One document matched: draft-templin-v6ops-isops-12.txt
Differences from draft-templin-v6ops-isops-11.txt
Network Working Group F. Templin
Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology
Intended status: BCP July 1, 2011
Expires: January 2, 2012
Operational Guidance for IPv6 Deployment in IPv4 Sites using ISATAP
draft-templin-v6ops-isops-12.txt
Abstract
Many end user sites in the Internet today still have predominantly
IPv4 internal infrastructures. These sites range in size from small
home/office networks to large corporate enterprise networks, but
share the commonality that IPv4 continues to provide satisfactory
internal routing and addressing services for most applications. As
more and more IPv6-only services are deployed in the Internet,
however, end user devices within such sites will increasingly require
at least basic IPv6 functionality for external access. This document
therefore provides operational guidance for deployment of IPv6 within
predominantly IPv4 sites using the Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel
Addressing Protocol (ISATAP).
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 http://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 January 2, 2012.
Copyright Notice
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
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Enabling IPv6 Services using ISATAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. SLAAC Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Advertising ISATAP Router Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. ISATAP Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Reference Operational Scenario - Shared Prefix Model . . . 5
3.4. Reference Operational Scenario - Individual Prefix
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5. SLAAC Site Administration Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6. Loop Avoidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Manual Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Scaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Site Renumbering Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Path MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Alternative Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
1. Introduction
End user sites in the Internet today currently use IPv4 routing and
addressing internally for core operating functions such as web
browsing, filesharing, network printing, e-mail, teleconferencing and
numerous other site-internal networking services. Such sites
typically have an abundance of public or private IPv4 addresses for
internal networking, and are separated from the public Internet by
firewalls, packet filtering gateways, proxies, address translators
and other site border demarcation devices. To date, such sites have
had little incentive to enable IPv6 services internally [RFC1687].
End-user sites that currently use IPv4 services internally come in
endless sizes and varieties. For example, a home network behind a
Network Address Translator (NAT) may consist of a single link
supporting a few laptops, printers etc. As a larger example, a small
business may consist of one or a few offices with several networks
connecting considerably larger numbers of computers, routers,
handheld devices, printers, faxes, etc. Moving further up the scale,
large banks, restaurants, major retailers, large corporations, etc.
may consist of hundreds or thousands of branches worldwide that are
tied together in a complex global enterprise network. Additional
examples include personal-area networks, mobile vehicular networks,
disaster relief networks, tactical military networks, and various
forms of Mobile Ad-hoc Networks (MANETs). These cases and more are
discussed in RANGERS[RFC6139].
With the proliferation of IPv6 devices in the public Internet,
however, existing IPv4 sites will increasingly require a means for
enabling IPv6 services so that hosts within the site can communicate
with IPv6-only correspondents. Such services must be deployable with
minimal configuration, and in a fashion that will not cause
disruptions to existing IPv4 services. The Intra-Site Automatic
Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) [RFC5214] provides a simple-to-
use service that sites can deploy in the near term to meet these
requirements. This document therefore provides operational guidance
for using ISATAP to enable IPv6 services within predominantly IPv4
sites while causing no disruptions to existing IPv4 services.
2. Enabling IPv6 Services using ISATAP
Many existing sites within the Internet predominantly use IPv4-based
services for their internal networking needs, but there is a growing
requirement for enabling IPv6 services to support communications with
IPv6-only correspondents. Smaller sites that wish to enable IPv6
typically arrange to obtain public IPv6 prefixes from an Internet
Service Provider (ISP), where the prefixes may be either purely
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
native, the near-native prefixes offered by 6rd [RFC5969] or the
transitional prefixes offered by 6to4 [RFC3056][RFC3068]. Larger
sites typically obtain provider independent IPv6 prefixes from an
Internet registry and advertise the prefixes into the IPv6 routing
system on their own behalf, i.e., they act as an ISP unto themselves.
In either case, after obtaining IPv6 prefixes the site can
automatically enable IPv6 services internally by configuring ISATAP.
The ISATAP service uses a Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA)
tunnel virtual interface model [RFC2491][RFC2529] based on IPv6-in-
IPv4 encapsulation [RFC4213]. The encapsulation format can further
use Differentiated Service (DS) [RFC2983] and Explicit Congestion
Notification (ECN) [RFC3168] mapping between the inner and outer IP
headers to ensure expected per-hop behavior within well-managed
sites.
