Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery
draft-ymbk-idr-l3nd-01
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 "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Randy Bush , Russ Housley , Rob Austein , Susan Hares , Keyur Patel | ||
| Last updated | 2022-03-03 | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Candidate for WG Adoption | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ymbk-idr-l3nd-01
Network Working Group R. Bush
Internet-Draft Arrcus & Internet Initiative Japan
Intended status: Standards Track R. Housley
Expires: 4 September 2022 Vigil Security
R. Austein
Arrcus
S. Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
K. Patel
Arrcus
3 March 2022
Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery
draft-ymbk-idr-l3nd-01
Abstract
Data Centers where the topology is BGP-based need to discover
neighbor IP addressing, IP Layer-3 BGP neighbors, etc. This Layer-3
Neighbor Discovery protocol identifies BGP neighbor candidates.
Requirements Language
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.
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 4 September 2022.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Inter-Link Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. L3ND Ladder Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. TLV PDUs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. HELLO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. TCP Set-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. OPEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. ACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9.1. Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. The Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10.1. The Encapsulation PDU Skeleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Encapsulaion Flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.3. IPv4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
10.4. IPv6 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.5. MPLS Label List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.6. MPLS IPv4 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10.7. MPLS IPv6 Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. VENDOR - Vendor Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
12.1. HELLO Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13. VLANs/SVIs/Sub-interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
15. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16.1. Link Local Layer-3 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16.2. Ports for TLS/TCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16.3. PDU Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16.4. Flag Bits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
16.5. Error Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
17. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
18. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
18.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
18.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1. Introduction
The Massive Data Center (MDC) environment presents unusual problems
of scale, e.g. O(10,000) forwarding devices, while its homogeneity
presents opportunities for simple approaches. Layer-3 Discovery and
Liveness (L3DL), [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl], provides neighbor discovery at
Layer-2. This document (set) provides a similar solution at Layer-3,
attempting to be as similar as reasonable to L3DL.
Some guiding principles when dealing with datacenters with tens of
thousands of devices are
* Predictable Reliability,
* Security: Authorization and Integrity more than Confidentiality,
and
* Massive Scalability
Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery (L3ND) provides brutally simple mechanisms
for neighboring devices to
* Discover each other's IP Addresses,
* Discover mutually supported layer-3 encapsulations, e.g. IP/MPLS,
* Discover Layer-3 IP and/or MPLS addressing of interfaces of the
encapsulations,
* Provide authenticity, integrity, and verification of protocol
messages, and
* Accommodate scaling needed for EVPN etc.
L3DN is intended for use within single IP subnets (IP over Ethernet
or other point-to-point or multi-point IP link) in order to exchange
the data needed to bootstrap BGP-based peering, EVPN, etc.;
especially in a datacenter Clos [Clos] environment. Once IP
connectivity has been leveraged to discover1 layer-3 addressability
and forwarding capabilities, normal IP forwarding and routing can
take over.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
L3ND might be found to be widely applicable to a range of routing and
similar protocols which need Layer-3 neighbor discovery.
2. Terminology
Even though it concentrates on the inter-device layer, this document
relies heavily on routing terminology. The following attempts to
clarify the use of some possibly confusing terms:
Clos: A hierarchic subset of a crossbar switch topology commonly
used in data centers [Clos].
Datagram: The L3ND content of a single Layer-3 UDP Datagram.
Encapsulation: Address Family Indicator and Subsequent Address
Family Indicator (AFI/SAFI). I.e. classes of Layer-2.5
and Layer-3 addresses such as IPv4, IPv6, MPLS.
Link or Logical Link: A logical connection between two interfaces on
two different devices. E.g. two VLANs between the same
two ports are two links.
MDC: Massive Data Center, commonly composed of thousands of Top
of Rack Switches (TORs).
MTU: Maximum Transmission Unit, the size in octets of the
largest packet that can be sent on a medium, see [RFC1122]
1.3.3.
PDU: Protocol Data Unit, an L3ND application layer message. A
PDU's content may need to be broken into multiple
Datagrams to make it through MTU or other restrictions.
Session: An established, via exchange of OPEN PDUs, session between
two L3ND capable IP interfaces on a link.
