One document matched: draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-01.txt
Differences from draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-00.txt
Network WG Gabor Bajko
Internet Draft Teemu Savolainen
Intended Status: Proposed Standard Nokia
Expires: September 5, 2009 M. Boucadair
P. Levis
France Telecom
March 6, 2009
Port Restricted IP Address Assignment
draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-01
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions
of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also
distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 5, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2009 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.
Abstract
When IPv6 was designed, the assumption was that the transition from IPv4 to IPv6
will occur way before the exhaustion of the available IPv4 address pool. The
unexpected growth of the IPv4 Internet and the hesitation and technical
difficulties to deploy IPv6 indicates that the transition may take much longer
than originally anticipated.
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 1]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
It is expected that communication using IPv6 addresses will increase during the
next few years to come at the expense of communication using IPv4 addresses. The
Internet should reach a safety point in the future, where the number of IPv4
public addresses in use at a given time begins decreasing. It is very likely that
the IPv4 public address pool currently available at IANA will be exhausted before
the internet reaches this safety point. This creates a need to prolong the
lifetime of the available IPv4 addresses.
This document defines methods to allocate the same IPv4 address to multiple hosts,
with the aim to prolong the availability of public IPv4 addresses, possibly for as
long as it takes for IPv6 to take over the demand for IPv4.
Conventions used in this document
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].
Terminology and abbreviations used in this document
Port restricted IPv4 address: an IP address which can only be used in conjunction
with the specified ports. Port restriction refers to all known transport protocols
(UDP, TCP, SCTP, DCCP).
CGN Carrier Grade Network Address Translator
CPE Consumer Premises Equipment, a device that resides between internet
service provider's network and consumers' home network.
PRA Port Restricted IPv4 Address
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 2]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
Table of Content
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2. Port Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
3. DHCPv4 Option for allocating port restricted public IPv4
address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Port Mask sub-option usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
4.1 Illustration Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
5. Random Port delegation function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
6. Option Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1 Client Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
6.2 Server Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
7. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
7.1 ICMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
7.2 6to4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
7.3 Protocols not supported by multiplexing gateway . . . . . . . 15
8. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
9. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
10. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
12. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
13. Editor's Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 3]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
1. Introduction
There are a number of possible solutions to deal with the problem of transitioning
from IPv4 to IPv6; however none of them is a one fits all solution. Different
solutions fit different deployment scenarios (see also [ARKK2008]). A tentative
comparison is provided in [WING2008].
As complementary solution for the IPv4-IPv6 coexistence period, this document
describes a method, using a newly defined DHCPv4 [RFC2131] option that allows
servers to assign port restricted IPv4 addresses to clients. By assigning the same
IPv4 address to multiple clients, the availability of IPv4 addresses can be,
hopefully, prolonged for as long as it takes for IPv6 to take over the demand for
IPv4.
The solution described in this document is intended to be used by large ISPs, who
as of the date of writing this document, have a large enough IPv4 address pool to
be able to allocate one public IPv4 address for each and every client. They expect
though that the situation is unsustainable and they will soon not be able to
provide every client with a public IPv4 address. Such ISPs have two possibilities
to choose from:
- deploy Network Address Translators (NAT), which can be a significant investment
for ISPs not having NATs yet. The address space limitations of [RFC1918] may even
force these large ISPs to deploy double NATs, which come with all the harmful
behaviour of Carrier Grade NATs (CGN), as described in [MAEN2008]; or
- allocate fragments of the same public IPv4 address directly to multiple clients
(which can be CPEs or end hosts), thus avoid the cost of deploying multiple layers
of NATs or carrier grade NATs. It is however assumed, that the demand for IPv4
addresses will decrease in the not so distant future, being taken over by IPv6, as
the proposal in this draft is not by any means a permanent solution for the IPv4
address exhaustion problem. In fact, some presented deployment scenarios require
existence of IPv6 access network.
For ISPs not having NATs yet, a solution not requiring NATs would probably be
preferred. For some other ISPs, who already have NATs in place, increasing the
capacity of their NATs might be a viable alternative.
In other deployment scenarios, allocation of shared addresses to devices at the
edge of the network would result in distribution of NAT functionality to the
edges, in some cases even to CPEs [APLUSP].
This document proposes to use new DHCPv4 option to allocate port-restricted IPv4
addresses to the clients. This method is meant to be an IPv4 to IPv6 transition
tool, to be only temporarily used during the period when the demand for public
IPv4 addresses will exceed the availability of them.
