One document matched: draft-rja-ilnp-icmp-10.txt
Differences from draft-rja-ilnp-icmp-09.txt
Internet Draft RJ Atkinson
draft-rja-ilnp-icmp-10.txt Consultant
Category: Experimental 7 February 2011
Expires: 7 AUG 2011
ICMP Locator Update message
draft-rja-ilnp-icmp-10.txt
Status of this Memo
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright (c) 2011 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
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided
without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before
November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in
some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the
right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF
Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from
the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this
document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process,
and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF
Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an
RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it
may not be created, except to publish it as an RFC or to
translate it into languages other than English.
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.
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 1]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 7 FEB 2011
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/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not
specify any level of standard. This document merely provides
information for the Internet community.
This document has had extensive review within the IRTF Routing
Research Group, and is part of the ILNP document set. ILNP is
one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs. Separately,
various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published
during this decade. So the ideas contained herein have had much
broader review than the IRTF Routing RG. The views in this
document were considered controversial by the Routing RG,
but the RG reached a consensus that the document still should be
published. The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus
on anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered
controversial.
Abstract
This note specifies an experimental ICMPv6 message type used
with the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP). This
message is used to dynamically update Identifier/Locator
bindings for an existing ILNP session. This is a product
of the IRTF Routing RG.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...........................................2
2. Syntax..................................................3
3. Transport Protocol Effects..............................5
4. Implementation Considerations...........................5
5. Backwards Compatibility.................................6
6. Security Considerations ................................6
7. IANA Considerations ....................................7
8. References .............................................7
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 2]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 7 FEB 2011
1. Introduction
At present, the research and development community are examining
various alternatives for evolving the Internet Architecture. Several
different classes of evolution are being considered. One class is
often called "Map and Encapsulate", where traffic would be mapped and
then tunnelled through the inter-domain core of the Internet.
Another class being considered is sometimes known as
"Identifier/Locator Split". This document relates to a proposal that
is in the latter class of evolutionary approaches. In particular,
the Identifier-Locator Network Protocol being described in this
document and related Internet-Drafts is an evolution of IPv6. [ILNP-
Intro] [ILNP-Nonce] [ILNP-DNS] [RFC 2460]
The new ICMPv6 Locator Update message described in this document
enables an ILNP-capable node to update its correspondents about the
currently valid set of Locators valid to use in reaching the node
sending this message.
This new ICMPv6 message MUST NOT be used for IP sessions operating in
classic IPv6 mode. This ICMPv6 message MUST ONLY be used for IP
sessions that are operating in Identifier/Locator Split mode.
Authentication is always required, as described in the Security
Considerations section later in this note.
Some might consider any and all use of ICMP to be undesirable. In
that context, please note that while this specification uses ICMP,
there is no architectural difference between using ICMP and using
some different framing, for example UDP.
1.1 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 RFC 2119. [RFC 2119]
2. Syntax
Example ICMP message body for case where only 1 Locator value is
being indicated:
------------------------------------------------------------
| ICMP Type | ICMP Code | Checksum |
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
| Num of Locs | RESERVED | Preference |
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
/ Locator /
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 3]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 7 FEB 2011
Example ICMP message body for case where 2 Locator
values are being indicated:
------------------------------------------------------------
| ICMP Type | ICMP Code | Checksum |
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
| Num of Locs | RESERVED | Preference |
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
/ Locator /
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
| RESERVED | Preference |
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
/ Locator /
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
For cases where more than 2 Locator values are being indicated,
the "RESERVED", "Preference", and "Locator" fields are appended
as appropriate to carry the intended number of Locator fields.
ICMP Type: This 8-bit field is set to the value XXX
to indicate that this is a Locator Update
message.
ICMP Code: This 8-bit field indicates which kind of
ICMP Locator Update this is. At present,
the only valid value is 0, which means
that this message contains all currently
valid Locator values for the sending node.
Checksum: This contains the ICMPv6 Checksum value
for this packet.
Num of Locs: This field contains the number of 64-bit
Locators that follow the RESERVED field.
This field must not contain the number zero,
as each ILNP node needs to be reachable via
at least 1 Locator value. Multi-homed nodes
will have at least 2 Locator values.
Reserved: These fields MUST be sent as zero.
At this time, recipients should ignore the
contents of these field, as these bits are
reserved for future use. (Implementers
should understand that these fields might
be used in the future.)
Locator: This 64-bit field contains a valid Locator
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 4]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 7 FEB 2011
that can be used to reach the sending node.
A variable number of Locator fields are
concatenated one after another. These are
listed in priority order, with the first
Locator field containing the most preferred
Locator value.
Preference: A 16-bit unsigned integer which specifies
the preference given to this Locator among
other Locators in the same ICMP message.
Lower Preference values are preferred
over higher Preference values.