TOR Switch: Top Of Rack switch, aggregates the servers in a rack and
connects to aggregation layers of the Clos tree, AKA the
Clos spine.
3. Background
L3ND is primarily designed for a Clos type datacenter scale and
topology, but can accommodate richer topologies which contain
potential cycles.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
While L3ND is designed for the MDC, there are no inherent reasons it
could not run on a WAN. The authentication and authorization needed
to run safely on a WAN need to be considered, and the appropriate
level of security options chosen.
The number of addresses of one Encapsulation type on an interface
link may be quite large given a TOR switch with tens of servers, each
server having a few hundred micro-services, resulting in an
inordinate number of addresses. And highly automated micro-service
migration can cause serious address prefix disaggregation, resulting
in interfaces with thousands of disaggregated prefixes.
To meet such scaling needs, the L3ND protocol is session oriented and
uses incremental announcement and withdrawal with session restart, a
la BGP ([RFC4271]).
4. Inter-Link Protocol Overview
A device broadcasts a Layer-3 Multicast UDP datagram (HELLO)
containing the port number that is willing to serve a TLS or raw TCP
connection to support the data exchange of the rest of the protocol
in a reliable and preferably authenticated manner.
Another device on the link then establishes a TLS or raw TCP session
in which inter-device PDUs are used to exchange device and logical
link identities and layer-2.5 (MPLS) and 3 identifiers (not
payloads), e.g. more IP Addresses, loopback addresses, port
identities, and Encapsulations.
To assure discovery of new devices coming up on a multi-link
topology, devices on such a topology, and only on a multi-link
topology, send periodic HELLOs forever, see Section 12.1.
Given the TLS/TCP session, OPEN PDUs (Section 8) are exchanged, the
Encapsulations (Section 10) configured on an end point may be
announced and modified. Note that these are only the encapsulation
and addresses configured on the announcing interface; though a
device's loopback and overlay interface(s) may also be announced.
4.1. L3ND Ladder Diagram
The HELLO, Section 6, is a priming message sent on all logical links
configured for L3ND. It is a small L3ND Multicast UDP PDU with the
simple goal of advertising a TLS/TCP service available on an
advertised port on the sending IP interface.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
The HELLO PDU is either IPv4 or IPv6, which selects the AFI to be
used for the rest of the session(s) between end-points. Two
endpoints MAY establish a link for each AFI.
An interface on the link receiving the HELLO PDU attempts to
establish a TLS or raw TCP, as specified by the HELLO, session to the
source IP address of the HELLO on the port advertised in the HELLO.
The OPEN, Section 8 PDUs, used to exchange details about the L3ND
session, and the ACK/ERROR PDU, are mandatory; other PDUs are
optional; though at least one encapsulation SHOULD be agreed at some
point.
Like Multi-Protocol BGP, [RFC4760], an L3ND session running over one
AFI MAY carry encapsulations etc. of different AFIs,
A L3DL extension, [I-D.ymbk-idr-l3nd-ulpc], describes the next upper
layer L3DL protocol to exchange BGP parameter information.
The following is a ladder-style diagram of the L3ND protocol
exchanges:
| HELLO | Logical Link Peer discovery
|---------------------------->|
| TCP OPEN | Mandatory
|<----------------------------|
| |
| |
| OPEN | IDs, security, etc.
|---------------------------->|
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| OPEN | Mandatory
|<----------------------------|
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
| |
| |
| Interface IPv4 Addresses | Interface IPv4 Addresses
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface IPv4 Addresses |
|<----------------------------|
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
| |
| |
| Interface IPv6 Addresses | Interface IPv6 Addresses
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface IPv6 Addresses |
|<----------------------------|
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
| |
| |
| Interface MPLSv4 Labels | Interface MPLSv4 Labels
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface MPLSv4 Labels | Interface MPLSv4 Labels
|<----------------------------| Optional
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
| |
| |
| Interface MPLSv6 Labels | Interface MPLSv6 Labels
|---------------------------->| Optional
| ACK |
|<----------------------------|
| |
| Interface MPLSv6 Labels | Interface MPLSv6 Labels
|<----------------------------| Optional
| ACK |
|---------------------------->|
5. TLV PDUs
The basic L3ND application layer PDU is a typical TLV (Type Length
Value) PDU. As it is transported over TCP, integrity is assured.
