One document matched: draft-iab-link-encaps-01.txt
Differences from draft-iab-link-encaps-00.txt
Network Working Group B. Aboba, Ed.
INTERNET-DRAFT Elwyn Davies
Category: Informational D. Thaler
<draft-iab-link-encaps-01.txt> Internet Architecture Board
7 June 2006
Multiple Encapsulation Methods Considered Harmful
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 1, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes architectural and operational issues that
arise from link layer protocols supporting multiple Internet Protocol
encapsulation methods.
IAB Informational [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .......................................... 3
1.1 Terminology .................................... 3
1.2 Ethernet Experience ............................ 3
1.3 Trailer Encapsulation Experience ............... 5
2. Evaluation of Reasons ................................. 7
2.1 Bridging ....................................... 7
2.2 Efficiency ..................................... 8
3. Additional Issues ..................................... 9
3.1 Generality ..................................... 9
3.2 Layer Interdependence .......................... 10
3.3 Inspection of Payload Contents ................. 11
3.4 Interoperability Guidance ...................... 11
3.5 Service Consistency ............................ 12
3.6 Implementation Complexity ...................... 12
3.7 Negotiation .................................... 13
3.8 Roaming ........................................ 13
4. Security Considerations ............................... 14
5. IANA Considerations ................................... 14
6. Conclusion ............................................ 14
7. References ............................................ 15
7.1 Informative References .......................... 15
Acknowledgments .............................................. 17
Appendix A - IAB Members ..................................... 17
Intellectual Property Statement .............................. 17
Disclaimer of Validity ....................................... 18
Copyright Statement .......................................... 18
IAB Informational [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
1. Introduction
This document describes architectural and operational issues arising
from use of multiple ways of encapsulating IP packets on the same
link. While typically a link layer protocol supports only a single
Internet Protocol (IP) encapsulation method, this is not always the
case. For example, on the same cable it is possible to encapsulate
an IPv4 packet using Ethernet [DIX] encapsulation as defined in "A
Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over Ethernet Networks"
[RFC894] or IEEE 802 [IEEE-802-1A.190] encapsulation as defined in "A
Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over IEEE 802 Networks"
[RFC1042]. Historically, a further encapsulation method was used on
some Ethernet systems as specified in "Trailer Encapsulations"
[RFC893].
Recently new link types have been defined that support multiple
encapsulation methods. For example, IEEE 802.16 [IEEE-802.16] splits
the Media Access Control (MAC) layer into a number of sublayers. For
the uppermost of these, the standard defines the concept of a
service-specific Convergence Sublayer (CS) that can be instantiated
in multiple ways, each with its own data frame encapsulation. The
two underlying sublayers (the MAC Common Part Sublayer and the
Security Sublayer) provide common services for all instantiations of
the CS. While [IEEE-802.16] defined support for the ATM CS and the
Packet CS, [IEEE-802.16e] added support for eight new Convergence
Sublayers. In each case there are multiple choices available for
encapsulating IP packets.
1.1. Terminology
Broadcast domain
The set of all endpoints that receive broadcast frames sent by an
endpoint in the set.
Link A communication facility or physical medium that can sustain data
communications between multiple network nodes, such as an Ethernet
(simple or bridged).
Link Layer
The conceptual layer of control or processing logic that is
responsible for maintaining control of the link. The link layer
functions provide an interface between the higher-layer logic and
the link. The link layer is the layer immediately below IP.
1.2. Ethernet Experience
The fundamental issues with multiple encapsulation methods on the
same link are described in [RFC1042] and "Requirements for Internet
IAB Informational [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
Hosts -- Communication Layers" [RFC1122]. This section summarizes
the concerns articulated in those documents and also describes the
limitations of approaches suggested to mitigate the problems,
including encapsulation negotiation and use of routers.
[RFC1042] described the potential issues resulting from joint use of
Ethernet and IEEE 802.3 encapsulation on the same physical cable:
Interoperation with Ethernet
It is possible to use the Ethernet link level protocol [DIX] on
the same physical cable with the IEEE 802.3 link level protocol.
