Network Working Group                                            T. Boot
Internet-Draft                                    Infinity Networks B.V.
Intended status: Informational                                A. Holtzer
Expires: August 4, 2011                                          TNO ICT
                                                        January 31, 2011


                             BRDP Framework
                    draft-boot-brdp-framework-00.txt

Abstract

   This document describes the Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP)
   framework.  This framework enables multi-homing for small to medium
   sites, using Provider Aggregatable IPv6 addresses.  It describes a
   mechanism for automated IP address configuration and renumbering, a
   mechanism for optimized source address selection and a new paradigm
   for packet forwarding.  The BRDP framework prevents ingress filtering
   problems with multi-homed sites and supports load-balancing for
   multi-path transport protocols.  This work also prevents routing
   scalability problems in the provider network and Internet Default
   Free Zone because small to medium multi-homed size sites would not
   need to request Provider Independent address blocks.

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 August 4, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   (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.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   2.  Reference Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.1.  Small multi-homed site or DMZ  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.2.  Medium multi-homed site  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3.  Medium multi-homed site with ULAs and DHCP server  . . . . 11
     2.4.  MANET site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   3.  Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP)  . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   4.  BRDP based Address Configuration and Prefix Delegation . . . . 17
   5.  BRDP based Source Address Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   6.  BRDP based Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   7.  BRDP and IRTF RRG goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     7.1.  Scalability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.2.  Traffic engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.3.  Multi-homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.4.  Loc/id separation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.5.  Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.6.  Simplified renumbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.7.  Modularity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.8.  Routing quality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.9.  Routing security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.10. Deployability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   8.  Currently unaddressed issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24










Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


1.  Introduction

   IPv6 provides basic functionality for multi-homing, since nodes can
   have multiple addresses configured on their interfaces.  However, it
   is difficult to utilize the advantages of this, as there is a strong
   tendency among network administrators for shielding the network
   topology from hosts.  As a result, it is difficult or impossible for
   a host to utilize available facilities of the network, such as multi-
   path.  Also scalability of the Internet routing system is getting a
   problem due to a high demand of Provider Independent (PI) addresses.

   The Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP) enhances the IPv6 model
   by enabling automated renumbering in dynamically changing multi-homed
   environments, such that routers and hosts cooperate on address
   configuration and path selection.  BRDP utilizes Provider
   Aggregatable (PA) addresses and uses them as locator.  Mapping
   identifiers to locators is out of scope of the BRDP framework, also
   because many solutions exists or are being worked on.  All these
   solutions work fine with BRDP, as long as they don't break IPv6.

   The BRDP framework can be applied to edge networks.  These networks
   can be fixed, for example enterprise networks, small offices / home
   offices (SOHO) or home sites.  BRDP also can be used in wireless
   access networks, for example wireless access networks such as 3G or
   4G, wireless LANs or mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs).  A nice
   attribute of BRDP is that it supports multi-homing in heterogeneous
   networks, meaning that e.g. a SOHO network can have multiple wired
   broadband and 3G connections or a mixture of wireless access networks
   and MANET.

   In a multi-homed network, nodes are connected to the Internet via
   multiple exit points, possibly via multiple providers.  [RFC5887]
   argues that if a site is multi-homed using multiple PA routing
   prefixes, then the interior routers need a mechanism to learn which
   upstream providers and corresponding PA prefixes are currently
   reachable and valid.  Next to that, these upstream providers or PA
   prefixes may change over time.  This requires a dynamic renumbering
   mechanism that can handle planned or unplanned changes in the
   prefixes used.  BRDP proposes a mechanism for automated renumbering
   in larger networks that goes beyond hosts in a single subnet.

   The BRDP framework uses the following key elements:

   o  Propagation of available Border Routers and corresponding
      prefixes;

   o  Address autoconfiguration and prefix delegation, using BRDP
      provided hints;



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   o  Source address selection, using BRDP provided hints;

   o  Packet forwarding to the Border Router that corresponds with the
      source address prefix, in case the destination address is not
      found in the routing domain.

   The propagation of available Border Routers and corresponding
   prefixes is implemented as an extension on the Neighbor Discovery
   Protocol [RFC4861].  Border Router Information Options (BRIOs) are
   sent with Router Advertisements, and contain information about the
   Border Routers, such as the Border Router address, the prefix that
   corresponds with that Border Router, and the costs of the path via
   that Border Router to the Internet Default Free Zone (DFZ).

   BRIOs are disseminated downstream through the network and all nodes
   store the information from BRIOs they receive in a BRIO cache.  When
   a node is multi-homed it will receive multiple prefix information,
   from multiple upstream Border Routers.  BRIOs contain a Border Router
   prefix and routers can generate an IPv6 address based on this prefix
   [I-D.boot-autoconf-brdp], just like in regular SLAAC [RFC4862].
   Routers can set up reachability to this address automatically, by
   adding the generated address in the routing protocol.