When it is transported over TLS, authenticity is also provided.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type | Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ~
~ Payload ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The fields of the basic L3ND header are as follows:
Version: An integer differentiating versions of the L3ND protocol.
Currently only Version 0 MAY BE specified.
PDU Type: An integer differentiating PDU payload types. See
Section 16.3.
Payload Length: Total number of octets in the Payload field.
Payload: The application layer content of the L3ND PDU.
6. HELLO
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 0 | Payload Length = 24 ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Flags | Port ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Flags (bit):
0 - 0 Raw TCP, 1 TLS
1 - 0 Self-Signed Cert for TLS, 1 CA-based
The Payload Length is 24 to cover the Flags and Port fields.
The Port is the TCP Port Number (default is TBD3) on which the HELLO
sender MUST have a waiting TLS/TCP (as specified in Flags) server
listening. Though the IANA assigned well-known port SHOULD be used,
this field allows configuration of alternate ports.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
The IPv4 UDP packets are sent to the IPv4 link local multicast
address (TBD1) and the IPv6 UDP packets are sent to an IPv6 link
Local multicast address (TBD2). See Section 12.1 for why multicast
is used.
The HELLO PDU solicits a unicast TLS/TCP open request(s) of the same
AFI from other devices on the link.
When a HELLO is received from a source IP address with which there is
no established TLS/TCP L3ND session, the receiver SHOULD respond by
sending a TLS/TCP client open request, using the same AFI, to the
source IP address of the HELLO to establish an L3ND TLS/TCP session.
All L3ND PDUs other than HELLO are sent via TLS/TCP, as the server's
destination IP address is known after the HELLO.
When an interface is turned up on a device, it SHOULD issue a HELLO
if it is to participate in L3ND sessions and repeat HELLOs at a
configured interval, with a default of 60 seconds.
If the configured multicast destination address is one that is
propagated by switches, the HELLO SHOULD be repeated at a configured
interval, with a default of 60 seconds. This allows discovery by new
devices which come up on the mesh. In this multi-link scenario, the
operator should be aware of the trade-off between timer tuning and
network noise and adjust the inter-HELLO timer accordingly.
By default, GTSM, [RFC5082], SHOULD be enabled to test that a
received HELLO MUST be on the local link. It MAY be disabled by
configuration. GTSM check failures SHOULD be logged, though with
rate limiting to keep from overwhelming logs.
If more than one device responds, one adjacency is formed for each
unique source IP address. L3ND treats each adjacency as a separate
logical link.
To ameliorate possible load spikes during bootstrap or event
recovery, there SHOULD be a jittered delay between receipt of a HELLO
and TLS/TCP open. The default delay range SHOULD be zero to five
seconds, and MUST be configurable.
If a HELLO is received from an IP Address with which there is an
established session for that AFI, the HELLO should be dropped.
A device with a TLS/TCP listener SHOULD log or otherwise report
repeated failed inbound attempts.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
7. TCP Set-Up
If the receiver of a HELLO does not agree with the sender's choice of
TLS/TCP or does not agree with the verification choice, Self-Signed
or CA-based, the receiver SHOULD respond with a HELLO specifying its
preferences.
As it is assumed that the configured deployment of a data center
would have compatible parameters on all devices, any disagreement
over TLS/TCP or trust anchors MUST be logged.
By default, GTSM, [RFC5082], SHOULD be enabled to ensure that a SYN
received in response to a HELLO is on the local link. It MAY be
disabled by configuration. GTSM check failures SHOULD be logged,
though with rate limiting to keep from overwhelming logs.
If the receiver of a HELLO agrees with the sender's choice of TLS/TCP
and authentication, both sides have agreed on an AFI for the
transport and on each other's IP address in that AFI. This is
sufficient to open a TCP session between them, which will allow for
very large data PDUs while obviating the need to invent complex
transports.
The L3ND peer with the higher IP address MUST act as the TLS/TCP
client and open the transport session (send SYN) toward the peer with
the lower IP address.
