DNA Working Group J. Kempf
Internet-Draft DoCoMo Communications Labs USA
Expires: August 30, 2006 S. Narayanan
Panasonic
E. Nordmark
Sun Microsystems
B. Pentland, Ed.
Monash University CTIE
JH. Choi
Samsung AIT
February 26, 2006
Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks (DNAv6)
draft-ietf-dna-protocol-00.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 30, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Efficient detection of network attachment in IPv6 needs the following
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
two components: a method for the host to query routers on the link to
identify the link (Link Identification) and a method for the routers
on the link to consistently respond to such a query with minimal
delay (Fast RA). Solving the link identification based strictly on
RFC 2461 is difficult because of the flexibility offered to routers
in terms of prefixes advertised in a router advertisement (RA)
message. Similarly, the random delay in responding to router
solicitation messages imposed by RFC 2461 makes to it difficult to
receive an RA quickly. In this memo, an integrated solution is
presented. Monitoring of prefixes by both hosts and routers is used
to achieve link identification while router advertisements are sent
rapidly in a deterministic order by combining router solicitation
source addresses with hash-based router tokens.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Link Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Fast Router Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 Router Advertisement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 Prefix Information Option LinkID Bit . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3 Landmark Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4 Learned Prefix Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. DNA Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1 DNA Router Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1.1 Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.1.2 Router Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1.3 Bootstrapping DNA Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.4 Processing Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.5 Processing Router Solicitations . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.1.6 Complete Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.7 LinkID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.1.8 Scheduling Fast Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . 19
5.1.9 Scheduling Unsolicited Router Advertisements . . . . . 20
5.1.10 Removing a Prefix from an Interface . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.11 Prefix Reassignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2 DNA Host Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.1 Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.2 Host Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.3 Selection of a Landmark Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.4 Sending Router Solicitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.5 Processing Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.6 DNA and Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6. Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1 Non-DNA Host with DNA Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2 DNA Host with Non-DNA Routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.1 Attacks on the Token Bucket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7.2 Attacks on DNA Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
10.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A. How the Goals are Met? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . 34
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
1. Introduction
The proposed scheme in this memo is built upon the following
solutions catalogued in [16]: Complete RA is used for the link
identification, and Hash-based Fast RA is used to achieve fast
response to RS messages. Aspects of prefix-based LinkID and
Requested Landmark are included to allow for a decrease in the packet
sizes associated with Complete RA.
The rest of the document refers to this approach by the term "DNAv6".
2. Terms and Abbreviations
There is an existing DNA terminology draft [13]. This draft does not
introduce any new terminology not already used by existing drafts.
The term "link" is used as defined in RFC 2460 [2]. NOTE: this is
completely different from the term "link" as used by IEEE 802, etc.
3. Overview
The DNA protocol presented in this document tries to achieve the
following objectives:
o Eliminate the delays introduced by RFC 2461 in discovering the
configuration.
o Make it possible for the hosts to accurately detect the identity
of their current link from a single RA.
DNAv6 assumes that the host's wireless link interface software and
hardware is capable of delivering a 'link up' event notification when
layer 2 on the host is configured and sufficiently stable for IP
traffic. This event notification acts as a hint to the layer 3 DNA
procedures to check whether or not the host is attached to the same
link as before. DNAv6 also assumes that an interface on the host is
never connected to two links at the same time. In the case that the
layer 2 technology is capable of having multiple attachments (for
instance, multiple layer 2 associations or connections) at the same
time, DNAv6 requires the individual layer-2 associations to be
represented as separate (virtual interfaces) to layer 3 and DNAv6 in
particular.
3.1 Link Identification
DNAv6 identifies a link by the set of prefixes that are assigned to
the link, which is quite natural and doesn't require introducing any
new form of identifier. However, this choice implies that the
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
protocol needs to be robust against changes in the set of prefixes
assigned to a link, including the case when a link is renumbered and
the prefix is later reassigned to a different link. The protocol
handles this during graceful renumbering (when the valid lifetime of
the prefix is allowed to decrease to zero before it is removed and
perhaps reassigned to a different link), it describes how to remove
and reassign prefixes earlier than this without any incorrect
behaviour, and will also recover in case where a prefix is reassigned
without following the draft recommendations.
DNAv6 is based on using a Router Solicitation/Router Advertisement
exchange to both verify whether the host has changed link, and if it
has, provide the host with the configuration information for the new
link. The base method for detecting link change involves getting
routers to listen to all of the prefixes that are being advertised by
other routers on the link. They can then respond to solicitations
with complete prefix information. This information consists of the
prefixes a router would advertise itself as per RFC 2461, and also,
the prefixes learned from other routers on the link that are not
being advertised by itself. These learned prefixes are included in a
new Learned Prefix Option in the Router Advertisement.
A host receiving one of these "Complete RAs" - so marked by a flag -
then knows all of the prefixes in use on a link, and by inference all
those that are not. By comparing this with previously received
prefixes the host can correctly decide whether it is connected to the
same link as previously, or whether this Router Advertisement is from
a new link. Unlike CPL [15], the host does not have to wait for
multiple advertisements before making a decision.
Though frequently all routers on a link will advertise the same set
of prefixes and thus experience no cost in making the RAs complete,
there is potential for the RAs to be large when there are many
prefixes advertised. Two mechanisms are defined that allow certain
RAs to be reduced in size.
One uses a technique called a "landmark", where the host chooses one
of the prefixes as a landmark prefix, and then includes this in the
Router Solicitation message in the form of a question "am I still
connected to the link which has this prefix?". The landmark is
carried in a new option, called the Landmark Option.
In the case when the host is still attached to the same link, which
might occur when the host has changed from using one layer 2 access
point to another, but the access points are on the same link, the
Router Advertisement(s) it receives will contain a "yes, that prefix
is on this link" answer, and no other information. Thus, such RA
messages are quite small.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
In the case when the landmark prefix is unknown to the responding
router, the host will receive a "No" answer to its landmark question,
and also the information it needs to configure itself for the new
link. The routers try to include as much information as possible in
such messages, so that the host can be informed of all the prefixes
assigned to the new link as soon as possible.