The ISATAP service is based on two basic node types known as
advertising ISATAP routers and ISATAP hosts. Advertising ISATAP
routers configure their site-facing ISATAP interfaces as advertising
router interfaces (see: [RFC4861], Section 6.2.2). ISATAP hosts
configure their site-facing ISATAP interfaces as simple host
interfaces and also coordinate their autoconfiguration operations
with advertising ISATAP routers. In this sense, advertising ISATAP
routers are "servers" while ISATAP hosts are "clients" in the service
model.
Advertising ISATAP routers arrange to add their IPv4 address to the
site's Potential Router List (PRL) so that ISATAP clients can
discover them, as discussed in Sections 8.3.2 and 9 of [RFC5214].
After the PRL is published, ISATAP clients within the site will
automatically perform a standard unicast IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
Router Solicitation (RS) / Router Advertisement (RA) exchange with
advertising ISATAP routers [RFC4861][RFC5214]. Alternatively, site
administrators could include an IPv4 anycast address in the PRL and
assign the address to multiple advertising ISATAP routers. In that
case, IPv4 routing within the site would direct the ISATAP client to
the nearest advertising ISATAP router.
Following router discovery, ISATAP clients can configure and assign
IPv6 addresses and/or prefixes using Stateless Address
AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862][RFC5214], manual configuration,
or both. While out of scope for this document, use of the Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315] is also
possible when necessary updates to the ISATAP base specification are
implemented [[ draft-templin-isupdate ]]. Details of SLAAC and
manual configuration procedures are discussed in the following
sections.
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
3. SLAAC Services
Predominantly IPv4 sites can enable SLAAC services for ISATAP clients
that need to communicate with IPv6 correspondents. SLAAC services
are enabled using either the "shared" or "individual" prefix model.
In the shared prefix model, all advertising ISATAP routers advertise
a common prefix (e.g., 2001:db8::/64) to ISATAP clients within the
site. In the individual prefix model, advertising ISATAP router
advertise individual prefixes (e.g., 2001:db8:0:1::/64, 2001:db8:0:
2::/64, 2001:db8:0:3::/64, etc.) to ISATAP clients within the site.
Note that combinations of the shared and individual prefix models are
also possible, in which some of the site's ISATAP routers advertise
shared prefixes and others advertise individual prefixes.
The following sections discuss operational considerations for
enabling ISATAP SLAAC services within predominantly IPv4 sites.
3.1. Advertising ISATAP Router Behavior
Advertising ISATAP routers that support SLAAC services send RA
messages in response to RS messages received on an advertising ISATAP
interface. SLAAC services are enabled when advertising ISATAP
routers advertise non-link-local IPv6 prefixes in Prefix Information
Options (PIOs) with the A flag set to 1[RFC4861]. When there are
multiple advertising ISATAP routers, the routers can advertise a
shared IPv6 prefix or individual IPv6 prefixes.
3.2. ISATAP Host Behavior
ISATAP hosts resolve the PRL and send RS messages to obtain RA
messages from an advertising ISATAP router. When the host receives
RA messages, it uses SLAAC to configure IPv6 addresses from any
advertised prefixes with the A flag set to 1 as specified in
[RFC4862][RFC5214] then assigns the addresses to the ISATAP
interface. The host also assigns any of the advertised prefixes with
the L flag set to 1 to the ISATAP interface.
Any IPv6 addresses configured in this fashion are known as "ISATAP-
format addresses". If the IPv6 prefix from which the address is
configured is also assigned to the ISATAP interface, then the address
is also known as an "ISATAP address". (Note that the IPv6 link-local
prefix fe80::/64 is always considered on-link on an ISATAP
interface.)
3.3. Reference Operational Scenario - Shared Prefix Model
Figure 1 depicts a reference ISATAP network topology for allowing
hosts within a predominantly IPv4 site to configure ISATAP services
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
using SLAAC with the shared prefix model. The scenario shows two
advertising ISATAP routers ('A', 'B'), two ISATAP hosts ('C', 'D'),
and an ordinary IPv6 host ('E') outside of the site in a typical
deployment configuration. In this model, routers 'A' and 'B' both
advertise the same (shared) IPv6 prefix 2001:db8::/64 into the IPv6
routing system, and also advertise the prefix to ISATAP clients
within the site for SLAAC purposes.
.-(::::::::) 2001:db8:1::1
.-(::: IPv6 :::)-. +-------------+
(:::: Internet ::::) | IPv6 Host E |
`-(::::::::::::)-' +-------------+
`-(::::::)-'
+------------+ +------------+
| Router A |---.---| Router B |.