   Routers automatically learn Border Routers that act as DHCP server or
   relay agent [RFC3633].  When routers detect an alternate path to the
   DFZ, a new prefix is requested from this newly learned Border Router.
   Prefixes, of which the path to the DFZ is no longer available, are
   put 'out of service' by routers, meaning they are not used for
   address assignments anymore.  Optionally, if the cost to the DFZ
   through a Border Router is far higher than via other available paths,
   a router can put the corresponding prefix out of service.  Prefixes
   that are out of service are released.

   Prefixes that are in service are configured on interfaces with a 64-
   bit prefix length and advertised with a Prefix Information Option in
   Router Advertisements.  The Prefix Information lifetime is copied
   from lifetime information in the BRIO cache.

   Hosts can use the BRDP provided information together with the Prefix
   Information to autoconfigure addresses, based on IPv6 Stateless
   Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862].  A host may also use DHCPv6 to
   get addresses or "Other configuration".

   Nodes with multiple configured addresses need to select a source
   address for outgoing connections.  Default Address Selection for IPv6
   [RFC3484] defines a mechanism, used as default behavior.  It is open
   to more advanced mechanisms or site policies.  BRDP provided
   information can be used for a more advanced mechanism, where the



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   hosts select automatically a source address that corresponds with a
   path with the lowest cost to the DFZ.  When multiple Border Routers
   are available, automatic load distribution and multi-path transport
   becomes available.

   Hosts can use information in the BRIO cache to select a default
   router.  For selecting the best paths, hosts may use next hop
   selection based on source address and path costs to the corresponding
   Border Router, if such information is available to the host.

   Network Ingress Filtering [RFC2827] describes the need for ingress
   filtering, to limit the impact of distributed denial of service
   attacks, by denying traffic with spoofed source addresses access.  It
   also helps ensure that traffic is traceable to its correct source
   network.  Ingress Filtering for Multihomed Networks [RFC3704]
   provides solutions for multi-homed sites.  However, the proposal
   applicable for PA addresses requires careful planning and
   configuration.  It suggests routing based on source address, and a
   path on each Border Router to all ISPs in use, either with a direct
   connection or with tunnels between all Border Routers.  It is hard to
   make such mechanisms work in an automated fashion, or mechanisms are
   not supported on Border Routers used today.  As an evolutionary
   approach, BRDP provided information is to be used to forward packets
   to their destination without ingress filtering problems.  The BRIO
   cache contains a mapping between Border Routers and the addresses
   that do pass ingress filtering.  So the packet forwarding heuristic
   can be straightforward: send packets, where the destination is not in
   the routing domain itself to the Border Router that owns the prefix
   of the source address.

   Enabling BRDP in an existing network is straightforward.  First, all
   routers have to be updated for BRDP support.  At this step, Border
   Router information is propagated in the network enabling BRDP
   assisted address autoconfiguration and prefix delegation and BRDP
   assisted source address selection.  The second step is updating all
   routers with the BRDP based routing mechanism.  To enable this
   mechanism the default gateway is removed from the routing table.
   This second step is a flag day operation.  Rolling back is easy, by
   just re-inserting the default gateway.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].






Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


2.  Reference Scenarios

   This section describes the use of BRDP in four different scenarios: a
   small multi-homed site or DMZ, a medium multi-homed site, a medium
   multi-homed site with ULA with DHCP server and a MANET site.

2.1.  Small multi-homed site or DMZ

   This scenario discusses BRDP operation for multi-homed Small Office -
   Home Office (SOHO) networks and De-Militarized Zones (DMZ).  The
   scenario is shown in Figure 1.  Each provider assigns a PA /48 prefix
   to its customers.  All addresses and prefixes are configured
   completely automatically.  The feature of BRDP that adds value in
   this scenario is BRDP based Border Router selection for multi-homed
   hosts.  This is enabled by using BRDP based forwarding.

          /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
         /                        \
        {       The Internet       }
         \                        /
          \______________________/
           /                    \
          /(2001:08db:100::/40)  \(2001:8DB:200::/40)
     +=======+              +=======+
     [ ISP_1 ]              [ ISP_2 ]
     +=======+              +=======+
         |                       |
         |(2001:8DB:101::/48)    |(2001:8DB:201::/48)
   +--------+              +--------+
   | BR_101 |              | BR_201 |
   +--------+              +--------+
     | FE80::101/64            | FE80::201/64
     | 2001:8DB:101:1::101/64  | 2001:8DB:201:1::201/64
     |                         |
    -+---------------------+---+-
                           |
   2001:8DB:101:1::1234/64 | 2001:8DB:201:1::1234/64
             FE80::1234/64 |
                     +-----------+
                     | Host_1234 |
                     +-----------+

    Figure 1: Scenario 1: multi-homed Small Office - Home Office (SOHO)
                              network or DMZ

   In this scenario, Host_1234 has configured two addresses using SLAAC
   [RFC4862], one with prefix 2001:8DB:101:1::/64 from Border Router
   BR_101 and one with prefix 2001:8DB:201:1::/64 from Border Router



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   BR_201.  Host_1234 has learned these prefixes from Prefix Information
   Options sent by both Border Routers according to [RFC4861].  The host
   has learned via BRIOs that these prefixes belong to Border Routers.
   The host can use optimal paths by selecting BR_101 as default router
   for all packets with a source address with prefix 2001:8DB:101:1::/64
   and default gateway BR_201 for all packets with a source address with
   prefix 2001:8DB:201:1::/64.  Non-optimal default router selection on
   hosts is handled by the routers, "misdirected" packets are forwarded
   to the correct Border Router.