A computer interfaced to a physical cable used in this way could
potentially read both Ethernet and 802.3 packets from the network.
If a computer does read both types of packets, it must keep track
of which link protocol was used with each other computer on the
network and use the proper link protocol when sending packets.
One should note that in such an environment, link level broadcast
packets will not reach all the computers attached to the network,
but only those using the link level protocol used for the
broadcast.
Since it must be assumed that most computers will read and send
using only one type of link protocol, it is recommended that if
such an environment (a network with both link protocols) is
necessary, an IP gateway be used as if there were two distinct
networks.
Note that the MTU for the Ethernet allows a 1500 octet IP
datagram, with the MTU for the 802.3 network allows only a 1492
octet IP datagram.
When multiple IP encapsulation methods were supported on a given
link, all hosts could not be assumed to support the same set of
encapsulation methods. This in turn implied that the broadcast
domain might not include all hosts on the link, necessitating the use
of a switch or router to enable the hosts supporting disparate
encapsulation methods to communicate with each other. However, hosts
supporting multiple encapsulation methods still needed to determine
the encapsulation method used to reach a destination host. As noted
in [RFC1122], Section 2.3.3:
Furthermore, it is not useful or even possible for a dual-format
host to discover automatically which format to send, because of
the problem of link-layer broadcasts.
To address these issues, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
IAB Informational [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
Communication Layers" [RFC1122] provided guidance in Section 2.3.3:
Every Internet host connected to a 10Mbps Ethernet cable:
o MUST be able to send and receive packets using RFC-894
encapsulation;
o SHOULD be able to receive RFC-1042 packets, intermixed
with RFC-894 packets; and
o MAY be able to send packets using RFC-1042 encapsulation.
An Internet host that implements sending both the RFC-894 and
the RFC-1042 encapsulation MUST provide a configuration switch
to select which is sent, and this switch MUST default to RFC-
894.
By making Ethernet encapsulation mandatory to implement for both send
and receive, and also the default for sending, [RFC1122] headed off
potential interoperability problems.
1.3. Trailer Encapsulation Experience
[RFC1122] Section 2.3.1 described the issues with trailer
encapsulation:
DISCUSSION
The trailer protocol is a link-layer encapsulation technique
that rearranges the data contents of packets sent on the
physical network. In some cases, trailers improve the
throughput of higher layer protocols by reducing the amount of
data copying within the operating system. Higher layer
protocols are unaware of trailer use, but both the sending and
receiving host MUST understand the protocol if it is used.
Improper use of trailers can result in very confusing symptoms.
Only packets with specific size attributes are encapsulated
using trailers, and typically only a small fraction of the
packets being exchanged have these attributes. Thus, if a
system using trailers exchanges packets with a system that does
not, some packets disappear into a black hole while others are
delivered successfully.
IMPLEMENTATION:
On an Ethernet, packets encapsulated with trailers use a
distinct Ethernet type [RFC893], and trailer negotiation is
performed at the time that ARP is used to discover the link-
IAB Informational [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
layer address of a destination system.
Specifically, the ARP exchange is completed in the usual manner
using the normal IP protocol type, but a host that wants to
speak trailers will send an additional "trailer ARP reply"
packet, i.e., an ARP reply that specifies the trailer
encapsulation protocol type but otherwise has the format of a
normal ARP reply. If a host configured to use trailers
receives a trailer ARP reply message from a remote machine, it
can add that machine to the list of machines that understand
trailers, e.g., by marking the corresponding entry in the ARP
cache.
Hosts wishing to receive trailers send trailer ARP replies
whenever they complete exchanges of normal ARP messages for IP.
Thus, a host that received an ARP request for its IP protocol
address would send a trailer ARP reply in addition to the
normal IP ARP reply; a host that sent the IP ARP request would
send a trailer ARP reply when it received the corresponding IP
ARP reply. In this way, either the requesting or responding
host in an IP ARP exchange may request that it receive
trailers.
