<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!-- This template is for creating an Internet Draft using xml2rfc,
    which is available here: http://xml.resource.org. -->
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" [
<!-- One method to get references from the online citation libraries.
    There has to be one entity for each item to be referenced. 
    An alternate method (rfc include) is described in the references. -->

<!ENTITY RFC2119 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC2629 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2629.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3552 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3552.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5226 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5226.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5569 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5569.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5969 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5969.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5952 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5952.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC5737 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.5737.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3849 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3849.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC6104 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.6104.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC3633 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.3633.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4443 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4443.xml">
<!ENTITY RFC4620 SYSTEM "http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.4620.xml">


<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?>
<!-- used by XSLT processors -->
<!-- For a complete list and description of processing instructions (PIs), 
    please see http://xml.resource.org/authoring/README.html. -->
<!-- Below are generally applicable Processing Instructions (PIs) that most I-Ds might want to use.
    (Here they are set differently than their defaults in xml2rfc v1.32) -->
<?rfc strict="yes" ?>
<!-- give errors regarding ID-nits and DTD validation -->
<!-- control the table of contents (ToC) -->
<?rfc toc='yes'?>
<!-- generate a ToC -->
<?rfc tocdepth='4'?>
<!-- the number of levels of subsections in ToC. default: 3 -->
<!-- control references -->
<!-- use symbolic references tags, i.e, [RFC2119] instead of [1] -->
<?rfc toc='yes'?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
<!-- sort the reference entries alphabetically -->
<!-- control vertical white space 
    (using these PIs as follows is recommended by the RFC Editor) -->
<?rfc compact="yes" ?>
<!-- do not start each main section on a new page -->
<?rfc subcompact="no" ?>
<!-- keep one blank line between list items -->
<!-- end of list of popular I-D processing instructions -->
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-shishio-v6ops-dpvt-01" ipr="trust200902" updates="4443">
 <!-- category values: std, bcp, info, exp, and historic
    ipr values: trust200902, noModificationTrust200902, noDerivativesTrust200902,
       or pre5378Trust200902
    you can add the attributes updates="NNNN" and obsoletes="NNNN" 
    they will automatically be output with "(if approved)" -->

  <!-- ***** FRONT MATTER ***** -->

  <front>
    <!-- The abbreviated title is used in the page header - it is only necessary if the 
         full title is longer than 39 characters -->
      <title abbrev="Delegated Prefix Verification Tool">
      IPv6 Delegated Prefix Verification Tool 
      </title>

    <!-- add 'role="editor"' below for the editors if appropriate -->

    <!-- Another author who claims to be an editor -->
    <author fullname="Shishio Tsuchiya" initials="S.T." role="editor"
            surname="Tsuchiya">
      <organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>Midtown Tower, 9-7-1,Akasaka</street>
          <city>Minato-Ku</city>
          <region>Tokyo</region>
          <code>107-6227</code>
          <country>Japan</country>
        </postal>
        <phone>+81 3 6434 6543</phone>
        <email>shtsuchi@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
     

    <date month="February" year="2013" />

    <!-- If the month and year are both specified and are the current ones, xml2rfc will fill 
         in the current day for you. If only the current year is specified, xml2rfc will fill 
	 in the current day and month for you. If the year is not the current one, it is 
	 necessary to specify at least a month (xml2rfc assumes day="1" if not specified for the 
	 purpose of calculating the expiry date).  With drafts it is normally sufficient to 
	 specify just the year. -->

    <!-- Meta-data Declarations -->

    <area></area>

    <workgroup></workgroup>

 <!-- WG name at the upperleft corner of the doc,
         IETF is fine for individual submissions.  
	 If this element is not present, the default is "Network Working Group",
         which is used by the RFC Editor as a nod to the history of the IETF. -->

    <keyword>template</keyword>

    <!-- Keywords will be incorporated into HTML output
         files in a meta tag but they have no effect on text or nroff
         output. If you submit your draft to the RFC Editor, the
         keywords will be used for the search engine. -->