   BRDP enables routers to deliver non-optimal directed packets from
   attached hosts towards a Border Router that owns the prefix of the
   source address, if such a Border Router exists.  In the above
   scenario, a packet sent from Host_1234 with source address 2001:8DB:
   201:1::1234 to default router BR_101 would be dropped due to on an
   ingress filter, when no mechanism is in place to redirect the packet.
   BRDP based forwarding provides such a mechanism automatically.
   Instead of dropping the packet, BR_101 forwards it to BR_201.

2.2.  Medium multi-homed site

   This scenario discusses BRDP operation for medium sized multi-homed
   networks.  The difference with the previous scenario is that the
   network paths between hosts and the Border Routers have intermediate
   routers.  The scenario is shown in Figure 2.  The added value of BRDP
   in this scenario is the discovery of Border Routers for hosts and
   routers beyond the first hop as well as Border Router Selection for
   hosts and routers.























Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


          /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
         /                        \
        {       The Internet       }
         \                        /
          \______________________/
           /                    \
          /(2001:8DB:100::/40)   \(2001:8DB:200::/40)
     +=======+              +=======+
     [ ISP_1 ]              [ ISP_2 ]
     +=======+              +=======+
         |                       |
         |(2001:8DB:101::/48)    |(2001:8DB:201::/48)
   +--------+              +--------+
   | BR_101 |              | BR_201 |
   +--------+              +--------+
     | FE80::101/64            | FE80::201/64
     | 2001:8DB:101:1::101/64  | 2001:8DB:201:1::201/64
     |                         |
    -+-+-----------------------+-+-
       |                         |
       | 2001:8DB:201:1::1/64    |
       | 2001:8DB:101:1::1/64    | 2001:8DB:201:1::2/64
       | FE80::1/64              | FE80::2/64
    +--------+              +--------+
    |   R_1  |              |   R_2  |
    +--------+              +--------+
     |FE80  | FE80::1/64         | FE80::2/64
     |::1   |                    |
     |/64  -+--------------------+-+-
     |                             |
     | 2001:8DB:101:2::1234/64     |
     | 2001:8DB:201:3::1234/64     |
     | FE80::1234/64               |
   +-----------+                   | 2001:8DB:101:3::ABCD/64
   | Host_1234 |                   | FE80::ABCD/64
   +-----------+               +-----------+
                               | Host_ABCD |
                               +-----------+

          Figure 2: Scenario 2: medium sized multi-homed network

   Routers can learn advertised on-link prefixes automatically via the
   Prefix Information Option in IPv6 ND RAs.  In this scenario, routers
   R_1 and R_2 learn prefix 2001:8DB:101:1::/64 from BR_101 and prefix
   2001:8DB:201:1::/64 from BR_201.  Routers may autoconfigure addresses
   on their interfaces.  In this example, R_1 has configured addresses
   from both providers on its upstream interface, R_2 only configured an
   address based on the prefix of BR_201.  If the routers run a routing



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   protocol, the learned prefixes are made reachable in the network.  In
   the next steps of the autoconfiguration proces, the prefixes and
   addresses on the other links are automatically configured, but first
   we discuss the BRDP messages that are disseminated through the
   network.

   Routers automatically learn Border Routers and mapping between
   prefixes and Border Routers using BRDP.  The diagram in Figure 3
   depicts BRIO message dissemination in scenario 2.  The two Border
   Routers advertise their own address and corresponding prefix with an
   address prefix.  Nothing prevents them from forwarding each other's
   BRIO message, although resending BRIO information on non-MANET
   interfaces is not useful.  Both routers R_1 and R_2 forward both
   Border Router address prefixes, using separate BRIOs in RAs, on
   downstream interfaces.  In this way all routers and hosts in the
   network are aware of all reachable Border Routers and corresponding
   prefixes.


































Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


          /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
         /                        \
        {       The Internet       }
         \                        /
          \______________________/
           /                    \
          /(2001:8DB:100::/40)   \(2001:8DB:200::/40)
     +=======+              +=======+
     [ ISP_1 ]              [ ISP_2 ]
     +=======+              +=======+
         |                       |
         |(2001:8DB:101::/48)    |(2001:8DB:201::/48)
   +--------+                +--------+
   | BR_101 |                | BR_201 |
   +--------+                +--------+
     | :                         | :
     | V 2001:8DB:101:1::101/48  | V 2001:8DB:201:1::201/48
     |                           |
    -+-+-------------------------+-+-
       |                           |
       |                           |
    +--------+                  +--------+
    |   R_1  |                  |   R_2  |
    +--------+                  +--------+
     | :  | :                        | :
     | :  | : 2001:8DB:101:1::101/48 | : 2001:8DB:101:1::101/48
     | :  | V 2001:8DB:201:1::201/48 | V 2001:8DB:201:1::201/48
     | :  |                          |
     | : -+--------------------------+-
     | :
     | : 2001:8DB:101:1::101/48
     | V 2001:8DB:201:1::201/48
     |
    -+----

                Figure 3: BRIO dissemination in Scenario 2

   Routers are not required to configure global addresses on each
   interface.  In the example, only the interface pointing to the
   Internet has configured global addresses.  Routers may also use a
   (logical) management interface for global reachability.

