IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop
draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Juliusz Chroboczek , Warren "Ace" Kumari , Toke Høiland-Jørgensen | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-07 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6-00
Internet Area J. Chroboczek
Internet-Draft IRIF, University of Paris
Intended status: Standards Track W. Kumari
Expires: 8 September 2022 Google, LLC
T. Høiland-Jørgensen
7 March 2022
IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop
draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6-00
Abstract
We propose "v4-via-v6" routing, a technique that uses IPv6 next-hop
addresses for routing IPv4 packets, thus making it possible to route
IPv4 packets across a network where routers have not been assigned
IPv4 addresses. We describe the technique, and discuss its
operational implications.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
The latest revision of this draft can be found at
https://wkumari.github.io/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6/draft-
chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6.html. Status information for this document
may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-
int-v4-via-v6/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/wkumari/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
This Internet-Draft will expire on 8 September 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Structure of the routing table . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Operation of the forwarding plane . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Operation of routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3.1. Distance-vector routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.2. Link-state routing protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. ICMP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The dominant form of routing in the Internet is next-hop routing,
where a routing protocol constructs a routing table which is used by
a forwarding process to forward packets. The routing table is a data
structure that maps network prefixes in a given family (IPv4 or IPv6)
to next hops, pairs of an outgoing interface and a neighbor's network
address, for example:
destination next hop
2001:db8:0:1::/64 eth0, fe80::1234:5678
203.0.113.0/24 eth0, 192.0.2.1
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
When a packet is routed according to a given routing table entry, the
forwarding plane uses a neighbor discovery protocol (the Neighbor
Discovery protocol (ND) [rfc4861] in the case of IPv6, the Address
Resolution Protocol (ARP) [rfc0826] in the case of IPv4) to map the
next-hop address to a link-layer address (a "MAC address"), which is
then used to construct the link-layer frames that encapsulate
forwarded packets.
It is apparent from the description above that there is no
fundamental reason why the destination prefix and the next-hop
address should be in the same address family: there is nothing
preventing an IPv6 packet from being routed through a next hop with
an IPv4 address (in which case the next hop's MAC address will be
obtained using ARP), or, conversely, an IPv4 packet from being routed
through a next hop with an IPv6 address. (In fact, it is even
possible to store link-layer addresses directly in the next-hop entry
of the routing table, thus avoiding the use of an address resolution
protocol altogether, which is commonly done in networks using the OSI
protocol suite).
The case of routing IPv4 packets through an IPv6 next hop is
particularly interesting, since it makes it possible to build
networks that have no IPv4 addresses except at the edges and still
provide IPv4 connectivity to edge hosts. In addition, since an IPv6
next hop can use a link-local address that is autonomously
configured, the use of such routes enables a mode of operation where
the network core has no statically assigned IP addresses of either
family, which significantly reduces the amount of manual
configuration required. (See also [rfc7404] for a discussion of the
issues involved with such an approach.)
We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop a
"v4-via-v6" route.
This document discusses the protocol design and operations
implications of such routes and is designed to be used as a reference
for future documents.
{ Editor note, to be removed before publication. This document is
heavily based on draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6. When draft-ietf-babel-
v4viav6 was going through IESG eval, Warren raised concerns that
something this fundamental deserved to be documented in a separate,
standalone document, so that it can be more fully discussed, and,
more importantly, referenced cleanly in the future. }
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Operation
Next-hop routing is implemented by two separate components, the
routing protocol and the forwarding plane, that communicate through a
shared data structure, the routing table.
3.1. Structure of the routing table
The routing table is a data structure that maps address prefixes to
next-hops, pairs of the form (interface, address). In traditional
next-hop routing, the routing table maps IPv4 prefixes to IPv4 next
hops, and IPv6 addresses to IPv6 next hops. With v4-via-v6 routing,
the routing table is extended so that an IPv4 prefix may map to
either an IPv4 or an IPv6 next hop.
3.2. Operation of the forwarding plane
The forwarding plane is the part of the routing implementation that
is executed for every forwarded packet. As a packet arrives, the
forwarding plane consults the routing table, selects a single route
matching the packet, determines the next-hop address, and forwards
the packet to the next-hop address.
With v4-via-v6 routing, the address family of the next-hop address is
no longer dermined by the address family of the prefix: since the
routing table may map an IPv4 prefix to either an IPv4 or an IPv6
next-hop, the forwarding plane must be able to determine, on a per-
packet basis, whether the next-hop address is an IPv4 or an IPv6
address, and to use that information in order to choose the right
address resolution protocol to use (ARP for IP4, ND for IPv6).
3.3. Operation of routing protocols
The routing protocol is the part of the routing implementation that
is executed asynchronously from the forwarding plane, and whose role
is to build the routing table. Since v4-via-v6 routing is a
generalisation of traditional next-hop routing, v4-via-v6 can
interoperate with existing routing protocols: a traditional routing
protocol produces a traditional next-hop routing table, which can be
used by an implementation supporting v4-via-v6 routing.
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
However, in order to use the additional flexibility provided by
v4-via-v6 routing, routing protocols will need to be extended with
the ability to populate the routing table with v4-via-v6 routes when
an IPv4 address is not available or when the available IPv4 addresses
are not suitable for use as a next-hop (e.g., not stable enough).
3.3.1. Distance-vector routing protocols
3.3.2. Link-state routing protocols
4. ICMP Considerations
The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP)
[rfc0792] is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primarily used to
carry diagnostic and debugging information. ICMPv4 packets may be
originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port
unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by
intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination
unreachable" packets).
