Network Working Group Z. Kahn
Internet-Draft LinkedIn
Intended status: Informational J. Brzozowski
Expires: March 24, 2017 Comcast
R. White
LinkedIn
September 20, 2016
Requirements for IPv6 Routers
draft-ali-ipv6rtr-reqs-00
Abstract
An example.
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 March 24, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Review of the Internet Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Robustness Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Complexity Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Layered Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Requirements Related to Device Management . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Device Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Zero Touch Provisioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Device Protection against Denial of Service Attacks . . . 10
4. Requirements Related to Telemetry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Device Status and Error Logging . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Network Topology and Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Traffic Flow and Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Requirements Related to IPv6 Forwarding and Addressing . . . 11
5.1. The IPv6 Address is not a Host Identifier . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Router Handling of IPv6 Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Maximum Transmission Unit and Jumbo Frames . . . . . . . 12
5.4. ICMP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.5. Machine Access to the Forwarding Table . . . . . . . . . 14
5.6. Processing IPv6 Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.7. IPv6 Only Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Future Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. Segment Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Introduction
This memo defines and discusses requirements for devices that perform
forwarding for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). This can include
(but is not limited to) the devices described below.
o Devices which are primarily designed to forward traffic between
multiple interfaces. These are normally referred to by the
Internet community as routers or, in some cases, intermediate
systems.
o Devices which are designed to modify packets rather than "just"
forwarding them. These are often referred to by the Internet
community as middle boxes.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
Readers should recognize that while this memo applies to IPv6,
devices processing IPv6 packets will often also process IPv4 packets,
forward based on MPLS labels, and potentially process many other
protocols. This memo will only interact with IPv4, MPLS, and other
protocols as they impact the behavior of an IPv6 forwarding device;
no attempt is made to specify requirements for protocols other than
IPv6.
The reader should, therefore, not count on this document as a "sole
source of truth," but rather use this document as a guide.
This document is broken into the following sections: a review of
Internet architecture and principles, requirements relating to device
management, requirements related to telemetry, requirements related
to IPv6 forwarding and addressing, and future considerations.
Following these sections, a short conclusion is provided for review.
2. Review of the Internet Architecture
The Internet relies or interacts with a number of basic concepts and
considerations. These concepts are not explicitly called out in any
specification, nor do they necessarily impact protocol design or
packet forwarding directly. This section provides an overview of
these concepts and considerations to help the reader understand the
larger context of this document.
2.1. Robustness Principle
Every point where multiple protocols, or multiple implementations of
the same protocol, interact, is an interaction surface that can
threaten the robustness of the overall system. While it may seem the
global Internet has achieved a level of stability that makes it
immune to such considerations, the reality is every network is a
complex system, and is therefore subject to massive non repeatable
unanticipated failures. Postel's Robustness Principle countered this
problem with a simple statement: "Be conservative in what you do, and
liberal in what you accept from others." [RFC7922]
However, since this time, it has been noted that following this law
allows errors in protocols to accumulate over time, with overall
negative effects on the system as a whole. RFC1918 [RFC1918]
describes several points in conjunction with this principle that bear
updating based on further experience with large scale protocol and
network deployments within the Internet community, including:
o Software should be written to deal with error states gracefully.
Software should not degrade in a way that will cause the failure
of adjacent systems when possible. For instance, when a routing
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
protocol implementation fails, it should not do so in a way that
will cause the spreading of or continued existence of false
reachability information, nor should it fail in a way that
overloads adjacent routers or interacting protocols and causing a
cascading failure.
o It is best to assume the network is filled with poor
implementations and malevolent actors, both of which will find
every possible failure mode over time.
o It is best to assume every technology will be used to the limits
of its technical capabilities, rather than assuming a particular
protocol's scope of use will align (in any way) with the intent of
the original designer(s). Successful implementations attract more
functionality, much like a few nodes in a scale free graph
eventually become connectivity hubs.
o Protocols and implementations change over time. A corollary of
the assumption that protocols will be used until they reach their
technical limits rather than staying within a tightly scoped
purpose, is that protocols will change over time as they gain new
functionality. Protocol and implementation design should take
into account use cases that have not yet been thought of by
building flexibility into protocols.
o Obscure, but legal, protocol features are often ignored or left
unimplemented. It is important to work within the bounds of what
is actually implemented in any given protocol, and to leave corner
cases for another day. It is never helpful to boil the ocean
whether in a design, an implementation, or a protocol.
