[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00                                                            
INTERNET DRAFT                                            Brian Haberman
April 1998                                                           IBM


                    Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses
               in the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)

                <draft-haberman-ipv6-site-route-00.txt>


Status of This Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  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 Drafts.

   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 not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as
   reference material, or to cite them other than as a ``working draft''
   or ``work in progress.''

   To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check
   the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts
   Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net
   (Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au
   (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu
   (US West Coast).


Abstract

   This document outlines a mechanism for generating
   routing tables that include site-scoped IPv6 addresses.  It defines a
   set of rules for routers to implement in order to forward site-scoped
   addresses regardless of the routing protocol.


















Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page i]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998




                                Contents



Status of This Memo                                                    i

Abstract                                                               i

 1. Introduction                                                       1

 2. Assumptions and Definitions                                        2

 3. Single Site Routing                                                3

 4. Site-Boundary Unicast Routing                                      3
     4.1. Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    3
     4.2. Packet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    5

 5. Site-Boundary Multicast Routing                                    6
     5.1. Routing Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    6
     5.2. Packet Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    6

 6. Protocol Impact                                                    6


























Haberman                 Expires October 1998                  [Page ii]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998


1. Introduction

   This document defines a set of rules for the generation of forwarding
   tables that contain site-scoped addresses.  This
   document will describe the handling of site-scoped addresses for both
   single-site and site-boundary routers.  Ideally, these concepts
   should be included in follow-up drafts of IPv6 routing protocols.

   A preferred model for site-boundaries is depicted in Figure 1.  In
   this model, each router is responsible for generating forwarding
   information for the global prefixes and exactly 1
   site.  The link between the routers is in neither site.  In addition,
   routing information about Site Y is never propogated into Site X
   and routing information about Site X is never propogated into Site Y.
   This model is similar to that of net 10 routing in IPv4.



             *****                                 *****
                  *                               *
                   *                             *
                    *                           *
                     *  Router 1     Router 2  *
                    +-*-+                   +-*-+
                    | * |                   | * |
           Site X   | * | ----------------- | * |   Site Y
                    | * |                   | * |
                    +-*-+                   +-*-+
                     *                         *
                    *                           *
                   *                             *
                  *                               *
             *****                                 *****



                     Figure 1: Site Boundary Model


   The rest of this document describes the modifications needed in
   order to combine the functions of Router 1 and Router 2 into a single
   router.

   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].





Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page 1]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998


2. Assumptions and Definitions

   This document makes several assumptions concerning sites :

    -  Site boundaries cut through nodes

    -  Site boundaries are identical for unicast and multicast traffic

    -  A single interface can only be in one site

    -  Each interface participating in a site has a site identifier

    -  In the absence of explicit configuration, all site identifiers on
       a router default to the same value

    -  Routers only advertise site prefixes on interfaces configured
       with site identifiers and site prefixes



                           *                *
                           *                *
                           *  Site ID = X   *
                           *                *
                           *                *
                         +-*---|--------|---*-+
                         | * i/f 1    i/f 2 * |
                         |  ****************  |
                         |                    |
                         |                    |
                         |       Router       |
                *****************             |
                         |       *            |
           Site ID = Y   - i/f 3 *      i/f 4 -
                         |       *            |
                *****************             |
                         +--------------------+



                      Figure 2: Multi-Sited Router


   A single-site router is defined as a router configured with the same
   site identifier on all interfaces.  A site-boundary router is defined
   as a router that has at least 2 distinct site identifiers configured.
   This could include a router connected to 2 distinct sites or a router
   connected to 1 site and a separate global network (Figure 2).



Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page 2]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998


3. Single Site Routing

   In a single-site router, a routing protocol
   can advertise and route all addresses and prefixes on all interfaces.
   This configuration does not require any special handling for
   site-local addresses.  The reception and transmission of site-local
   addresses is handled in the same manner as globally scoped addresses.
   This applies to both unicast and multicast routing protocols.


4. Site-Boundary Unicast Routing

   With respect to site boundaries, routers must consider which
   interfaces a packet can be transmitted on as well as control the
   propogation of site-specific routing information.  This
   includes controlling which prefixes can be advertised on an interface
   and what forwarding information can be sent to other routers out that
   interface.


4.1. Routing Protocols

   When a routing protocol determines that it is a site-boundary router,
   it must perform additional work in order to protect inter-site
   integrity and still maintain intra-site connectivity.

   In order to maintain connectivity, the routing protocol must be
   able to create forwarding information for the global prefixes as well
   as for all of
   the site prefixes defined in the router's site identifiers.  The most
   straight forward way of doing this is to create up to (n + 1) routing
   tables; one for the global prefixes, if any, and one for each of the
   (n) sites.  This will increase the protocol processing time, but is
   necessary for connectivity within sites.

   To protect inter-site integrity, routers must be selective in the
   forwarding information that is shared with neighboring routers.
   Routing protocols routinely transmit their routing information to
   neighboring routers.  When a router is transmitting this routing
   information, it must not include any information about sites other
   than the site defined on the interface used to reach a neighbor.

