[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
INTERNET-DRAFT                                         T. Jinmei, Toshiba
October 21, 1999                                       A. Onoe,      Sony

          An Extension of Format for IPv6 Scoped Addresses

            <draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt>

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026 [STD-PROC].

   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 April 21, 2000.

Abstract

   This document defines an extension of the format for IPv6 scoped
   addresses. In the format, a scope identifier is attached to a scoped
   address in order to supplement the ambiguity of the semantics of
   the address. Using the format with some library routines will make
   scope-aware applications simpler.

1. Introduction

   There are several types of scoped addresses defined in the "IPv6
   Addressing Architecture" [ADDRARCH]. Since uniqueness of a scoped
   address is guaranteed only within the according scope, the semantics
   for a scoped address is ambiguous on a scope boundary. For example,
   when a user specifies to send a packet from a node to a link-local
   address of another node, the user must specify the link of the
   destination as well, if the node is attached to more than one link.

   This characteristic of scoped addresses may introduce additional cost
   to scope-aware applications; a scope-aware application may have to
   provide a way to specify an instance of a scope for each scoped
   address (e.g. a specific link for a link-local address) that the
   application uses. Also, it is hard for a user to "cut and paste" a
   scoped address due to the ambiguity of its scope.

draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt                      [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT       Format for IPv6 Scoped Addresses       October 1999

   This document defines an extension of the format for scoped addresses
   in order to overcome this inconvenience. Using the extended format
   with some appropriate library routines will make scope-aware
   applications simpler.

1.1 Requirements

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, if and where they appear
   in this document, are to be interpreted as described in [KEYWORDS].

2. Proposal

   The proposed format for scoped addresses is
   <scoped_address><delimiter><scope_id> where <scoped_address> is a
   literal IPv6 address, <scope_id> is a string to identify the scope of
   the address, and <delimiter> is a string to distinguish between
   <scoped_address> and <scope_id>.

   It can't be assumed that a same identifier is common to all nodes in
   the according scope. Hence the proposed format MUST be used only
   within a node and MUST NOT be sent on a wire. This also means that
   any character or string can be used as <delimiter> unless it
   conflicts with other symbols used in literal IPv6 addresses (for
   instance, ":" would be confusing and should not be used as
   <delimiter>.) However, the notation of <delimiter> and <scope_id>
   should be common within a single node.

   The proposed format should be applied to multicast addresses as well
   as to unicast addresses.

   Here are examples. If the dash character (`-') is used as <delimiter>
   and numerical identifiers are used as <scope_id>, the following
   addresses

       fe80::1234 (whose link identifier is 1)
       fec0::5678 (whose site identifier is 2)
       ff02::9abc (whose link identifier is 5)
       ff08::def0 (whose organization identifier is 10)

   would be represented as follows:

       fe80::1234-1
       fec0::5678-2
       ff02::9abc-5
       ff08::def0-10

   As mentioned above, other strings could be used as <delimiter> and
   <scope_id>. The addresses in the example could be represented as
   follows:

       Address                 <delimiter>  <scope_id>
       fe80::1234,ether1       `,'          "ether1"
       fec0::5678%foo.com      `%'          "foo.com"

draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt                      [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT       Format for IPv6 Scoped Addresses       October 1999

       ff02::9abc++A           "++"         "A"
       ff08::def0=ORG=XY-net   "=ORG="      "XY-net"

3. Interaction with API

   The proposed format would be useful with some library functions
   defined in the "Basic Socket API" [BASICAPI], that translate a
   nodename to an address, or vice versa.

   For example, if getaddrinfo() parses a literal IPv6 address in the
   proposed format and fill an identifier according to <scopde_id> in
   the sin6_scope_id field of a sockaddr_in6 structure, then an
   application would be able to just call getaddrinfo() and would not
   have to care about scopes.

   Also, if getnameinfo() returns IPv6 scoped addresses in the proposed
   format, a user or an application would be able to reuse the result by
   a simple "cut and paste" method.

