
   8400 Blvd. Decarie
   Town of Mount Royal, Quebec
   Canada

   EMail: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com


   Alan Kavanagh
   Ericsson
   8400 Blvd. Decarie
   Town of Mount Royal, Quebec
   Canada

   EMail: alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com





Miles, et al.                Standards Track                   [Page 17]
^L