[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04                                                
SAVI                                                           Jun Bi
Internet Draft                                                 CERNET
Intended status: Standard Tracks                            Guang Yao
Expires: May 2011                                       Tsinghua Univ.
                                                       Joel M. Halpern
                                               Newbridge Networks Inc.
                                                    Eric Levy-Abegnoli
                                                          Cisco System
                                                      November 8, 2010

                          SAVI for Mixed Scenario

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
   the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be
   modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, except to
   publish it as an RFC and to translate it into languages other than

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
   at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
   reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 8, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this
   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.


This document specifies the procedure a SAVI device resolves conflict
from multiple co-existing SAVI solutions.

Table of Contents

   Copyright Notice ............................................... 2
   1. Introduction ................................................ 3
   2. Terminology ................................................. 3
   3. Mixed Scenario .............................................. 3
   4. Basic SAVI-MixMode Structure................................. 3
   5. Problem Scope and Statement.................................. 4
      5.1. Problem Scope .......................................... 4
      5.2. Collision in Binding Set-up Procedure................... 4
         5.2.1. Proposed solution.................................. 5
      5.3. Collision in Binding Removal............................ 7
   6. Security Considerations...................................... 7
   7. IANA Considerations ......................................... 7
      7.1. Normative References.................................... 7
      7.2. Informative References.................................. 8
   8. Acknowledgments ............................................. 8

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

1. Introduction

   SAVI solutions are specified for scenarios allowing only single
   address assignment method without considering the co-existing of
   multiple address assignment methods. In practice, for both IPv4 and
   IPv6 network, generally multiple address assignment methods are
   allowed. Current SAVI solutions cannot be used directly in such
   scenarios, because collision between solutions may happen. This
   document specifies the possible collisions and proposes
   corresponding mechanism to solve the collisions.

2. Terminology

   Address Assignment Source (AAS): The de facto entity type that
   assigns address.

3. Mixed Scenario

   Currently, there are actually four SAVI solutions which cover
   different types of addresses:


   (2)  SAVI-DHCP: stateful DHCP, static DHCP

   (3)  SAVI-SEND: CGA with certificate, CGA without certificate

   (4)  Manually configuration: static address manually configured by
        administrator on SAVI device statically. Note: address
        configured by user on host is treated as stateless address.

   A practical network may enable any combination of address assignment
   methods, and all the corresponding solutions should be enabled to
   avoid legitimate packet filtering. If more than one SAVI solution is
   enabled on SAVI device, the scenario is named as mix scenario in
   this document.

4. Basic SAVI-MixMode Structure

   Existing SAVI solutions are individual mechanism without considering
   inter-cooperation. To keep the independence and completeness of each
   solution, a SAVI solution is treated as a black box which snoops
   packet and generates/removes candidate binding, without concerning
   the inner structure of each solution.

   Because the binding entry setup by each solution is ALLOW entry,
   thus a solution will reject any address not bound by it. However,

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

   address bound by any solution must be allowed if no collision, thus,
   binding entry table should be shared by all the solutions. The main
   work of this document is handling the conflict resulted from
   solutions sharing the binding table.

   If bindings on different addresses are set up by different solutions,
   no collisions can happen. Thus, a guideline here is to separate the
   address space of each type to avoid any kind of collision. However,
   if there is overlap between address spaces, bindings on the same
   address can be set up by different solutions, and collision can

5. Problem Scope and Statement

5.1. Problem Scope

   This document is specified for collision between SAVI solutions. The
   situation that collision happens in a single solution, for example,
   the same address is bound by the same solution on different binding
   anchors, is not in the scope of this document.

   SAVI solutions mainly specify the setup and remove of bindings.
   Whenever a solution sets up a binding or removes an existing binding,
   it may violate the state of other solutions. In the mix mode, the
   SAVI device must decide whether to accept the operation request from
   each solution or not.

5.2. Collision in Binding Set-up Procedure

   In binding set up, collision happens when:

     (1) the same address

     (2) different binding anchors on the SAVI perimeter and

     (3) different binding solutions.

   As an instance, after an address is bound on one binding anchor by
   DHCP solution, the FCFS solution requires to bind the address on
   another binding anchor. Both bindings are legitimate in
   corresponding solution; however, only one of the bindings should be
   allowed. Then the SAVI device must decide whom the address should be
   bound with.

   NOTE: because a single SAVI device doesn't have the information of
   all bound addresses on the perimeter, a collision may not be
   explicit based only on local bindings. To make the perimeter-scope

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

   collision explicit to each SAVI device, which means, a SAVI device
   must distinguish whether a local binding setup request violate a
   binding on other devices or not.

   Following mechanism can be used:

   (1)  SAVI device performs DAD proxy for local manually configured
        address even if the node with static address is off-link;(Or to
        manually configure all the SAVI devices is also proposed.)