The port restricted IPv4 address option described in this document can be used in
various deployment scenarios, some of which are described in [BOUCADAIRARCH],
[APLUSP], and [DSLITE].
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 4]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
2. Port Randomization
It is well documented that attackers can perform "blind" attacks against transport
protocols. The consequences of these attacks range from throughput-reduction to
broken connections or data corruption. These attacks rely on the attacker's
ability to guess or know the five-tuple (Protocol, Source Address, Destination
Address, Source Port, Destination Port) that identifies the transport protocol
instance to be attacked. Most of these attacks can be prevented by randomly
selecting the client source port number such that the possibility of an attacker
guessing the exact value is reduced. [RANDOMPORT] defines a few algorithms which
can select a random port from the available port range. Clients usually have the
(1024, 65535) port range at their disposal to select a random, not yet used port.
When an IP address is allocated to multiple clients, the source port range has to
be divided between the clients. The smaller the port range, the easier is for an
attacker to guess the next port the client is going to use. Therefore, it is
imperative to divide the port range between clients sharing the same IP address in
such a way that random selection is preserved. This document proposes two
different methods for port allocation, which preserves partly or completely the
randomness of the source ports:
o The first mechanism uses a port mask with a bit locator to communicate a
range or multiple ranges of ports to a client. Randomness is preserved when
the client is able to select a port randomly across all the available port
ranges. The algorithms described in [RANDOMPORT] can be used to select a
random port from one port range, but implementations may find it difficult
to select random ports across port ranges.
o The second mechanism uses a cryptographic function to preallocate random
ports from the entire port range. The key and other input parameters are
communicated to the client, which can calculate the ports it can use. The
'side effect' of this mechanism is that the client is forced to use random
ports, as a number of random ports allowed to be used by the client are
preallocated by the server. When this mode is used, the network equipments
in charge of routing the inbound packets towards the clients may require
more processing resources.
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 5]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
3. DHCPv4 Option for allocating port restricted public IPv4 address
This section defines new DHCPv4 option, which allows allocation of port restricted
IPv4 addresses.
The option layout is depicted below:
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 Code | length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Option 1 |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-Option n |
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option Code
Option Code
OPTION-IPv4-PRA (TBD) - 1 byte
Length
An 8-bit field indicating the length of the option excluding the 'Option
Code' and the 'Length' fields
Sub-options
A series of DHCPv4 sub-options.
The sub-option layout is depicted below:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sub-opt Type | length | DATA .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. DATA |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The sub-option types defined in this document are:
1 port mask
2 random port delegation function
These two options are exclusive with each other (if one is used, the other one is
not).
Length
An 8-bit field indicating the length of the sub-option excluding the 'Sub-opt
Type' and the 'Length' fields. The value of the length field is 8 when the
Sub-opt Type equals 1 and 26 when the sub-opt Type equals 2.
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 6]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
The format of the DATA field when the sub-opt type indicates port mask (value =
1):
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Port Range Value | Port Range Mask |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IPv4 address
Public IPv4 address
Port Range Value and Port Range Mask
Port Range Value indicates the value of the mask to be applied and Port
Range Mask indicates the position of the bits which are used to build the
mask.
Section 4 describes how the client derives the allocated port range from the Port
Range Value and Port Range Mask values.
The format of the DATA field when the sub-opt type indicates random port
delegation function (value = 2):
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| function | starting point |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| number of delegated ports | key K ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... key K |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IP address
Public IPv4 address
Function
A 16bit field whose value is associated with predefined encryption
functions. This specification associates value 1 with the predefined
function described in section 5.
Starting Point
A 16bit value used as an input to the specified function
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 7]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
Number of delegated ports
A 16bit value specifying the number of ports delegated to the client for use
as source port values
Key K
A 128 bit key used as input to the predefined function for delegated port
calculation
4. Port Mask sub-option usage
The port mask sub-option is used to specify one or multiple range of ports
pertaining to the given IP address.
Concretely, this option is used to notify a remote DHCP client about the Port Mask
to be applied when selecting a port value as a source port. The Port Mask option
is used to infer a set of allowed port values. A Port Mask defines a set of ports
that all have in common a subset of pre-positioned bits. This ports set is also
called Port Range. Two port numbers are said to belong to the same Port Range if
and only if, they have the same Port Mask.
A Port Mask contains two fields: Port Range Value and Port Range Mask.