,| (isatap) | | (isatap) | `\
. | 192.0.2.1 | | 192.0.2.1 | \
/ +------------+ +------------+ \
: fe80::*:192.0.2.1 fe80::*:192.0.2.1 :
\ 2001:db8::/64 2001:db8::/64 /
: :
: :
+- IPv4 Site -+
; (PRL: 192.0.2.1) :
| ;
: -+-'
`-. .)
\ _)
`-----+--------)----+'----'
fe80::*:192.0.2.18 fe80::*:192.0.2.34
2001:db8::*:192.0.2.18 2001:db8::*:192.0.2.34
+--------------+ +--------------+
| (isatap) | | (isatap) |
| Host C | | Host D |
+--------------+ +--------------+
(* == "5efe")
Figure 1: Reference ISATAP Network Topology using Shared Prefix Model
With reference to Figure 1, advertising ISATAP routers 'A' and 'B'
within the IPv4 site connect to the IPv6 Internet either directly or
via a companion gateway (e.g., as shown in [[ draft-templin-isupdate
]]. The routers advertise the shared prefix 2001:db8::/64 into the
IPv6 Internet routing system either as a singleton /64 or as part of
a shorter aggregated IPv6 prefix if the routing system will not
accept prefixes as long as a /64. For the purpose of this example,
we also assume that the IPv4 site is configured within multiple IPv4
subnets - each with an IPv4 prefix length of /28.
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
Advertising ISATAP routers 'A' and 'B' both configure the IPv4
anycast address 192.0.2.1 on a site-interior IPv4 interface, then
configure an advertising ISATAP router interface for the site with
link-local ISATAP address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.1. The site
administrator then places the single IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 in the
site's PRL. 'A' and 'B' then both advertise the anycast address/
prefix into the site's IPv4 routing system so that ISATAP clients can
locate the router that is topologically closest. (Note: advertising
ISATAP routers can instead use individual IPv4 unicast addresses
instead of a shared IPv4 anycast address. In that case, the PRL will
contain multiple IPv4 addresses of advertising routers.)
ISATAP host 'C' connects to the site via an IPv4 interface with
address 192.0.2.18/28, and also configures an ISATAP host interface
with link-local ISATAP address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.18 over the IPv4
interface. 'C' next resolves the PRL, and sends an IPv6-in-IPv4
encapsulated RS message to the IPv4 address 192.0.2.1, where IPv4
routing will direct it to the closest of either 'A' or 'B'. Assuming
'A' is closest, 'C' receives an RA from 'A' then configures a default
IPv6 route with next-hop address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.1 via the ISATAP
interface and processes the IPv6 prefix 2001:db8::/64 advertised in
the PIO. If the A flag is set in the PIO, 'C' uses SLAAC to
automatically configure the ISATAP-format address 2001:db8::5efe:
192.0.2.18 and assigns the address to the ISATAP interface. If the L
flag is set, 'C' also assigns the prefix 2001:db8::/64 to the ISATAP
interface, and the ISATAP-format address becomes a true ISATAP
address.
In the same fashion, ISATAP host 'D' configures its IPv4 interface
with address 192.0.2.34/28 and configures its ISATAP interface with
link-local ISATAP address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.34. 'D' next performs
an anycast RS/RA exchange that is serviced by 'B', then uses SLAAC to
autoconfigure the ISATAP-format address 2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.34 and
a default IPv6 route with next-hop address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.1.
Finally, IPv6 host 'E' connects to an IPv6 network outside of the
site. 'E' configures its IPv6 interface in a manner specific to its
attached IPv6 link, and autoconfigures the IPv6 address
2001:db8:1::1.
Following this autoconfiguration, when host 'C' inside the site has
an IPv6 packet to send to host 'E' outside the site, it prepares the
packet with source address 2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.18 and destination
address 2001:db8:1::1. 'C' then uses IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation to
forward the packet to the IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 which will be
directed to 'A' based on IPv4 routing. 'A' in turn decapsulates the
packet and forwards it into the public IPv6 Internet where it will be
conveyed to 'E' via normal IPv6 routing. In the same fashion, host
'D' uses IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation via its default router 'B' to
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
send IPv6 packets to IPv6 Internet hosts such as 'E'.
