6MAN                                                           S. Amante
Internet-Draft                                                   Level 3
Intended status: Informational                              B. Carpenter
Expires: September 14, 2011                            Univ. of Auckland
                                                                S. Jiang
                                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                          March 13, 2011

       Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label specification


   Various published proposals for use of the IPv6 flow label are
   incompatible with its original specification in RFC 3697.
   Furthermore, very little practical use is made of the flow label,
   partly due to some uncertainties about the correct interpretation of
   the specification.  This document discusses and motivates changes to
   the specification in order to clarify it, and to introduce some
   additional flexibility.

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 September 14, 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
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   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
   2.  Impact of current specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Changes to specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   9.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Appendix A.  Alternative Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

1.  Introduction

   The flow label field in the IPv6 header was reserved but left
   experimental by [RFC2460], which mandates only that "Hosts or routers
   that do not support the functions of the Flow Label field are
   required to set the field to zero when originating a packet, pass the
   field on unchanged when forwarding a packet, and ignore the field
   when receiving a packet."

   The flow label field was normatively specified by [RFC3697].  In
   particular, we quote three rules from that RFC:
   a.  "The Flow Label value set by the source MUST be delivered
       unchanged to the destination node(s)."
   b.  "IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume any mathematical or other properties
       of the Flow Label values assigned by source nodes."
   c.  "Router performance SHOULD NOT be dependent on the distribution
       of the Flow Label values.  Especially, the Flow Label bits alone
       make poor material for a hash key."

   Additionally, RFC 3697 leaves it undefined what method a host should
   adopt by default to choose the value of the flow label, if no
   specific method is in use.  It was expected that various signaling
   methods might be defined for agreeing on values of the flow label,
   but no such methods have been standardised, except a pre-existing
   option in RSVP [RFC2205].

   The flow label is hardly used in practice in widespread IPv6
   implementations, although some operating systems do set it
   [McGann05].  To some extent this is due to the main focus being on
   basic deployment of IPv6, but the absence of a default method of
   choosing the flow label value means that most host implementations
   simply set it to zero.  There is also anecdotal evidence that the
   rules quoted above have led to uncertainty about exactly what is
   possible.  Furthermore, various use cases have been proposed that
   infringe one or another of the rules.  None of these proposals has
   been accepted as a standard and in practice there is no significant
   deployment of any mechanism to set the flow label.

   The intention of this document is to explain this situation in more
   detail and to motivate changes to RFC 3697 intended to remove the
   uncertainties and encourage active usage of the flow label.  It does
   not formally update RFC 3697, but it serves as background material
   for [I-D.ietf-6man-flow-3697bis].

2.  Impact of current specification

   Rule (a) makes it impossible for the routing system to use the flow

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   label as any form of dynamic routing tag.  This was a conscious
   choice in the early design of IPv6 and there appears to be no
   practical possibility of revisiting this choice at this stage in the
   deployment of IPv6, which uses conventional routing mechanisms like
   those used for IPv4.  However, this rule also makes it impossible to
   make any use at all of the flow label unless hosts choose to set it.
   It also forbids clearing the flow label for security reasons.

   This last point highlights the security properties, or rather the
   lack of them, of the flow label.  The flow label field is always
   unprotected as it travels through the network, because there is no
   IPv6 header checksum, and the flow label is not included in transport
   pseudo-header checksums, nor in IPsec checksums.  As a result,
   intentional and malicious changes to its value cannot be detected.
   Also, it could be used as a covert data channel, since apparently
   pseudo-random flow label values could in fact consist of covert data.
   If the flow label were to carry quality of service semantics, then
   like the diffserv code point [RFC2474], it would not be intrinsically
   trustworthy across domain boundaries.  As a result, some security
   specialists believe that flow labels should be cleared for safety.
   These points must be considered when discussing the immutability of
   the flow label across domain boundaries.

   Rule (b) appears to forbid any usage in which the bits of the flow
   label are encoded with a specific semantic meaning.  However, the
   words "MUST NOT assume" are to be interpreted precisely - if a router
   knows by configuration or by signaling that the flow label has been
   assigned in a certain way, it can make use of that knowledge.  It is
   not made clear by the rule that there is an implied distinction
   between stateless models (in which case no assumption may be made)
   and stateful models (in which the router has explicit knowledge).