This scheme, using extra trailer ARP reply packets rather than
sending an ARP request for the trailer protocol type, was
designed to avoid a continuous exchange of ARP packets with a
misbehaving host that, contrary to any specification or common
sense, responded to an ARP reply for trailers with another ARP
reply for IP. This problem is avoided by sending a trailer ARP
reply in response to an IP ARP reply only when the IP ARP reply
answers an outstanding request; this is true when the hardware
address for the host is still unknown when the IP ARP reply is
received. A trailer ARP reply may always be sent along with an
IP ARP reply responding to an IP ARP request.
"Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers" [RFC1122]
Section 2.3.1 provided the following guidance for use of trailer
encapsulation:
The trailer protocol for link-layer encapsulation MAY be used, but
only when it has been verified that both systems (host or gateway)
involved in the link-layer communication implement trailers. If
the system does not dynamically negotiate use of the trailer
protocol on a per-destination basis, the default configuration
MUST disable the protocol.
Trailer encapsulation negotiation depends on ARP and can only be used
where all hosts on the link are within the same broadcast domain.
IAB Informational [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
Since it assumes that all hosts support standard Ethernet
encapsulation [RFC894], it did not enable negotiation between
Ethernet and IEEE 802 encapsulation, only between standard Ethernet
[RFC894] and trailer [RFC893] encapsulation.
In order to mitigate problems arising from multiple encapsulation
methods, it may be possible to use switches or routers, or to attempt
to negotiate the encapsulation method to be used. As described
below, neither approach is completely satisfactory.
The use of switches or routers to enable communication between hosts
utilizing multiple encapsulation methods is not a panacea. If
separate prefixes are used for each encapsulation, then each
encapsulation method can be treated as a separate interface with the
choice of encapsulation determined from the routing table. However,
if the same prefix is used for each encapsulation method, it is
necessary to keep state for each destination host.
In situations where multiple encapsulation methods are enabled on a
single link, negotiation may be supported to allow hosts to determine
how to encapsulate a packet for a particular destination host.
Experience with trailer encapsulation suggests some of the issues
that may be encountered in attempting to negotiate encapsulation
above the link layer. The trailer negotiation mechanism resulted in
multiple ARP replies. In theory it is possible to negotiate an
encapsulation method by sending negotiation packets over all
encapsulation methods supported, and keeping state for each
destination host. However, this results in higher bandwidth
overhead, higher latency when establishing communication, and
additional complexity in implementations.
2. Evaluation of Reasons
There are several reasons often given in support of multiple
encapsulation methods. We discuss each in turn, below.
2.1. Bridging
Claim: A number of features have been defined for Ethernet that are
desirable in new link layer protocols, most notably (but not limited
to) bridging. Hence in addition to any other encapsulation methods,
it is desirable to support an Ethernet encapsulation method in order
to take advantage of existing features without redefining them in the
context of a new link layer protocol.
Discussion: Reuse of Ethernet encapsulation is a worthy goal.
"Architectural Principles of the Internet" [RFC1958] point 3.2
IAB Informational [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
states:
If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one. If
a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution
unless there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of
the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as
possible, without of course using this argument to reject
improvements.
Furthermore, other features have been added to Ethernet such as
support for Virtual LANs (VLANs) and Quality of Service (QoS). Hence
supporting Ethernet encapsulation has significant value.
However, this reasoning by itself is only sufficient to motivate a
single encapsulation method (i.e., Ethernet), but not multiple
encapsulation methods.
Recommendation: Support Ethernet encapsulation where possible.
2.2. Efficiency
Claim: Multiple encapsulation methods allow for greater efficiency.
For example, it has been argued that IEEE 802 or Ethernet
encapsulation of IP results in excessive overhead due to the size of
the data frame headers, and that this can adversely affect
performance on wireless networks, particularly in situations where
support of Voice over IP (VOIP) is required.