When host 'E' outside the site sends IPv6 packets to ISATAP host 'C'
inside the site, the IPv6 routing system may direct the packet to
either of 'A' or 'B'. If the site is not partitioned internally, the
router that receives the packet can use ISATAP to statelessly forward
the packet directly to 'C'. If the site may be partitioned
internally, however, the packet must first be forwarded to 'C's
serving router based on IPv6 routing information. This implies that,
in a partitioned site, the advertising ISATAP routers must connect
within a full or partial mesh of IPv6 links, and must either run a
dynamic IPv6 routing protocol or configure static routes so that
incoming IPv6 packets can be forwarded to the correct serving router.
In this example, 'A' can configure the IPv6 route 2001:db8::5efe:
192.0.2.32/124 with the IPv6 address of the next hop toward 'B' in
the mesh network as the next hop, and 'B' can configure the IPv6
route 2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.16/124 with the IPv6 address of the next
hop toward 'A' as the next hop. (Notice that the /124 prefixes
properly cover the /28 prefix of the IPv4 address that is embedded
within the IPv6 ISATAP-format address.) In that case, when 'A'
receives a packet from the IPv6 Internet with destination address
2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.34, it first forwards the packet toward 'B'
over an IPv6 mesh link. 'B' in turn uses ISATAP to forward the
packet into the site, where IPv4 routing will direct it to 'D'. In
the same fashion, when 'B' receives a packet from the IPv6 Internet
with destination address 2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.18, it first forwards
the packet toward 'A' over an IPv6 mesh link. 'A' then uses ISATAP
to forward the packet into the site, where IPv4 routing will direct
it to 'C'.
Finally, when host 'C' inside the site connects to host 'D' inside
the site, it has the option of using the native IPv4 service or the
ISATAP IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation service. When there is operational
assurance that IPv4 services between the two hosts are available, the
hosts may be better served to continue to use legacy IPv4 services in
order to avoid encapsulation overhead and to avoid any IPv4
protocol-41 filtering middleboxes that may be in the path. If 'C'
and 'D' may be in different IPv4 network partitions, however, IPv6-
in-IPv4 encapsulation should be used with one or both of routers 'A'
and 'B' serving as intermediate gateways.
3.4. Reference Operational Scenario - Individual Prefix Model
Figure 2 depicts a reference ISATAP network topology for allowing
hosts within a predominantly IPv4 site to configure ISATAP services
using SLAAC with the individual prefix model. The scenario shows two
advertising ISATAP routers ('A', 'B'), two ISATAP hosts ('C', 'D'),
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
and an ordinary IPv6 host ('E') outside of the site in a typical
deployment configuration. In the figure, ISATAP routers 'A' and 'B'
both advertise different prefixes taken from the aggregated prefix
2001:db8::/48, with 'A' advertising 2001:db8:0:1::/64 and 'B'
advertising 2001:db8:0:2::/64.
.-(::::::::) 2001:db8:1::1
.-(::: IPv6 :::)-. +-------------+
(:::: Internet ::::) | IPv6 Host E |
`-(::::::::::::)-' +-------------+
`-(::::::)-'
+------------+ +------------+
| Router A |---.---| Router B |.
,| (isatap) | | (isatap) | `\
. | 192.0.2.1 | | 192.0.2.1 | \
/ +------------+ +------------+ \
: fe80::*:192.0.2.1 fe80::*:192.0.2.1 :
\ 2001:db8:0:1::/64 2001:db8:0:2::/64 /
: :
: :
+- IPv4 Site -+
; (PRL: 192.0.2.1) :
| ;
: -+-'
`-. .)
\ _)
`-----+--------)----+'----'
fe80::*:192.0.2.18 fe80::*:192.0.2.34
2001:db8:0:1::*:192.0.2.18 2001:db8:0:2::*:192.0.2.34
+--------------+ +--------------+
| (isatap) | | (isatap) |
| Host C | | Host D |
+--------------+ +--------------+
(* == "5efe")
Figure 2: Reference ISATAP Network Topology using Individual Prefix
Model
With reference to Figure 2, advertising ISATAP routers 'A' and 'B'
within the IPv4 site connect to the IPv6 Internet either directly or
via a companion gateway (e.g., as shown in [[ draft-templin-isupdate
]]. Router 'A' advertises the individual prefix 2001:db8:0:1::/64
into the IPv6 Internet routing system, and router 'B' advertises the
individual prefix 2001:db8:0:2::/64. The routers could instead both
advertise a shorter shared prefix such as 2001:db8::/48 into the IPv6
routing system, but in that case they would need to configure a mesh
of IPv6 links between themselves in the same fashion as described for
the shared prefix model in Section 3.4. For the purpose of this
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
example, we also assume that the IPv4 site is configured within
multiple IPv4 subnets - each with an IPv4 prefix length of /28.