   So, the one-hop neighbours of BR_101 and BR_201, being R_1 and R_2,
   have learned the prefixes and configured addresses on their upstream
   interfaces.  And all nodes in the network have learned the Border
   Router prefixes.  The next step is to get configured addresses on the
   hosts in Figure 2.  This is done by using DHCP Prefix Delegation.
   R_1 and R_2 request a prefix from either or both BR_101 and BR_201



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   for binding as on-link prefix on the links, and advertise those using
   Prefix Information Options to the hosts.  This will result in a
   maximum of four prefixes that are advertised on the downlink of R_1
   and R_2.  Having multiple prefixes from the same ISP bound on a link
   is not useful.  So a router requests a prefix from a Border Router
   only if no other prefix of that Border Router is advertised already
   by another router on this network segment.

   In this example, R_1 has been delegated two prefixes by DHCP PD for
   the link with host Host_1234; 2001:8DB:101:2::/64 and 2001:8DB:201:
   3::/64.  No other router is on this link.  R_1 or R_2 has also been
   delegated a prefix on the link to host Host_ABCD; 2001:8DB:101:
   3::/64.  It cannot be seen in Figure 2 which router has been
   delegated the prefix, nor if another prefix for this link has been
   delegated.  No redundant prefix is delegated, as the routers learned
   with RA PIO already delegated prefixes for known Border Routers.

   Now, Host_1234 and Host_ABCD can autoconfigure addresses for their
   interfaces.  Host_1234 configures two addresses, one for each Border
   Router.  Host_ABCD chooses not to use ISP_2.

   Nodes R_1 and Host_1234 can use both providers, by using two
   configured global addresses.  Any multi-path facility can be used,
   either on an application layer or with a multi-path transport
   protocol.

   Host_ABCD may forward packets to the Internet via router R_1 or R_2.
   If R_2 is selected as default router, R_2 forwards the packets to
   BR_101 as this Border Router corresponds to the prefix of the source
   address 2001:8DB:101:3::ABCD.  This works well, even in this case
   where R_2 hasn't configured an address with a BR_101 prefix for
   itself, and selected a global address from the BR_201 prefix only.

2.3.  Medium multi-homed site with ULAs and DHCP server

   In this example, the scenario 2 is extended by adding Unique Local
   Addresses (ULA) for communication within the site itself.  For
   simplicity there is only one ISP present.  The ULA IP configuration,
   with prefix FD00:8DB::/48, is managed by DHCPv6 server DHCP_201.  The
   scenario is shown in Figure 4.











Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


     /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
    /                        \
   {       The Internet       }
    \                        /
     \______________________/
           /
          /(2001:8DB:100::/40)
     +=======+
     [ ISP_1 ]
     +=======+
         |
         |(2001:8DB:101::/48)
   +--------+              +---------+
   | BR_101 |              | DHCP_201|
   +--------+              +---------+
     | FE80::101/64            | FE80::201/64
     | 2001:8DB:101:1::101/64  | FD00:8DB:201:1::201/64
     | FD00:8DB:201:1::101/64  | (acme.com,FD00:8DB:201:1:201:/48)
     |                         |
    -+-+-----------------------+-+-
       |                         |
       | FD00:8DB:201:1::1/64    | FD00:8DB:201:1::2/64
       | 2001:8DB:101:1::1/64    | 2001:8DB:101:1::2/64
       | FE80::1/64              | FE80::2/64
    +--------+              +--------+
    |   R_1  |              |   R_2  |
    +--------+              +--------+
     |FE80  | FE80::1/64         | FE80::2/64
     |::1   |                    |
     |/64  -+--------------------+-+-
     |                             |
     | 2001:8DB:101:2::1234/64     |
     | FD00:8DB:201:3::1234/64     |
     | FE80::1234/64               |
   +-----------+                   | 2001:8DB:101:3::ABCD/64
   | Host_1234 |                   | FD00:8DB:201:3::ABCD/64
   +-----------+                   | FE80::ABCD/64
                               +-----------+
                               | Host_ABCD |
                               +-----------+

    Figure 4: Scenario 3: a medium sized multi-homed site with ULAs and
                               DHCP server.

   In this scenario, all nodes have configured a ULA and a Global
   Unicast Address using prefix delegation in the way that was described
   in Section 2.2.  ULA prefix delegation is automated just like PA
   addresses.  The DHCP server is therefore implemented on a router, in



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   this case DHCP_201.  This router advertises the ULA prefix with BRDP,
   here FD00:8DB:201::/48.