   Note that these extensions to the API ensure lower compatibility and
   do not affect any existing applications.

4. Issues

   This document does not define a specific string for <delimiter>,
   since it would be used only within a node and hence be implementation
   dependent. However, it might be better to define a standard one in
   order to ensure portability on various implementations.

   In this document, it is assumed that an identifier of a scope is not
   necessarily common in the scope. However, it would be useful if some
   common notation is introduced (e.g. an organization name for a
   site). In such a case, the proposed format could be commonly used to
   designate a single interface (or a set of interfaces for a multicast
   address) in a scope.

   When the network configuration of a node changes, the change may
   affect <scope_id>. Suppose that the case where numerical identifiers
   are sequentially used as <scope_id>. When a network card is newly
   inserted in the node, some identifiers may have to be renumbered
   accordingly. This would be inconvenient, especially when addresses
   with the numerical identifiers are stored in non-volatile storage and
   reused after rebooting.

   There is the preferred format for literal IPv6 addresses in URL's
   [URLFORMAT]. When the preferred format is used for an IPv6 scoped
   address, it might have to be combined with the proposed format
   defined in the document. For example,

       http://[fec0::1234-bar.com]:80/index.html

   should be used instead of

       http://[fec0::1234]:80/index.html

draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt                      [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT       Format for IPv6 Scoped Addresses       October 1999

   (in this example, the dash character '-' is used as <delimiter>, and
   the string "bar.com" is used as <scope_id>.)  The combination would
   introduce some restrictions to <delimiter> and <scope_id>. For
   instance, `]' should not appear in <delimiter> nor in <scope_id>.

5. Implementation Experiences

   The WIDE KAME IPv6 stack implements the extension to the
   getaddrinfo() and the getnameinfo() functions described in Section 3
   of this document. The source code is available as free software,
   bundled in the KAME IPv6 stack kit.

   The current implementation supports the extension only for link-local
   (unicast and multicast) addresses. Also, the implementation assumes
   that there is one-to-one mapping between links and interfaces, and
   hence it uses interface names as <scope_id> for links. As <delimiter>
   it uses the atmark(@).

   For instance, the implementation shows its routing table as follows:

       Internet6:
       Destination      Gateway                       Flags  Intface
       default          fe80::fe32:93d1@ef0           UG      ef0

   This means that the default router is fe80::fe32:93d1 on the link
   identified by interface "ef0". A user can "cut and paste" the result
   in order to telnet to the default router like this:

       % telnet fe80::fe32:93d1@ef0

6. Security Considerations

   The use of this approach to represent IPv6 scoped addresses does not
   introduce any known new security concerns, since the use is
   restricted within a single node.

7. Authors' Addresses

   Tatuya JINMEI
   Research and Development Center, Toshiba Corporation
   1 Komukai Toshiba-cho, Kawasaki-shi
   Kanagawa 210-8582, JAPAN
   Tel: +81-44-549-2238
   Fax: +81-44-520-1841
   Email: jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

   Atsushi Onoe
   Internet Systems Laboratory, IN Laboratories, Sony Corporation
   6-7-35 Kitashinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo 141-0001, JAPAN
   Tel: +81-3-5448-4620
   Fax: +81-3-5448-4622
   Email: onoe@sm.sony.co.jp

draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt                      [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT       Format for IPv6 Scoped Addresses       October 1999

8. References

   [ADDRARCH] Hinden, R., Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.

   [BASICAPI] Gilligan, R. E., Thomson, S., Bound, J., Stevens, W.,
              "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", RFC 2553,
              March 1999.

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

   [STD-PROC] Bradner, S., The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3,
              RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [URLFORMAT] Hinden, R., Carpenter, B., Masinter, L., "Preferred
               Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's", Internet
               Draft, September 1999,
               <draft-ietf-ipngwg-url-literal-04.txt>

draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt                      [Page 5]