A second mechanism for reducing packet sizes applies to unsolicited
Router Advertisements. By selecting one prefix on the link to be the
"link identifier", and making sure that it is included in every
advertisement, it is possible to omit some prefixes. Such
advertisements will not inform a host of all of the prefixes at once,
but in general these unsolicited advertisements will not be the first
advertisement received on a link. Inclusion of the link identifier
prefix simply ensures that there is overlap between the sets of
prefixes advertised by each router on a link and that hosts will thus
not incorrectly interpret one of these incomplete RAs as an
indication of movement.
The Router Advertisement messages are, in general, larger than the
solicitations, and with multiple routers on the link there will be
multiple advertisements sent for each solicitation. This
amplification can be used by an attacker to cause a Denial of Service
attack. Such attacks are limited by applying a rate limit on the
unicast Router Advertisements sent directly in response to each
solicitation, and using multicast RAs when the rate limit is
exceeded.
In order for the routers be able to both respond to the landmark
questions and send the complete RAs, the routers need to track the
prefixes that other routers advertise on the link. This process is
initialized when a router is enabled, by sending a Router
Solicitation and collecting the resulting RAs, and then multicasting
a few RAs more rapidly as already suggested in RFC 2461. This
process ensures with high probability that all the routers have the
same notion of the set of prefixes assigned to the link.
3.2 Fast Router Advertisement
According to RFC 2461 a solicited Router Advertisement should have a
random delay between 0 and 500 milliseconds, to avoid the
advertisements from all the routers colliding on the link causing
congestion and higher probability of packet loss. In addition, RFC
2461 suggests that the RAs be multicast, and multicast RAs are rate
limited to one message every 3 seconds. This implies that the
response to a RS might be delayed up to 3.5 seconds.
DNAv6 avoids this delay by using a different mechanism to ensure that
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
two routers will not respond at exactly the same time while allowing
one of the routers on the link to respond immediately. Since the
hosts might be likely to use the first responding router as the first
choice from their default router list, the mechanism also ensures
that the same router doesn't respond first to the RSs from different
hosts.
The mechanism is based on the routers on the link determining (from
the same RAs that are used in section Section 3.1 to determine all
the prefixes assigned to the link), the link-local addresses of all
the other routers on the link. With this loosely consistent list,
each router can independently compute some function of the (link-
local) source address of the RS and each of the routers' link-local
addresses. The results of that function are then compared to create
a ranking, and the ranking determines the delay each router will use
when responding to the RS. The router which is ranked as #0 will
respond with a zero delay.
If the routers become out-of-sync with respect to their learned
router lists, two or more routers may respond with the same delay,
but over time the routers will converge on their lists of learned
routers on the link.
4. Message Formats
This memo defines two new flags for inclusion in the router
advertisement message and two new options.
4.1 Router Advertisement
DNAv6 modifies the format of the Router Advertisement message by
defining a bit to indicate that the router sending the message is
participating in the DNAv6 protocol as well as a flag to indicate the
completeness of the set of prefixes included in the Router
Advertisement. The new message format is as follows:
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cur Hop Limit |M|O|H|Pr |F|C|R| Router Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reachable Time |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Retrans Timer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+ Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
FastRA (F)
The FastRA (F) bit indicates that the router sending the RA is
participating in the DNAv6 protocol. Other routers should include
this router in calculating response delay tokens.
Complete (C)
The Complete (C) bit indicates that the Router Advertisement
contains PIOs for all prefixes explicitly configured on the
sending router, and, if other routers on the link are advertising
additional prefixes, a Learned Prefix Option containing all
additional prefixes that the router has heard from other routers
on the link.
Reserved (R)
The reserved field is reduced from 3 bits to 1 bit.
4.2 Prefix Information Option LinkID Bit
DNAv6 modifies the format of the Prefix Information Option by
defining a bit to indicate that the enclosed prefix is currently
being used as the Link Identifier. The new message format is as
follows:
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Prefix Length |L|A|I|Reserved1|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Valid Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preferred Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Prefix +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
LinkID (I)
The LinkID (I) bit indicates that the prefix in the Prefix field
of this option is currently being used as the Link Identfier
(LinkID).
Reserved1
The Reserved1 field is reduced from 6 bits to 5 bits.
4.3 Landmark Option
The Landmark Option is used by hosts in a Router Solicitation message
to ask the routers on a link if the specified prefix is being
advertised by some router on the link. It is used by routers in a
Router Advertisement to reply to a corresponding question in a Router
Solicitation, indicating whether the prefix referred to is being
advertised by any router on the link.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Pref Length |Y|N| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ Landmark Prefix ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type
TBA
Length
8 bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
units of 8 octets. Set to 2 or 3.
Pref Length
An 8 bit unsigned integer representing the number of bits in the
prefix to be used for matching.
Yes (Y)
The Yes (Y) bit, when included in a Landmark Option in a Router
Advertisement, indicates that the prefix referred to in the Prefix
field of this option is being advertised by one or more routers on
the current link. In a Landmark Option in a Router Solicitation,
this bit MUST be set to zero and ignored by receivers.
No (N)
The No (N) bit, when included in a Landmark Option in a Router
Advertisement, indicates that the prefix referred to in the Prefix
field of this option is not being advertised by any router on the
current link. In a Landmark Option in a Router Solicitation, this
bit MUST be set to zero and ignored by receivers.
Reserved
A 38 bit unused field. It MUST be initialised to zero by the
sender, and ignored by the receiver.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
Prefix
A prefix being used by the host currently for a global IPv6
address, padded at the right with zeros. If the prefix length is
less than 65 bits, only 64 bits need be included, otherwise 128
bits are included.