The server, the sender of the HELLO with the lower IP address,
listens on the advertised port for the TLS/TCP session open. The
receiver of the acceptable HELLO, the TLS/TCP client, initiates a TLS
or raw TCP session with the sender of the HELLO, the TLS/TCP server,
preferably TLS, as advertised. If TLS, the server has chosen and
signaled either a self-signed certificate or one configured from the
operational CA trusted by both parties, as negotiated in the HELLO
exchange.
Once the TLS/TCP session is established, if the link is configured as
point to point, the client side SHOULD stop listening on any port for
which it has sent a HELLO. The server side SHOULD stop sending
HELLOs.
If the TLS/TCP open fails, then this SHOULD be logged and the parties
MUST go back to the initial state and try HELLO.
Should an interface with an established TLS/TCP session be
reconfigured changing the TLS/TCP parameters, the TLS/TCP session
should be closed or torn down.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
Should the TLS/TCP session terminate for any reason, the devices
SHOULD restart/resume HELLOs. When the new TLS/TCP session is
started, if possible the OPEN PDU SHOULD try to resume the lost
logical session by using the same nonce and resuming from the last
Serial Number.
Once the TLS/TCP session has been established, the two devices
exchange L3ND PDUs, starting with OPENs.
8. OPEN
Each device has learned the other's IP Address from the HELLO
exchange, see Section 6 and established a TLS/TCP session for a
particular AFI.
The first PDU each sends MUST be an OPEN, and the other side MUST
respond with an ACK PDU.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 2 | Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Nonce ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | AttrCount | ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
~ Attribute List ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Serial Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Payload Length is the number of octets in all fields of the PDU
from the Nonce through the Serial Number.
The Nonce enables detection of a duplicate OPEN PDU. It SHOULD be
either a random number or a high resolution timestamp. It is needed
to prevent session closure due to a repeated OPEN caused by a race or
a dropped or delayed ACK. It can be used to resume a dropped logical
session.
AttrCount is the number of attributes in the Attribute List. A node
may send zero or more attributes.
Attributes are single octets the semantics of which are operator-
defined, e.g.: spine, leaf, backbone, route reflector, arabica, ...
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
Attribute syntax and semantics are local to an operator or
datacenter; hence there is no global registry. Nodes exchange their
attributes only in the OPEN PDU.
Unlike L3DL [I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl], there are no verifiable keys in the
PDUs. If the operator wants authentication, integrity,
confidentiality, then TLS MUST have been requested by the HELLO and
agreed by the TLS session open.
The Serial Number is a monotonically increasing 32-bit value
representing the sender's state at the time of sending the last PDU.
It may be an integer, a timestamp, etc. If incrementing the Serial
Number would cause it to be zero, it should be incremented again.
On session restart (new OPEN, same Nonce), a receiver MAY send the
last received Serial Number to tell the sender to only send data with
a Serial Number greater (in the [RFC1982] sense), or send a Serial
Number of zero to request all data.
This allows a sender of an OPEN to tell the receiver that the sender
would like to resume a logical session and that the receiver only
needs to send data starting with the PDU with the lowest Serial
Number greater (in the [RFC1982] sense) than the one sent in the
OPEN. If the sender is not trying to resume a dropped session, the
Serial Number MUST be zero.
If the receiver of an OPEN PDU with a non-zero Serial Number can not
resume from the requested point, it should return an ACK with an
Error Code of 2, Session could not be continued. The sender of the
failing OPEN PDU SHOULD then send an OPEN PDU with a Serial Number of
zero.
If a sender of OPEN does not receive an ACK of the OPEN PDU in a
configurable time (default 30 seconds), then they SHOULD close or
otherwise terminate the TLS/TCP session and restart from the HELLO
state.
If an OPEN arrives at L3ND speaker A from B with which A believes it
already has an L3ND session (i.e. OPENs have already been
exchanged), and the Serial Number in B's OPEN PDU is non-zero,
speaker A SHOULD establish a new sending session by sending an OPEN
with the Serial Number being the same as that of A's last sent and
ACKed PDU. A MUST resume sending encapsulations etc. subsequent to
the requested Sequence Number. And B MUST retain all previously
discovered encapsulation and other data received from A.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
If an OPEN arrives at L3ND speaker A from B with which A believes it
already has an L3ND session (i.e. OPENs have already been
exchanged), and the Serial Number in B's OPEN is zero, then the A
MUST assume that B's internal state has been reset. All Previously
discovered encapsulation data MUST BE discarded; and A MUST respond
with a new OPEN with a Serial Number of zero.