Advertising ISATAP routers 'A' and 'B' both configure the IPv4
anycast address 192.0.2.1 on a site-interior IPv4 interface, then
configure an advertising ISATAP router interface for the site with
link-local ISATAP address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.1. The site
administrator then places the single IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 in the
site's PRL. 'A' and 'B' then both advertise the anycast address/
prefix into the site's IPv4 routing system so that ISATAP clients can
locate the router that is topologically closest. (Note: advertising
ISATAP routers can instead use individual IPv4 unicast addresses
instead of a shared IPv4 anycast address. In that case, the PRL will
contain multiple IPv4 addresses of advertising routers.)
ISATAP host 'C' connects to the site via an IPv4 interface with
address 192.0.2.18/28, and also configures an ISATAP host interface
with link-local ISATAP address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.18 over the IPv4
interface. 'C' next resolves the PRL, and sends an IPv6-in-IPv4
encapsulated RS message to the IPv4 address 192.0.2.1, where IPv4
routing will direct it to the closest of either 'A' or 'B'. Assuming
'A' is closest, 'C' receives an RA from 'A' then configures a default
IPv6 route with next-hop address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.1 via the ISATAP
interface and processes the IPv6 prefix 2001:db8:0:1:/64 advertised
in the PIO. If the A flag is set in the PIO, 'C' uses SLAAC to
automatically configure the ISATAP-format address 2001:db8:0:1::5efe:
192.0.2.18 and assigns the address to the ISATAP interface. If the L
flag is set, 'C' also assigns the prefix 2001:db8:0:1::/64 to the
ISATAP interface, and the ISATAP-format address becomes a true ISATAP
address.
In the same fashion, ISATAP host 'D' configures its IPv4 interface
with address 192.0.2.34/28 and configures its ISATAP interface with
link-local ISATAP address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.34. 'D' next performs
an anycast RS/RA exchange that is serviced by 'B', then uses SLAAC to
autoconfigure the ISATAP-format address 2001:db8:0:2::5efe:192.0.2.34
and a default IPv6 route with next-hop address fe80::5efe:192.0.2.1.
Finally, IPv6 host 'E' connects to an IPv6 network outside of the
site. 'E' configures its IPv6 interface in a manner specific to its
attached IPv6 link, and autoconfigures the IPv6 address
2001:db8:1::1.
Following this autoconfiguration, when host 'C' inside the site has
an IPv6 packet to send to host 'E' outside the site, it prepares the
packet with source address 2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.18 and destination
address 2001:db8:1::1. 'C' then uses IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation to
forward the packet to the IPv4 address 192.0.2.1 which will be
directed to 'A' based on IPv4 routing. 'A' in turn decapsulates the
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
packet and forwards it into the public IPv6 Internet where it will be
conveyed to 'E' via normal IPv6 routing. In the same fashion, host
'D' uses IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation via its default router 'B' to
send IPv6 packets to IPv6 Internet hosts such as 'E'.
When host 'E' outside the site sends IPv6 packets to ISATAP host 'C'
inside the site, the IPv6 routing system will direct the packet to
'A' since 'A' advertises the individual prefix that matches 'C's
destination address. 'A' can then use ISATAP to statelessly forward
the packet directly to 'C'. If 'A' and 'B' both advertise the shared
shorter prefix 2001:db8::/48 into the IPv6 routing system, however
packets coming from 'E' may be directed to either 'A' or 'B'. In
that case, the advertising ISATAP routers must connect within a full
or partial mesh of IPv6 links the same as for the shared prefix
model, and must either run a dynamic IPv6 routing protocol or
configure static routes so that incoming IPv6 packets can be
forwarded to the correct serving router.