4.4 Learned Prefix Option
The Learned Prefix Option (LPO) is used by a router to indicate
prefixes that are being advertised in PIOs by other routers on the
link, but not by itself.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length |I| Reserved | Prefix Len 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... | Prefix Len N | Padding |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Prefix 1 +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Prefix 2 +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Prefix N +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
Type
TBA
Length
8 bit unsigned integer indicating the length of the option in
units of 8 octets.
I
LinkID (I) flag. When set indicates that the first prefix in this
option is the LinkID for this link.
Prefix Len
One or more fields (N) each consisting of an 8-bit unsigned
integer representing the prefix lengths of the following prefixes.
The Prefix Len fields are ordered the same as the Prefix fields so
that the first Prefix Len field represents the prefix length of
the prefix contained in the first prefix field, and so on.
Padding
Zero padding sufficient to align the following prefix field on an
8-octet boundary.
Prefix
One or more fields (N) each containing a 128-bit address
representing a prefix that has been heard on the link but is not
explicitly configured on this router.
Description
This option MUST only be included in a Router Advertisement. This
option contains prefixes that are being advertised on the link but
are not explicitly configured on the sending router. The router
MUST NOT include any prefixes with a zero valid lifetime in the
LPO.
5. DNA Operation
5.1 DNA Router Operation
Routers MUST collect information about the other routers that are
advertising on the link.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
5.1.1 Data Structures
The routers maintain a set of conceptual data structures for each
interface to track the prefixes advertised by other routers on the
link, and also the set of DNA routers (the routers that will quickly
respond to RSs) on the link.
For each interface, routers maintain a list of all prefixes learned
from other routers on the link but not explicitly configured on the
router's own interface. The list will be referred to in this
document as "DNARouterPrefixList". Prefixes are learned by their
reception within Prefix Information Options [3] in Router
Advertisements. Prefixes in Learned Prefix Options (see Section 4.4)
MUST NOT update the contents of DNARouterPrefixList. For each prefix
the router MUST store sufficient information to identify the prefix
and to know when to remove the prefix entry from the list. This may
be achieved by storing the following information:
1. Prefix
2. Prefix length
3. Prefix valid lifetime
4. Expiry time
The expiry time for entries in DNARouterPrefixList is 1.5 hours
(three times the maximum value of the Router Advertisement interval)
after the last received Router Advertisement affecting the entry, or
the scheduled expiry of the prefix valid lifetime, whichever is
earlier.
For each interface, routers also maintain a list of the other routers
advertising on the link. The list will be referred to in this memo
as "DNARouterList". For each router from which a Router
Advertisement is received with the FastRA flag set, the following
information MUST be stored:
1. Link-local source address of advertising router
2. Token equal to the first 64 bits of an SHA-1 hash of the above
address
3. Expiry time
Each router MUST include itself in the DNARouterList and generate a
token for itself as described above based on the link-local address
used in its RA messages.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
The expiry time for entries in DNARouterList is 1.5 hours after the
last received Router Advertisement affecting the entry.
5.1.2 Router Configuration Variables
A DNAv6 router MUST allow for the following conceptual variables to
be configured by the system management. Default values are set to
ease configuration load.
UnicastRAInterval
The interval corresponding to the maximum average rate of Router
Solicitations that the router is prepared to service with unicast
responses. This is the interval at which the token bucket
controlling the unicast responses is replenished.
Default: 50 milliseconds
MaxUnicastRABurst
The maximum size burst of Router Solicitations that the router is
prepared to service with unicast responses. This is the maximum
number of tokens allowed in the token bucket controlling the
unicast responses.
Default: 20
RASeparation
The separation between responses from different routers on the
same link to a single Router Solicitation.
Default: 20 milliseconds
MulticastRADelay
The delay to be introduced when scheduling a multicast RA in
response to a RS message when the token bucket is empty.
Default: 3000 milliseconds
FastRAThreshold
The maximum number of fast responses that a host should receive
when soliciting for Router Advertisements.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
Default: 3
5.1.3 Bootstrapping DNA Data Structures
When an interface on a router first starts up, it SHOULD transmit up
to MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS Router Solicitations separated by
RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL [3] in order to quickly learn of the other
routers and prefixes active on the link.
Upon startup, a router interface SHOULD also send a few unsolicited
Router Advertisements as recommended in Section 6.2.4 of RFC 2461
[3], in order to inform others routers on the link of its presence.
During the bootstrap period ( (MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS - 1) *
RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL + RetransTimer [3]), a router interface
both sends unsolicited Router Advertisements and responds to Router
Solicitations, but with a few restrictions on the message content.
Router Advertisements MUST NOT include any DNA specific options
except that the FastRA flag MUST be set. The FastRA flag is set so
that other routers will know to include this router in their timing
calculations for fast RA transmission. Other DNA options are omitted
because the router may have incomplete information during bootstrap.
During the bootstrap period, the Complete flag in Router
Advertisements MUST NOT be set.
During the bootstrap period, the timing of Router Advertisement
transmission is as specified in RFC 2461.
5.1.4 Processing Router Advertisements
When a router receives a Router Advertisement, it first validates the
RA as per the rules in RFC 2461, and then performs the actions
specified in RFC 2461. In addition, each valid Router Advertisement
is processed as follows:
If the FastRA flag is set in the RA, the router checks if there is an
entry in its DNARouterList. Thus it looks up the source address of
the RA in that list and, if not found, a new entry is added to
DNARouterList, including the source address and a token equal to the
first 64 bits of an SHA-1 hash of the source address. The entry's
expiry time is updated.
Regardless of the state of the FastRA flag, each PIO in the RA is
examined. If the prefix is not in the router's DNARouterPrefixList
and not in the router's AdvPrefixList [3], it is added to the
DNARouterPrefixList, and its expiry time is set.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
5.1.5 Processing Router Solicitations
All Router Advertisements sent by a DNA router MUST have the "F" flag
set so that hosts processing them know that they can count on the
content being interpretable according to this specification.