Some protocols deployed in the Internet rely on ICMPv4 packets sent
by intermediate routers. Most notably, path MTU Discovery (PMTUd)
[rfc1191] is an algorithm executed by end hosts to discover the
maximum packet size that a route is able to carry. While there exist
variants of PMTUd that are purely end-to-end [rfc4821], the variant
most commonly deployed in the Internet has a hard dependency on
ICMPv4 packets originated by intermediate routers: if intermediate
routers are unable to send ICMPv4 packets, PMTUd may lead to
persistent black-holing of IPv4 traffic.
Due to this kind of dependency, every router that is able to forward
IPv4 traffic SHOULD be able originate ICMPv4 traffic. Since the
extension described in this document enables routers to forward IPv4
traffic received over an interface that has not been assigned an IPv4
address, a router implementing this extension MUST be able to
originate ICMPv4 packets even when the outgoing interface has not
been assigned an IPv4 address.
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
In such a situation, if the router has an interface that has been
assigned an IPv4 address (other than the loopback address), or if an
IPv4 address has been assigned to the router itself (to the "loopback
interface"), then that IPv4 address may be used as the source of
originated ICMPv4 packets. If no IPv4 address is available, the
router could use the experimental mechanism described in Requirement
R-22 of Section 4.8 [rfc7600], which consists of using the dummy
address 192.0.0.8 as the source address of originated ICMPv4 packets.
Note however that using the same address on multiple routers may
hamper debugging and fault isolation, e.g., when using the
"traceroute" utility.
{Editor note: It would be surprising to many operators to see
something like:
> $ traceroute -n 8.8.8.8
traceroute to 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.0.1 1.894 ms 1.953 ms 1.463 ms
2 192.0.0.8 9.012 ms 8.852 ms 12.211 ms
3 192.0.0.8 8.445 ms 9.426 ms 9.781 ms
4 192.0.0.8 9.984 ms 10.282 ms 10.763 ms
5 192.0.0.8 13.994 ms 13.031 ms 12.948 ms
6 192.0.0.8 27.502 ms 26.895 ms
7 8.8.8.8 26.509 ms
Is this a problem though? If this becomes common practice, will
operators just come to understand that the repeated 192.0.0.8 is not
actually a looping packet, but rather that the packet is (probably!)
making forward progress? What if it goes: 192.168.0.1 -> 192.0.0.8
-> 10.10.10.10 -> 192.0.0.8 -> 172.16.14.2 -> dest? }
{ Editor note / question: 192.0.0.8 is assigned in the
[IANA-IPV4-REGISTRY] as the "IPv4 dummy address". It may be used as
a Source Address, and was requested in [rfc7600] to be used as the
IPv4 source address when synthesizing an ICMPv4 packet to mirror an
ICMPv6 error message. This is all fine and good - but, 192.0.0.0/24
is commonly considered a bogon or martian
Example (from a Juniper router):
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
wkumari@rtr2.pao> show route martians
inet.0:
0.0.0.0/0 exact -- allowed
0.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed
127.0.0.0/8 orlonger -- disallowed
192.0.0.0/24 orlonger -- disallowed
240.0.0.0/4 orlonger -- disallowed
224.0.0.0/4 exact -- disallowed
224.0.0.0/24 exact -- disallowed
This means that these packets are likely to be filtered in many
places, and so ICMP packets with this source address are likely to be
dropped. Is this a major issue? Would requesting another address be
a better solution? Would it help? If it were to be allocated from
some more global pool, it would still likely require "magic" to allow
it to pass BCP38 filters. }
5. Security Considerations
The techniques described in this document make routing more flexible
by allowing IPv4 routes to propagate across a section of a network
that has only been assigned IPv6 addresses. This additional
flexibility might invalidate otherwise reasonable assumptions made by
network administrators, which could potentially cause security
issues.
For example, if an island of IPv4-only hosts is separated from the
IPv4 Internet by routers that have not been assigned IPv4 addresses,
a network administrator might reasonably assume that the IPv4-only
hosts are unreachable from the IPv4 Internet. This assumption is
broken if the intermediary routers implement v4-via-v6 routing, which
might make the IPv4-only hosts reachable from the IPv4 Internet. If
this is not desirable, then the network administrator must filter out
the undesirable traffic in the forwarding plane by implementing
suitable packet filtering rules.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[rfc7600] Despres, R., Jiang, S., Ed., Penno, R., Lee, Y., Chen, G.,
and M. Chen, "IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A
Stateless Solution (4rd)", RFC 7600, DOI 10.17487/RFC7600,
July 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7600>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
7.2. Informative References
[IANA-IPV4-REGISTRY]
"IANA IPv4 Address Registry", Web
https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-
registry/.
[rfc0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc792>.
[rfc0826] Plummer, D., "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, DOI 10.17487/RFC0826, November 1982,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc826>.
[rfc1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1191>.
[rfc4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4821>.
[rfc4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4861>.
[rfc7404] Behringer, M. and E. Vyncke, "Using Only Link-Local
Addressing inside an IPv6 Network", RFC 7404,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7404, November 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7404>.
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft v4-via-v6 March 2022
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Juliusz Chroboczek
IRIF, University of Paris
Case 7014
75205 Paris Cedex 13
France
Email: jch@irif.fr
Warren Kumari
Google, LLC
Email: warren@kumari.net
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
Email: toke@toke.dk
Chroboczek, et al. Expires 8 September 2022 [Page 9]