   If the word "alone" is overlooked, rule (c) has sometimes been
   interpreted to forbid the use of the flow label as part of a hash
   used by load distribution mechanisms.  In this case too, the word
   "alone" is to be interpreted precisely - a router is allowed to
   combine the flow label value with other data in order to produce a
   uniformly distributed hash.

   Both before and after these rules were laid down, a considerable
   number of proposals for use of the flow label were published that
   seem incompatible with them.  Numerous examples and an analysis are
   presented in [I-D.hu-flow-label-cases].  Those examples propose use
   cases in which some or all of the following apply:
   o  The flow label may be changed by intermediate systems.
   o  It doesn't matter if the flow label is changed, because the
      receiver doesn't use it.

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   o  Some or all bits of the flow label are encoded: they have specific
      meanings understood by routers and switches along the path.
   o  The encoding is related to the required quality of service, as
      well as identifying a flow.
   o  The flow label is used to control forwarding or switching in some

   These proposals all require either some form of encoding of semantics
   in the bits of the flow label, or the ability for routers to modify
   the flow label, or both.  Thus they appear to infringe the rules from
   RFC 3697 quoted above.

   We can conclude that a considerable number of researchers and
   designers have been stymied by RFC 3697.  On the other hand, some
   other proposals discussed in [I-D.hu-flow-label-cases] appear to be
   compatible with RFC 3697.  Several are based on the originator of a
   packet choosing a pseudo-random flow label for each flow, which is
   one option suggested in RFC 3697.  Thus, we can also conclude that
   there is a useful role for this approach.

   If our goal is for the flow label to be used in practice, the
   conflict between the various approaches creates a dilemma.  There
   appear to be two major options:
   1.  Discourage locally defined and/or stateful use of the flow label.
       Strengthen RFC 3697 to say that hosts SHOULD set a pseudo-random
       label value, without creating state, which would clarify and
       limit its possible uses.  In particular, its use for load
       distribution and balancing would be encouraged.
   2.  Relax the rules to encourage locally defined and/or stateful use
       of the flow label.  This approach would make the flow label
       completely mutable and would exclude use cases depending on
       strict end-to-end immutability.  It would encourage applications
       of a pseudo-random flow label, such as load distribution, on a
       local basis, but it would exclude end-to-end applications.

   During 2010 there was considerable debate about these options and
   variants of them, with a variety of proposals in previous versions of
   this document and in mailing list discussions.  After these
   discussions, there appears to be a view that simplicity should
   prevail, and that complicated proposals such as defining quality of
   service semantics in the flow label, or sub-dividing the flow label
   field into smaller sub-fields, will not prove efficient or
   deployable, especially in high speed routers.  There is also a
   clearly expressed view that using the flow label for various forms of
   stateless load distribution is the best simple application for it.
   At the same time, it is necessary to recognize that the strict
   immutability rule has drawbacks as noted above.

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   Even under the rules of RFC 3697, the flow label is intrinsically
   untrustworthy, because modifications en route cannot be detected.
   For this reason, even with the current strict immutability rule,
   downstream nodes cannot rely on the value being unchanged.  In this
   sense, any use of the flow label must be viewed as an optimisation on
   a best effort basis; a packet with a changed (or zero) flow label
   value should never cause a hard failure.

   The remainder of this document discusses specific modifications to
   the standard, which are defined normatively in a companion document

3.  Changes to specification

   Although RFC 3697 requires the flow label to be delivered unchanged,
   as noted above, it is not included in any transport layer pseudo-
   header checksums nor in IPsec authentication [RFC4302].  Both RFC
   2460 and RFC 3697 define the default flow label to be zero.  At the
   time of writing, this is the observed value in an overwhelming
   proportion of IPv6 packets; the most widespread operating systems and
   applications do not set it, and routers do not rely on it.  Thus
   there is no reason to expect operational difficulties if a careful
   change is made to the rules of RFC 3697.

   In particular, the facts that the label is not checksummed and rarely
   used mean that the current strict immutability of the label can be
   moderated without serious operational consequences.

