Status of this Memo
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Ran Atkinson | ||
| Last updated | 2012-01-10 | ||
| Stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00
Internet Draft RJ Atkinson
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00.txt Consultant
Category: Experimental S Bhatti
Expires: 09 JUL 2012 U. St Andrews
January 9, 2012
ICMP Locator Update message for ILNPv6
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6-00.txt
Status of this Memo
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright (c) 2012 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 & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 1]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 09 JUL 2012
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 is part of the ILNP document set, which has had
extensive review within the IRTF Routing Research Group. 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 & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 2]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 09 JUL 2012
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.
The Identifier Locator Network Protocol evolves the current Internet
Architecture by deprecating the concept of the IP Address, and
substituting separate Locator and Identifier objects, each with crisp
syntax and semantics [ILNP-ARCH].
ILNP has multiple instantiations. [ILNP-ENG] discusses ILNP
engineering and implementation aspects common to all instantiations
of ILNP. This document focuses on ILNP for IPv6 (ILNPv6). [ILNP-
DNS] covers new Domain Name System (DNS) resource records used with
ILNP. [ILNP-Nonce] describes a Nonce Destination Option used with
ILNPv6.
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.[RFC 2460] [RFC 4443]
This new ICMPv6 message MUST ONLY be used for ILNPv6 sessions.
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, on
grounds that this is a control message, 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:
Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 3]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 09 JUL 2012
------------------------------------------------------------
| ICMP Type | ICMP Code | Checksum |
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
| Num of Locs | RESERVED | Preference |
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
/ Locator /
+-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------+
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.
Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 4]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 09 JUL 2012
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
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, such as
Security for ILNP [ILNP-ENG] [RFC 4301], is also in use.
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 an ILNP design objective 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 ILNPv6, and to retain the incremental deployability
and backwards compatibility needed, the network layer needs a
mode bit in the Transport Control Block (or its equivalent) to
Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 5]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 09 JUL 2012
track which IP sessions are using the classic IPv6 mode and which
IP sessions are using the Identifier/Locator Split mode.
Further, when supporting ILNPv6, nodes will need to retain a
Correspondent Cache in the network layer as described in
[ILNP-ENG].
A node sending an ICMP Locator Update message MUST 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") MUST be set
to zero before calculating TCP or UDP checksums. 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.
When ILNPv6 is not in use, the receiving IPv6 mode MUST discard
the ICMP Locator Update packet without processing the packet.
6. Security Considerations
A broader discussion of ILNP Security Considerations is
found in [ILNP-ARCH], and is incorporated here by reference.
The ICMP Locator Update message MUST ONLY be used for ILNPv6
sessions.
The ILNP Nonce Destination Option [ILNP-Nonce] MUST be 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
Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 6]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 09 JUL 2012
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.
Sessions operating in higher risk environments SHOULD use IP
Security for ILNP [ILNP-ENG] [RFC 4301] *in addition* to the
ILNPv6 Nonce Destination Option. Use of IP Security for ILNP to
protect a packet does NOT permit the packet to be sent without
the Nonce Destination Option.
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
[ILNP-ARCH] R. Atkinson and S. Bhatti, "ILNP Architecture",
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch, January 2012.
[ILNP-DNS] R. Atkinson and S. Bhatti, "DNS Resource Records
for ILNP", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns, January 2012.
[ILNP-ENG] R. Atkinson and S. Bhatti, "ILNP Engineering
Considerations", draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng, January 2012.
[ILNP-Nonce] R. Atkinson and S. Bhatti, "Nonce Destination Option",
draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6, January 2012.
[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.
Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 7]
Internet Draft ILNP ICMP 09 JUL 2012
[RFC 4301] S. Kent & K. Seo, "Security Architecture for
the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[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
### tbd
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Steve Blake, Mohamed Boucadair, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark
Handley, Volker Hilt, Tony Li, and Yakov Rehkter (in alphabetical
order) provided review and feedback on earlier versions of the
ILNP documents. Steve Blake provided an especially thorough
review of the ILNP document set.
Author's Address
RJ Atkinson
Consultant
San Jose, CA
95125 USA
Email: rja.lists@gmail.com
S Bhatti
School of Computer Science
University of St Andrews
North Haugh, St Andrews,
Fife, Scotland, UK
KY 16 9SX
Email: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk
Expires: 09 JUL 2012
Atkinson & Bhatti Expires in 6 months [Page 8]