   Although BRDP provides automatic prefix and address configuration for
   ULA, a network administrator is free to configure it manually, along
   using BRDP for global addresses.

   BRDP based ULA configuration with BRDP based routing would result in
   routing packets with ULA destinations outside the site to the
   originator of the ULA prefix, in this case router DHCP_201.  DHCP_201
   is not connected to the Internet or another site owning the ULA, so
   packets to non-existing destinations are dropped.  DHCP_201 indicates
   such with the BRIO F-bit set, meaning the Border Router is floating.

   This scenario, it is demonstrated that BRDP and DHCPv6 cooperate in
   address configuration.  BRDP provides announcements of Border Routers
   and DHCP servers.  Routers request prefixes with DHCP, and can
   request other parameters also.  Such parameters are disseminated to
   other nodes, either with router advertisements or acting as DHCP
   server itself.  Routers may also act as DHCP relay, redirecting
   address requests to the Border Router(s).  The Router Advertisement
   M-bit and O-bit indicates availability of DHCPv6 services to attached
   nodes.

   Difficulties may arise when both ULA and global addresses are used
   for Internet connectivity, e.g. when address translation is used.  To
   distinguish, the Border Router not providing Internet connectivity
   informs nodes in the network using Service Selection suboption,
   similar to "Service Selection for Mobile IPv6" [RFC5149].  This
   procedure helps also for extranet connectivity.  In this scenario,
   the ULA is used within the ACME Corporation, nodes are made aware by
   adding "acme.com" in the BRIO Service Selection Option.

   It is for the reader to work out extensions for this scenario, where
   the ULA prefix originator is a Border Router to another site, e.g. a
   link from a branch office to a head quarter, or a ULA-only side
   connected to the Internet with NAT66.

2.4.  MANET site

   BRDP was developed for address autoconfiguration in MANETs.  This
   scenario, see Figure 5 demonstrates the powerful multi-homing
   facilities provided to the MANET nodes.








Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


          /^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
         /                        \
        {       The Internet       }
         \                        /
          \______________________/
           /                    \
          /(2001:8DB:100::/40)   \(2001:8DB:200::/40)
     +=======+              +=======+
     [ ISP_1 ]              [ ISP_2 ]
     +=======+              +=======+
         |                       |
         |c=1                    |c=1
         |(2001:8DB:101::/48)    |(2001:8DB:201::/48)
   +--------+               +--------+
   | BR_101 |               | BR_201 |
   +-+------+               +---+----+
     | FE80::101/64             | FE80::201/64
     | 2001:8DB:101:1::101/128  | 2001:8DB:201:1::201/128
    /|\                        /|\
     : .     c=5             .  :
     :   . . . . .   . . . .    :c=1
     :c=2          .            :
     :   . . . . .   . . . . . \|/
     :  .             c=5       | 2001:8DB:201:1::2/128
     \|/                        | 2001:8DB:201:1::2/128
      | 2001:8DB:201:1::1/128   | FE80::2/64
      | 2001:8DB:101:1::1/128+--+--+
      | FE80::102/64      . .| R_2 |
   +--+--+        . . . .    +-----+.
   | R_1 |. . . .     c=5    :       .    c=4
   +-----+. . . . . . .     :c=1      . . . . .
                 c=4    .  :                    .
                        \|/                      \|/
   2001:8DB:201:1::3/128 |  2001:8DB:201:1::4/128 |
   2001:8DB:101:1::3/128 |  2001:8DB:201:1::4/128 |
              FE80::3/64 |             FE80::4/64 |
                      +--+--+                  +--+--+
                      | R_3 | . . . . . . . . .| R_4 |
                      +-----+       c=4        +-----+

                    Figure 5: Scenario 4: a MANET site

   On the MANET interfaces, addresses are configured using a 64-bit
   prefix provided by BRDP, appending it with a 64-bit Interface
   Identifier according to BRDP based address autoconfiguration.  This
   creates a 128-bit prefix length as recommended in IP Addressing Model
   in Ad Hoc Networks [RFC5889].  Each MANET node has configured two
   global addresses, one for each ISP.  With BRDP, the nodes are aware



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   of the cost of the path to the DFZ, defined as dimensionless metric
   for both directions of the patch.  This enables optimized source
   address selection, and as an implicit result a Border Router and ISP
   selection.  In the scenario, R_1 is near to BR_101 and the cost via
   this Border Router is lower than via BR_201.  The table below shows
   costs to the DFZ for all nodes, via both ISPs.  Paths with lowest
   costs are marked with *.

