IP over Intentionally Partially Partitioned Links
draft-ietf-intarea-ippl-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (intarea WG)
Last updated 2017-03-31 (latest revision 2017-03-30)
Replaces draft-nordmark-intarea-ippl, draft-intf-intarea-ippl
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
INTAREA                                                      E. Nordmark
Internet-Draft                                            March 30, 2017
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: October 1, 2017

           IP over Intentionally Partially Partitioned Links
                       draft-ietf-intarea-ippl-00

Abstract

   IP makes certain assumptions about the L2 forwarding behavior of a
   multi-access IP link.  However, there are several forms of
   intentional partitioning of links ranging from split-horizon to
   Private VLANs that violate some of those assumptions.  This document
   specifies that link behavior and how IP handles links with those
   properties.

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 October 1, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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

Nordmark                 Expires October 1, 2017                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                    IPPL                        March 2017

   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Keywords and Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Private VLAN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Bridge Configuration for Private VLANs  . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Resulting Bridge Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IP over IPPL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  IPv6 over IPPL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  IPv4 over IPPL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   7.  Multiple routers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  Multicast over IPPL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   9.  DHCP Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   10. Redirect Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   13. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   14. Appendix: Layer 2 Learning Implications . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   15. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     15.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

1.  Introduction

   IPv4 and IPv6 can in general handle two forms of links; point-to-
   point links when only have two IP nodes (self and remote), and multi-
   access links with one or more nodes attached to the link.  For the
   multi-access links IP in general, and particular protocols like ARP
   and IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, makes a few assumptions about transitive
   and reflexive connectivity i.e., that all nodes attached to the link
   can send packets to all other nodes.

   There are cases where for various reasons and deployments one wants
   what looks like one link from the perspective of IP and routing, yet
   the L2 connectivity is restrictive.  A key property is that an IP
   subnet prefix is assigned to the link, and IP routing sees it as a
   regular multi-access link with link-local unicast and multicast
   addresses functioning as expected.  But a host attached to the link
   might not be able to send packets to all other hosts attached to the
   link.  The motivation for this is outside the scope of this document,
   but in summary the motivation to preserve the single link view as
Show full document text