- The 'Port Range Value' field indicates the value of the significant bits of the
Port Mask. The 'Port Range Value' is coded as follows:
- The significant bits are those where "1" values are set in the Port
Range Mask. These bits may take a value of "0" or "1 ".
- All the other bits (non significant ones) are set to "0".
- The 'Port Range Mask' field indicates the position of the significant bits
identified by the bit(s) set to "1".
The Port Range Value field indicates the value of the mask to be applied and the
Port Range Mask field indicates the position of the bits which are used to build
the mask. The "1" values in the Port Range Mask field indicate by their position
the significant bits of the Port Range Value (the pattern of the Port Range
Value).
For example:
- A Port Range Mask field equal to 1000000000000000 indicates that the first
bit (the most significant one) is used as a pattern of the Port Range Value
field;
- A Port Range Mask field equal to 0000101000000000 indicates that the 5th
and the 7th most significant bits are used as a pattern of the Port Range
Value.
The pattern of the Port Range Value is all the fixed bits in the Port Range Value.
All the ports the CPE is allowed to use as source ports must have their number in
accordance with the pattern.
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 8]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
The Port Range Value is coded as follows:
- The pattern bits of the Port Range Value are those where "1" values are
set in the Port Range Mask. These bits may take a value of 0 or 1.
- All the other bits are set to "0".
4.1 Illustration Examples
In each of the three examples below allocation of 2048 ports is done differently.
In all examples it is possible for 32 hosts to share the same public IPv4 address.
The 4th example illustrates the ability of the procedure to enforce a balanced
distribution of port numbers including the well-known-port values.
a) the following Port Range Mask and Port Range Value are conveyed using DHCP to
assign a Port Range (from 2048 to 4095) to a given device:
- Port Range Value: 0000100000000000 (2048)
- Port Range Mask: 1111100000000000 (63488)
b) Unlike the previous example, this one illustrates the case where a non
Continuous Port Range is assigned to a given customer's device. In this example,
the Port Range Value defines 128 Continuous Port Ranges, each one with a length of
16 port values. Note that the two first Port Ranges are both in the well-known
ports span (i.e. 0-1023) but these two ranges are not adjacent.
The following Port Range Mask and Port Range Value are conveyed in DHCP messages:
- Port Range Value : 0000000001010000 (80)
- Port Range Mask : 0000000111110000 (496)
This means that the 128 following Continuous Port Ranges are assigned to the same
device:
- from 80 to 95
- from 592 to 607
- ...
- from 65104 to 65119
c) In this example, the Port Range Value defines two Continuous Port Ranges, each
one being 1024 ports long:
- Port Range Value : 0000000000000000 (0)
- Port Range Mask : 1111010000000000 (62464)
This means that the two following Continuous Port Ranges are assigned to the same
device:
- from 0 to 1023, and
- from 2048 to 3071
d) In this example, 64 continuous Port Ranges are allocated to each CPE (among a
set of 4 CPEs sharing the same IPv4 address).
Among the 64 continuous Port Ranges to each CPE, there is always one within the
span of the first 1024 well-known port values. Hereafter is given the Port Range
Value and Port Range Mask assigned to 2 CPEs (CPE#0 and CPE#3, CPE#1 and CPE#2
being not represented here):
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 9]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
1. CPE#0
- Port Range Value: 0000000000000000 (0)
- Port Range Mask: 0000001100000000 (768)
The CPE#0 has therefore the 64 following Continuous Port Ranges:
- 1st range: 0-255
- ...
- 64th range: 64512-64767
2. CPE#3
- Port Range Value: 0000001100000000 (768)
- Port Range Mask: 0000001100000000 (768)
The CPE#2 has therefore the 64 following Continuous Port Ranges:
- 1st range: 768-1023
- ...
- 64th range: 65280-65535
5. Random Port delegation function
Delegating random ports can be achieved by defining a function which takes as
input a key 'k' and an integer 'x' within the range (1024, 65535) and produces an
output 'y' also within the range (1024, 65535).
The server uses a cryptographical mechanism (described below) to select the random
ports for each host. Instead of assigning a range of ports using port mask to the
client, the server sends the inputs of a predefined cryptographic mechanism: a
key, an initial value, and the number of ports assigned to this host. The client
can then calculate the full list of assigned ports itself.