The usual response to an RS SHOULD be a unicast RA. However, to keep
control of the rate of unicast RAs sent, a token bucket is used. The
token bucket is filled at one token every UnicastRAInterval. A
maximum of MaxUnicastRABurst tokens are stored.
In order to respond to a Router Solicitation, the router SHOULD
generate a Complete RA as specified in Section 5.1.6. The Router
Advertisement MUST include the LinkID, as described in Section 5.1.7.
If a unicast send token is available AND the source address of the
Router Solicitation is NOT the unspecified address (::), then a token
is removed and the Router Advertisement is scheduled for transmission
as specified in Section 5.1.8.
If no unicast send token is available OR the source address of the
Router Solicitation is the unspecified address, then if there is no
multicast RA scheduled for transmission in the next MulticastRADelay
the RA MUST be sent to the link-scoped all-nodes multicast address at
the current time plus MulticastRADelay.
If no unicast send token is available OR the source address of the
Router Solicitation is the unspecified address but there is a
multicast RA scheduled for transmission in the next MulticastRADelay,
then the Router Solicitation MUST be dropped.
5.1.5.1 Space Optimized Advertisements
If the Router Solicitation contains a Landmark Option whose prefix is
included in DNARouterPrefixList or AdvPrefixList AND the
corresponding Router Advertisement will be unicast, the router MAY
send an abbreviated Router Advertisement.
The abbreviated advertisement includes only the Landmark Option, with
the "Y" flag set, plus the base RA header and any SEND options as
appropriate. The Complete flag MUST NOT be set. This is the one
exception where the LinkID MAY be omitted as the Y flag implies that
link change has not occured.
Some prefixes may also be omitted from unsolicited Router
Advertisements, as described in Section 5.1.9.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
5.1.6 Complete Router Advertisements
A CompleteRA is formed as follows:
Starting with a Router Advertisement with all fixed options (MTU,
Advertisement Interval, flags, etc.), the FastRA flag is set. As
many Prefix Information Options for explicitly configured prefixes as
will fit are added to the Router Advertisement. If there is
sufficient room, a Learned Prefix Option as defined in Section 4.4
containing as many of the learned prefixes as will fit is added.
It may not be possible to include all of the prefixes in use on the
link due to MTU or administrative limitations. If all Prefix
Information Options and a Learned Prefix Option containing all of the
learned prefixes were included in the RA, then the Complete flag in
the Router Advertisement header is set.
If it is not possible to generate a Complete RA but the Router
Solicitation that this Router Advertisement is in response to, if
any, includes a Landmark Option containing a prefix that is not in
the router's DNARouterPrefixList and not in the router's
AdvPrefixList then the router SHOULD include a Landmark Option with
the "N" flag set. If there are known to be prefixes that are not
included in the Router Advertisement, then the Complete flag MUST NOT
be set.
Note that although it may not be possible to fit all of the prefixes
into an RA, the LinkID MUST be included.
5.1.7 LinkID
One of the prefixes in use on a link is chosen to be the LinkID.
The LinkID is the numerically smallest prefix stored in either of
DNARouterPrefixList or AdvPrefixList whose lifetime is greater than
1.5 hours. For comparing prefixes, they are padded to the right with
zeros to make them 128 bit unsigned integers.
The prefix may be included in the RA in either a PIO or LPO as
appropriate. If the prefix is included in a PIO, then the "I" flag
in that PIO MUST be set. If the prefix is included in an LPO, then
the prefix MUST be placed in the first prefix field in the LPO, and
the LPO "I" flag MUST be set.
5.1.7.1 Changing the LinkID
When either a new prefix is added to a link that is numerically
smaller than all those previously advertised or the lifetime of the
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
prefix that is currently being used as the LinkID falls below 1.5
hours, a new LinkID is determined. In order to ensure that there is
overlap between consecutive RAs on the link, the old LinkID must
continue to be advertised for some time alongside the new LinkID.
For the purposes of propagating information, it is assumed that after
three advertisements of a change, all routers have been made aware of
the change.
If the instant that a router sends its first unsolicited
advertisement is time T, then by T + 1 hour at least three such
advertisements will have been made and all routers can be assumed to
have received it. Thus by time T + 1.5 hours, all routers on the
link should have also sent at least one advertisement with the new
LinkID.
1.5 hours after first sending an advertisement with a new LinkID it
is safe to consider the old LinkID gone and omit the corresponding
prefix from RAs if desired.
Following a change of LinkID, the old LinkID MUST be included in RAs
for the following 1.5 hours.
5.1.7.1.1 Non-Prefix LinkIDs
Although this memo only discusses LinkIDs that are prefixes, a future
specification or ammendment may describe a mechanism to select a
LinkID that is not a prefix.
Information from the Learned Prefix Option is only stored in
DNAHostPrefixList, and is only used for DNA purposes. Because a
length field is used, it is possible to carry any variable length
identifier less than or equal to 128 bits in an LPO and store it in
DNAHostPrefixList (Section 5.2.1).
Following a change of LinkID, the old LinkID MUST be included in RAs
in an LPO for the following 1.5 hours.
Future specifications MUST NOT treat the information in an LPO as
prefixes such as they would the prefixes found in a Prefix
Information Option. Future specifications MUST NOT assume that the
entries in a host's DNAHostPrefixList are actaul prefixes in use on
the link.
5.1.8 Scheduling Fast Router Advertisements
RAs may need to be delayed to avoid collisions in the case that there
is more than one router on a link. The delay is calculated by
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
determining a ranking for the router for the received RS, and
multiplying that by RASeparation.
A Host Token is needed from the RS to calculate the router's ranking.
