DHCPv6-PD - First steps
Prologue
DHCPv6-PD
DHCPv6 is not wildly deployed outside of enterprise networks3. DHCP for Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD) on the other hand is the standard to get IPv6 prefixes into home networks. RFC 8415 has this:
It is appropriate for situations in which the delegating router (1) does not have knowledge about the topology of the networks to which the requesting router is attached and (2) does not require other information aside from the identity of the requesting router to choose a prefix for delegation. This mechanism is appropriate for use by an ISP to delegate a prefix to a subscriber, where the delegated prefix would possibly be subnetted and assigned to the links within the subscriber's network.
Transmogrifying dhcpleased(8)
This not being my first rodeo, it took me about 4 hours over a weekend
to transmogrify dhcpleased(8)
into dhcp6leased(8)
and have it talk
to my Fritz!Box. I have also setup ISC's Kea DHCP server for easier
development and to not risk my production network at home. Of course
it is not yet able to configure the system, but it can request a
prefix delegation from the server and parse the response. This is
enough to play with the protocol and work on the grammar for the
configuration file.
Describing network topology
dhcp6leased(8)
will not just request an IPv6 prefix delegation but
also use the delegated prefix to assign prefixes to downstream network
interfaces. rad(8) can then be used to send router advertisements for
clients to get IPv6 connectivity on different subnets in the home
network.
The typical use case is probably to have a few networks connected to
the OpenBSD router using vlans4 and assign /64
prefixes to each one of
them.
A more advanced use case would be to assign prefixes of different
lengths to the vlan interfaces. For example I have a whole (virtual)
network lab hanging off of an OpenBSD router which is not a single
flat network. I need to assign a /60
to that interface5 to have enough space to subnet
further.
Now, DHCPv6-PD allows us to request multiple prefixes. We could just punt the problem of splitting a bigger prefix into smaller prefixes to the DHCPv6 server. However, the RFC has this:
In principle, DHCP allows a client to request new prefixes to be delegated by sending additional IA_PD options (see Section 21.21). However, a typical operator usually prefers to delegate a single, larger prefix. In most deployments, it is recommended that the client request a larger prefix in its initial transmissions rather than request additional prefixes later on.
And indeed, the Fritz!Box only gives us one prefix. We can hand the
prefix back and request a larger one, but it will only honour a single
IA_PD
option in a solicit message.
This means we have to split up the prefix ourselves. This is perfectly
simple if we are only dealing with /64
networks. Just count the
networks, round up to the nearest power of two and calculate the
required prefix size from that.
This gets more complicated if the prefix lengths for our sub-networks are non-uniform, like in the more advanced use case.
I went a bit on a tangent and tried to solve this for the general case. That means arbitrary subnet sizes and an optimal packing in the delegated prefix. I think that would come down to the Bin packing problem which is… annoying6.
I then noticed that we want a stable assignment, meaning when we add or remove an interface we do not want to renumber all the existing and remaining interfaces. Which would happen if try to come up with an optimal solution because prefix assignments would most likely shift around every time we change something.
dhcpcd's solution
At this point I was somewhat stuck and I had a look at how dhcpcd
deals with this. While I was already using dhcpcd in my network, I had
not yet setup the more advanced use case with a /60
and multiple
/64
. I was pretty sure that dhcpcd can handle this, but I did not
yet know how.
Disclaimer: What follows are my notes on how I got it to work. It is likely that I am doing things wrong and misunderstand some parts. Unfortunately I no longer have access to GitHub7, so I cannot open an issue with the project to ask for help with this. I am very sorry.
Here is the relevant part from the dhcpcd.conf man page:
ia_pd [iaid [/ prefix / prefix_len] [interface [/ sla_id [/ prefix_len [/ suffix]]]]] Request a DHCPv6 Delegated Prefix for iaid. This option must be used in an interface block. Unless a sla_id of 0 is as- signed with the same resultant prefix length as the delegation, a reject route is installed for the Delegated Prefix to stop unallocated addresses being resolved upstream. If no interface is given then we will assign a prefix to every other interface with a sla_id equivalent to the interface index assigned by the OS. Otherwise addresses are only assigned for each interface and sla_id. To avoid delegating to any interface, use - as the invalid interface name. Each assigned address will have a suffix, defaulting to 1. If the suffix is 0 then a SLAAC ad- dress is assigned. You cannot assign a prefix to the request- ing interface unless the DHCPv6 server supports the RFC 6603 Prefix Exclude Option. dhcpcd has to be running for all the interfaces it is delegating to. A default prefix_len of 64 is assumed, unless the maximum sla_id does not fit. In this case prefix_len is increased to the highest multiple of 8 that can accommodate the sla_id. sla_id is an integer which must be unique inside the iaid and is added to the prefix which must fit inside prefix_len less the length of the delegated prefix. You can specify multiple interface / sla_id / prefix_len per ia_pd, space separated. IPv6RS should be disabled globally when requesting a Prefix Delegation.
