RFC 9686: Registering Self-Generated IPv6 Addresses Using DHCPv6
- W. Kumari,
- S. Krishnan,
- R. Asati,
- L. Colitti,
- J. Linkova,
- S. Jiang
Abstract
This document defines a method to inform a DHCPv6 server that a device has one or more self-generated or statically configured addresses.¶
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 7841.¶
Information about the current status of this document, any
errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://
1. Introduction
It is very common operational practice, especially in enterprise networks, to use IPv4 DHCP logs for troubleshooting or forensics purposes. An example of this includes a help desk dealing with a ticket such as "The CEO's laptop cannot connect to the printer"; if the Media Access Control (MAC) address of the printer is known (for example, from an inventory system), the printer's IPv4 address can be retrieved from the DHCP log or lease table and the printer can be pinged to determine if it is reachable. Another common example is a security operations team discovering suspicious events in outbound firewall logs and then consulting DHCP logs to determine which employee's laptop had that IPv4 address at that time so that they can quarantine it and remove the malware.¶
This operational practice relies on the DHCP server knowing the IP
address assignments. This works quite well for IPv4 addresses, as most
addresses are either assigned by DHCP [RFC2131] or
statically configured by the network operator. For IPv6, however, this
practice is much harder to implement, as devices often self-configure
IPv6 addresses via Stateless Address Autoconfigurati
This document provides a mechanism for a device to inform the DHCPv6 server that the device has a self-configured IPv6 address (or has a statically configured address), and thus provides parity with IPv4 by making DHCPv6 infrastructure aware of self-assigned IPv6 addresses.¶
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.¶
3. Registration Mechanism Overview
The DHCPv6 protocol is used as the address registration protocol and
a DHCPv6 server performs the role of an address registration server.
This document introduces a new Address Registration
After successfully assigning a self-generated or statically configured valid IPv6 address [RFC4862] on one of its interfaces, a client implementing this specification multicasts an ADDR-REG-INFORM message (see Section 4.2) in order to inform the DHCPv6 server that this self-generated address is in use. Each ADDR-REG-INFORM message contains a DHCPv6 Identity Association (IA) Address option [RFC8415] to specify the address being registered.¶
The address registration mechanism overview is shown in Figure 1.¶
4. DHCPv6 Address Registration Procedure
4.1. DHCPv6 Address Registration Option
The Address Registration option
If a client has the address registration mechanism enabled, it MUST include this option in all Option Request options that it sends.¶
A server that is configured to support the address registration mechanism MUST include this option in Advertise and Reply messages if the client message it is replying to contained this option in the Option Request option.¶
4.2. DHCPv6 Address Registration Request Message
The DHCPv6 client sends an ADDR-REG-INFORM message to inform that an IPv6 address is assigned to the client's interface. The format of the ADDR-REG-INFORM message is described as follows:¶
- msg-type:
- Identifies the DHCPv6 message type; set to ADDR-REG-INFORM (36).¶
- transaction-id:
- The transaction ID for this message exchange.¶
- options:
- The options carried in this message.¶
The client MUST generate a transaction ID as described in [RFC8415] and insert this value in the transaction-id field.¶
The client MUST include the Client Identifier option [RFC8415] in the ADDR-REG-INFORM message.¶
The ADDR-REG-INFORM message MUST NOT contain the
Server Identifier option and MUST contain exactly one IA
Address option containing the address being registered. The
valid-lifetime and preferred
The ADDR-REG-INFORM message is dedicated for clients to initiate an address registration request toward an address registration server. Consequently, clients MUST NOT put any Option Request option(s) in the ADDR-REG-INFORM message. Clients MAY include other options, such as the Client FQDN option [RFC4704].¶
The client sends the DHCPv6 ADDR-REG-INFORM message to the
All
Unlike other types of messages, which are sent from the link-local address of the client, the ADDR-REG-INFORM message MUST be sent from the address being registered. This is primarily for "fate sharing" purposes; for example, if the network implements some form of Layer 2 security to prevent a client from spoofing other clients' MAC addresses, this prevents an attacker from spoofing ADDR-REG-INFORM messages.¶
On clients with multiple interfaces, the client MUST only send the packet on the network interface that has the address being registered, even if it has multiple interfaces with different addresses. If the same address is configured on multiple interfaces, then the client MUST send the ADDR-REG-INFORM message each time the address is configured on an interface that did not previously have it and refresh each registration independently from the others.¶
The client MUST only send the ADDR-REG-INFORM message for valid addresses [RFC4862] of global scope [RFC4007]. This includes Unique Local Addresses (ULAs), which are defined in [RFC4193] to have global scope. This also includes statically assigned addresses of global scope (such addresses are considered to be valid indefinitely). The client MUST NOT send the ADDR-REG-INFORM message for addresses configured by DHCPv6.¶
The client SHOULD NOT send the ADDR-REG-INFORM message unless it has received a Router Advertisement (RA) message with either the M or O flags set to 1.¶
Clients MUST discard any received ADDR-REG-INFORM messages.¶
4.2.1. Server Message Processing
Servers MUST discard any ADDR-REG-INFORM messages that meet any of the following conditions:¶