The cryptographical mechanism ensures that the entire 64k port range can be
efficiently distributed to multiple hosts in a way that when hosts calculate the
ports, the results will never overlap with ports other hosts have calculated
(property of permutation), and ports in the reserved range (smaller than 1024) are
not used. As the randomization is done crypthographically, an attacker seeing a
host using some port X cannot determine which other ports the host may be using
(as the attacker does not know the key).
Calculation of the random port list is done as follows:
The cryptographic mechanism uses an encryption function y = E(K,x) that takes as
input a key K (for example, 128 bits) and an integer x (the plaintext) in range
(1024, 65535), and produces an output y (the ciphertext), also an integer in range
(1024, 65535). This section describes one such encryption function, but others are
also possible.
The server will select the key K. When server wants to allocate e.g. 2048 random
ports, it selects a starting point 'a' (1024 <= a <= 65536-2048) in a way that the
range (a, a+2048) does not overlap with any other active client, and calculates
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 10]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
the values E(K,a), E(K,a+1), E(K,a+2), ..., E(K,a+2046), E(K,a+2047). These are
the port numbers allocated for this host. Instead of sending the port numbers
individually, the server just sends the values 'K', ' a', and '2048'. The client
will then repeat the same calculation.
The server SHOULD use different K for each IPv4 address it allocates to make
attacks as difficult as possible. This way, learning the K used in IPv4 address
IP1 would not help in attacking IPv4 address IP2 that is allocated by the same
server to different hosts.
With typical encryption functions (such as AES and DES), the input (plaintext) and
output (ciphertext) are blocks of some fixed size; for example, 128 bits for AES,
and 64 bits for DES. For port randomization, we need an encryption function whose
input and output is an integer in range (1024, 65535).
One possible way to do this is to use the 'Generalized-Feistel Cipher' [CIPHERS]
construction by Black and Rogaway, with AES as the underlying round function.
This would look as follows (using pseudo-code):
def E(k, x):
y = Feistel16(k, x)
if y >= 1024:
return y
else:
return E(k, y)
Note that although E(k,x) is recursive, it is guaranteed to terminate. The average
number of iterations is just slightly over 1.
Feistel16 is a 16-bit block cipher:
def Feistel16(k, x):
left = x & 0xff
right = x >> 8
for round = 1 to 3:
temp = left ^ FeistelRound(k, round, right))
left = right
right = temp
return (right << 8) | left
The Feistel round function uses:
def FeistelRound(k, round, x):
msg[0] = round
msg[1] = x
msg[2...15] = 0
return AES(k, msg)[0]
Performance: To generate list of 2048 port numbers, about 6000 calls to AES are
required (i.e., encrypting 96 kilobytes). Thus, it will not be a problem for any
device that can do, for example, HTTPS (web browsing over SSL/TLS).
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 11]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
Other port generator functions may be predefined in Standards Track documents and
allocated a not yet allocated 'function' value within the corresponding sub-option
type field.
6. Option Usage
6.1 Client Behaviour
A DHCP client which supports the option defined in this document MUST support both
sub-option types.
A DHCP client which supports the extensions defined in this document, SHOULD
insert the option OPTION-IPv4-PRA with both sub-option types into DHCPDISCOVER
message to explicitly let the server know that it supports port restricted IPv4
addresses.
o In the port mask sub-option type, the client SHALL set the IPv4 address and
Mask Locator fields to all zeros. The client MAY indicate the number of
desired ports in Port Range Value-field, or set that to all zeroes.
o In the random port delegation sub-option type, the client SHALL set the IPv4
address field, key field and starting point field to all zeros. The client
MAY indicate in function field which encryption function it prefers, and in
the number of delegated ports field the number of ports the client would
desire.
When a client, which supports the option defined in this document, receives a
DHCPOFFER with the 'yiaddr' (client IP address) field set to 0.0.0.0, it SHOULD
check for the presence of OPTION-IPv4-PRA option. If such an option is present,
the client MAY send a DHCPREQUEST message and insert the option OPTION-IPv4-PRA
with the corresponding sub-option received in the OPTION-IPv4-PRA option of the
previous DHCPOFFER. The client MUST NOT include a 'Requested IP Address' DHCP
option (code 50) into this DHCPREQUEST.