   As an
   example, the router in Figure 3 must advertise routing information on
   four interfaces.  The information advertised is as follows :

    -  Interface 1




Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page 3]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998



                      *                *
                      *                *
                      *  Site ID = X   *
                      *                *
                      *                *
                    +-*---|--------|---*-+     i/f 1 : global prefix = 3FFE:20::/64
                    | * i/f 1    i/f 2 * |             site prefix = FEC0:0:0:N/64
                    |  ****************  |
                    |                    |     i/f 2 : no global prefix
                    |                    |             site prefix = FEC0:0:0:K/64
                    |       Router       |
           *****************             |     i/f 3 : global prefix = 3FFE:40::/64
                    |       *            |             site prefix = FEC0:0:0:M/64
      Site ID = Y   - i/f 3 *      i/f 4 -
                    |       *            |     i/f 4 : global prefix = 3FFE:80::/64
           *****************             |             no site prefix
                    +--------------------+



                 Figure 3: Routing Information Exchange



        *  All global prefixes (3FFE:20::/64, 3FFE:40::/64, and
           3FFE:80::/64)

        *  Site prefix FEC0:0:0:N/64

        *  Site prefix FEC0:0:0:K/64

    -  Interface 2

        *  All global prefixes (3FFE:20::/64, 3FFE:40::/64, and
           3FFE:80::/64)

        *  Site prefix FEC0:0:0:N/64

        *  Site prefix FEC0:0:0:K/64

    -  Interface 3

        *  All global prefixes (3FFE:20::/64, 3FFE:40::/64, and
           3FFE:80::/64)

        *  Site prefix FEC0:0:0:M/64




Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page 4]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998


    -  Interface 4

        *  All global prefixes (3FFE:20::/64, 3FFE:40::/64, and
           3FFE:80::/64)

   By imposing advertisement rules, site integrity is maintained by
   keeping all site routing information contained within the site.


4.2. Packet Forwarding

   In addition to the extra cost of generating additional forwarding
   information for each site, site-boundary routers must
   also do some additional checking when forwarding packets that contain
   site-local addresses.

   If a packet being forwarded contains a
   site-local destination address, regardless of the scope of the source
   address, the router must perform the following :

    -  Lookup incoming interface's site identifier

    -  Perform route lookup for destination address

    -  Lookup outgoing interface's site identifier

    -  Verify that the two site identifiers match

   The last two steps are required due to
   the fact that the two interfaces could be in different sites but have
   identical site-local prefixes.

   If a packet being forwarded contains a site-local source address and
   a globally-scoped destination address, there are two possible ways of
   handling it.  The first way is to forward the packet based solely on
   the destination address.  This
   leads to the possibility that the destination cannot send a response.
   The second option is to perform the same checks as outlined above for
   a site-local destination address.  If this method is chosen,
   a new ICMPv6 message could be returned to the sender indicating there
   is a scoping mismatch.  This would allow the sender the chance to use
   a higher scoped address.









Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page 5]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998


5. Site-Boundary Multicast Routing

5.1. Routing Protocols

   Multicast routing protocols will have to follow the same rules as the
   unicast protocols.  They will be required to maintain information
   about global prefixes as well as information about all sites defined
   on the box.  Protocols that rely on underlying unicast protocols will
   not suffer as much of a performance impact since the unicast protocol
   will handle the forwarding table generation.  However, multicast
   protocols that generate and maintain their own routing tables will
   have to perform the additional route calculations for each site.


5.2. Packet Forwarding

   The forwarding rules for multicast can be described by the following
   combinations :

    -  Global multicast destination address / Global unicast source
       address

    -  Global multicast destination address / Site-local unicast source
       address

    -  Site-scoped multicast destination address / Global unicast source
       address

    -  Site-scoped multicast destination address / Site-local unicast
       source address

   The first combination should follow the same forwarding mechanisms
   that are in place today
   for IPv4 multicast.  Combinations 3 and 4 should result in the router
   performing the same site identifiers check as outlined
   for site-local unicast destination addresses.  Combination 2 could be
   handled in either manner.  By performing the site identifier check, a
   source could be notified that there is a scoping mismatch and give it
   the opportunity to choose a higher scoped source address.  This would
   require the definition of a new scoping mismatch ICMPv6 message.


6. Protocol Impact

   The performance impact on routing protocols is obvious.  However,
   this impact should only be felt by those routers that exist
   on site boundaries.  Realistically, a router would probably only be a
   boundary between either two sites or a site



Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page 6]


Internet Draft        Routing of Site-Scoped Addresses        April 1998


   and the Internet.  If site-scoped addresses are going to be realized,
   this performance impact may be acceptable.


References


[RFC 2119] S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP14, March 1997.



Security Considerations

   This document specifies a set of guidelines that allow routers to
   prevent site
   specific information from leaking out of each site.  If site boundary
   routers allow site routing information to be forwarded outside of the
   site, the integrity of the site could be compromised.


Acknowledgements

   I would like to thank Thomas Narten for his reviews of this document.


Author's Address

        Brian Haberman
        IBM Corporation
        800 Park Office Drive
        Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
        USA
        +1-919-254-2673
        haberman@raleigh.ibm.com
















Haberman                  Expires October 1998                  [Page 7]