    <abstract>
      <t>IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCP-PD) and IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd) are technology to provide IPv6 prefix, not IPv6 address themselves.</t>
     <t>Delegated Prefix are controlled by Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) and  6rd Customer Edge (6rd CE). The service provider can not confirm utilization of delegated prefix on CE and CPE.</t>
     <t> This document describes mechanism of verification for delegated prefix  on CPE and CE from service provider side. </t>
    </abstract>
  </front>

  <middle>
<section title="Introduction">

      <t>IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCP-PD) is defined as RFC3633,IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd) is defined as RFC5969.  Both of technologies provide IPv6 prefix to edge device on the access network. Delegated edge devices are assigned IPv6 address to the interface from delegated prefix.</t>
     
    <t> Prefix Delegation is effective approach to assign IPv6 address hierarchical with scalability. But there are some issues from maintenance perspective.</t>
      <t>-DHCP-PD server does not care interface address of CPE.</t> 
      <t>-6rd PE does not know which CE are using 6rd delegate prefix.</t>
 
<t> This document proposes new ICMPv6 type to verify delegated prefix on CPE and CE.</t>

</section>

<section title="problem statement">
   <t>The stateless tunnel and prefix delegation technology provides much scalability network to the customer.</t>
   <t>On one hand, these technologies are difficult to plan additional capacity and hard to know current deployment status unless the devices are completely managed.</t>

<section title="6rd[RFC5969] case">   
   <t>6rd[RFC5969] is automatic IPv6 over IPv4 technology. If the operator provides 6rd parameter such as 6rd BR address/6rd prefix/prefix-length and IPv6 internet then CE always can connect without additional  configuration for PE from 6rd domains.</t>
   <t>6rd is stateless technology so the PE operator can not know how many user already connects/configured.</t>
</section>

<section title="DHCP-PD[RFC3633] case">
   <t>Service provider delegates large prefix to CPE. And CPE assigns ipv6 prefix to the client from the delegated prefix.</t>
   <t>ISP does not need maintenance each of client prefix , the architecture provides address hierarchy, thus it can build scalable network.</t>
   <t>But if the RIR policy and address planning would be changed , ISP can not check how the delegated prefixes are using.</t>
</section>

</section>

<section title="Another solution">
  <section title="IPFIX/Netflow">
   <t>Monitor real traffic data using by IPFIX/Netflow could analyze traffic to the internet on both 6rd and DHCP-PD cases. But CPE internal traffic can not find.</t>
  </section>

  <section title="IPv6 Node Information Queries">
 <t>IPv6 Node Information Queries is defined RFC4620 as experimental. It may resolve the problem if the RFC4620 improved as standard.</t>
 </section>

 </section>



<section title="Message Format">
<section title="verification request">
<artwork align="center">

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                            Nonce                              +
      |                                                               |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                      Delegated Prefix                         +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      | Prefix-length |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

</artwork>
<t>IPv6 Fields:</t>
<t>Destination Address</t>
<t>    Any legal IPv6 address. In 6rd case, the destination address should be calculated from outer IPv4 address automatically.</t>
<t>ICMPv6 Fields:</t>
<t>Type TBD will be assigned by IANA.</t>
<t>Code 0: verification request</t>
<t>Nonce :64-bit field to help avoid spoofing. The value in a "verification request" is chosen automatically by Sender. </t>
<t>Delegated Prefix(128bit): the delegate prefix which is the operators would like to know.</t>
<t>Prefix-length 8bit </t>
</section>

<section title="verification reply">
<artwork align="center">

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                         Nonce                                 +
      |                                                               |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+
      |                         index                                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +                    IPv6 interface address                     +
      |                                                               |
      +                                                               +
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                         index                                 |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                  IPv6 interface address                       +            

</artwork>
<t>IPv6 Fields:</t>
<t>Destination Address</t>
<t>    Copied from the Source Address field of the invoking packet.</t>
<t>ICMPv6 Fields:</t>
<t>Type TBD will be assigned by IANA.</t>
<t>Code 1: verification reply</t>
<t>Nonce :64-bit field to help avoid spoofing.The value in a "verification reply" is copied from the value of "verification request". </t>
<t>index: the value must be copied from SNMP ifindex</t>
<t>IPv6 interface address: The interface address are matched Delegated Prefix and prefix-length of verification request. </t>