I kinda do not know what all of this means.
After much experimentation I ended up with this working-ish configuration:
ia_pd 2/::/59 vether0/0/60 vether1/1/64
which put this in daemon.log
:
vio1: delegated prefix 2001:db8:3::/56 vether0: adding address 2001:db8:3::1/60 vether1: adding address 2001:db8:3:1::1/64
A closer look shows that the two prefixes overlap though:
>>> import ipaddress >>> a = ipaddress.ip_network('2001:db8:3::/60') >>> b = ipaddress.ip_network('2001:db8:3:1::/64') >>> a.overlaps(b) True
This configuration produces non-overlapping prefix assignments:
ia_pd 2/::/59 vether0/0/60 vether1/16/64
vio1: delegated prefix 2001:db8:3::/56 vether0: adding address 2001:db8:3::1/60 vether1: adding address 2001:db8:3:10::1/64
Taking this apart, token by token:
ia_pd
- This is just the keyword to request a prefix delegation.
2/::/59
- 2 is a unique request ID needed by the DHCPv6
protocol.
::
is the unspecified prefix and 59 is the requested prefix length. Since the DHCPv6 server does not have an address pool for/59
it hands out a prefix for the next larger prefix for which it does have a pool,/56
in this case. vether0/0/60
- This assigns the 1st (index 0)
/60
prefix tovether0
. vether1/16/64
- This assigns the 17th8 (index 16)
/64
prefix tovether1
.
What I misunderstood when I used vether1/1/64
was that sla_id
(the 1 in the middle) does not mean use the next free /64
but use
the 2nd /64
in the delegated prefix.
I find this confusing because the way I think about subnetting is that
the different prefixes do not stand alone. 2001:db8:3:10::/64
is not
the 17th /64
prefix in 2001:db8:3::/56
but the first /64
in the
2nd /60
. It's a hierarchy.
Next steps
dhcpcd puts a lot of work on the administrator to get the subnet assignments just right. It neatly avoids9 the problems I had identified. The assignments are stable and the algorithm is not massively expensive.
This got me unstuck and I have an idea how dhcp6leased(8)
should be
configured.
- It should work out automatically the size of the prefix it requests. I was under the impression that dhcpcd would also do that, but it did not work. Probably my mistake somewhere.
- Assignments are listed in order and
dhcpleased(8)
will work out the boundaries.
I am not sure about the exact syntax, but as an example, consider this:
request prefix delegation on vio0 for { vether0/60 reserve/60 vether1/64 vether2/64 vether3/60 }
It would request a /58
which fits 4 /60
. We assign the first /60
to vether0
, keep the next /60
in reserve in case we want to add
interfaces between vether0
and vether1
in the future without
triggering a renumber. We then pick the first /64
out of the third
/60
and assign it to vether1
. We still have space in the third
/60
to assign a /64
to vether2
. We pick the fourth and last
/60
and assign it to vether3
:
vether0 2001:db8:3::/60 reserve 2001:db8:3:10::/60 vether1 2001:db8:3:20::/64 vether2 2001:db8:3:21::/64 vether3 2001:db8:3:30::/60
I think I have code that can do this and it is not overly
complicated. It can currently only handle the upper 64 bits of an IPv6
address because it does math on uint64_t
. I will try to extend it to
the lower half so that we can assign something like /96
to a link,
even if that means that half the IPv6 Maintenance (6man) IETF working
group will hunt me down.
Epilogue
This strikes a slightly better balance between work that needs to be done by the administrator and help the tool provides compared to what dhcpcd implements. But I would not have come up with this without prior work by dhcpcd, kudos to Roy.
Coming up with an addressing plan is still hard work, so I will
implement a feature in dhcp6leased
to have it output the addressing
plan it worked out as a configuration check before going to
work. Because renumbering is hard.
Footnotes:
Thanks again Mischa & Ibsen!
The CPE from my ISP was just too broken to work with, let alone develop against. It only ever hands out a single prefix and would need a factory reset afterwards. It also does not route the delegated prefix but depends on ND Proxy.
Because of android refusing to implement it.
Maybe one vlan for WiFi, one for IOT and one for guest WiFi.
The IETF never managed to fully standardize this. I hear this is where homenet failed. A less ambitious working group is working in this problem space now: Stub Network Auto Configuration for IPv6 (snac). But they only want to deal with flat networks.
Otherwise known as NP-hard.
An alternative reading is: I refuse to use it because they decided I am a suplier, which I am not. And they locked me out of my account.
We are starting to count at 0.
You could say it punts them to the administrator.