TCP KeepAlives should be configured and tuned to meet local
operational needs. Some defaults and recommendations are needed
here.
9. ACK
The ACK PDU acknowledges receipt of a PDU and reports any error
condition which might have been raised.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 3 | Payload Length = 5 ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | ACKed PDU | EType | ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Error Code | Error Hint |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The ACK acknowledges receipt of an OPEN, Encapsulation, Vendor PDU,
etc.
The ACKed PDU is the PDU Type of the PDU being acknowledged, e.g.,
OPEN, one of the Encapsulations, etc.
If there was an error processing the received PDU, then the EType is
non-zero. If the EType is zero, Error Code and Error Hint MUST also
be zero.
A non-zero EType is the receiver's way of telling the PDU's sender
that the receiver had problems processing the PDU. The Error Code
and Error Hint will tell the sender more detail about the error.
The decimal value of EType gives a strong hint how the receiver
sending the ACK believes things should proceed:
0 - No Error, Error Code and Error Hint MUST be zero
1 - Warning, something not too serious happened, continue
2 - Session should not be continued, try to restart
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
3 - Restart is hopeless, call the operator
4-15 - Reserved
The Error Codes, noting protocol failures, are listed in
Section 16.5. Someone stuck in the 1990s might think the catenation
of EType and Error Code as an echo of 0x1zzz, 0x2zzz, etc. They
might be right; or not.
The Error Hint, an arbitrary 16 bits, is any additional data the
sender of the error PDU thinks will help the recipient or the
debugger with the particular error.
9.1. Retransmission
If a PDU sender expects an ACK, e.g. for an OPEN, an Encapsulation, a
Vendor PDU, etc., and does not receive the ACK for a configurable
time (default three seconds) the TLS/TCP session should be closed or
dropped, and both sides revert to HELLO state.
10. The Encapsulations
Once the devices know each other's IP Addresses, and have established
a TLS/TCP session and have successfully exchanged OPENs, the L3ND
session is considered established, and the devices SHOULD exchange
Layer-3 interface encapsulations, Layer-3 addresses, and Layer-2.5
labels.
Encapsulations of any AFI/SAFI may be exchanged over a TLS/TCP
session irrespective of the AFI/SAFI of the session transport.
The Encapsulation types the peers exchange may be IPv4
(Section 10.3), IPv6 (Section 10.4), MPLS IPv4 (Section 10.6), MPLS
IPv6 (Section 10.7), and/or possibly others not defined here.
The sender of an Encapsulation PDU MUST NOT assume that the peer is
capable of the same Encapsulation Type. An ACK (Section 9) merely
acknowledges receipt. Only if both peers have sent the same
Encapsulation Type is it safe for Layer-3 protocols to assume that
they are compatible for that type.
A receiver of an encapsulation might recognize an addressing
conflict, such as both ends of the link trying to use the same
address. In this case, the receiver MUST respond with an error
(Error Code 2) ACK. As there may be other usable addresses or
encapsulations, this error might log and continue, letting an upper
layer topology builder deal with what works.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
Further, to consider a logical link of a type to formally be
established so that it may be pushed up to upper layer protocols, the
addressing for the type must be compatible, e.g. on the same IP
subnet.
10.1. The Encapsulation PDU Skeleton
The header for all encapsulation PDUs is as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type | Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Count ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Serial Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Encapsulation List... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
An Encapsulation PDU describes zero or more addresses of the
encapsulation type.
The 24-bit Count is the number of Encapsulations in the Encapsulation
list.
The Serial Number is a monotonically increasing 32-bit value
representing the sender's state in time. It may be an integer, a
timestamp, etc. On session restart (new OPEN), a receiver MAY send
the last received Session Number to tell the sender to only send
newer data.
If a sender has multiple links on the same interface, separate state:
data, ACKs, etc. must be kept for each peer session.
Over time, multiple Encapsulation PDUs may be sent for an interface
in a session as configuration changes.
The Receiver MUST acknowledge the Encapsulation PDU with a Type=3,
ACK PDU (Section 9) with the Encapsulation Type being that of the
encapsulation being announced, see Section 9.