Discussion: Even where these performance concerns are valid,
solutions exist that do not require defining multiple IP
encapsulation methods. For example, links may support Ethernet frame
compression so that Ethernet Source and Destination Address fields
are not sent with every packet.
It is not the existence of multiple encapsulation methods that is the
issue; the problem occurs when the encapsulations are visible in the
upper layers as different broadcast domains. For instance, the
problem with Ethernet and IEEE 802.3 encapsulation occurs because the
IP layer needs to know whether to encapsulate ARP in one way or the
other; where all hosts on the link do not support the same
encapsulation method, packets encapsulated in one way will not be
received by all hosts on the link. In 802.16 the link-layer address
resolution design may be affected the choice of the CS.
In contrast, "The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)" [RFC1962]
enables negotiation of data compression mechanisms, and "Robust
Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP" [RFC3241] and "IP Header
IAB Informational [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
Compression over PPP" [RFC3544] enable negotiation of header
compression, without IP layer awareness. Any frame can be
"decompressed" based on the content of the frame, and prior state
based on previous control messages or data frames. Use of
compression is a good way to solve the efficiency problem without
introducing problems at higher layers.
The use of multiple encapsulation methods (even if the only
difference is compression) can degrade performance if the
encapsulation mechanisms have differing MTUs. This can result in
differing MTUs for on-link destinations; if the link-layer protocol
does not provide per-destination MTU's to the IP layer, it will need
to use a default MTU, which is an upper bound on the actual MTU. If
the default MTU is too low, the full bandwidth may not be achievable.
If the default MTU is too high, packet loss will result as IP Path
MTU Discovery discovers the correct MTU.
Finally, even if the MTU does not differ between encapsulation
methods, if the encapsulation method must be dynamically negotiated
for each new on-link destination, communication to new destinations
may be delayed. If most communication is short, and the negotiation
requires an extra round trip beyond link-layer address resolution,
this can become a noticeable factor in performance.
Recommendations: Where encapsulation is an efficiency issue, use
header compression. Where the encapsulation method, or the use of
compression, must be negotiated, negotiation should either occur as
part of bringing up the link, or be piggybacked in the link-layer
address resolution exchange. Where the MTU may vary among
destinations on the same link, the link layer protocol should provide
a per destination MTU to IP.
3. Additional Issues
There are a number of additional issues arising from use of multiple
encapsulation methods, as hinted at in section 1. We discuss each of
these below.
3.1. Generality
Link layer protocols such as [IEEE.802-1A.1990] and [DIX] inherently
support the ability to add support for a new packet type without
modification to the link layer protocol. As noted in [Generic], the
definition of multiple Convergence Sublayers within 802.16 appears to
imply that the standard will need to be modified to support new
packet types:
We are concerned that the 802.16 protocol cannot easily be
IAB Informational [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
extendable to transport new protocols over the 802.16 air
interface. It would appear that a Convergence Sublayer is needed
for every type of protocol transported over the 802.16 MAC. Every
time a new protocol type needs to be transported over the 802.16
air interface, the 802.16 standard needs to be modified to define
a new CS type. We need to have a generic Packet Convergence
Sublayer that can support multi-protocols and which does not
require further modification to the 802.16 standard to support new
protocols. We believe that this was the original intention of the
Packet CS. Furthermore, we believe it is difficult for the
industry to agree on a set of CSes that all devices must implement
to claim "compliance".
The use of IP and/or upper layer protocol specific encapsulation
methods, rather than a 'neutral' general purpose encapsulation may
give rise to a number of undesirable effects explored in the
following subsections.
If the link layer does not provide a general purpose encapsulation
method, deployment of new IP and/or upper layer protocols will be
dependent on deployment of the corresponding new encapsulation
support in the link layer.
Even if a single encapsulation method is used, problems can still
occur if demultiplexing of ARP, IPv4, IPv6, and any other protocols
in use, is not supported at the link layer. While is possible to
demultiplex such packets based on the Version field (first four bits
on the packet), this assumes that IPv4-only implementations will be
able to properly handle IPv6 packets. As a result, a more robust
design is to demultiplex protocols in the link layer, such as by
assigning a different protocol type, as is done in IEEE 802 media
where a Type of 0x0800 is used for IPv4, and 0x86DD for IPv6.