NOTE: In order to prevent session stealing by an off-path
adversary, all ICMP Locator Update packets MUST also contain
an ILNP Nonce Destination Option with valid authentication
information for the session associated with the ICMP Locator
Update packet. The ILNP Nonce Destination Option is required
in all cases, even if some other authentication mechanism
(e.g. IP Authentication Header) is also in use.[RFC 4302]
3. Transport Protocol Effects
This message has no impact on any transport protocol.
The message may affect where packets for a given transport
session are sent, but one of the design objectives for the
I/L Split Mode (i.e. ILNP) is to decouple transport-protocols
from network-layer changes.
4. Implementation Considerations
Implementers may use any internal implementation they wish,
provided that the external appearance is the same as this
implementation approach.
To support the Identifier/Locator Split operating mode, and
retain the incremental deployability and backwards compatibility
needed, the network layer needs a mode bit in the Transport Control
Block (or its equivalent) to track which IP sessions are using
the classic IPv6 mode and which IP sessions are using the
Identifier/Locator Split mode.
Further, when in the Identifier/Locator Split mode, nodes will
need to retain a Correspondent Cache in the network layer that
contains for each correspondent node:
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 5]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 7 FEB 2011
- Source Identifier(s) in use
- Source Locator(s) in use
- Destination Identifier(s) in use
- Destination Locator(s) in use
- Session Nonce value from Local Node to Correspondent Node
- Session Nonce value from Correspondent Node
to Local Node
Please also read the discussion of this Correspondent Cache in
the companion document [ILNP-Intro].
A node sending an ICMP Locator Update message will include all
currently valid Locator values in that message. A node receiving
a valid ICMP Locator Update message MUST replace the previously
current set of Locator values for that correspondent node in the
ILNP Correspondent Cache with the newly received set of Locator
values.
Every implementation needs to support a large number of Locator
values being sent or received in a single ICMP Locator Update
message, because a multi-homed node or multi-homed site might
have a large number of upstream links to different service
providers, each with its own Locator value.
5. Backwards Compatibility
For all sessions operating in Identifier/Locator Split mode,
inside each node the high-order 64-bits ("Locator") are always
set to zero before the packet is sent upwards to the transport
protocol. So any changes in Locator values used on the wire
will be invisible to the transport protocol. In this mode,
transport-layer checksums (e.g. TCP pseudo-header checksum)
will be calculated with both Source Locator and Destination
Locator fields set to all zero.
For recipient nodes or sessions operating in the classic
IPv6 mode or otherwise not in the Identifier/Locator Split
mode, the ICMP Locator Update packet MUST be discarded
by the recipient without being processed.
6. Security Considerations
The ICMP Locator Update message MUST ONLY be used for IP sessions
operating in the Identifier/Locator Split mode.
The experimental Nonce Destination Option [ILNP-Nonce] MUST be
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 6]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 7 FEB 2011
present in packets containing an ICMPv6 Locator Update message.
Further, the received Nonce Destination Option must contain the
correct nonce value for the packet to be accepted by the
recipient and then passed to the ICMPv6 protocol for
processing. If either of these requirements are not met,
the received packet MUST be discarded as not authentic,
and a security event SHOULD be logged by the system receiving
the non-authentic packet.
For sessions operating in higher risk environments, the use
of the IP Authentication Header *in addition* to the
experimental Nonce Destination Option is recommended.
Use of the IP Authentication Header to protect a packet
does NOT permit the packet to be sent without the Nonce
Destination Option.
A broader discussion of ILNP Security Considerations is
found in [ILNP-Intro], and is incorporated here by reference.
Implementations need to support the case where a single
ICMP Locator Update message contains a large number of
Locator and Preference values and ought not develop a
security fault (e.g. stack overflow) due to a received
message containing more Locator values than expected.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to assign a value, replacing the XXX,
to the ICMP Type listed in Section 2, following the procedures
in [RFC 4443].
There are no other IANA actions for this document.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to
Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
March 1997.
[RFC 2460] S. Deering & R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol
Version 6 Specification", RFC-2460,
December 1998.
[RFC 4302] S. Kent, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 7]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 7 FEB 2011
[RFC 4443] A. Conta, S. Deering, and M. Gupta (Ed.),
"Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)
for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
8.2. Informative References
[ILNP-Intro] Atkinson, R, "ILNP Concept of Operations",
draft-rja-ilnp-intro-10.txt, February 2011.
[ILNP-DNS] Atkinson, R, "DNS Resource Records for ILNP",
draft-rja-ilnp-dns-10.txt, February 2011.
[ILNP-Nonce] Atkinson, R, "Nonce Destination Option",
draft-rja-ilnp-nonce-10.txt, February 2011.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Steve Blake, Mohamed Boucadair, Saleem Bhatti, Steve Hailes,
Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, Volker Hilt, Tony Li, and Yakov
Rehkter (in alphabetical order) provided review and feedback
on earlier versions of this document. Steve Blake provided
an especially thorough review of the ILNP document set.
Author's Address
RJ Atkinson
Consultant
McLean, VA
22102 USA
Email: rja.lists@gmail.com
Expires: 7 AUG 2011
Atkinson Expires in 6 months [Page 8]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 05:57:14 |