If the Sender does not receive an ACK in a configurable interval
(default three seconds), they SHOULD retransmit. After a user
configurable number of failures (default three), the L3ND session
should be considered dead and the HELLO process SHOULD be restarted.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
If the link is broken below layer-3, retransmission MAY BE retried if
data have not changed in the interim and the TLS/TCP session is still
alive.
10.2. Encapsulaion Flags
The Encapsulation Flags are a sequence of bit fields as follows:
0 1 2 3 4 ... 7
+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Ann/With | Primary | Under/Over | Loopback | Reserved ..|
+------------+------------+------------+------------+------------+
Each encapsulation in an Encapsulation PDU of Type T may announce new
and/or withdraw old encapsulations of Type T. It indicates this with
the Ann/With Encapsulation Flag, Announce == 1, Withdraw == 0.
Each Encapsulation interface address in an Encapsulation PDU is
either a new encapsulation be announced (Ann/With == 1) (yes, a la
BGP) or requests one be withdrawn (Ann/With == 0). Adding an
encapsulation which already exists SHOULD raise an Announce/Withdraw
Error (see Section 16.5); the EType SHOULD be 2, suggesting a session
restart (see Section 9 so all encapsulations will be resent.
If an interface on a link has multiple addresses for an encapsulation
type, one and only one address MAY be marked as primary (Primary Flag
== 1) for that Encapsulation Type.
An Encapsulation interface address in an Encapsulation PDU MAY be
marked as a loopback, in which case the Loopback bit is set.
Loopback addresses are generally not seen directly on an external
interface. One or more loopback addresses MAY be exposed by
configuration on one or more L3ND speaking external interfaces, e.g.
for iBGP peering. They SHOULD be marked as such, Loopback Flag == 1.
Each Encapsulation interface address in an Encapsulation PDU is that
of the direct 'underlay interface (Under/Over == 1), or an 'overlay'
address (Under/Over == 0), likely that of a VM or container guest
bridged or configured on to the interface already having an underlay
address.
10.3. IPv4 Encapsulation
The IPv4 Encapsulation describes a device's ability to exchange IPv4
packets on one or more subnets. It does so by stating the
interface's addresses and the corresponding prefix lengths.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 4 | Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Count ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Serial Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Encaps Flags | IPv4 Address ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | PrefixLen | more ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 24-bit Count is the sum of the number of IPv4 Encapsulations
being announced and/or withdrawn.
10.4. IPv6 Encapsulation
The IPv6 Encapsulation describes a link's ability to exchange IPv6
packets on one or more subnets. It does so by stating the
interface's addresses and the corresponding prefix lengths.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 5 | Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Count ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Serial Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Encaps Flags | ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| ~
+ +
~ ~
+ +
~ IPv6 Prefix ~
+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | PrefixLen | more ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 24-bit Count is the sum of the number of IPv6 Encapsulations
being announced and/or withdrawn.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
10.5. MPLS Label List
As an MPLS enabled interface may have a label stack, see [RFC3032], a
variable length list of labels is needed. These are the labels the
sender will accept for the prefix to which the list is attached.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Label Count | Label | Exp |S|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Label | Exp |S| more ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
A Label Count of zero is an implicit withdraw of all labels for that
prefix on that interface.
10.6. MPLS IPv4 Encapsulation
The MPLS IPv4 Encapsulation describes a logical link's ability to
exchange labeled IPv4 packets on one or more subnets. It does so by
stating the interface's addresses the corresponding prefix lengths,
and the corresponding labels which will be accepted for each address.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 6 | Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Count ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Serial Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Encaps Flags | MPLS Label List ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PrefixLen | more ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 24-bit Count is the sum of the number of MPLSv4 Encapsulation
being announced and/or withdrawn.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
10.7. MPLS IPv6 Encapsulation
The MPLS IPv6 Encapsulation describes a logical link's ability to
exchange labeled IPv6 packets on one or more subnets. It does so by
stating the interface's addresses, the corresponding prefix lengths,
and the corresponding labels which will be accepted for each address.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 7 | Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Count ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Serial Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Encaps Flags | MPLS Label List ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ~
+ +
~ ~
+ IPv6 Address +
~ ~
+ +
~ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len | more ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The 24-bit Count is the sum of the number of MPLSv6 Encapsulations
being announced and/or withdrawn.