      +---------+-------+-------+
      | Costs   |   Via |   Via |
      | to DFZ  | ISP_1 | ISP_2 |
      +---------+-------+-------+
      | BR_101  |    1* |    7  |
      | BR_201  |    7  |    1* |
      |  R_1    |    3* |    6  |
      |  R_2    |    6  |    2* |
      |  R_3    |    7  |    3* |
      |  R_4    |   10  |    6* |
      +---------+-------+-------+

   The optimized source address selection facility is also of utility in
   the other scenarios.  For example, the cost of the link to the ISP
   could be set depending of bandwidth and optionally on utilization.
   Nodes would use a near uplink to an ISP, and as a result some form of
   load distribution is enabled.  Note that nodes still can use the
   alternative addresses, in fact it is recommended to use multi-path
   transport protocols for better load balancing and improved
   robustness.

   For isolated MANETs, a DHCP server election mechanism can be used.
   Nodes may initiate to advertise a self-generated ULA.  In such cases,
   it is recommended that a prefix is used with a 56-bit random ULA
   identifier (including random 16-bit Subnet ID) and 64-bit prefix
   length.  Other nodes join this prefix, although some may wish to
   start or continue using their own prefix.  The latter would occur in
   cases of a merge of previous isolated MANETs.


3.  Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP)

   BRDP is an extension to the IPv6 ND mechanism [RFC4861] that provides
   information about the reachability, availability, prefix information,
   quality and cost of upstream providers, and enables automated
   (re)numbering of possibly multi-homed routers and hosts.

   BRDP adds the Border Router Information Option (BRIO) to the Router
   Advertisement (RA) of IPv6 ND.  A BRIO contains all relevant
   information of an upstream Border Router and the corresponding



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   provider.

   Border Routers initiate sending BRIO messages, other routers in the
   network disseminate the messages downstream through the network.
   Nodes store the information from received BRIOs in a BRIO cache, to
   be used for address generation, DHCP server discovery, address
   selection or packet forwarding.

   A BRIO cache entry records reception of a BRIO for a single
   advertised prefix, received via a neighbor router.  Border Routers
   that need to advertise multiple prefixes simply use multiple BRIOs,
   each with its own address prefix.  For further processing of BRIO
   entries, only the entry with the lowest cost to a Border Router is
   used.

   When a node is multi-homed, it will receive BRIOs from multiple
   upstream Border Routers.  BRIO may have options to indicate
   connectivity to networks other than the Internet, or indications that
   usage of the Border Router needs authentication and authorization.

   A BRIO message contains informational elements listed below.  A more
   detailed description is provided in BRDP based Address
   Autoconfiguration [I-D.boot-autoconf-brdp].

   Border Router Address:

      128-bit address of the Border Router.  The Border Router should
      make this address reachable in the IGP, if a site use an IGP.

   Prefix Length:

      8-bit unsigned integer.  The number of leading bits in the Border
      Router Address, that indicates the assigned prefix for that Border
      Router.  The Prefix Length is used for BRDP Based Routing
      [I-D.boot-brdp-based-routing].  The Border Router address prefix
      specifies the source address ingress filter, if ingress filtering
      is implemented on this Border Router.

   Uniform Path Metric (UPM):

      A dimensionless cost measure for the quality of the bi-directional
      path between the upstream router to the Border Router and the DFZ
      of the Internet, or to the Border Router itself in case it is
      floating.  UPM is set to some initial value by the Border Router
      and is incremented by each Router that propagates the BRIO.






Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   Floating(F) flag:

      When the F-flag is set, the Border Router does not provide access
      to the Internet.  BRIOs with an ULA prefix SHOULD have the F-bit
      set.

   DHCP (D) flag:

      When the D-flag is set, the Border Router is acting as a DHCP
      server or DHCP relay agent [RFC3315].

   Service Selection Identifier:

      An option for a variable length UTF-8 encoded Service Selection
      Identifier string used to identify the Border Routers' type of
      service.  A valid example is 'acme.com'.

   A Border Router MAY offer multiple services using multiple BRIOs.
   However, each of those BRIOs MUST use a unique Border Router address.

   A detailed description of BRDP message processing is found in
   [I-D.boot-autoconf-brdp].


4.  BRDP based Address Configuration and Prefix Delegation

   BRDP supports stateless address autoconfiguration [RFC4862], DHCP
   managed IP configuration [RFC3315] and DHCP prefix delegation
   [RFC3633].  MANET routers can also use a variant of stateless address
   autoconfiguration, where BRDP provided information is used to
   configure off-link addresses, used in ad hoc networks [RFC5889].

   BRDP adds topology awareness in address configuration.  Nodes can
   configure multiple addresses, each to support a different facility.
   ULAs can be used for site internal traffic or for Extranets.  Global
   addresses are mandatory for access to the Internet, assuming address
   translation is not used.

   A node that is offered multiple prefixes for stateless address
   autoconfiguration or multiple addresses by DHCP chooses to configure
   one or more addresses.  BRDP provides information for the candidate
   addresses.  An important criterion is the costs of the path to the
   Internet DFZ.  A node would select an address with the lowest costs.
   Another criterion is the Service Selection Identifier, to be used for
   access to private networks.

   The BRDP framework does not modify stateless address
   autoconfiguration and DHCP protocols, except that in a MANET, MANET



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   routers perform stateless address autoconfiguration from the Border
   Router Information Option (BRIO) instead of the Prefix Information
   Option (PIO) [I-D.boot-autoconf-brdp].  This enables MANET-wide
   address configuration, because BRIOs are disseminated over multiple
   hops in the MANET, while PIOs are link local messages only.