In this example, 'A' can configure the IPv6 route 2001:db8:0:2::/64
with the IPv6 address of the next hop toward 'B' in the mesh network
as the next hop, and 'B' can configure the IPv6 route 2001:db8:
0.1::/64 with the IPv6 address of the next hop toward 'A' as the next
hop. Then, when 'A' receives a packet from the IPv6 Internet with
destination address 2001:db8:0:2::5efe:192.0.2.34, it first forwards
the packet toward 'B' over an IPv6 mesh link. 'B' in turn uses
ISATAP to forward the packet into the site, where IPv4 routing will
direct it to 'D'. In the same fashion, when 'B' receives a packet
from the IPv6 Internet with destination address 2001:db8:0:1::5efe:
192.0.2.18, it first forwards the packet toward 'A' over an IPv6 mesh
link. 'A' then uses ISATAP to forward the packet into the site,
where IPv4 routing will direct it to 'C'.
Finally, when host 'C' inside the site connects to host 'D' inside
the site, it has the option of using the native IPv4 service or the
ISATAP IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation service. When there is operational
assurance that IPv4 services between the two hosts are available, the
hosts may be better served to continue to use legacy IPv4 services in
order to avoid encapsulation overhead and to avoid any IPv4
protocol-41 filtering middleboxes that may be in the path. If 'C'
and 'D' may be in different IPv4 network partitions, however, IPv6-
in-IPv4 encapsulation should be used with one or both of routers 'A'
and 'B' serving as intermediate gateways.
3.5. SLAAC Site Administration Guidance
In common practice, firewalls, gateways and packet filtering devices
of various forms are often deployed in order to divide the site into
separate partitions. In both the shared and individual prefix models
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
described above, the entire site can be represented by the aggregate
IPv6 prefix assigned to the site, while each site partition can be
represented by "sliver" IPv6 prefixes taken from the aggregate. In
order to provide a simple service that does not interact poorly with
the site topology, site administrators should therefore institute an
address plan to align IPv6 sliver prefixes with IPv4 site partition
boundaries.
For example, in the shared prefix model in Section 3.3, the aggregate
prefix is 2001:db8::/64, and the sliver prefixes are 2001:db8::5efe:
192.0.2.0/124, 2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.16/124, 2001:db8::5efe:
192.0.2.32/124, etc. In the individual prefix model in Section 3.4,
the aggregate prefix is 2001:db8::/48 and the sliver prefixes are
2001:db8:0:0::/64, 2001:db8:0:1::/64, 2001:db8:0:2::/64, etc.
When individual prefixes are used, site administrators can configure
advertising ISATAP routers to advertise different individual (sliver)
prefixes to different sets of clients, e.g., based on the client's
IPv4 subnet prefix. When a shared prefix is used, the site
administrator could instead configure the ISATAP routers to advertise
the shared (aggregate) prefix to all clients.
Advertising ISATAP routers can advertise prefixes with the (A, L)
flags set to (1,0) so that ISATAP clients will use SLAAC to
autoconfigure ISATAP-format addresses from the prefixes and assign
them to the receiving ISATAP interface, but they will not assign the
prefix itself to the ISATAP interface. In that case, the advertising
router must assign the sliver prefix for the site partition to the
advertising ISATAP interface. In this way, the advertising router
considers the addresses covered by the sliver prefix as on-link, but
the ISATAP clients themselves do not. This configuration enables a
hub-and-spokes architecture which in some cases may be augmented by
route optimization based on the receipt of ICMPv6 Redirects.
Site administrators can implement address selection policy rules
[RFC3484] through explicit configurations in each ISATAP client.
Site administrators implement this policy by configuring address
selection policy rules [RFC3484] in each ISATAP client in order to
give preference to IPv4 destination addresses over destination
addresses derived from one of the client's IPv6 sliver prefixes.
For example, site administrators can configure each ISATAP client
associated with a sliver prefix such as 2001:db8::5efe:192.0.2.64/124
to add the prefix to its address selection policy table with a lower
precedence than the prefix ::ffff:0:0/96. In this way, IPv4
addresses are preferred over IPv6 addresses from within the same
sliver. The prefix could be added to each ISATAP client either
manually, or through an automated service such as a DHCP option
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-opt]. In this way, clients will use IPv4
communications to reach correspondents within the same IPv4 site
partition, and will use IPv6 communications to reach correspondents
in other partitions and/or outside of the site.
It should be noted that sliver prefixes longer than /64 cannot be
advertised for SLAAC purposes. Also, sliver prefixes longer than /64
do not allow for interface identifier rewriting by address
translators. These factors may favor the individual prefix model in
some deployment scenarios, while the flexibility afforded by the
shared prefix model may be more desirable in others. Additionally,
if the network is small then the shared prefix model works well. If
the network is large, however, a better alternative may be to deploy
separate ISATAP routers in each region and have each advertise their
own individual prefix.