Recommendations: Link layer protocols should enable network packets
(IPv4, IPv6, ARP, etc.) to be demultiplexed in the link layer.
3.2. Layer Interdependence
Standardizing IP and/or upper layer specific encapsulation methods in
the link layer will almost inevitably lead to interdependencies
between the two specifications. Although this might appear to be
desirable in terms of providing a highly specific (and hence
interoperable) mapping between the capabilities provided by the link
layer (e.g., quality of service support) and those that are needed by
the upper layer, this sort of capability is probably better provided
by a more comprehensive service interface (Application Programming
Interface) in conjunction with a single non-specific encapsulation.
IAB Informational [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
IPv6, in particular, provides an extensible header system. An upper
layer specific encapsulation method would still have to provide a
degree of generality in order to cope with future extensions of IPv6
that might wish to make use of some of the link layer services
already provided.
Recommendations: Upper layer specific encapsulations should be
avoided.
3.3. Inspection of Payload Contents
If an IP or upper layer specific encapsulation method proposes to
inspect the contents of the packet being encapsulated (e.g., 802.16
IP CS mechanisms for determining the connection identifier (CID) to
use to transmit a packet), the fields available for inspection may be
limited if the packet is encrypted before passing to the link layer.
Recommendations: Encapsulation mechanisms should be neutral with
respect to the contents of the packet being encapsulated.
3.4. Interoperability Guidance
[IEEE-802.16e] has defined multiple Convergence Sublayers capable of
carrying IP traffic. In addition to the Ethernet CS, IPv4 CS and
IPv6 CS, ten other Convergence Sublayers are defined. In 802.16 the
Mobile Station (MS) indicates the Convergence Sublayers it supports
to the Base Station (BS), which selects from the list one or more
that it will support on the link. Therefore it is possible for
multiple CSes to be operational. In situations where multiple CSes
are operational and capable of carrying IP traffic, interoperability
problems are possible in the absence of clear implementation
guidelines. Some of the issues that may arise include:
ARP Where multiple CSes are operational, it may not be obvious how ARP
should be implemented. For example, should an ARP frame be
encapsulated over the Ethernet CS, or should alternative mechanisms
be used for address resolution, utilizing the IPv4 CS?
Data Frame Encapsulation
When sending an IP packet, which CS should be used? Where multiple
CSes are operational, the issue can be treated as a multi-homing
problem, with each CS constituting its own interface. Since a
given CS may have associated bandwidth or quality of service
constraints, routing metrics could be adjusted to take this into
account, allowing the routing layer to choose based on which CS
appears more attractive.
However there is no guarantee that other hosts on the link will
IAB Informational [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
support the same set of CSes, or that if they do, that their
routing tables will result in identical preferences.
This could lead to interoperability problems or routing asymmetry.
For example, consider the effects on Neighbor Discovery:
[a] If hosts choose to send Neighbor Discovery traffic on different
CSes, it is possible that a host sending a Neighbor Discovery
packet will not receive a reply, even though the target host is
reachable over another CS.
[b] Where hosts all support the same set of CSes, but have different
routing preferences, it is possible for a host to send a Neighbor
Discovery packet over one CS and receive a reply over another CS.
Recommendations: Given these issues, it is strongly recommended that
only a single encapsulation method be usable in a given circumstance.
3.5. Service Consistency
If a link layer protocol provides multiple encapsulation methods, the
services offered to the IP and upper layer protocols may differ
qualitatively between the different encapsulation methods. For
example, the 802.16 [IEEE-802.16] link layer protocol offers both
'native' encapsulation for IPv4 and IPv6 packets, and emulated
Ethernet encapsulation. In the native case, the IP layer has direct
access to the quality of service (QoS) capabilities of the 802.16
transmission channels, whereas using the Ethernet encapsulation the
IP QoS has first to be mapped through the rather more limited
capabilities of Ethernet QoS. Consequently, the service offered to
an application depends on the encapsulation method employed and may
be inconsistent between sessions. This may be confusing for the user
and the application.