The client MUST NOT insert the IP address received in OPTION-IPv4-PRA into the
'Requested IP Address' DHCP option (code 50). When the client receives a DHCPACK
message with an OPTION-IPv4-PRA option, it MAY start using the specified IP
address in conjunction with the source ports specified by the mechanism chosen by
DHCP server. The client MUST NOT use the IP address with different source port
numbers, as that may result in a conflict, since the same IP address with a
different source port group may be assigned to a different client. Furthermore,
the client MUST notice the situation where an outgoing IP packet has the same IP
address as destination address than the client itself has, but the port number is
not belonging to the allocated set. In this case the client MUST detect that the
packet is not destined for itself, and it MUST send it forward.
In case the initial port set received by the client from the server is exhausted
and the client needs additional ports, it MAY request so by sending a new
DHCPDISCOVER message.
In some deployment scenarios the DHCP client may also act as a DHCP server for a
network behind it, in which case the host may further split the allocated set for
other hosts.
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 12]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
The allocated port-restricted IP address and all the associated parameters are
valid until indicated in the IP Address Lease Time Option (option 51).
6.2 Server Behaviour
When a server, which supports the option defined in this document, receives a
DHCPDISCOVER message, it SHOULD check the presence of the OPTION-IPv4-PRA option.
If OPTION-IPv4-PRA is not present in DHCPDISCOVER, the server SHOULD allocate full
unrestricted public or private [RFC1918] IPv4 address to the client, if available,
by generating a DHCPOFFER as described in [RFC2131].
The server SHOULD offer the port restricted IPv4 address when the server has
support for the extensions specified in this document and when:
o DHCP client has included an OPTION-IPv4-PRA option, and server's policy
indicates saving unrestricted IPv4 addresses for clients that do not support
the extensions defined in this document. The server MUST include only one of
the sub-options into the OPTION-IPv4-PRA option (the one which it uses for
port restricted IP address allocation).
o server receives a DHCPDISCOVER message and server can only offer port
restricted IP address to the client
o server receives a DHCPDISCOVER message from a client without the OPTION-IPv4-
PRA, but knows by means outside the scope of this document that the client
supports the usage of port-restricted IPv4 addresses (or it is only entitled
to be provisioned with such addresses)
When server chooses to offer port restricted IPv4 address for clients with OPTION-
IPv4-PRA, it MUST:
o set the 'yiaddr' (client IP address) field of the DHCPOFFER message to
0.0.0.0
o choose the port allocation mechanisms, if it is not statically configured
o select a port restricted IPv4 address to be allocated for the client
o generate parameters required for the chosen port allocation mechanism
When the server receives a DHCPREQUEST message from the client with an OPTION-
IPv4-PRA option field containing the IP address and port allocation mechanism
parameters it has previously offered to the client, the server MUST send a
DHCPACK, where the 'yiaddr' (client IP address) field is set to 0.0.0.0 and the
OPTION-IPv4-PRA option including the IPv4 address and parameters required for the
used allocation mechanism.
When the server receives a DHCPREQUEST message from the client with an OPTION-
IPv4-PRA option field containing an IPv4 address and port set it has previously
not offered to the client, the server MUST send a DHCPNAK to the client.
When the server detects that a client (by eg having a specific hardware address)
which has already been allocated with a port restricted IPv4 address, sent another
DHCPDISCOVER, it MAY, based on local policy, offer the client with additional port
restricted IPv4 address.
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 13]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
If the server is deployed in a cascaded DHCP server scenario, the host MAY both
act as a DHCP client for another server and DHCP server for other DHCP clients.
A server SHOULD ensure the client is residing on an access link where usage of
port-restricted addresses is not causing problems, before allocating it a port
restricted IPv4 address.
The server MUST keep lease times per allocated port sets of the shared IP
addresses.
7. Applicability
The multiplexing of IP flows in gateway is based on the port numbers used by
transport layer protocols such as TCP, UDP, SCTP, and DCCP. However, the protocols
not containing port numbers need special handling in order to be multiplexed
correctly.
7.1 ICMP
Those ICMP messages that embed the IP packet that triggered sending of ICMP
message, such as ICMP error, can be multiplexed based on the port number present
in the embedded original packet.
ICMP messages not containing embedded packets, like ICMP echo, are TBD.
7.2 6to4
A host utilizing 6to4 [RFC3056] with port restricted IPv4 addresses MUST pick the
16-bit .SLA ID. value for the 6to4 prefix(es) construction from the pool of
allocated port values. The multiplexing gateway MUST then multiplex 6to4 traffic
based on .SLA ID. value as it would multiplex plain IPv4 traffic based on port
values. I.e. for incoming packets the gateway shall look at the destination IPv4
address and the .SLA ID.-field from tunneled IPv6 packet.s destination IPv6
address, and then select the right route as it would have picked the port number
from a transport layer header.