Finally, site administrators should configure ISATAP routers to not
send ICMPv6 Redirect messages to inform a source client of a better
next hop toward the destination unless there is strong assurance that
the client and the next hop are within the same IPv4 site partition.
3.6. Loop Avoidance
In sites that provide IPv6 services through ISATAP with SLAAC as
described in this section, site administrators must take operational
precautions to avoid routing loops. For example, each advertising
ISATAP router should drop any incoming IPv6 packets that would be
forwarded back to itself via another of the site's advertising
routers. Additionally, each advertising ISATAP router should drop
any encapsulated packets received from another advertising router
that would be forwarded back to that same advertising router. This
corresponds to the mitigation documented in Section 3.2.3 of
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops], but other mitigations specified in
that document can also be employed.
Note that IPv6 packets with link-local ISATAP addresses are exempt
from these checks, since they cannot be forwarded by an IPv6 router
and may be necessary for router-to-router coordinations.
4. Manual Configuration
In addition to any SLAAC services, site administrators can use manual
configuration to assign ISATAP-format addresses to the ISATAP
interfaces of client end systems. For example, if the ISATAP client
has multiple site-internal IPv4 interface, it may be desirable to
assign one ISATAP-format address per each underlying IPv4 address.
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
5. Scaling Considerations
Section 3 depicts ISATAP network topologies with only two advertising
ISATAP routers within the site. In order to support larger numbers
of ISATAP clients (and/or multiple site partitions), the site can
deploy more advertising ISATAP routers to support load balancing and
generally shortest-path routing.
Such an arrangement requires that the advertising ISATAP routers
participate in an IPv6 routing protocol instance so that IPv6
addresses/prefixes can be mapped to the correct ISATAP router. The
routing protocol instance can be configured as either a full mesh
topology involving all advertising ISATAP routers, or as a partial
mesh topology with each advertising ISATAP router associating with
one or more companion gateways. Each such companion gateway would in
turn participate in a full mesh between all companion gateways.
6. Site Renumbering Considerations
Advertising ISATAP routers distribute IPv6 prefixes to ISATAP clients
within the site. If the site subsequently reconnects to a different
ISP, however, the site must renumber to use addresses derived from
the new IPv6 prefixes [RFC1900][RFC4192][RFC5887].
For IPv6 services provided by SLAAC, site renumbering in the event of
a change in an ISP-served IPv6 prefix entails a simple renumbering of
IPv6 addresses and/or prefixes that are assigned to the ISATAP
interfaces of clients within the site. In some cases, filtering
rules (e.g., within site border firewall filtering tables) may also
require renumbering, but this operation can be automated and limited
to only one or a few administrative "touch points".
In order to renumber the ISATAP interfaces of clients within the site
using SLAAC, advertising ISATAP routers need only schedule the
services offered by the old ISP for deprecation and begin to
advertise the IPv6 prefixes provided by the new ISP. ISATAP client
interface address lifetimes will eventually expire, and the host will
renumber its interfaces with addresses derived from the new prefixes.
ISATAP clients should also eventually remove any deprecated SLAAC
prefixes from their address selection policy tables, but this action
is not time-critical.
Finally, site renumbering in the event of a change in an ISP-served
IPv6 prefix further entails locating and rewriting all IPv6 addresses
in naming services, databases, configuration files, packet filtering
rules, documentation, etc. If the site has published the IPv6
addresses of any site-internal nodes within the public Internet DNS
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
system, then the corresponding resource records will also need to be
updated during the renumbering operation. This can be accomplished
via secure dynamic updates to the DNS.
7. Path MTU Considerations
IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation overhead effectively reduces the size of
IPv6 packets that can traverse the tunnel in relation to the actual
Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of the underlying IPv4 network path
between the encapsulator and decapsulator. Two methods for
accommodating IPv6 path MTU discovery over IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels
(i.e., the static and dynamic methods) are documented in Section 3.2
of [RFC4213].
The static method places a "safe" upper bound on the size of IPv6
packets permitted to enter the tunnel, however the method can be
overly conservative when larger IPv4 path MTUs are available. The
dynamic method can accommodate much larger IPv6 packet sizes in some
cases, but can fail silently if the underlying IPv4 network path does
not return the necessary error messages.