11. VENDOR - Vendor Extensions
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version = 0 | PDU Type = 255| Payload Length ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Serial Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Enterprise Number ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ | Ent Type | Enterprise Data ... ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
Vendors or enterprises may define TLVs beyond the scope of L3ND
standards. This is done using a Private Enterprise Number [IANA-PEN]
followed by Enterprise Data in a format defined for that Enterprise
Number and Ent Type.
Ent Type allows a Vendor PDU to be sub-typed in the event that the
vendor/enterprise needs multiple PDU types.
As with Encapsulation PDUs, a receiver of a Vendor PDU MUST respond
with an ACK or an ERROR PDU. Similarly, a Vendor PDU MUST only be
sent over an open session.
12. Discussion
This section explores some trade-offs taken and some considerations.
12.1. HELLO Discussion
A device may send IP packets an Layer-3 interface which transmits
data over a single Layer-2 interface or multiple Layer-2 interfaces.
Packets sourced by one Layer-3 IP interface over multiple Layer-2
should consider that an Layer-3 interface with multiple Layer-2
interfaces could have many devices which might come at various times,
therefore the configured HELLO PDU retransmit time SHOULD be set to a
non-zero value, and periodic HELLOs should continue. Packets
transmitted on a single Layer-2 interface on a point-to-point (p2p)
connection, MAY set the configuration value to zero, so once a TLS/
TCP session is up, HELLOs are no longer desirable.
A device with multiple Layer-2 interfaces, traditionally called a
switch, may be used to forward frames and therefore packets from
multiple devices to one Layer-3 interface, I, on an L3ND speaking
device. Interface I could discover a peer J across the switch.
Later, a prospective peer K could come up across the switch. If I
was not still sending and listening for HELLOs, the potential peering
with K could not be discovered. Therefore, on multi-link interfaces,
L3ND MUST continue to send HELLOs as long as they are turned up.
13. VLANs/SVIs/Sub-interfaces
One can think of the protocol as an instance (i.e. state machine)
which runs on each logical link of a device.
As the upper routing layer must view VLAN topologies as separate
graphs, L3ND treats VLAN ports as separate links.
As Sub-Interfaces each have their own layer-3 identities, they act as
separate interfaces, forming their own links.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
14. Implementation Considerations
An implementation SHOULD provide the ability to configure each
logical interface as L3ND speaking or not.
An implementation SHOULD provide the ability to distribute one or
more loopback addresses or interfaces into L3ND on an external L3ND
speaking interface.
An implementation SHOULD provide the ability to distribute one or
more overlay and/or underlay addresses or interfaces into L3ND on an
external L3ND speaking interface.
An implementation SHOULD provide the ability to configure one of the
addresses of an encapsulation as primary on an L3ND speaking
interface. If there is only one address for a particular
encapsulation, the implementation MAY mark it as primary by default.
An implementation MAY allow optional configuration which updates the
local forwarding table with overlay and underlay data both learned
from L3ND peers and configured locally.
15. Security Considerations
For TLS, version 1.1 or later MUST be used.
The protocol as is MUST NOT be used outside a datacenter or similarly
closed environment without using TLS encapsulation which is based on
a configured CA trust anchor.
Many datacenter operators have a strange belief that physical walls
and firewalls provide sufficient security. This is not credible.
All DC protocols need to be examined for exposure and attack surface.
In the case of L3ND, authentication and integrity as provided by TLS
validated to a configured shared CA trust anchor is strongly
RECOMMENDED.
It is generally unwise to assume that on the wire Layer-3 is secure.
Strange/unauthorized devices may plug into a port. Mis-wiring is
very common in datacenter installations. A poisoned laptop might be
plugged into a device's port, form malicious sessions, etc. to
divert, intercept, or drop traffic.
Similarly, malicious nodes/devices could mis-announce addressing.
If OPEN PDUs are not over validated TLS, an attacker could forge an
OPEN for an existing session and cause the session to be reset.
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
16. IANA Considerations
16.1. Link Local Layer-3 Addresses
IANA is requested to assignment one address (TBD1) for L3DL-L3-LL
from the IPv4 Multicast Address Space Registry from the Local Network
Control Block (224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255 (224.0.0/24)).