7.3 Protocols not supported by multiplexing gateway
The case where port range router is not able to multiplex a protocol is similar to
a case where middle box, such as firewall or NAT, blocks traffic it is not able or
willing to pass trough. The application is recommended to fallback to UDP
encapsulation often used for NAT traversal, for which gateway is able to perform
multiplexing.
8. IANA considerations
This document defines new DHCPv4 option as described in section 3: Port Restricted
IP Address Option for DHCPv4 (OPTION-IPv4-PRA) TBD.
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 14]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
9. Security considerations
The solution is generally vulnerable to DoS when used in shared medium or when
access network authentication is not a prerequisite to IP address assignment. The
solution SHOULD only be used on point-to-point links, tunnels, and/or in
environments where authentication at link layer is performed before IP address
assignment, and not shared medium.
The cryptographically random port delegation mechanism is vulnerable for blind
attacks initiated by hosts located in the same administrative domain, served by
the same DHCP server, and that are sharing the same public IPv4 address, and
therefore have knowledge of the cryptographic key used for that particular public
IPv4 address.
10. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., .Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels., March 1997
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC2131, March 1997
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B., Moore, K., .Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4
Clouds., February 2001
11. Informative References
[ARKK2008] Arkko, J., Townsley, M., "IPv4 Run-Out and IPv4-IPv6
Co-Existence Scenarios", September 2008, draft-arkko-
townsley-coexistence-00
[WING2008] Wing, D., Ward, D., Durand, A., "A Comparison of
Proposals to Replace NAT-PT", September 2008, draft-
wing-nat-pt-replacement-comparison
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., J. de
Groot, G., Lear, E., "Address Allocation for Private
Internets", RFC1918, February 1996
[MAEN2008] Maennel, O., Bush, R., Cittadini, L., Bellovin, S., "A
Better Approach than Carrier-Grade-NAT", 2008,
Technical Report CUCS-041-08
[RANDOMPORT] Larsen, M., Gont, F., .Port Randomization., August 2008, draft-ietf-
tsvwg-port-randomization-02
[CIPHERS] John Black and Phillip Rogaway: .Ciphers with Arbitrary Finite
Domains., Topics in Cryptology - CT-RSA 2002, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science vol. 2271, 2002
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 15]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
[DSLITE] A. Durand et al .Dual-stack lite broadband deployments post IPv4
exhaustion., November 2008, draft-durand-softwire-dual-stack-lite
[BOUCADAIR] Boucadair, M, Ed., Grimault, J-L., Levis, P., Villefranque, A.,
.DHCP Options for Conveying Port Mask and Port Range Router IP
Address., October 2008, draft-boucadair-dhc-port-range
[BOUCADAIRARCH] Boucadair, M., Ed., Levis, P., Bajko, G., Savolainen, T., .IPv4
Connectivity Access in the Context of IPv4 Address Exhaustion.,
January 2009, draft-boucadair-port-range
[APLUSP] Maennel, O., Bush, R., Cittadini, L., Bellovin, S., "The A+P
Approach to the IPv4 Address Shortage", January 2009, draft-ymbk-
aplusp
12. Contributors
The port range allocation using Port Range Value / Port Range Mask comes from
[BOUCADAIR], authored by Mohamed Boucadair, Jean Luc Grimault and Pierre Levis.
The encryption function from section 5 was provided by Pasi Eronen.
The text on 6to4 handling was proposed by Dave Thaler.
The rest of the document was written and edited by Gabor Bajko and Teemu
Savolainen.
The authors would also like to thank Lars Eggert, Olaf Maenel, Randy Bush, Alain
Durand, Jean-Luc Grimault, Alain Villefranque for their valuable comments.
13. Authors' Addresses
Gabor Bajko
gabor(dot)bajko(at)nokia(dot)com
Teemu Savolainen
Nokia
Hermiankatu 12 D
FI-33720 TAMPERE
Finland
Email: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
Mohamed Boucadair
France Telecom
42 rue des Coutures
BP 6243
Caen Cedex 4 14066
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 16]
Port Restricted IP address assignment March 2009
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
Pierre Levis
France Telecom
42 rue des Coutures
BP 6243
Caen Cedex 4 14066
France
Email: pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com
Bajko Expires September 5, 2009 [Page 17]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 20:38:14 |