Recommendations: If multiple encapsulation methods for IP packets on
a single link layer technology are deemed to be necessary, care
should be taken to match the services available between encapsulation
methods as closely as possible.
3.6. Implementation Complexity
Support of multiple encapsulation methods results in additional
implementation complexity. Lack of uniform encapsulation support
also results in potential interoperability problems. To avoid
interoperability issues, devices with limited resources may be
required to implement multiple encapsulation mechanisms, which may
not be practical.
IAB Informational [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
When encapsulation methods require hardware support, implementations
may choose to support different encapsulation sets, resulting in
market fragmentation. This can prevent users from benefiting from
economies of scale, precluding some uses of the technology entirely.
Recommendations: Choose a single mandatory to implement
encapsulation mechanism for both sending and receiving, and make that
encapsulation mechanism the default for sending.
3.7. Negotiation
The complexity of negotiation within ARP or IP can be reduced by
performing encapsulation negotiation within the link layer.
However, unless the link layer allows the negotiation of the
encapsulation between any two hosts, then interoperability problems
can still result if more than one encapsulation is possible on a
given link. In general, a host cannot assume that all other hosts on
a link support the same set of encapsulation methods, so that unless
a link layer protocol only supports point-to-point communication,
negotiation of multiple potential encapsulation methods will be
problematic. To avoid this problem, it is desirable for link layer
encapsulation negotiation to determine a single IP encapsulation, not
merely to indicate which encapsulation methods are possible.
Recommendations: Encapsulation negotiation is best handled in the
link layer. In order to avoid dependencies on the data frame
encapsulation mechanism, it is preferable for the negotiation to be
carried out using management frames, if they are supported. If
multiple encapsulations are required and negotiation is provided,
then the negotiation should result in a single encapsulation method
being negotiated on the link.
3.8. Roaming
Where a mobile node roams between base stations or to a fixed
infrastructure and the base stations and fixed infrastructure do not
all support the same set of encapsulations, then it may be necessary
to alter the encapsulation method, potentially in mid-conversation.
Even if the change can be handled seamlessly at the link and IP layer
so that applications are not affected, unless the services offered
over the different encapsulations are equivalent (see Section 3.5)
the service experienced by the application may change as the mobile
node crosses boundaries. If the service is significantly different,
it might even require 'in-flight' renegotiation which most
applications are not equipped to manage.
IAB Informational [Page 13]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
Recommendations: Ensure uniformity of the encapsulation set
(preferably only a single encapsulation) within a given mobile
domain, between mobile domains, and between mobile domains and fixed
infrastructure. If a link layer protocol offers multiple
encapsulation methods for IP packets, it is strongly recommended that
only one of these encapsulation methods should be in use on any given
link or within a single wireless transmission domain.
4. Security Considerations
The use of multiple encapsulation methods does not appear to have
significant security implications.
An attacker might be able to utilize an encapsulation method which
was not in normal use on a link to cause a Denial of Service attack
which would exhaust the processing resources of interfaces if packets
utilizing this encapsulation were passed up the stack to any
significant degree before being discarded. However, the use of
encapsulation methods that need to inspect fields in the packet being
encapsulated in order to provide service classification might deter
the deployment of end-to-end security; this is undesirable.
Similarly, if one method is rarely used, that method is potentially
more likely to have exploitable implementation bugs.
An attacker might be able to force a more cumbersome encapsulation
method between two endpoints, even when a lighter weight one is
available, hence forcing higher resource consumption on the link and
within those endpoints.
If different methods have different security properties, an attacker
might be able to force a less secure method as an elevation path to
get access to some other resource or data.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
6. Conclusion
The use of multiple encapsulation methods on the same link is
problematic, as discussed above. Although multiple IP encapsulation
methods were defined on Ethernet cabling, recent implementations
support only the Ethernet encapsulation of IPv4 defined in [RFC894].