2.2. Complexity Principle
The simplest and most obvious solution to any problem is often easy
to design, deploy, and manage. It's also often wrong and/or broken.
As much as developers, designers, and operators might like to make
things as simple as possible, hard problems require complex
solutions. This leads to the following observations.
Elegance is the ultimate goal. Rather than seeking out simple
solutions because they are simple, seek out solutions that will solve
the problem in the simplest way possible. Often this will require
seeing the problem from different angles, trying to break the problem
up in multiple ways, and trying, abandoning, and rebuilding ideas and
implementations until a better way is found.
There are always tradeoffs. For any protocol, network, or
operational design decision, there will a tradeoff between at least
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
two competing goals. If some problem appears to have a single
solution with not tradeoffs, this doesn't mean the tradeoffs don't
exist. Rather, it means the tradeoffs haven't been discovered yet.
2.3. Layered Structure
The Internet data plane is organized around broad top and bottom
layers, and much thinner middle layer. This is illustrated in the
figure below.
\ /
\ HTTP, FTP, SNMP, ETC. /
\ /
\ TCP, UDP /
\ /
\ IPv6 /
/ (MPLS) \
/ \
/ \
/ Ethernet, Wireless \
/ Physical Media \
/ \
Figure 1
This layering emulates or mirrors many naturally occurring systems,
and is a common strategy for managing complexity. The single
protocol in the center, IPv6, serves to separate the complexity of
the lower layers from the complexity of the upper layers. This
center layer of the Internet ecosystem has traditionally been called
the Network Layer, in reference to the Department of Defense (DoD)
[DoD] and OSI models. [OSI] The Internet ecosystem includes three
different protocols in this central location.
o IPv4, an older network protocol that, it is anticipated, will be
replaced over time as the Internet ecosystem standardizes on IPv6
o IPv6, a newer network protocol that is being adopted
o MPLS, or MultiProtocol Label Switching, which is often used as a
data plane within an autonomous system
These protocols are often treated as if they exist in strict
hierarchical layers with a well defined and followed Application
Programming Interface (API), data models, Remote Procedure Calls
(RPCs), sockets, etc. The reality, however, is there are often solid
reasons for violating these layers, creating interaction surfaces
that are often deeper than intended or understood without some
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
experience. Beyond this, such layering mechanisms act as information
abstractions. It is well known that all such abstractions leak.
Because of these intentional and unintentional leakages of
information, the interactions between protocols is often subtle.
2.4. Routers
A router connects to two or more logical interfaces and at least one
physical interface. A router processes packets by:
o Receiving a packet through an interface
o Stripping the data link and/or physical header off the packet
o Examining the packet for errors, information that must be handled
locally, etc.