This document notes that sites that include well-managed IPv4 links,
routers and other network middleboxes are candidates for use of the
dynamic MTU determination method, which may provide for a better
operational IPv6 experience in the presence of IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels.
The dynamic MTU determination method can potentially also present a
larger MTU to IPv6 correspondents outside of the site, since IPv6
path MTU discovery is considered robust even over the wide area in
the public IPv6 Internet.
8. Alternative Approaches
[RFC4554] proposes a use of VLANs for IPv4-IPv6 coexistence in
enterprise networks. The ISATAP approach provides a more flexible
and broadly-applicable alternative, and with fewer administrative
touch points.
The tunnel broker service [RFC3053] uses point-to-point tunnels that
require end users to establish an explicit administrative
configuration of the tunnel far end, which may be outside of the
administrative boundaries of the site.
6to4 [RFC3056][RFC3068] and Teredo [RFC4380] provide "last resort"
unmanaged automatic tunneling services when no other means for IPv6
connectivity is available. These services are given lower priority
when the ISATAP managed service and/or native IPv6 services are
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
enabled.
6rd [RFC5969] enables a stateless prefix delegation capability based
on IPv4-embedded IPv6 prefixes, whereas ISATAP enables a stateful
prefix delegation capability based on native IPv6 prefixes.
IRON [RFC6179], RANGER [RFC5720], VET [RFC5558] and SEAL [RFC5320]
were developed as the "next-generation" of ISATAP and extend to a
wide variety of use cases [RFC6139]. However, these technologies are
not yet widely implemented or deployed.
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
10. Security Considerations
In addition to the security considerations documented in [RFC5214],
sites that use ISATAP should take care to ensure that no routing
loops are enabled [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops]. Additional security
concerns with IP tunneling are documented in [RFC6169].
11. Acknowledgments
The following are acknowledged for their insights that helped shape
this work: Dmitry Anipko, Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Remi Despres,
Thomas Henderson, Philip Homburg, Lee Howard, Ray Hunter, Joel
Jaeggli, John Mann, Gabi Nakibly, Christopher Palmer, Hemant Singh,
Mark Smith, Ole Troan, Gunter Van de Velde, ...
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
December 2003.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
March 2008.
12.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-opt]
Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Kato, J., and T. Chown,
"Distributing Address Selection Policy using DHCPv6",
draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-01 (work in progress),
June 2011.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops]
Nakibly, G. and F. Templin, "Routing Loop Attack using
IPv6 Automatic Tunnels: Problem Statement and Proposed
Mitigations", draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops-07 (work in
progress), May 2011.
[RFC1687] Fleischman, E., "A Large Corporate User's View of IPng",
RFC 1687, August 1994.
[RFC1900] Carpenter, B. and Y. Rekhter, "Renumbering Needs Work",
RFC 1900, February 1996.
[RFC2491] Armitage, G., Schulter, P., Jork, M., and G. Harter, "IPv6
over Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) networks",
RFC 2491, January 1999.
[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, October 2000.
[RFC3053] Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I., and D. Lento, "IPv6
Tunnel Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001.
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
[RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.
[RFC3068] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
RFC 3068, June 2001.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[RFC3484] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
September 2005.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
February 2006.
[RFC4554] Chown, T., "Use of VLANs for IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence in
Enterprise Networks", RFC 4554, June 2006.
[RFC5320] Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
Layer (SEAL)", RFC 5320, February 2010.
[RFC5558] Templin, F., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)",
RFC 5558, February 2010.
[RFC5720] Templin, F., "Routing and Addressing in Networks with
Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER)", RFC 5720,
February 2010.
[RFC5887] Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering
Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010.
[RFC5969] Townsley, W. and O. Troan, "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd) -- Protocol Specification",
RFC 5969, August 2010.
[RFC6139] Russert, S., Fleischman, E., and F. Templin, "Routing and
Addressing in Networks with Global Enterprise Recursion
(RANGER) Scenarios", RFC 6139, February 2011.
[RFC6169] Krishnan, S., Thaler, D., and J. Hoagland, "Security
Concerns with IP Tunneling", RFC 6169, April 2011.
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Routing Loop Attack July 2011
[RFC6179] Templin, F., "The Internet Routing Overlay Network
(IRON)", RFC 6179, March 2011.
Author's Address
Fred L. Templin
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707 MC 7L-49
Seattle, WA 98124
USA
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin Expires January 2, 2012 [Page 19]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 11:18:12 |