   The purposes of the proposed changes are to remove the uncertainties
   left by RFC 3697, in order to encourage setting of the flow label by
   default, and to enable its generic use.  The proposed generic use is
   to encourage pseudo-random flow labels that can be used to assist
   load distribution balancing.  There should be no impact on existing
   IETF specifications other than RFC 3697 and no impact on currently
   operational software and hardware.

   A secondary purpose is to modify the immutability of the flow label
   in a limited way, to allow hosts that do not set the flow label to
   benefit from it nevertheless.  The fact that the flow label may in
   practice be changed en route is also reflected in the reformulation
   of the rules.

   A general description of the changes follows.  The normative text is
   to be found in [I-D.ietf-6man-flow-3697bis].

   The definition of a flow is subtly changed from RFC 3697 to allow any
   node, not just the source node, to set the flow label value.

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   However, it is recommended that sources should set a pseudo-random
   flow label value in all flows, replacing the less precise
   recommendation made in Section 3 of RFC 3697.  Both stateful and
   stateless methods of assigning a pseudo-random value could be used.

   Section 3 of RFC 3697 also allows nodes to participate in an
   unspecified method of flow state establishment.  The changes do not
   remove that option, but it is made clear that stateless models are
   also possible and are the recommended default.  The specific text
   about requirements for stateful models has been reduced to a bare
   minimum requirement that they do not interfere with the stateless

   The main novelty is that a forwarding node (typically a first-hop or
   ingress router) may set the flow label value if the source has not
   done so, according to the same recommendations that apply to the
   source.  This might place a considerable processing load on ingress
   routers, even if they adopted a stateless method of flow
   identification and label assignment.

   The immutability of the flow label, once it has been set, is not
   changed.  However, some qualifications are placed on this property,
   to allow for the fact that the flow label is an unprotected field and
   might be changed undetectably.  No Internet-wide mechanism can depend
   mathematically on immutable flow labels.  The new rules require that
   flow labels exported to the Internet should always be either zero or
   pseudo-random, but even this cannot be relied on mathematically.  Use
   cases need to be robust against non-conforming flow label values.
   This will also enhance compatibility with any legacy hosts that set
   the flow label according to RFC 2460 or RFC 3697.

4.  Discussion

   The following are some practical consequences of the above changes:
   o  Sending hosts that are not updated will in practice continue to
      send all-zero labels.  If there is no label-setting router along
      the path taken by a packet, the label will be delivered as zero.
   o  Sending hosts conforming to the new specification will by default
      choose pseudo-random labels between 1 and 0xFFFFF.
   o  Sending hosts may continue to send all-zero labels, in which case
      an ingress router may set pseudo-random labels between 1 and
   o  The flow label is no longer unrealistically asserted to be
      strictly immutable; it is recognised that it may, incorrectly, be
      changed en route.  In some circumstances this will break end-to-
      end usage, e.g. potential detection of third-party spoofing
      attacks [I-D.gont-6man-flowlabel-security].

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   o  The expected default usage of the flow label is some form of
      stateless load distribution, such as the ECMP/LAG usage defined in
   o  If the new rules are followed, all IPv6 traffic flows on the
      Internet should have zero or pseudo-random flow label values.

   From an operational viewpoint, existing IPv6 hosts that set a default
   (zero) flow label value and ignore the flow label on receipt will be
   unaffected by implementations of the new specification.  In general,
   it is assumed that hosts will ignore the value of the flow label on
   receipt; it cannot be relied on as an end-to-end signal.  However,
   this doesn't apply if a cryptographically generated label is being
   used to detect attackers [I-D.gont-6man-flowlabel-security].

   Similarly, routers that ignore the flow label will be unaffected by
   implementations of the specification.

   Hosts that set a default (zero) flow label but are in a domain where
   routers set a pseudo-random label as recommended in Section 3 will
   benefit from whatever flow label handling is used on the path.

   Hosts and routers that adopt the recommended pseudo-random mechanism
   will enhance the performance of any load balancing devices that
   include the flow label in the hash used to select a particular path
   or server, even when packets leave the local domain.