        Then the collision that SAVI-FCFS request static address can be

   (2)  Static address must be excluded from DHCP address pool;

        Then the collision that SAVI-DHCP request static address can be

   (3)  SAVI device performs DAD proxy for local DHCP address.

        Then the collision that SAVI-FCFS request DHCP address on other
        SAVI devices can be handled.

5.2.1. Proposed solution

   To make a choice between candidate bindings, a preference level
   based solution is thought to be efficient from the experience of
   similar implementations.

   The essential problem is: 1. The granularity of preference level; 2.
   The basis of preference level (or at least the default level).

   The preference level proposed in this document is an AAS (Address
   Assignment Source) granularity preference level. And preference
   level is assigned based on the trustworthy of AAS and the sequence
   of candidate bindings.

   By now, there are 4 types of AAS:

   (1)  Node itself: SLAAC, CGA without certificate

   (2)  DHCP sever: stateful DHCP address

   (3)  PKI: CGA with certificate, plain address with certificate

   (4)  Administrator: static address, static DHCP address(may not be
        taken into consideration as no standard document)

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

   Combined with binding sequence, there will be 16 scenarios:


   Node   Node   In the scope of SAVI-SLAAC

   Node   DHCP   Switch here: either former or later

   Node   PKI    Later

   Node   Admin   Later

   DHCP   Node   Former

   DHCP   DHCP   In the scope of SAVI-DHCP

   DHCP   PKI    Later

   DHCP   Admin   Later

   PKI    Node   Former

   PKI    DHCP   Former

   PKI    PKI    No definition

   PKI    Admin   Later

   Admin   Node   Former

   Admin   DHCP   Former

   Admin   PKI    Former

   Admin   Admin   Later(Or not in scope of this document)

   If ignoring the details, the basic preference level of AAS is simply
   node<DHCP<PKI<Admin, with only one exception in permutation (Node,


   We have considered some other possible granularities: (1) solution
   level; (2) binding parameter level.

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

   Solution level granularity is most suitable based on the current
   structure of workings. The problem is the preference level of an
   assignment method may not be unique. For example, binding set up by
   SAVI-SEND may either with a certificate or not. Apparently, they
   should have different preference level.

   Another measurement takes binding parameter into consideration, as
   proposed in [draft-levy-abegnoli-savi-plbt-02]. Other than the
   binding set up solution, also port type (access, trunk, trusted
   access, trusted trunk), link layer information, etc., are considered
   to affect the preference level. The problem is that how to compare
   the preference level of factors with different characteristics. This
   means it is hard to design a convincing preference level. Also,
   because bindings are not setup on trust port, trust port factors are
   not of value.

5.3. Collision in Binding Removal

   A binding may be set up on the same binding anchor by multiple
   solutions. Generally, the binding lifetimes of different solutions
   are different. Potentially, if one solution requires to remove the
   binding, the node using the address may be taken the use right.

   For example, a node performs DAD procedure after being assigned an
   address from DHCP, then the address will also be bound by SAVI-FCFS.
   If the SAVI-FCFS lifetime is shorter than DHCP lifetime, when the
   SAVI-FCFS lifetime expires, it will request to remove the binding.
   If the binding is removed, the node will not be able to use the
   address even the DHCP lease time doesn't expire.

   The solution proposed is to keep a binding as long as possible. A
   binding is kept until it has been required to be removed by all the
   solutions that ever set up it.

6. Security Considerations

   No security consideration currently.

7. IANA Considerations

   No IANA consideration.

8. Normative References

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

9. Informative References

[savi-framework] Wu, J., Bi, J., Bagnulo, M., Baker, F., and Vogt, C.,
"Source Address Validation Improvement Framework", draft-ietf-savi-

[savi-dhcp] Bi, J., Wu, J., Yao, G., and F. Baker, "SAVI Solution for
DHCPv4/v6", draft-ietf-savi-dhcp-06.

[savi-fcfs] Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "First-
Come First-Serve Source-Address Validation Implementation", draft-ietf-

[savi-send]Bagnulo, M. and A. Garcia-Martinez, "SEND-based Source-
Address Validation Implementation", draft-ietf-savi-send-04.

[eric-plbt] E. Levy-Abegnoli, "Preference Level based Binding Table",

10. Acknowledgments

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                savi-mix                   November 2010

Authors' Addresses

   Jun Bi
   Network Research Center, Tsinghua University
   Beijing 100084
   Email: junbi@cernet.edu.cn

   Guang Yao
   Network Research Center, Tsinghua University
   Beijing 100084, China
   Email: yaog@netarchlab.tsinghua.edu.cn

   Joel M. Halpern
   Newbridge Networks Inc.
   Email: jmh@joelhalpern.com

   E. Levy-Abegnoli
   Cisco System
   Village d'Entreprises Green Side - 400, Avenue Roumanille
   Biot-Sophia Antipolis - 06410
   Email: elevyabe@cisco.com

Bi                      Expires May 8, 2011                  [Page 9]