o Looking up the destination in a local forwarding table
o Rewriting the data link and/or physical layer header
o Transmitting the packet out an interface
When consulting the forwarding table, the router searches for the
longest prefix containing the destination address, and uses the
information in the table to determine the next hop, or rather the
next logically connected device to forward the packet to. The next
hop will either be another router, which will presumably carry the
packet closer to the final destination, or it will be the destination
host itself. The following figure provides a conceptual model of a
router; not all routers actually have this set of tables and
interactions, and some have many more moving parts. This model is
simply used as a common reference to promote understanding.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
+-------------+ +-------------+
| Candidate | | Startup |
| Config |<--+ +-->| Config |
+--+----------+ | | +-------+-----+
| | | |
v | | v
+-----------------+----+-----------------+
| Running Configuration +------>----------+
+---+----------+----------+----------+---+ |
| | | | |
v | | | |
+-------+ | | | |
| IS-IS |<-----------------------------------> Adjacent |
+---+---+ v | | Routers |
| +-------+ | | |
| | BGP |<------------------------> Peers |
| +---+---+ v | |
| | +-------+ | |
| | | OSPF |<-------------> Adjacent |
| | +---+---+ v Routers |
| | | +-------+ |
| | | | Other | |
| | | +---+---+ |
| | | | |
+---+----------+----------+----------+---+ |
| RIB Manager | |
+---+------------------------------------+ |
| |
+---+------------------------------------+ |
| Routing Information Base (RIB) | |
+---+------------------------------------+ |
| |
+---+------------------------------------+ |
| Forwarding Information Base (FIB) | |
+---+----------+---------------------+---+ |
| | | |
+---+---+ +---+---+ +---+---+ |
| Int 1 | | Int 2 | ... | Int X | <---------------+
+-------+ +-------+ +-------+
^ |
| v
Packets In Packets Out
Figure 2
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
3. Requirements Related to Device Management
Network engineering began in the era of Command Line Interfaces
(CLIs), and has generally stayed with these CLIs even as the
Graphical User Interface (GUI) has become the standard way of
interacting with almost every other computing device. Direct human
interaction with networking devices in large scale and complex
environments, however, tends to result in an unacceptably low Mean
Time Between Mistakes (MTBM), directly impacting the overall
availability of the network. In reaction to this, operators have
increased their reliance on automation in deploying and configuring
devices. This section considers the various components of device
management.
3.1. Configuration
Configuration primarily relates to the startup, candidate, and
running configurations in the router model shown above. In order to
deploy networks at any scale, operators rely on automated management
of network device configuration. This effort has traditional focused
on Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) Management Information
Base (MIBs). In the future, operators expect to move towards open
source/open standards YANG models.
Network devices should place a priority on supporting machine
readable Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), rather than human
interaction, particularly interfaces that understand and accept
configuration and other information carried in YANG models.
To support automated network device configuration, IPv6 routers and
network devices SHOULD support YANG and SNMP configuration, including
(but not limited to):
o Openconfig models [OPENCONF] related to the protocols configured
on the device, interface state, and device state
o [RFC7223]: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management
o [RFC7224]: IANA Interface Type YANG Module
o [RFC7277]: A YANG Data Model for IP Management
o [RFC7317]: A YANG Data Model for System Management
o Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) MIBs as appropriate
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
3.2. Device Access
To operate a network at scale, operators rely on the ability to
access a device to troubleshoot and gather state manually and
programmatically through a number of different interfaces. These
interfaces should provide current device configuration, current
device state (such as interface state, packets drops, etc.), and
current control plane contents (such as the RIB in the figure above).
In other words, manual and programmable interfaces should provide
information about the network device (the whole device stack).
To support automated state gathering and troubleshooting, routers
supporting IPv6 SHOULD support:
o TELNET ([RFC0854]): TELNET SHOULD be disabled by default, but
should be available for operational purposes as required or as
configured by the operator
o SSH ([RFC4253]): SSH SHOULD be the default access for IPv6 capable
network devices
o NETCONF ([RFC6241])
o RESTCONF ([I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf])
3.3. Zero Touch Provisioning
To operate a network at scale, operators rely on protocols and
mechanisms that reduce provisioning time to a minimum. The preferred
state is zero touch provisioning; plug a new network device in and it
just works without any manual configuration. This is likely to be
unattainable for some time yet to come, but coming closer to this
ideal reduces MTBM and Operational Expenses (OPEX), both important
goals in the real world.
To reach this goal, IPv6 network devices should support several
standards, including, but not limited to:
o [I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]: Dynamic Configuration Protocol for IPv6
o SLAAC ([RFC7217] and [RFC7527]): SLAAC SHOULD be enabled by
default on all network device interfaces
(not certain SLAAC should be default, but I put it there for now)
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
3.4. Device Protection against Denial of Service Attacks
Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS)
attacks are unfortunately common in the Internet globally; these
types of attacks cost network operators a great deal in opportunity
and operational costs in prenvetion and responses. The network
control plane, as well as protocols used to access the device. To
provide for effective counters to DoS and DDoS attacks directly on
network devices:
o Manufacturers and system integrators should test and clearly
report the packet/traffic load handling capabilities of devices
with and without various encryption methods enabled
o Network devices should be able to police traffic destined to the
control plane based on the rate of traffic received
o Ideally, network devices should be able to police traffic destined
to the control plane based on best practice host based firewall
techniques
4. Requirements Related to Telemetry
Telemetry relates to information devices push to systems used to
monitor and track the state of the network. This applies to
individual devices as well as the network as a system. There are
three broad categories of telemetry: device state, topology state,
and flow state. These three roughly correspond to the management
plane, the control plane, and the forwarding plane of the network.