5.  Security Considerations

   See [I-D.ietf-6man-flow-3697bis] and
   [I-D.gont-6man-flowlabel-security] for full discussion.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors are grateful to Qinwen Hu for general discussion about
   the flow label and for his work in searching the literature.
   Valuable comments and contributions were made by Fred Baker, Steve
   Blake, Remi Despres, Alan Ford, Fernando Gont, Brian Haberman, Tony
   Hain, Joel Halpern, Chris Morrow, Thomas Narten, Pekka Savola, Mark
   Smith, Pascal Thubert, Iljitsch van Beijnum, and other participants
   in the 6man working group.

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

8.  Change log

   draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-04: updated again to be in styep with RFC
   3697bis, 2011-03-13

   draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-03: updated to be in styep with RFC
   3697bis, 2011-02-26

   draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-02: repurposed as rationale for update of
   RFC 3697, 2011-01-31

   draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-01: clarified that this is not a formal
   update of RFC 3697, clarified text about domains exporting
   inappropriate labels, 2011-01-10

   draft-ietf-6man-flow-update-00: adopted as WG document at IETF 79,
   mutability rules adjusted according to WG discussion, 2010-12-03

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-04: even more simplified according
   to WG discussion, 2010-09-16

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03: futher simplified according to
   WG discussion, 2010-05-07

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02: revised and simplified according
   to WG discussion, 2010-04-13

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-01: revised according to mail list
   discussion, 2010-03-05

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00: original version, 2010-02-18

9.  Informative References

              Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 flow label
              for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in
              tunnels", draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-03 (work in progress),
              October 2010.

              Gont, F., "Security Assessment of the IPv6 Flow Label",
              draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-01 (work in progress),
              November 2010.

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011               [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

              Hu, Q. and B. Carpenter, "Survey of proposed use cases for
              the IPv6 flow label", draft-hu-flow-label-cases-03 (work
              in progress), February 2011.

              Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification",
              draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-01 (work in progress),
              February 2011.

              Beckman, M., "IPv6 Dynamic Flow Label Switching (FLS)",
              (work in progress), March 2007.

              McGann, O. and D. Malone, "Flow Label Filtering
              Feasibility", European Conference on Computer Network
              Defence , 2005.

   [RFC2205]  Braden, B., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
              Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
              Functional Specification", RFC 2205, September 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [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,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC3697]  Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B., and S. Deering,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 3697, March 2004.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              December 2005.

Appendix A.  Alternative Approaches

   A model was discussed in an earlier version of this document which
   defined a notion of 'flow label domain' analogous to a differentiated
   services domain [RFC2474].  This model would have encouraged local

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   usage of the flow label as an alternative to any form of generic use,
   but it required complex rules for the behaviour of domain boundary
   routers, and proved controversial in discussion.

   Two even more complex alternative approaches were also considered and

   The first was to distinguish locally significant flow labels from
   those conforming to RFC 3697 by setting or clearing the most
   significant bit (MSB) of the flow label.  This led to quite
   complicated rules, seems impossible to make fully self-consistent,
   and was not considered practical.

   The second was to use a specific differentiated services code point
   (DSCP)[RFC2474] in the Traffic Class octet instead of the MSB of the
   flow label itself, to flag a locally defined behaviour.  A more
   elaborate version of this was proposed in
   [I-D.martinbeckman-ietf-ipv6-fls-ipv6flowswitching].  There are two
   issues with this approach.  One is that DSCP values are themselves
   only locally significant, inconsistent with the end-to-end nature of
   the original flow label definition.  Secondly, it seems unwise to
   meld the semantics of differentiated services, which are currently
   deployed, with the unknown future semantics of flow label usage.
   However, this approach, while not recommended, does not appear to
   violate any basic principles if applied strictly within a single
   differentiated services domain.

Authors' Addresses

   Shane Amante
   Level 3 Communications, LLC
   1025 Eldorado Blvd
   Broomfield, CO  80021

   Email: shane@level3.net

   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland,   1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                 March 2011

   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Huawei Building, No.3 Xinxi Rd.,
   Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing
   P.R. China

   Email: shengjiang@huawei.com

Amante, et al.         Expires September 14, 2011              [Page 12]