In order to avoid a repeat of the experience with IPv4, for operation
of IPv6 on IEEE 802.3 media, only the Ethernet encapsulation was
defined in "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Ethernet Networks" [RFC1972].
IAB Informational [Page 14]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
In addition to the recommendations given earlier, we give the
following general recommendations to avoid problems resulting from
use of multiple IP encapsulation methods:
When developing standards for encapsulating IP packets on a link
layer technology, it is desirable that only a single encapsulation
method should be standardized for each link layer technology;
If a link layer protocol offers multiple encapsulation methods for
IP packets, it is strongly recommended that only one of these
encapsulation methods should be in use within any given link or
wireless transmission domain;
Where multiple encapsulation methods are supported on a link, a
single encapsulation should be mandatory to implement for send and
receive.
7. References
7.1. Informative References
[DIX]
Digital Equipment Corporation, Intel Corporation, and Xerox
Corporation, "The Ethernet -- A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer
and Physical Layer (Version 2.0)", November 1982.
[Generic]
Wang, L. et al, "A Generic Packet Convergence Sublayer (GPCS) for
Supporting Multiple Protocols over 802.16 Air Interface",
Submission to IEEE 802.16g: CB0216g_05_025r4.pdf, November 2005,
<http:// www.ieee802.org/16/netman/contrib/C80216g-05_025r4.pdf>.
[IEEE-802.16]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Information
technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air
Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems", IEEE
Standard 802.16-2004, October 2004.
[IEEE-802.16e]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Information
technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Part 16: Air
Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems,
Amendment for Physical and Medium Access Control Layers for
Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation in Licensed Bands", IEEE
P802.16e, September 2005.
IAB Informational [Page 15]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
[IEEE.802-1A.1990]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Local Area
Networks and Metropolitan Area Networks: Overview and Architecture
of Network Standards", IEEE Standard 802.1A, 1990.
[IEEE.802-1D.1998]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Information
technology - Telecommunications and information exchange between
systems - Local area networks - Media access control (MAC)
bridges", IEEE Standard 802.1D, 1998.
[IEEE.802-3.1985]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD) Access Method
and Physical Layer Specifications", IEEE Standard 802.3, 1985.
[RFC893]
Leffler, S. and M. Karels, "Trailer encapsulations", RFC 893, April
1984.
[RFC894]
Hornig, C., "Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over
Ethernet networks", STD 41, RFC 894, April 1984.
[RFC1042]
Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Standard for the transmission of IP
datagrams over IEEE 802 networks", STD 43, RFC 1042, February 1988.
[RFC1958]
Carpenter, B., "Architectural Principles of the Internet", RFC
1958, June 1996.
[RFC1962]
Rand, D., "The PPP Compression Control Protocol (CCP)", RFC 1962,
June 1996.
[RFC1972]
Crawford, M., "A Method for the Transmission of IPv6 Packets over
Ethernet Networks", RFC 1972, August 1996.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3241]
Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP", RFC 3241,
April 2002.
IAB Informational [Page 16]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
[RFC3544]
Koren, T., Casner, S. and C. Bormann, "IP Header Compression over
PPP", RFC 3544, July 2003.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Jeff Mandin, Bob Hinden, Jari
Arkko, and Phil Roberts for contributions to this document.
Appendix A - IAB Members at the time of this writing
Bernard Aboba
Loa Andersson
Brian Carpenter
Leslie Daigle
Elwyn Davies
Kevin Fall
Olaf Kolkman
Kurtis Lindqvist
David Meyer
David Oran
Eric Rescorla
Dave Thaler
Lixia Zhang
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
IAB Informational [Page 17]
INTERNET-DRAFT Multiple Encapsulation Methods Harmful 7 June 2006
Disclaimer of Validity
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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
IAB Informational [Page 18]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-22 05:35:11 |