IANA is requested to assign one address (TBD2) for L3DL-L3-LL from
the IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry in the the IPv6 Link-Local
Scope Multicast address (TBD:2).
16.2. Ports for TLS/TCP
This document requests the IANA to assign a well-known TCP Port
Number (TBD3) to the Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery Protocol for the
following, see Section 7:
l3nd-server
16.3. PDU Types
This document requests the IANA create a registry for L3ND PDU Type,
which may range from 0 to 255. The name of the registry should be
L3ND-PDU-Type. The policy for adding to the registry is RFC Required
per [RFC5226], either standards track or experimental. The initial
entries should be the following:
PDU
Code PDU Name
---- -------------------
0 HELLO
1 reserved
2 OPEN
3 ACK
4 IPv4 Announcement
5 IPv6 Announcement
6 MPLS IPv4 Announcement
7 MPLS IPv6 Announcement
8-254 Reserved
255 Vendor
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
16.4. Flag Bits
This document requests the IANA create a registry for L3ND PL Flag
Bits, which may range from 0 to 7. The name of the registry should
be L3ND-PL-Flag-Bits. The policy for adding to the registry is RFC
Required per [RFC5226], either standards track or experimental. The
initial entries should be the following:
Bit Bit Name
---- -------------------
0 Announce/Withdraw (ann == 0)
1 Primary
2 Underlay/Overlay (under == 0)
3 Loopback
4-7 Reserved
16.5. Error Codes
This document requests the IANA create a registry for L3ND Error
Codes, a 16 bit integer. The name of the registry should be L3ND-
Error-Codes. The policy for adding to the registry is RFC Required
per [RFC5226], either standards track or experimental. The initial
entries should be the following:
Error
Code Error Name
---- -------------------
0 No Error
1 Checksum Error
2 Logical Link Addressing Conflict
3 reserved
4 Announce/Withdraw Error
17. Acknowledgments
Many kind people helped with the Layer-2 cousin of this protocol,
L3DL. Cristel Pelsser provided multiple reviews, Harsha Kovuru
commented during implementation, Jeff Haas reviewed and commented,
Joerg Ott did an early but deep transport review, Joe Clarke provided
a useful ops review, John Scudder a deeply serious review and
comments, Martijn Schmidt contributed, and Neeraj Malhotra reviewed.
18. References
18.1. Normative References
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
[I-D.ietf-lsvr-l3dl]
Bush, R., Austein, R., and K. Patel, "Layer-3 Discovery
and Liveness", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-lsvr-l3dl-08, 14 October 2021,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lsvr-l3dl-
08.txt>.
[IANA-PEN] "IANA Private Enterprise Numbers",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/enterprise-numbers/
enterprise-numbers>.
[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>.
[RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
Encoding", RFC 3032, DOI 10.17487/RFC3032, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3032>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5082>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[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>.
18.2. Informative References
[Clos] "Clos Network",
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clos_network/>.
[I-D.ymbk-idr-l3nd-ulpc]
Bush, R. and K. Patel, "L3ND Upper-Layer Protocol
Configuration", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
ymbk-idr-l3nd-ulpc-02, 27 February 2022,
<https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ymbk-idr-l3nd-ulpc-
02.txt>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1982] Elz, R. and R. Bush, "Serial Number Arithmetic", RFC 1982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1982, August 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1982>.
[RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter,
"Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4760, January 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4760>.
Authors' Addresses
Randy Bush
Arrcus & Internet Initiative Japan
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
United States of America
Email: randy@psg.com
Russ Housley
Vigil Security, LLC
516 Dranesville Road
Herndon, VA 20170
United States of America
Email: housley@vigilsec.com
Rob Austein
Arrcus, Inc
Email: sra@hactrn.net
Susan Hares
Hickory Hill Consulting
7453 Hickory Hill
Saline, MI 48176
United States of America
Phone: +1-734-604-0332
Email: shares@ndzh.com
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery March 2022
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
2077 Gateway Place, Suite #400
San Jose, CA 95119
United States of America
Email: keyur@arrcus.com
Bush, et al. Expires 4 September 2022 [Page 26]