</section>

<section title="does not match">
<artwork align="center">

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |     Type      |     Code      |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      +                          Nonce                                +
      |                                                               |
      +---------------------------------------------------------------+
      |                            MBZ                                |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

</artwork>
<t>IPv6 Fields:</t>
<t>Destination Address</t>
<t>    Copied from the Source Address field of the invoking packet.</t>
<t>ICMPv6 Fields:</t>
<t>Type TBD will be assigned by IANA.</t>
<t>Code 2: does not match any.</t>
<t>Nonce :64-bit field to help avoid spoofing.The value in a "does not match" is copied from the value of "verification request". </t>
<t>MBZ:Must be Zero</t>
</section>

</section>

<section title="packet processing">
<t>1. The request node make "verification request" with delegated prefix which are the operator would like to check.</t>
<t>2. The received node compares interface address and  Delegated Prefix/prefix-length in the packets.</t>
<t> 3-a. If the received node's interface address match the Delegated Prefix/prefix-length, then it contains the interface address and snmp ifindex in the "verification reply".</t>
<t> 3-b. If the receives node's interface address does not match the Delegated Prefix/prefix-length, then it makes "does not match any."</t>

</section>

<section title="development consideration">
<t>If the delegated prefix also delegates to another router. The ISP can not check any even if the protocol is executed.</t>

</section>

<section title="history">
<artwork align="left">
-00 published
-01 add problem statement,another solution,deployment consideration
    add "nonce" to the packets
    modify security consideration
    
</artwork>
</section>



<section anchor="Acknowledgements" title="Acknowledgements">
      <t>The author would like to thank Lorenzo Colitti, Vízdal Aleš, Owen DeLong and Gunter Van de Velde for their useful comment.</t> 
    <!-- Possibly a 'Contributors' section ... -->
</section>

<section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations">
      <t>IANA should assign New type and code of ICMPv6.</t>
</section>

<section anchor="Security" title="Security Considerations">
      <t>This protocol shares the security issues of ICMPv6 that are documented in the "Security Considerations" section of RFC4443</t>
      <t>This protocol has potential risk, because the configuration information be shared by "verification reply" message.</t>
      <t>The nonce mechanism could avoid spoofing "verification reply"/"does not response". But it is not protect from attacker.</t>
      <t>The implementation SHOULD be accepted from this NEW TYPE of ICMPv6 message from only authorized node such as 6rd BR and DHCP-PD server.</t>
</section>

</middle>

  <!--  *****BACK MATTER ***** -->

  <back>
    <!-- References split into informative and normative -->

    <!-- There are 2 ways to insert reference entries from the citation libraries:
     1. define an ENTITY at the top, and use "ampersand character"RFC2629; here (as shown)
     2. simply use a PI "less than character"?rfc include="reference.RFC.2119.xml"?> here
        (for I-Ds: include="reference.I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.xml")

     Both are cited textually in the same manner: by using xref elements.
     If you use the PI option, xml2rfc will, by default, try to find included files in the same
     directory as the including file. You can also define the XML_LIBRARY environment variable
     with a value containing a set of directories to search.  These can be either in the local
     filing system or remote ones accessed by http (http://domain/dir/... ).-->

    <references title="Normative References">
      <!--?rfc include="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.RFC.2119.xml"?-->
      &RFC2119;
      &RFC5969;
      &RFC3633;
      &RFC4443;
      &RFC4620;

      </references>

<references title="Informative References">
</references>

    <!-- Change Log

v00 2006-03-15  EBD   Initial version

v01 2006-04-03  EBD   Moved PI location back to position 1 -
                      v3.1 of XMLmind is better with them at this location.
v02 2007-03-07  AH    removed extraneous nested_list attribute,
                      other minor corrections
v03 2007-03-09  EBD   Added comments on null IANA sections and fixed heading capitalization.
                      Modified comments around figure to reflect non-implementation of
                      figure indent control.  Put in reference using anchor="DOMINATION".
                      Fixed up the date specification comments to reflect current truth.
v04 2007-03-09 AH     Major changes: shortened discussion of PIs,
                      added discussion of rfc include.
v05 2007-03-10 EBD    Added preamble to C program example to tell about ABNF and alternative 
                      images. Removed meta-characters from comments (causes problems).  -->
</back>
</rfc>