If the message is not discarded, the address registration server SHOULD verify that the address being registered is "appropriate to the link" as defined by [RFC8415] or within a prefix delegated to the client via DHCPv6 for Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) (see Section 6.3 of [RFC8415]). If the address being registered fails this verification, the server MUST drop the message and SHOULD log this fact. If the message passes the verification, the server:¶
If a client is multihomed (i.e., connected to multiple administrative
domains, each operating its own DHCPv6 infrastructure
As mentioned in Section 4.2, although a client "MUST NOT send the ADDR-REG-INFORM message for addresses configured by DHCPv6", if a server does receive such a message, it SHOULD log and discard it.¶
DHCPv6 relay agents and switches that relay address registration messages directly from clients MUST include the client's link-layer address in the relayed message using the Client Link-Layer Address option [RFC6939] if they would do so for other DHCPv6 client messages such as Solicit, Request, and Rebind.¶
4.3. DHCPv6 Address Registration Acknowledgement
The server MUST acknowledge receipt of a valid ADDR-REG-INFORM message by sending back an ADDR-REG-REPLY message. The format of the ADDR-REG-REPLY message is described as follows:¶
- msg-type:
- Identifies the DHCPv6 message type; set to ADDR-REG-REPLY (37).¶
- transaction-id:
- The transaction ID for this message exchange.¶
- options:
- The options carried in this message.¶
If the ADDR-REG-INFORM message that the server is replying to was not relayed, then the IPv6 destination address of the message MUST be the address being registered. If the ADDR-REG-INFORM message was relayed, then the server MUST construct the Relay-reply message as specified in Section 19.3 of [RFC8415].¶
The server MUST copy the transaction-id from the ADDR-REG-INFORM message to the transaction-id field of the ADDR-REG-REPLY.¶
The ADDR-REG-REPLY message MUST contain an IA Address option for the address being registered. The option MUST be identical to the one in the ADDR-REG-INFORM message that the server is replying to.¶
Servers MUST ignore any received ADDR-REG-REPLY messages.¶
Clients MUST discard any ADDR-REG-REPLY messages that meet any of the following conditions:¶
The ADDR-REG-REPLY message only indicates that the ADDR-REG-INFORM message has been received and that the client should not retransmit it. The ADDR-REG-REPLY message MUST NOT be considered to be any indication of the address validity and MUST NOT be required for the address to be usable. DHCPv6 relays, or other devices that snoop ADDR-REG-REPLY messages, MUST NOT add or alter any forwarding or security state based on the ADDR-REG-REPLY message.¶
4.4. Signaling Address Registration Support
To avoid undesired multicast traffic, the client MUST NOT register addresses using this mechanism unless the DHCPv6
infrastructure supports address registration. The client can discover
this by including the OPTION
The client MUST discover whether the DHCPv6 infrastructure supports address registration every time it connects to a network or when it detects it has moved to a new link, without utilizing any prior knowledge about address registration support on that network or link. This client behavior allows networks to progressively roll out support for the Address Registration option across the DHCPv6 infrastructure without causing clients to frequently stop and restart address registration if some of the network's DHCPv6 servers support it and some do not.¶
A client with multiple interfaces MUST discover address registration support for each interface independently. The client MUST NOT send address registration messages on a given interface unless the client has discovered that the interface is connected to a network that supports address registration.¶
4.5. Retransmission
To reduce the effects of packet loss on registration, the client MUST retransmit the registration message. Retransmissions SHOULD follow the standard retransmission logic specified by Section 15 of [RFC8415] with the following default parameters for the initial retransmission time (IRT) and maximum retransmission count (MRC):¶
The client SHOULD allow these parameters to be configured by the administrator.¶
To comply with Section 16.1 of [RFC8415], the client MUST leave the transaction ID unchanged in retransmissions of an ADDR-REG-INFORM message. When the client retransmits the registration message, the lifetimes in the packet MUST be updated so that they match the current lifetimes of the address.¶
If an ADDR-REG-REPLY message is received for the address being registered, the client MUST stop retransmission.¶
4.6. Registration Expiry and Refresh
The client MUST refresh registrations to ensure that the server is always aware of which addresses are still valid. The client SHOULD perform refreshes as described below.¶
4.6.1. SLAAC Addresses
For an address configured using SLAAC, a function
Addr
Whenever the client registers or refreshes an address, it
calculates a Next
Whenever the network changes the Valid Lifetime of an existing
address by more than 1%, for example, by sending a Prefix
Information Option (PIO) [RFC4861] with a new Valid
Lifetime, the client calculates a new Addr
Justification: This algorithm ensures that refreshes are not sent too frequently while ensuring that the server never believes that the address has expired when it has not. Specifically, after every registration:¶
4.6.2. Statically Assigned Addresses
A statically assigned address has an infinite Valid Lifetime
that is not affected by RAs. Therefore, whenever
the client registers or refreshes a statically assigned address, the
next refresh is scheduled for Static
4.6.3. Transmitting Refreshes
When a refresh is performed, the client MAY
refresh all addresses assigned to the interface that are scheduled
to be refreshed within the next Addr
Registration refresh packets MUST be retransmitted using the same logic as used for initial registrations (see Section 4.5).¶
The client MUST generate a new transaction ID when refreshing the registration.¶
When a Client
The client MAY choose to notify the server when an
address is no longer being used (e.g., if the client is
