Internet-Draft TEAP DHCPv6 TLV June 2025
Lear & Dekok Expires 19 December 2025 [Page]
Workgroup:
EMU Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-lear-teap-config-options-latest
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
E. Lear
Cisco Ssytes, Inc.
A. Dekok
InkBridge Networks

New TEAP TLV for Encapsulating DHCPv6 Options

Abstract

This document defines a new Tunneled Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Type-Length-Value (TLV) to encapsulate DHCPv6 (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Version 6) options within TEAP authentication exchanges. This enhancement enables exchange of network configuration parameters after the authentication phase.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

The latest revision of this draft can be found at https://elear.github.io/teap-config-options/main/draft-lear-teap-config-options.html. Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lear-teap-config-options/.

Discussion of this document takes place on the EMU WG Working Group mailing list (mailto:emu@ietf.org), which is archived at https://example.com/WG. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu/.

Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/elear/draft-lear-teap-config-option.

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

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."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 19 December 2025.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

TEAP (Tunneled Extensible Authentication Protocol), defined in [RFC7170], supports the use of Type-Length-Value (TLV) structures to exchange additional data during the authentication process. DHCPv6 [RFC8415] is widely used for configuration of network parameters. This document introduces a new TLV to encapsulate DHCPv6 options within TEAP messages.

[RFC9445] specifies a way to communicate options to a radius client. This memo specifies a means to communicate options end-to-end between the authentication server and the peer.

Not all DHCP communications will necessarily make sense in this context. For instance, a AAA server may only wish to send non-topological options, such as a print server, or next hop configuration URL, and it might not send next-hop router or IP address binding information.

1.1. Use of both DHCPv6 and TEAP protocols

Because DHCPv6 is widely deployed, peers implementing this specifciation can expect to receive information via TEAP and DHCPv6. Thereefore, the possibility of a conflict arises. Clients are not in a good position to determine on their own which information is correct. Therefore, the following strategy is RECOMMENDED:

  1. Peers receiving information only via DHCP will use that information.

  2. Peers receiving DHCP information only via TEAP will use that information.

  3. Peers receiving overlapping DHCPv6 options SHOULD select TEAP information since it is likely to be better authenticated and unchanged.

  4. If conflicting information is received by the peer it SHOULD log the conflict as an error and MAY produce an exception.

2. TEAP TLV for DHCPv6 Options

Both the TEAP server and TEAP client MAY transmit this TLV during Phase 2, and it MAY be included in a Request Action frame. The Mandatory bit MUST not be set. If either side sends this TLV prior to Phase 2, an error TLV of 2002 (Unexpected TLVs Exchanged) be returned with a Result of Status=Failure. That is, the table in Section 4.3.1 of [I-D.ietf-emu-rfc7170bis] remains unchanged.

Thus this TLV MAY be used as follows:

Table 1: When is this TLV Allowed
Request Response Success Failure TLV
0+ 0+ 0+ 0 DHCPv6 options

A TEAP peer or server receiving this TLV SHOULD NOT act on it until the other side has been sufficiently authenticated, but it is not an error to send this TLV in advance of such authentication. In this way, the TLV can be conveniently piggybacked as part of the authentication prior to a result or intermediate result being generated.

2.1. TLV Format

The new TEAP TLV for DHCPv6 options is structured as follows:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |M|R|         TLV Type          |            Length             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |           DHCPv6 fields...
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Figure 1: DHCP options TLV format
   M

      0 - Optional TLV

   R

      Reserved, set to zero (0)

   TLV Type

      TBD - DHCPv6 options

   Length

      >=2 octets

2.2. DHCPv6 Option Encapsulation

The Value field encapsulates DHCPv6 options exactly as they appear in DHCPv6 messages. Multiple options can be included, concatenated sequentially, with no padding between them.

The format adheres to the standard DHCPv6 option encoding, ensuring compatibility with existing DHCPv6 implementations.

Encapsulating this option in the TLV would look as follows (in hexadecimal):

Type: 0xXXXX (assigned by IANA)
Length: 0x0014
Value: 0x00170010FE8000000000000000000000000001

Where:

  • Type = 0xXXXX (placeholder for the assigned type value)

  • Length = 0x0014 (20 bytes for the "Recursive DNS Servers" option, including addresses)

  • Value = 0x00170010FE8000000000000000000000000001 (DHCPv6 Option 23 with an IPv6 address of FE80::1).

3. Security Considerations

Encapsulating DHCPv6 options within TEAP messages inherits the security guarantees of the TEAP protocol. Further details on mitigation strategies are discussed in [RFC7170].

4. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to assign a new TEAP TLV type value for the DHCPv6 Options TLV from the TEAP TLV Type registry defined in [RFC7170].

5. Acknowledgements

The authors hope to thank the members of the IETF EMU Working Group for their valuable input and contributions.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ietf-emu-rfc7170bis]
DeKok, A., "Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-22, , <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-22>.
[RFC7170]
Zhou, H., Cam-Winget, N., Salowey, J., and S. Hanna, "Tunnel Extensible Authentication Protocol (TEAP) Version 1", RFC 7170, DOI 10.17487/RFC7170, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7170>.
[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/RFC8415, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8415>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC9445]
Boucadair, M., Reddy.K, T., and A. DeKok, "RADIUS Extensions for DHCP-Configured Services", RFC 9445, DOI 10.17487/RFC9445, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9445>.

Acknowledgments

TODO acknowledge.

Authors' Addresses

Eliot Lear
Cisco Ssytes, Inc.
Richtistrasse 7
CH-8304 Wallisellen
Switzerland
Alan Dekok
InkBridge Networks