| Rfc | 4242 |
|---|
| Title | Information Refresh Time Option for Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) |
|---|
| Author | S. Venaas, T. Chown, B. Volz |
|---|
| Date | November
2005 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Obsoleted by | RFC8415 |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED
STANDARD |
|---|
|
Network Working Group S. Venaas
Request for Comments: 4242 UNINETT
Category: Standards Track T. Chown
University of Southampton
B. Volz
Cisco Systems, Inc.
November 2005
Information Refresh Time Option for
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This document describes a Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6) option for specifying an upper bound for how long a
client should wait before refreshing information retrieved from
DHCPv6. It is used with stateless DHCPv6 as there are no addresses
or other entities with lifetimes that can tell the client when to
contact the DHCPv6 server to refresh its configuration.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................2
3. Information Refresh Time Option Definition ......................2
3.1. Constants ..................................................3
3.2. Client Behaviour ...........................................3
3.3. Server Behaviour ...........................................4
3.4. Option Format ..............................................5
4. IANA Considerations .............................................5
5. Acknowledgements ................................................5
6. Security Considerations .........................................5
7. References ......................................................6
7.1. Normative References .......................................6
7.2. Informative References .....................................6
1. Introduction
DHCPv6 [RFC3315] specifies stateful autoconfiguration for IPv6 hosts.
However, many hosts will use stateless autoconfiguration as specified
in [RFC2462] for address assignment, and use DHCPv6 only for other
configuration data; see [RFC3736]. This other configuration data
will typically have no associated lifetime, hence there may be no
information telling a host when to refresh its DHCPv6 configuration
data. Therefore, an option that can be used from server to client to
inform the client when it should refresh the other configuration data
is needed.
This option is useful in many situations:
- Unstable environments where unexpected changes are likely to
occur.
- For planned changes, including renumbering. An administrator
can gradually decrease the time as the event nears.
- Limit the amount of time before new services or servers are
available to the client, such as the addition of a new NTP
server or a change of address of a DNS server. See [RFC4076].
2. Terminology
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
3. Information Refresh Time Option Definition
The information refresh time option specifies an upper bound for how
long a client should wait before refreshing information retrieved
from DHCPv6. It is only used in Reply messages in response to
Information-Request messages. In other messages there will usually
be other options that indicate when the client should contact the
server, e.g., addresses with lifetimes.
Note that it is only an upper bound. If the client has any reason to
make a DHCPv6 request before the refresh time expires, it should
attempt to refresh all the data.
A client may contact the server before the refresh time expires.
Reasons it may do this include the need for additional configuration
parameters (such as by an application), a new IPv6 prefix announced
by a router, or that it has an indication that it may have moved to a
new link.
The refresh time option specifies a common refresh time for all the
data. It doesn't make sense to have different refresh time values
for different data, since when the client has reason to refresh some
of its data, it should also refresh the remaining data. Because of
this, the option must only appear in the options area of the Reply
message.
The expiry of the refresh time in itself does not in any way mean
that the client should remove the data. The client should keep its
current data while attempting to refresh it. However, the client is
free to fall back to mechanisms other than DHCPv6 if it cannot
refresh the data within a reasonable amount of time.
When a client receives a Reply to an Information-Request that
contains configuration information, it should install that new
configuration information after removing any previously received
configuration information. It should also remove information that is
missing from the new information set, e.g., an option might be left
out or contain only a subset of what it did previously.
3.1. Constants
We define two constants for use by the protocol. How they are used
is specified in the sections below.
IRT_DEFAULT 86400
In some cases the client uses a default refresh time
IRT_DEFAULT. The recommended value for IRT_DEFAULT is 86400
(24 hours). The client implementation SHOULD allow for this
value to be configurable.
IRT_MINIMUM 600
This defines a minimum value for the refresh time.
3.2. Client Behaviour
A client MUST request this option in the Option Request Option (ORO)
when sending Information-Request messages to the DHCPv6 server. A
client MUST NOT request this option in the ORO in any other messages.
If the Reply to an Information-Request message does not contain this
option, the client MUST behave as if the option with value
IRT_DEFAULT was provided.
A client MUST use the refresh time IRT_MINIMUM if it receives the
option with a value less than IRT_MINIMUM.
As per section 5.6 of [RFC3315], the value 0xffffffff is taken to
mean "infinity" and implies that the client should not refresh its
configuration data without some other trigger (such as detecting
movement to a new link).
If a client contacts the server to obtain new data or refresh some
existing data before the refresh time expires, then it SHOULD also
refresh all data covered by this option.
When the client detects that the refresh time has expired, it SHOULD
try to update its configuration data by sending an Information-
Request as specified in section 18.1.5 of [RFC3315], except that the
client MUST delay sending the first Information-Request by a random
amount of time between 0 and INF_MAX_DELAY.
A client MAY have a maximum value for the refresh time, where that
value is used whenever the client receives this option with a value
higher than the maximum. This also means that the maximum value is
used when the received value is "infinity". A maximum value might
make the client less vulnerable to attacks based on forged DHCP
messages. Without a maximum value, a client may be made to use wrong
information for a possibly infinite period of time. There may
however be reasons for having a very long refresh time, so it may be
useful for this maximum value to be configurable.
3.3. Server Behaviour
A server sending a Reply to an Information-Request message SHOULD
include this option if it is requested in the ORO of the Information-
Request.
The option value MUST NOT be smaller than IRT_MINIMUM. The server
SHOULD give a warning if it is configured with a smaller value.
The option MUST only appear in the options area of Reply messages.
3.4. Option Format
The format of the information refresh time option is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| option-code | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| information-refresh-time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
option-code
OPTION_INFORMATION_REFRESH_TIME (32)
option-len
4
information-refresh-time
Time duration relative to the current time, expressed in units
of seconds
4. IANA Considerations
The IANA has assigned an option code for the information refresh time
option from the DHCPv6 option-code space [RFC3315].
5. Acknowledgements
The authors thank Mat Ford, Tatuya Jinmei, Ted Lemon, Thomas Narten,
Joe Quanaim, and A.K. Vijayabhaskar for valuable discussions and
comments.
6. Security Considerations
Section 23 of [RFC3315] outlines the DHCPv6 security considerations.
This option does not change these in any significant way. An
attacker could send faked Reply messages with a low information
refresh time value, which would trigger use of IRT_MINIMUM to
minimize this threat. Another attack might be to send a very large
value, to make the client use forged information for a long period of
time. A possible maximum limit at the client is suggested, which
would reduce this problem.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2462] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3736] Droms, R., "Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP) Service for IPv6", RFC 3736, April 2004.
7.2. Informative References
[RFC4076] Chown, T., Venaas, S., and A. Vijayabhaskar, "Renumbering
Requirements for Stateless Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 4076, May 2005.
Authors' Addresses
Stig Venaas
UNINETT
Trondheim NO 7465
Norway
EMail: venaas@uninett.no
Tim Chown
University of Southampton
School of Electronics and Computer Science
Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ
United Kingdom
EMail: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Bernard Volz
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1414 Massachusetts Ave.
Boxborough, MA 01719
USA
EMail: volz@cisco.com
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.