   When a BRIO is stored in the BRIO cache table, the node checks if a
   corresponding address already exists for the Border Router from which
   this BRIO originates.  If not, and a corresponding address for that
   Border Router is beneficial, address generation for that Border
   Router is triggered.


5.  BRDP based Source Address Selection

   As a next step, multi-homed nodes perform source address selection
   for new, self-initiated connections.  The algorithm described in
   Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC3484] uses the concept of a
   "candidate set" of potential source addresses.  Rule 8 of source
   address selection is "Uses longest match prefix".  The goal of this
   rule is to select the address with good communications performance.
   If other means of choosing among source addresses for better
   performance is available, that should be used.

   BRDP provides attributes for prefix, such as a cost metric to the
   Internet or a Service Selection Identifier.  This information van be
   used to select the "best" source address.  For multi-path transport
   protocols, it is also important to have a mechanism to select
   alternative addresses.  For example, rule 4 gives preference to a
   Home Address.  Alternate addresses can be used for route optimization
   and to avoid overhead of the Mobile IP tunnel.

   BRDP provided information can also be utilized by address lookup
   protocols such as DNS.  A node can register its addresses
   dynamically, with support of preference and load balancing if the
   mechanism used support such.


6.  BRDP based Routing

   The BRDP framework introduces a new paradigm for packet forwarding
   for multi-homed sites, where forwarding to a default gateway is
   replaced by source address based forwarding towards a corresponding
   Border Router [I-D.boot-brdp-based-routing].  This enforces that
   packets will be sent via the selected upstream provider, without the
   need of tunneling.  As such, it prevents problems with ingress
   filters in multi-homed edge networks [RFC3704].




Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   The BRDP Based Routing mechanism provides basic support for load
   distribution over multiple Border Routers.  BRDP Based Routing
   forwards the packets to the Border Router that corresponds with the
   source address.  As a result, nodes can utilize multiple paths, if
   available.  Standardization of this load balancing functionality is
   work in progress in the IETF MPTCP working group.

   When a router forwards a packet to a next-hop node, via the interface
   where this packet was received, and the next-hop address was selected
   using BRDP based routing, then the router should not send an ICMP
   redirect message to the upstream host.  This is because the upstream
   node would cache the redirect for the destination address, while the
   forwarding decision was based on the source address.


7.  BRDP and IRTF RRG goals

   The IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) was chartered to explore
   solutions for problems on routing and addressing, when the Internet
   continues to evolve.  It has explored a number of proposed solutions,
   but did not reach consensus on a single, best approach
   [I-D.irtf-rrg-recommendation].  In fulfillment of the routing
   research group's charter, the co-chairs recommend that the IETF
   pursue work in three areas, "Evolution" [I-D.zhang-evolution],
   "Identifier/Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) [I-D.rja-ilnp-intro] and
   "Renumbering" [RFC5887] .  BRDP fits in all three approaches.

   BRDP is an evolution in IPv6 address configuration and address
   selection, as well as forwarding to destinations outside the routing
   domain.  As a result, it removes a demand for Provider Independent
   addresses for (small) multi-homed edge networks.  BRDP enables sites
   to use multiple Provider Aggregatable address blocks, while being
   able to utilize multi-homing for improved redundancy of
   communications and enlarged capacity.  Each site that continues to
   use Provider Aggregatable addresses when getting multi-homed, instead
   of using its own Provider Independent address space, reduces the
   growth of the routing tables in the Default Free Zone.

   BRDP can cooperate or live next many other solutions.  ILNP is a good
   example for cooperation, BRDP provides multi-path transport
   capabilities to ILNP nodes.  This multi-path transport capability
   applies to many other approaches also, such as map&encap and nat66.

   Because BRDP provides automatic address and prefix configuration,
   Renumbering is far less problematic.  That said, legacy (IPv4) hosts,
   applications and network equipment is not BRDP enabled and manual
   address configuration will be used for many years to come.




Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   In Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing
   [I-D.irtf-rrg-design-goals], a number of design goals are defined.
   The role BRDP can play for these goals are briefly described in the
   next sections.

7.1.  Scalability

   Because BRDP is implemented in edge networks, and not in the core,
   scalability of BRDP is less an issue.  BRDP solves the Internet
   routing problem at the source, by reducing the demand for PI
   addresses.

7.2.  Traffic engineering

   BRDP provides traffic engineering options to end-nodes.  End-nodes
   can configure multiple addresses and use these for utilizing multi-
   path capabilities of the network.  Using multi-path is being worked
   on by the IETF MPTCP working group.

7.3.  Multi-homing

   The core function of BRDP is providing support for IPv6 multi-homing,
   without any problems caused by ingress filtering [RFC3704].