The first 64 bits of an SHA-1 hash of the source address of the RS
MUST be used as the RS host token.
A router's ranking is determined by taking the XOR of the RS Host
Token and each of the stored Router Tokens. The results of these XOR
operations are sorted lowest to highest. The router corresponding to
the first entry in the sorted list is ranked zero, the second, one,
and so on.
Note: it is not necessary for a router to actually sort the whole
list. Each router just needs to determine its own position in the
sorted list.
If Rank < FastRAThreshold, then the RA MUST be scheduled for
transmission in Rank * RASeparation milliseconds. When the router is
ranked as zero, the resulting delay is zero, thus the RA SHOULD be
sent immediately.
If Rank >= FastRAThreshold, then the RA MUST be replaced with a
Complete RA, if it is not one already, and scheduled for multicast
transmission as in RFC 2461.
5.1.9 Scheduling Unsolicited Router Advertisements
Unsolicited router advertisements MUST be scheduled as per RFC 2461.
The "F" flag in the RA header MUST be set.
They MAY be Complete RAs or MAY include only a subset of the
configured prefixes, but MUST include the LinkID.
This ensures that there will be overlap in the sets of prefixes
contained in consecutive RAs on a link from DNA routers, and thus an
absence of that overlap can be used to infer link change.
5.1.10 Removing a Prefix from an Interface
When a prefix is to stop being advertised in a PIO in RAs by an
interface before the expiry of the prefix's valid lifetime, then the
router should treat it as though it has just learned a prefix that is
not explicitly configured on it. After sending the last RA
containing the prefix in a PIO, the router MUST add the prefix to the
DNARouterPrefixList and set it to expire in 1.5 hours or at the
expiry of the last advertised valid lifetime, whichever is earlier.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
This ensures that to hosts there will be overlap in the prefixes in
the RAs they see and prevent them from incorrectly interpreting
changed prefixes as movement.
5.1.10.1 Early Removal of the LinkID Prefix
If the LinkID prefix is to be withdrawn early from a link, that is
before the expiry of its previously advertised valid lifetime, it
MUST be advertised for at least 1.5 hours with a valid lifetime of
less than 1.5 hours. This ensures that all of the other routers are
notified to begin the process of changing the LinkID as well, and
hosts will always see overlap between the prefixes in consecutive RAs
and thus not mistake an RA for an indication of link change.
5.1.11 Prefix Reassignment
A prefix whose lifetime has expired after counting down in real time
for at least 1.5 hours may be reassigned to another link immediately
after expiry. If a prefix is withdrawn from a link without counting
down to the expiry of its valid lifetime, it SHOULD NOT be reassigned
to another link for at least 1.5 hours or until the original expiry
time, whichever is earlier. This gives sufficient time for other
routers that have learned the prefix to expire it, and for hosts that
have seen advertisements from those routers to expire the prefix as
well.
Earlier reassignment may result in hosts that move from between the
old and new links failing to detect the movement.
5.2 DNA Host Operation
Hosts collect information about the prefixes available on the link to
which they are connected to facilitate change detection.
5.2.1 Data Structures
Hosts MUST maintain a list of prefixes advertised on the link. This
is separate from the RFC 2461 "Prefix List" and will be referred to
here as the "DNAHostPrefixList". All prefixes SHOULD be stored,
however an upper bound MUST be placed on the number stored to prevent
overflow. For each prefix stored the host MUST store the following
information:
1. Prefix
2. Prefix length
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
3. Expiry time
If a host is not able to store this information for every prefix,
there is a risk that the host will incorrectly decide that it has
moved to a new link, when it receives advertisements from a non-DNA
router.
Prefix entries in the DNAHostPrefixList expire and MUST be removed
1.5 hours after they are last seen in a received Router Advertisement
(in either a PIO or LPO) or at the expiry of the valid lifetime of
the prefix, whichever is earlier.
Hosts MUST also maintain a list of all LinkIDs seen on the current
Link. This list will be referred to as "DNAHostLinkIDList". This
list is identical in structure to DNAHostPrefixList but contains
LinkIDs instead of prefixes.
At this time LinkIDs are also prefixes but in future may be able to
be identifiers other than prefixes. A list is stored rather than a
single entry to allow for changes in the LinkID used on a link.
Entries are expired from DNAHostLinkIDList in the same way as
DNAHostPrefixList.
Hosts SHOULD also maintain a "Landmark Prefix" as described in
Section 5.2.3.
5.2.2 Host Configuration Variables
Hosts MUST make use of the following conceptual variables and they
SHOULD be configurable:
DNASameLinkDADFlag
Boolean value indicating whether or not a host should re-run DAD
when DNA indicates that link change has not occurred.
Default: False
5.2.3 Selection of a Landmark Prefix
For each interface, hosts SHOULD choose a prefix to use as a Landmark
Prefix in Router Solicitations. The following rules are used in
selecting the landmark prefix:
The prefix MUST have a non-zero valid lifetime. If the valid
lifetime of a previously selected Landmark Prefix expires, a new
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
Landmark Prefix MUST be selected.
The prefix MUST be one of those that the hosts has used to assign
a non-link-local address to itself
The prefix SHOULD be chosen as the one with the longest preferred
lifetime, but it is not necessary to switch to different prefix if
the preferred lifetime of the current landmark prefix changes.
5.2.4 Sending Router Solicitations
Upon the occurrence of a Layer 2 link-up event notification, hosts
SHOULD send a Router Solicitation. Hosts SHOULD apply rate limiting
and/or hysteresis to this behaviour as appropriate to the link
technology subject to the reliability of the hints.
Hosts SHOULD include a Landmark Option (LO) in the RS message with
the landmark prefix chosen based on the rules in Section 5.2.3.
Hosts SHOULD include a tentative source link layer address option
(TSLLAO) in the RS message [7]. The router solicitation message is
sent to the All_Routers_Multicast address and the source address MUST
be the link local address of the host.