Each of the sections below considers one of these three telemetry
types.
4.1. Device Status and Error Logging
IPv6 network devices should be able to report errors and status
changes in a number of different formats. The supported formats
should focus on machine readability, rather than human readability.
Specifically, IPv6 network devices SHOULD support:
o NETCONF/RESTCONF transporting telemetry formatted according to
YANG (see above)
o Syslog (RFC5424) [RFC5424]
o SNMP as appropriate
NETCONF/RESTCONF transporting telemetry formatted according to YANG
should be the current focus of development for vendor provided and
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
open source software; ideally, the entire network could be monitored
using a single modeling language to ease implementation of telemetry
systems and increase the pace at which new software can be deployed
in production environments.
4.2. Network Topology and Traceability
IPv6 network devices are part of a system of devices that, combined,
make up the entire network. Viewing the network as a system is often
crucial for operational purposes, such as understanding flows,
tracing changes in the topology, utilization, and other factors over
time. To support systemic monitoring of the network topology, IPv6
devices SHOULD support at least:
o [RFC5424]: North-Bound Distribution of Link-State and Traffic
Engineer (TE) Information using BGP
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology]: An I2RS model for layer
2 topologies
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology]: An I2RS model for layer 3
topologies
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo]: A Data Model for Network
Topologies
(More to be added)
4.3. Traffic Flow and Traceability
(To be added)
5. Requirements Related to IPv6 Forwarding and Addressing
There are a number of capabilities that a device should have to be
deployed into an IPv6 network, and several forwarding plane
considerations operators and vendors need to bear in mind. The
sections below explain these considerations.
5.1. The IPv6 Address is not a Host Identifier
The IPv6 address is commonly treated as a host identifier; it is not.
Rather, it is an interface identifier that describes the topological
point where a particular host connects to the Internet. It is
generally harmful to embed IPv6 addresses inside upper layer headers
to identify a particular host.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
5.2. Router Handling of IPv6 Addresses
Internet Routing Registries may allocate a network operator a wide
range of prefix lengths (see RFC6177 [RFC6177] for further
information). Within this allocation, network operators will often
suballocate address space along nibble boundaries (/48, /52, /56,
/60, and /64) for ease of configuration and management. Several
common practices are:
o Each multiaccess interface is allocated a /64
o Point-to-point links are allocated a /64, but may be addressed
with a longer prefix length to prevent certain kinds of denial of
service attacks
o Although aggregation may only performed to the nibble boundaries
noted above, variances are possible
o Loopback addresses are assigned a /128
Given these common practices, routers designed to run IPv6 SHOULD
support the following addressing conventions:
o The default prefix length on any interface other than a loopback
SHOULD be a /64
o Configuring a prefix length longer than a /64 on any interface not
configured as a point-to-point should require additional
configuration steps to prevent manual configuration errors
o Network devices SHOULD NOT assume IPv6 prefix lengths only on
nibble boundaries, but rather should support any prefix length
shorter than the /64, /128, and longer prefixes used for point-to-
point interfaces
o Loopback interfaces SHOULD default to a /128 prefix length unless
some additional configuration is undertaken to override this
default setting
5.3. Maximum Transmission Unit and Jumbo Frames
The long history of the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) in networks
is not a happy one. Specific problems with MTU sizing include:
o Many different default sizes on different media types, from very
small (576 bytes on X.25) to very large (17914 bytes on 16Mbps
Token Ring)
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
o Many different ways to calcualte the MTU on any given link; for
instance a 9000 byte MTU can be calculated as 8184 bytes on one
operating system, 8972 on another, and 9000 on a third
o The increasing use of tunnel encapsulations in the network; for
instance MPLS over GRE over IP over...