7.4.  Loc/id separation

   BRDP does not mandate any approach for location / identification.
   For packet forwarding, addresses are used as locator.  If addresses
   are used as identifiers also, for example in Mobile IP, BRDP supports
   route optimization where traffic uses the Home Address as identifier
   and care-of addresses as locator.  MPTCP provides the route
   optimization capability.

7.5.  Mobility

   BRDP was defined as a solution for address autoconfiguration for ad
   hoc networks.  With BRDP, nodes can easily configure topology correct
   addresses in a multi-homes ad hoc network.  BRDP does not provide
   session continuity functions.  Mobility solutions are already in
   place or new approaches are proposed.  All approaches should work
   well with BRDP, as BRDP does not modify the IPv6 protocol.

7.6.  Simplified renumbering

   BRDP makes site renumbering fully automatic.  This applies to node
   address configuration on the IPv6 stack and prefix delegation and
   configuration on routers.  IP addresses could be configured on many
   other places, either manually or using specific protocols for such



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   purpose.  Complete automatic numbering is possible if all mechanisms
   in use support dynamic addresses.  There is definitely more work to
   do [RFC5887].

7.7.  Modularity

   BRDP is a small, but important piece of the puzzle.  It applies to
   edge networks only.  It helps other mechanisms to work well in a
   multi-homed network using PA addresses, but also provides multi-path
   capabilities in multi-homed networks with PI addresses or multi-
   homing with connections to Extranets.

7.8.  Routing quality

   BRDP is not a routing protocol, so it has no influence on routing
   quality.  But the functionality of routing to a default gateway is
   changed.  BRDP based routing supports paths to multiple Border
   Routers, where hosts can select which Border Router to use.  In such
   scheme, nodes can select the route to use, based on quality of
   available routes.  MPTCP provides this route selection functionality.

7.9.  Routing security

   BRDP doesn't update any routing protocols.  BRDBP based routing
   modifies the default gateway heuristic, the route to prefix ::/0 is
   replaced by a route to a Border Router, which corresponds with the
   source address of a packet.  As a result, ingress filtering is
   distributed over all routers in the edge network and invalid packets
   are dropped as near to the source as possible.

   The BRDP protocol runs on IPv6 NDP and inherits all security aspects.
   BRDP messages are disseminated in the edge network, which may enlarge
   the needs for protection.  Implementing SeND [RFC3971] is
   recommended.

7.10.  Deployability

   BRDP deployment takes place edge network by edge network.  Each
   network that migrates to BRDP, instead of getting a PI address bock,
   reduces the load on the Internet routing infrastructure.

   For implementing BRDP on an edge network, all routers in the network
   must support BRDP.  BRDP support for hosts is optional.  Enterprise
   networks can migrate site by site.







Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


8.  Currently unaddressed issues

   BRDP based routing may have impact on multicast routing, e.g.
   selecting the route to a RP.

   It is not fully understood how BRDP may influence host behavior on RA
   M and O bits, and may bypass a 1-hop router DHCP relay server for
   getting information for a BRDP-learned DHCP server.

   Currently unaddressed issues are addressed in a next version of this
   document.


9.  Acknowledgements

   TBD


10.  IANA Considerations

   This memo includes no request to IANA.


11.  Security Considerations

   No new security considerations arise.


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

12.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.boot-autoconf-brdp]
              Boot, T. and A. Holtzer, "Border Router Discovery Protocol
              (BRDP) based Address Autoconfiguration",
              draft-boot-autoconf-brdp-02 (work in progress), July 2009.



Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   [I-D.boot-brdp-based-routing]
              Boot, T., "Border Router Discovery Protocol (BRDP) Based
              Routing", draft-boot-brdp-based-routing-00 (work in
              progress), November 2008.

   [I-D.irtf-rrg-design-goals]
              Li, T., "Design Goals for Scalable Internet Routing",
              draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-06 (work in progress),
              January 2011.

   [I-D.irtf-rrg-recommendation]
              Li, T., "Recommendation for a Routing Architecture",
              draft-irtf-rrg-recommendation-16 (work in progress),
              November 2010.

   [I-D.rja-ilnp-intro]
              Atkinson, R., "ILNP Concept of Operations",
              draft-rja-ilnp-intro-09 (work in progress), January 2011.

   [I-D.zhang-evolution]
              Zhang, B. and L. Zhang, "Evolution Towards Global Routing
              Scalability", draft-zhang-evolution-02 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

   [RFC3704]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
              Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
              Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.

   [RFC5149]  Korhonen, J., Nilsson, U., and V. Devarapalli, "Service
              Selection for Mobile IPv6", RFC 5149, February 2008.




Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft               BRDP Framework                 January 2011


   [RFC5887]  Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering
              Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010.

   [RFC5889]  Baccelli, E. and M. Townsley, "IP Addressing Model in Ad
              Hoc Networks", RFC 5889, September 2010.


Authors' Addresses

   Teco Boot
   Infinity Networks B.V.

   Email: teco@inf-net.nl


   Arjen Holtzer
   TNO Information and Communication Technology

   Email: arjen.holtzer@tno.nl
































Boot & Holtzer           Expires August 4, 2011                [Page 24]