The host MUST consider its link local address to be in the
"Optimistic" state for duplicate address detection [6] until either
the returned RA confirms that the host has not switched to a new link
or, if an link change has occurred, the host has performed optimistic
duplicate address detection for the address.
5.2.5 Processing Router Advertisements
When the host receives a Router Advertisement, the host checks for
the conditions and derives the associated conclusions given below:
If the RA contains a Landmark Option with the "Y" flag set that
matches the Landmark Option in the last transmitted Router
Solicitation, then that indicates that no link change has occurred
and current configuration can be assumed to still be current.
If the RA includes any prefixes in either a PIO or LPO that
matches a prefix in DNAHostPrefixList then the host can conclude
that no link change has occurred and current configuration can be
assumed to still be current.
If the RA includes a LinkID that matches an entry in
DNAHostLinkIDList, then the host can conclude that no link change
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
has occurred and the current configuration can be assumed to still
be current.
If the RA is a Complete RA, as indicated by the "Complete" flag in
the RA header, and there are no prefixes included in it in either
a PIO or LPO that are also in the hosts DNAHostPrefixList, then
the host can conclude that it has changed link and SHOULD initiate
re-configuration using the information in the received Router
Advertisement.
If the RA is not a CompleteRA, but includes a LinkID that is not
in DNAHostLinkIDList and no prefixes that match entries in
DNAHostPrefixList, then the host can conclude that it has changed
link and SHOULD initiate re-configuration using the information in
the received Router Advertisement.
If the received RA is not complete, contains no prefixes that are
stored in DNAHostPrefixList, does not contain a Landmark Option
that matches a corresponding option in the most recent RS and
contains no LinkID, then the host SHOULD use CPL logic to decide
whether or not to reconfigure as described in [15].
If the destination address of the received RA is a unicast address,
the host knows the router heard its RS, and hence it SHOULD mark that
router's Neighbor Cache Entry [3] as REACHABLE.
5.2.5.1 Maintaining the DNAHostPrefixList
If a Router Advertisement does not indicate a link change, the host
updates its DNAHostPrefixList, adding any new prefixes if necessary.
If the Router Advertisement has the C flag set, then the host SHOULD
make the DNAHostPrefixList match the contents of the advertisement.
Any new prefixes are added and any prefixes in the list that are
absent in the advertisement are removed. Expiry times on prefixes
are updated if the prefix was contained in a PIO, but not if it was
contained in an LPO.
If the Router Advertisement does not have the C flag set, then the
host SHOULD add any new prefixes and update expiry times as above,
but SHOULD NOT remove any entries from DNAHostPrefixList.
When initiating reconfiguration due to link change, the host MUST
remove all prefixes in the DNAHostPrefixList and repopulate it with
the prefixes in the Prefix Information Options and Learned Prefix
Option, if any, in the RA.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
5.2.6 DNA and Address Configuration
When a host moves to a new point of attachment, a potential exists
for a change in the validity of its unicast and multicast addresses
on that network interface. In this section, host processing for
address configuration is specified. The section considers both
statelessly and statefully configured addresses.
5.2.6.1 Duplicate Address Detection
A DNA host MUST support optimistic Duplicate Address Detection [6]
for autoconfiguring unicast link local addresses. If a DNA host uses
address autoconfiguration [8] for global unicast addresses, the DNA
host MUST support optimistic Duplicate Address Detection for
autoconfiguring global unicast addresses.
5.2.6.2 DNA and the Address Autoconfiguration State Machine
When a link level event occurs on a network interface indicating that
the host has moved from one point of attachment to another, it is
possible that a change in the reachability of the addresses
associated with that interface may occur. Upon detection of such a
link event and prior to sending the RS initiating a DNA exchange, a
DNA host MUST change the state of addresses associated with the
interface in the following way (address state designations follow RFC
2461):
o Addresses in the "Preferred" state are moved to the "Optimistic"
state, but the host defers sending out an NS to initiate Duplicate
Address Detection.
o Addresses in the "Optimistic" state remain in the "Optimistic"
state, but the host defers sending out an NS to initiate Duplicate
Address Detection.
o Addresses in the "Deprecated" state remain in the "Deprecated"
state.
o No addresses should be in the "Tentative" state, since this state
is unnecessary for nodes that support optimistic Duplicate Address
Detection.
A host MUST keep track of which "Preferred" addresses are moved to
the "Optimistic" state, so it is possible to know which addresses
were in the "Preferred" state and which were in the "Optimistic"
state prior to the change in point of attachment.
In order to perform the DNA transaction, the DNA host SHOULD select
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
one of the unicast link local addresses that was in the "Preferred"
state prior to switching to "Optimistic" and utilize that as the
source address on the DNA RS. If the host had no "Preferred" unicast
link local address but did have an address in the "Optimistic" state,
it MUST utilize such an address as the source address. If the host
currently has no unicast link local addresses, it MUST construct one
and put it into the "Optimistic" state and note this address as
having been in the "Optimistic" state previously, but defer sending
the NS to confirm. Note that the presence of a duplicate unicast
link local address on the link will not interfere with the ability of
the link to route a unicast DNA RA from the router back to the host
nor will it result in corruption of the router's neighbor cache,
because the TSLLA option is included in the RS and is utilized by the
router on the RA frame without changing the neighbor cache.
When the host receives unicast or multicast RAs from the router, if
the host determines from the received RAs that it has moved to a new
link, the host MUST immediately move all unicast global addresses to
the "Deprecated" state and configure new addresses using the subnet
prefixes obtained from the RA. For all unicast link local addresses,
the host MUST initiate NS signaling for optimistic Duplicate Address
Detection to confirm the uniqueness of the unicast link local
addresses on the new link.