disconnecting from the network, the address lifetime expired, or the
address is being removed from the interface). To indicate that the
address is not being used anymore, the client MUST set
the preferred
5. Client Configuration
DHCP clients SHOULD allow the administrator to disable sending ADDR-REG-INFORM messages. Sending the messages SHOULD be enabled by default.¶
6. Security Considerations
An attacker may attempt to register a large number of addresses in quick succession in order to overwhelm the address registration server and/or fill up log files. Similar attack vectors exist today, e.g., an attacker can DoS the server with messages containing spoofed DHCP Unique Identifiers (DUIDs) [RFC8415].¶
If a network is using First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation Improvement (FCFS SAVI) [RFC6620], then the DHCPv6 server can trust that the ADDR-REG-INFORM message was sent by the legitimate holder of the address. This prevents a client from registering an address configured on another client.¶
One of the use cases for the mechanism described in this document is to identify sources of malicious traffic after the fact. Note, however, that as the device itself is responsible for informing the DHCPv6 server that it is using an address, a malicious or compromised device can simply choose to not send the ADDR-REG-INFORM message. This is an informational, optional mechanism and is designed to aid in troubleshooting and forensics. On its own, it is not intended to be a strong security access mechanism. In particular, the ADDR-REG-INFORM message MUST NOT be used for authentication and authorization purposes, because in addition to the reasons above, the packets containing the message may be dropped.¶
7. Privacy Considerations
If the network doesn't have Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) snooping enabled, then IPv6
link-local multicast traffic is effectively transmitted as broadcast.
In such networks, an on-link attacker listening to DHCPv6 messages might
obtain information about IPv6 addresses assigned to the client. As
ADDR-REG-INFORM messages contain unique identifiers such as the client's
DUID, the attacker may be able to track addresses being registered and
map them to the same client, even if the client uses randomized MAC
addresses. This privacy consideration is not specific to the proposed
mechanism. Section 4.3 of [RFC7844]
discusses using the DUID for device tracking in DHCPv6 environments and
provides mitigation recommendations
In general, hiding information about the specific IPv6 address from on-link observers should not be considered a security measure, as such information is usually disclosed via Duplicate Address Detection [RFC4862] to all nodes anyway, if MLD snooping is not enabled.¶
If MLD snooping is enabled, an attacker might be able to join the
All
8. IANA Considerations
This document introduces the following entities, which have been
allocated in the "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)" registry group defined at
<http://
9. References
9.1. Normative References
- [RFC2119]
-
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2119 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2119 - [RFC2131]
-
Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC2131 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc2131 - [RFC4007]
-
Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4007 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4007 - [RFC4193]
-
Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4193 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4193 - [RFC4704]
-
Volz, B., "The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Client Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) Option", RFC 4704, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4704 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4704 - [RFC4862]
-
Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigurati
on" , RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487 , , <https:///RFC4862 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4862 - [RFC6939]
-
Halwasia, G., Bhandari, S., and W. Dec, "Client Link-Layer Address Option in DHCPv6", RFC 6939, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6939 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6939 - [RFC7844]
-
Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC7844 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc7844 - [RFC8174]
-
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8174 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8174 - [RFC8415]
-
Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A., Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 8415, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC8415 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc8415 - [RFC9131]
-
Linkova, J., "Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries on First-Hop Routers", RFC 9131, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC9131 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc9131
9.2. Informative References
- [RFC4861]
-
Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC4861 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc4861 - [RFC6620]
-
Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "FCFS SAVI: First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation Improvement for Locally Assigned IPv6 Addresses", RFC 6620, DOI 10
.17487 , , <https:///RFC6620 www >..rfc -editor .org /info /rfc6620
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Bernie Volz for the significant review and feedback, as well as Hermin Anggawijaya, Carlos Jesus Bernardos, Brian Carpenter, Stuart Cheshire, Roman Danyliw, Alan DeKok, James Guichard, James Guichard, Erik Kline, Mallory Knodel, Murray Kucherawy, David Lamparter, Ted Lemon, Eric Levy-Abegnoli, Aditi Patange, Jim Reid, Michael Richardson, Patrick Rohr, John Scudder, Mark Smith, Gunter Van de Velde, Eric Vyncke, Timothy Winters, and Peter Yee for their feedback, comments, and guidance. We apologize if we inadvertently forgot to acknowledge anyone's contributions.¶
Contributors
Xuanwu District