Autonomic Control Plane design for Layer-Two Switched Networks
draft-richardson-anima-l2-friendly-acp-02
anima Working Group M. Richardson
Internet-Draft Sandelman Software Works
Intended status: Standards Track W. Pan
Expires: 17 December 2021 Huawei Technologies
15 June 2021
Autonomic Control Plane design for Layer-Two Switched Networks
draft-richardson-anima-l2-friendly-acp-02
Abstract
This document proposes a design for an L2 aware Autonomic Control
Plane that can be deployed easily to layer-two (Ethernet) switched
technologies that are common on Campus/Enterprise network
architectures.
This document leverages the hop-by-hop announcement used in LLDP, but
runs bulk data over normal IPv6 Link-Local unicast ethernet frames.
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 17 December 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Richardson & Pan Expires 17 December 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft l2-friendly-acp June 2021
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 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Onbording process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Other constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. Changelog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The creation and maintenance of the Autonomic Control Plane described
in [RFC8994] requires creation of hop-by-hop discovery of adjacent
systems. There are Campus L2 systems that are not broadcast safe
until they have been connected to their Software Defined Networking
(SDN) controller. The use of the stable connectivity provided by
[RFC8368] can provide the SDN connectivity required.
There is a bootstrap interlocking problem: the network may be unsafe
for ACP discovery broadcasts without the support of Spanning Tree
Protocol (STP) or similar mechanisms until configured, yet it can not
be automatically configured until the ACP discovery (and onboarding
process) is done. Meantime, because of STP complicated topological
calculations, the convergence can be very slow for larger networks.
This can delay on-boarding.
Richardson & Pan Expires 17 December 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft l2-friendly-acp June 2021
In addition, forming a campus-wide network by default and using
enabling STP does not work. STP is not secure and could be easily
spoofed by malicious or untrusted devices. On manually configured
networks today, STP is turned off on "access" ports, and enabled only
for trunk ports. But in an autonomic network, it is not possible to
know a-priori which ports will be trunk ports.
What is needed is a way to send IPv6 traffic between these L2
switching devices in a way that is never forwarded, regardless of how
the network is eventually configured. This is not just an inital
configuration problem: devices may be added and removed at any time,
due to needed expansion of capacity, planned upgrades, or devices
failures.
This document proposes using LLDP for what it is good at: announcing
capabilities, while using normal EtherType 0x86DD IPv6 frames for the
normal ACP transport.
1.1. Terminology
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.
2. Protocol
A new TLV for LLDP is allocated and called the GRASP-DULL. The
contents of the new TLV are the payload of the normal [RFC8994] GRASP
DULL M_FLOOD, AN_ACP message.
The LLDP subsystem in the control plane CPU needs to forward these
messages along to the ACP GRASP daemon, and it needs to also include
the source MAC address (and port number) from which the LLDP message
was received.
The ACP GRASP daemon can see the origin IPv6 Link-Local address from
the GRASP DULL packet, and can now create an IPv6 neighbour cache
entry (NCE) for that combination. By forcing this NCE entry, the
node avoids the need to do an unsafe multicast IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery.
The node SHOULD unicast a Neighbor Advertisement to the corresponding
node to establish that node's NCE.
Richardson & Pan Expires 17 December 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft l2-friendly-acp June 2021
At this point it is possible to initiate the right key management
daemon (IKEv2, etc.) using unicast IPv6 datagrams that only need
unicast Ethernet packets.
3. Onbording process
In addition to normal operation, devices need to be onboarding.
[RFC8995] section 4.1.1 defines the AN_PROXY message to be used for a
new pledge to discover which neighbors are willing to act as
onboarding proxies.
This M_FLOOD message will fit into the same GRASP DULL M_FLOOD
message that contains the AN_ACP message.
After discover of an eligible neighbour, onboarding proceeds with a
TCP connection over IPv6 link-local addresses, using unicast Ethernet
frames.
A pledge that is in an L2 network that is broadcast unsafe MUST NOT
do mDNS queries as described in [RFC8995] appendix B.
4. Other constraints
On broadcast unsafe L2 networks, IPv6 Duplicate Address Detection
(DAD) MUST be turned off. Only auto-configured IPv6 link-local
addresses using SLAAC or stable-IID [RFC7217] may be used.
5. Privacy Considerations
The LLDP messages commonly contain information that uniquely
identifies a specific piece of switching equipment. The addition of
the GRASP DULL message will also now reveal the link-local IPv6
addresses of the device. This additional information is either
derived from ethernet addresses (so no new information), or will be
derived using [RFC7217].
6. Security Considerations
Unclear as yet.
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is asked to allocate a TLV from the "IANA Link Layer Discovery
Protocol (LLDP) TLV Subtypes" https://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-
802-numbers/ieee-802-numbers.xhtml#iana-lldp-tlv-subtypes
for the GRASP DULL L2 announcement.
Richardson & Pan Expires 17 December 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft l2-friendly-acp June 2021
8. Acknowledgements
Paul Congdon was very helpful in understanding how LLDP was actually
processed in production equipment.
9. Changelog
1. A specific LLDP method for announcement using normal IPv6
datagrams described.
2. Document renamed, focus changed.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[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/info/rfc2119>.
[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/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An
Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8994>.
[RFC8995] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.,
and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC8995,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8995>.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC8368] Eckert, T., Ed. and M. Behringer, "Using an Autonomic
Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
RFC 8368, DOI 10.17487/RFC8368, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8368>.
Richardson & Pan Expires 17 December 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft l2-friendly-acp June 2021
Authors' Addresses
Michael Richardson
Sandelman Software Works
Email: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Wei Pan
Huawei Technologies
Email: william.panwei@huawei.com
Richardson & Pan Expires 17 December 2021 [Page 6]