o The wide variety of default MTUs across many different end hosts
and operating systems
o The general ineffectiveness of path MTU discovery to operate
correctly in the face of packet filters and rate limiters
o Lower speed links at the network edge which require a lot of time
to serialize a packet with a large MTU
o Increased jitter caused by increasing the disparity between large
and small packet size across a lower bandwidth links
The final point requires some further elucidation. The time required
to serialize various packets at various speeds areL
o 64 byte packet onto a 10Mb/s link: .5ms
o 1500 byte packet onto a 10Mb/s link: 1.2ms
o 9000 byte packet onto a 10Mb/s link: 7.2ms
o 64 byte packet onto a 100Mb/s link: .05ms
o 1500 byte packet onto a 100Mb/s link: .12ms
o 9000 byte packet onto a 100Mb/s link: .72ms
A 64 byte packet trapped behind a single 1500 byte packet on a 10Mb/s
link suffers 1.7ms of serialization delay. Each additional 1500 byte
packet added to the queue in front of the 64 byte packet adds and
addtional 1.2ms of delay. In contrast, a 64 byte packet trapped
behind a single 9000 byte packet on a 10Mb/s link suffers 7.7ms of
serialization delay. Each additional 9000 byte packet added to the
queue adds an additional 7.2ms of serialization delay. The practical
result is that larger MTU sizes on lower speed links can add a
significant amount of delay and jitter into a flow. On the other
hand, increasing the MTU on higher speed links appears to add
megligable additional delay and jitter.
The result is that it costs less in terms of overall systemic
performance to use higher MTUs on higher speed links than on lower
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
speed links. Based on this, increasing the MTU across any particular
link may not increase overall end-to-end performance, but can greatly
enhance the performance of local applications (such as a local BGP
peering session, or a large/long standing elephant flow used to
transfer data across a local fabric), while also providing room for
tunnel encapsulations to be added with less impact on lower MTU end
systems.
The general rule of thumb is to assume the largest size MTU should be
used on higher speed transit only links in order to support a wide
array of available link sizes, default MTUs, and tunnel
encapsulations. Routers designed for a network or data center core
SHOULD support at least 9000 byte MTUs on all interfaces. MTU
detection mechanisms, such as IS-IS hello padding, [RFC7922] SHOULD
be enabled to ensure correct point-to-point MTU configuration.
5.4. ICMP Considerations
Internet Control Message Protocool (ICMP) is described in [RFC0792]
and [RFC4443]. ICMP is often used to perform a traceroute through a
network (normally by using a TTL expired ICMP message), for Path MTU
discovery, and, in IPv6, for autoconfiguration and neighbor
discovery. ICMP is often blocked by middle boxes of various kinds
and/or ICMP filters configured on the ingress edge of a provider
network. Routers implementing IPv6 SHOULD:
o NOT filter ICMP by default, as this has negative impacts on many
aspects of IPv6 operation, particularly path MTU
o Rate limit the generation of ICMP messages relative to the ability
of the device to generate packets and to block the use of ICMP
packets being used as part of a distributed denial of service
attack
o Implement the filtering suggestions in
[I-D.gont-opsec-icmp-ingress-filtering]
5.5. Machine Access to the Forwarding Table
In order to support treating the "network as a whole" as a single
programmable system, it is important for each network device have the
ability to directly program forwarding information. This
programmatic interface allows controllers, which are programmed to
support specific business logic and applications, to modify and
filter traffic flows without interfering with the distributed control
plane. While there are several programmatic interfaces available,
this document suggests that the I2RS interface to the RIB be
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
supported in all IPv6 network devices. Specifically, these drafts
should be supported to enable network programmability:
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model]: Filter-Based RIB Data Model
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model]: Filter-Based RIB Information
Model
o [I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model]: A YANG Data Model for Routing
Information Base (RIB)
o [RFC7922]: I2RS Traceability
5.6. Processing IPv6 Extension Headers
(To be added)
5.7. IPv6 Only Forwarding
(To be added)
6. Future Considerations
(To be added)
6.1. Segment Routing
(To be added)
7. Security Considerations
(To be added)
8. Conclusion
(To be added)
9. References
9.1. 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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
9.2. Informative References
[DoD] Wikipedia, "The Internet Protocol Suite", 2016,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_protocol_suite>.