If the host determines from the received RAs that it has not moved to
a new link (i.e. the link has not changed) and the previous state of
an address was "Optimistic", then the host MUST send an NS to confirm
that the address is unique on the link. This is required because
optimistic Duplicate Address Detection may not have completed on the
previous point of attachment, so the host may not have confirmed
address uniqueness. If the previous state of an address was
"Preferred", whether or not the host initiates optimistic Duplicate
Address Detection depends on the configurable DNASameLinkDADFlag
flag. A host MUST forgo sending an NS to confirm uniqueness if the
value of the DNASameLinkDAD flag is False. If, however, the
DNASameLinkDAD flag is True, the host MUST perform optimistic
duplicate address detection on its unicast link local and unicast
global addresses to determine address uniqueness.
5.2.6.3 DNA and Statefully Configured Addresses
The DHCPv6 specification [9] requires hosts to send a DHCPv6 CONFIRM
message when a change in point of attachment is detected. Since the
DNA protocol provides the same level of movement detection as the
DHCPv6 CONFIRM, it is RECOMMENDED that DNA hosts not utilize the
DHCPv6 CONFIRM message when a DNA RA is received, to avoid excessive
signaling. If, however, a non-DNA RA is received, the host SHOULD
use the DHCPv6 CONFIRM message as described in RFC 3315 [9] rather
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
than wait for additional RAs to perform CPL, since this will reduce
the amount of time required for the host to confirm whether or not it
has moved to a new link. If the CONFIRM message validates the
addresses, the host can continue to use them.
When a DNA RA is received and the received RA indicates that the host
has not moved to a new link, the host SHOULD apply the same rules to
interpreting the 'M' flag in the received RA and any subsequently
received RAs as in Section 5.5.3 of RFC 2461 [3]. That is, if an RA
is received with the 'M' flag set, then the 'M' flag value is copied
into the ManagedFlag, and if the ManagedFlag changes from False to
True the host should run DHCPv6, but if the ManagedFlag changes from
True to False, the host should continue to run DHCPv6. If, however,
the value of the ManagedFlag remains the same both before and after
the change in point of attachment on the same link has been
confirmed, it is NOT RECOMMENDED that the host run DHCPv6 to obtain
new addresses, since the old addresses will continue to be valid.
If the DNA RA indicates that the host has moved to a new link or the
DHCPv6 CONFIRM indicates that the addresses are invalid, the host
MUST move its old addresses to the "Deprecated" state and MUST run
DHCPv6 to obtain new addresses. Normally, the DHCPv6 operation is
4-message exchange, however, this exchange allows for redundancy
(multiple DHCPv6 servers) without wasting addresses, as addresses are
only provisionally assigned to a host until the host chooses and
requests one of the provisionally assigned addresses. If the DNA
host supports the Rapid Commit Option [9], the host SHOULD use the
Rapid Commit Option in order to shorten the exchange from 4 messages
to 2 messages.
5.2.6.4 Packet Delivery During DNA
The specification of packet delivery before, during, and immediately
after DNA when a change in point of attachment occurs is out of scope
for this document. The details of how packets are delivered depends
on the mobility management protocols (if any) available to the host's
stack.
5.2.6.5 Multicast Address Configuration
If the returning RAs indicate that the host has not moved to a new
link, no further action is required for multicast addresses to which
the host has subscribed using MLD Report [10]. In particular, the
host MUST NOT perform MLD signaling for any multicast addresses
unless such signaling was not performed prior to movement to the new
point of attachment. For example, if an address is put into the
"Optimistic" state prior to movement but the MLD Report for the
Solicited_Node_Multicast_Address is not sent prior to movement to a
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
new point of attachment, the host MUST send the MLD Report on the new
point of attachment prior to performing optimistic Duplicate Address
Detection. The host SHOULD use the procedure described below for
sending an MLD Report.
If, on the other hand, the DNA RA indicates that the host has moved
to a new link, the host MUST issue a new MLD Report to the router for
subscribed multicast addresses. MLD signaling for the
Solicited_Node_Multicast_Addresses [8] MUST be sent prior to
performing signaling for optimistic DAD.
To avoid lengthy delays in address reconfiguration, it is RECOMMENDED
that the host send the MLD Report for newly configured addresses
immediately, as soon as the addresses have been constructed, rather
than waiting for a random backoff.
Hosts MUST defer MLD signaling until after the results of DNA have
confirmed whether or not a link change has occurred.
6. Backward Compatibility
6.1 Non-DNA Host with DNA Routers
The RS message sent by non-DNA hosts will not contain any of the new
options defined by this document. The host will receive a Complete
RA in response to the solicitation message and process it as per RFC
2461. This means that it will drop the unrecognised Learned Prefix
option, but process the included PIOs and non-DNA flags normally.
6.2 DNA Host with Non-DNA Routers
The routers will behave based in the recommendations of RFC 2461 [3]
and ignore the new options defined in this memo. Hosts will receive
RA message without the FastRA flag in the RA header set and will
fallback on CPL for link identification. Obviously, the objective of
receiving fast response for RS message can not be achieved.
This case can occur on a link with no DNA routers or on a link with a
mix of the two. In the latter, usually a response from the DNA
router(s) will be received first and CPL will just be used with the
non-DNA Router Advertisement to confirm that no movement has taken
place since the previous DNA advertisement.
7. Security Considerations
7.1 Attacks on the Token Bucket
A host on the link could easily drain the token bucket(s) of the
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
router(s) on the link by continuously sending RS messages on the
link. For example, if a host sends one RS message every
UnicastRAInterval, and send a additional RS every third
UnicastRAInterval, the token bucket in the router(s) on the link will
drain within MaxUnicastRABurst * UnicastRAInterval * 3 time-units.
For the recommended values of UnicastRAInterval and
MaxUnicastRABurst, this value is 3000 milliseconds. It is not clear
whether arrival of such RS messages can be recognized by the router
as a DoS attack. This attack can also be mitigated by aggregating
responses. Since only one aggregation is possible in this interval
due to MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS restriction, the routers may not be able
protect the tokens in the bucket.