[I-D.gont-opsec-icmp-ingress-filtering]
Gont, F., Hunter, R., Massar, J., and S. LIU, "Defeating
Attacks which employ Forged ICMP/ICMPv6 Error Messages",
draft-gont-opsec-icmp-ingress-filtering-02 (work in
progress), March 2016.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis]
Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
bis", draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 (work in progress),
June 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model]
Hares, S., Kini, S., Dunbar, L., Krishnan, R., Bogdanovic,
D., and R. White, "Filter-Based RIB Data Model", draft-
ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-data-model-00 (work in progress), June
2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model]
Kini, S., Hares, S., Dunbar, L., Ghanwani, A., Krishnan,
R., Bogdanovic, D., and R. White, "Filter-Based RIB
Information Model", draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model-00
(work in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model]
Wang, L., Ananthakrishnan, H., Chen, M.,
amit.dass@ericsson.com, a., Kini, S., and N. Bahadur, "A
YANG Data Model for Routing Information Base (RIB)",
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-06 (work in progress), July
2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-topology]
Dong, J. and X. Wei, "A YANG Data Model for Layer-2
Network Topologies", draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l2-network-
topology-03 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology]
Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Tkacik, T., Liu, X.,
Bryskin, I., Guo, A., Ananthakrishnan, H., Bahadur, N.,
and V. Beeram, "A YANG Data Model for Layer 3 Topologies",
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-04 (work in progress),
September 2016.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
[I-D.ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo]
Clemm, A., Medved, J., Varga, R., Tkacik, T., Bahadur, N.,
Ananthakrishnan, H., and X. Liu, "A Data Model for Network
Topologies", draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-06 (work in
progress), September 2016.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-16 (work in
progress), August 2016.
[OPENCONF]
OpenConfig, "Openconfig release YANG models", 2016,
<https://github.com/openconfig/public/tree/master/
release>.
[OSI] Wikipedia, "OSI Model", 2016,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC0854] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Protocol
Specification", STD 8, RFC 854, DOI 10.17487/RFC0854, May
1983, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc854>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
[RFC4253] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Transport Layer Protocol", RFC 4253, DOI 10.17487/RFC4253,
January 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4253>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5424>.
[RFC6177] Narten, T., Huston, G., and L. Roberts, "IPv6 Address
Assignment to End Sites", BCP 157, RFC 6177,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6177, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6177>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[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,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC7223] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for Interface
Management", RFC 7223, DOI 10.17487/RFC7223, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7223>.
[RFC7224] Bjorklund, M., "IANA Interface Type YANG Module",
RFC 7224, DOI 10.17487/RFC7224, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7224>.
[RFC7277] Bjorklund, M., "A YANG Data Model for IP Management",
RFC 7277, DOI 10.17487/RFC7277, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7277>.
[RFC7317] Bierman, A. and M. Bjorklund, "A YANG Data Model for
System Management", RFC 7317, DOI 10.17487/RFC7317, August
2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7317>.
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Requirements for IPv6 Routers September 2016
[RFC7527] Asati, R., Singh, H., Beebee, W., Pignataro, C., Dart, E.,
and W. George, "Enhanced Duplicate Address Detection",
RFC 7527, DOI 10.17487/RFC7527, April 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7527>.
[RFC7922] Clarke, J., Salgueiro, G., and C. Pignataro, "Interface to
the Routing System (I2RS) Traceability: Framework and
Information Model", RFC 7922, DOI 10.17487/RFC7922, June
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7922>.
Authors' Addresses
Zaid Ali Kahn
LinkedIn
xxx
xxx, CA xxx
USA
Email: zaid@linkedin.com
John Brzozowski
Comcast
xxx
xxx, xxx xxx
USA
Email: John_Brzozowski@comcast.com
Russ White
LinkedIn
144 Warm Wood Lane
Apex, NC 27539
USA
Email: russ@riw.us
Kahn, et al. Expires March 24, 2017 [Page 19]