7.2 Attacks on DNA Hosts
RFC 3756 outlines a collection of threats involving rouge routers.
Since DNAv6 requires a host to obtain trustworthy responses from
routers, such threats are relevant to DNAv6. In order to counter
such threats, DNAv6 hosts SHOULD support RFC 3971 (SEND) secure
router discovery.
8. IANA Considerations
This memo defines two new Neighbor Discovery [3] options, which must
be assigned Option Type values within the option numbering space for
Neighbor Discovery messages:
1. The Landmark option, described in Section 4.3; and
2. The Learned Prefix option, described in Section 4.4.
9. Acknowledgments
The design presented in this document grew out of discussions among
the members of the DNA design team (JinHyeock Choi, Tero Kauppinen,
James Kempf, Sathya Narayanan, Erik Nordmark and Brett Pentland).
The spirited debates on the design, and the advantages and dis-
advantages of various DNA solutions helped the creation of this
document.
Thanks to Syam Madanapalli who co-authored
draft-jinchoi-dna-protocol2 from which this draft draws ideas, as
well as providing feedback on draft-pentland-dna-protocol from which
most of the text for this draft comes.
Thanks to Greg Daley for much feedback on draft-pentland-dna-protocol
and for helping to work out how to merge the two drafts into this
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
one.
Thanks to Jari Arkko, Jim Bound, Tero Kauppinen, Syam Madanapalli,
Mohan Parthasarathy, Subba Reddy, and Christian Vogt for their review
of this document.
Thanks to Gabriel Montenegro for his review of
draft-pentland-dna-protocol.
Thanks also to other members of the DNA working group for their
comments that helped shape this work.
10. References
10.1 Normative References
[1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[2] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[3] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery
for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
[4] Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.
[5] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Sommerfeld, B., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", draft-ietf-send-ndopt-06
(work in progress), July 2004.
[6] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection for IPv6",
draft-ietf-ipv6-optimistic-dad-05 (work in progress),
February 2005.
[7] Daley, G., "Tentative Source Link-Layer Address Options for IPv6
Neighbour Discovery", draft-daley-ipv6-tsllao-00 (work in
progress), June 2004.
10.2 Informative References
[8] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration", RFC2462 2462, December 1998.
[9] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M.
Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
[10] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
(MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.
[11] Choi, J., "Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Goals",
draft-ietf-dna-goals-04 (work in progress), December 2004.
[12] Narayanan, S., Daley, G., and N. Montavont, "Detecting Network
Attachment in IPv6 - Best Current Practices",
draft-narayanan-dna-bcp-00 (work in progress), June 2004.
[13] Yamamoto, S., "Detecting Network Attachment Terminology",
draft-yamamoto-dna-term-00 (work in progress), February 2004.
[14] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology-06 (work in progress),
February 2004.
[15] Choi, J. and E. Nordmark, "DNA with unmodified routers: Prefix
list based approach", draft-ietf-dna-cpl-00 (work in progress),
April 2005.
[16] Pentland, B., "An Overview of Approaches to Detecting Network
Attachment in IPv6", draft-dnadt-dna-discussion-00 (work in
progress), February 2005.
Authors' Addresses
James Kempf
DoCoMo Communications Labs USA
USA
Phone:
Email: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com
Sathya Narayanan
Panasonic Digital Networking Lab
Two Research Way, 3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08536
USA
Phone: 609 734 7599
Email: sathya@Research.Panasonic.COM
URI:
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
Erik Nordmark
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
17 Network Circle
Mountain View, CA
USA
Phone: +1 650 786 2921
Email: erik.nordmark@sun.com
Brett Pentland (editor)
Centre for Telecommunications and Information Engineering
Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering
Monash University
Clayton, Victoria 3800
Australia
Phone: +61 3 9905 5245
Email: brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au
JinHyeock Choi
Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology
PO Box 111
Suwon 440-600
Korea
Phone: +82-31-280-8194
Email: jinchoe@samsung.com
Appendix A. How the Goals are Met?
The DNA goals document [11] contains a list of goals identified by G1
to G10. This is also enumerated in the solutions discussion document
[16] generated by the DNA design team. This section discusses how
the proposed scheme addresses each of these goals.
G1 The Complete RA contains the complete list of prefixes advertised
on the link allowing the host to determine whether link change has
occurred and to re-configure if necessary.
G2 Under normal circumstances the host will receive a RA response
within round-trip time and some processing time on the router. If
the first RA message is lost, if another router is on the link, a
second RA should arrive within a slot time and so on.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
G3 Non movement scenarios will be correctly identified because the
landmark will be confirmed by the router(s) on the link or the
Complete RA will have prefixes that have already been seen,
indicating non-movement.
G4 A single RS/RA message exchange is initiated in response to a hint
that link change may have occurred.
G5 The existing RS/RA signalling is used along with unsolicited RA
messages. Some new options and flags are proposed.
G6 Only link scope signaling is used.
G7 SEND can be used to protect the RS and RA messages exchanged.
G8 If SEND is not deployed, then a rogue device could cause a host to
think its configuration is invalid by sending an RA that answers
the RS question incorrectly. A similar effect is already
possible, however, by a rogue device sending an RA with valid
prefixes with zero lifetimes.
G9 The CPL logic allows a graceful fallback position for dealing with
non-DNA routers and non DNA hosts will still receive the benefit
of receiving an RA response from its current router faster than
RFC 2461.
G10 This technique is carried out on an interface by interface basis.
A host with multiple interfaces can get information about changes
to configuration on each interface, but would need a higher level
process to decide how the information from the various interfaces
relates to each other.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft DNAv6 February 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Kempf, et al. Expires August 30, 2006 [Page 34]
