rtgwg D. Lamparter
Internet-Draft NetDEF
Intended status: Standards Track A. Smirnov
Expires: January 20, 2018 Cisco Systems, Inc.
July 19, 2017
Destination/Source Routing
draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-05
Abstract
This note specifies using packets' source addresses in route lookups
as additional qualifier to be used in route lookup. This applies to
IPv6 [RFC2460] in general with specific considerations for routing
protocol left for separate documents.
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 January 20, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
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.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Use cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Dual-connected home / SOHO network . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Degree of traffic engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Distributed filtering based on source address . . . . . . 5
2.4. Walled-garden Enterprise services . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5. Information Source for Neighbor Management . . . . . . . 6
3. Principle of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Lookup ordering and disambiguation . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Ordering Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Routing protocol considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Source information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Loop-freeness considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. Recursive routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Applicability To Specific Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Recursive Route Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. Recursive route expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Unicast Reverse Path Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. Multicast Reverse Path Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4. Testing for Connectivity Availability . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Interoperability in Distance-Vector Protocols . . . . . . 13
6.2. Interoperability in Link-State Protocols . . . . . . . . 14
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Appendix A. Implementation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A.1. Pre-expanded 2-step lookup without backtracking . . . . . 18
A.2. Translation to Multi-FIB (Policy Routing) perspective . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
Both IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC2460] architectures specify that
determination of the outgoing interface and next-hop gateway for
packet forwarding is based solely on the destination address
contained in the packet header. There exists class of network design
problems which require packet forwarding to consider more than just
the destination IP address (see Section 2 for examples). At present
these problems are routinely resolved by configuring on routers
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
special forwarding based on a local policy. The policy enforces
packet forwarding decision outcome based not only on the destination
address but also on other fields in the packet's IP header, most
notably the source address. Such policy-based routing is
conceptually similar to static routes in that it is highly static in
nature and must be closely governed via the management plane (most
frequently - via managing configuration by an operator). Thus
policy-based routing configuration and maintenance is costly and
error-prone.
Rapid expansion of IPv6 to networks were static configuration is not
acceptable due to both its static nature and necessity of frequent
intervention by a skilled operator requires change in the paradigm of
forwarding IP packets based only on their destination address.
This document describes architecture of source-destination routing.
This includes description of making a packet forwarding decision and
requirements to dynamic routing protocols which will disseminate
source-destination routing information. Specific considerations for
particular dynamic routing protocols are outside of the scope of this
note and will be covered in separate documents.
General concepts covered by this document are equally applicable to
both IPv4 and IPv6. Considering limited backward compatibility of
the source-destination routing with the traditional destination-only
routing, it appears likely that at this stage of IPv4 deployment
change of routing paradigm in existing networks is not feasible (see
Section 6 for discussion of backwards compatibility). So examples in
this document will be given using IPv6 addresses.
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
2. Use cases
2.1. Dual-connected home / SOHO network
Small networks - such as SOHO or the home networks (homenet) - may be
multihomed (i.e. dual-connected) to two different Internet Service
Providers (ISPs). Benefits of doing this may include resiliency or
faster access to important resources (for example, video or cloud
services) local to ISPs.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
_____ ,,-------.
_( )_ ,' ``.
___ +----+ _( )_ ,' `.
/ \---| R1 |---(_ ISP 1 _)------/ \
/ \ +----+ (_ _) / \
/ Small \ (_____) ( )
( ) ( The Internet )
( ) _____ ( )
\ net / _( )_ \ /
\ / +----+ _( )_ \ /
\___/---| R2 |---(_ ISP 2 _)-------`. ,'
+----+ (_ _) `. ,'
(_____) ``-------''
Example of multihomed small network
Each ISP will allocate to the network IP address (or small range of
IP addresses) to use as source address for Internet communications.
Since connectivity providers generally secure their ingress along the
lines of BCP 38 [RFC2827], small multihomed networks have a need to
ensure their traffic leaves their network with a correct combination
of source address and exit taken. This applies to networks of a
particular pattern where the provider's default (dynamic) address
provisioning methods are used and no fixed IP space is allocated,
e.g. home networks, small business users and mobile ad-hoc setups.
While IPv4 networks would conventionally use NAT or policy routing to
produce correct behaviour, this not desirable to carry over to IPv6.
Instead, assigning addresses from multiple prefixes in parallel
shifts the choice of uplink to the host. However, now for finding
the proper exit the source address of packets must be taken into
account.
Source-destination routing, when enabled on routers in the multihomed
small network (including routers R1 and R2), solves the problem by
driving packets originated by internal hosts to the correct Internet
exit point considering IP source address assigned to the packet by
originating host.
For a general introduction and aspects of interfacing routers to
hosts, refer to [RFC8043].
2.2. Degree of traffic engineering
Consider enterprise consisting of a headquarter (HQ) and branch
offices. A branch office is connected to the enterprise HQ network
via 2 links. For performance or security reasons it is desired to
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
route corporate traffic via one link and Internet traffic via another
link. In direction branch -> HQ the problem is easily solvable by
having the default route pointing to the Internet link and HQ routes
pointing to another link. But destination routing does not provide
an easy way to achieve traffic separation in direction HQ -> branch
because destination is the same (branch network).
Source-destination routing provides an easy way to sort traffic going
to the branch based on its source address.
2.3. Distributed filtering based on source address
A network has untrusted zone and secure one (and both zones comprise
many links and routers). Computers from the secure zone need to be
able to communicate with some selected hosts in the untrusted zone.
The secure zone is protected by a firewall. The firewall is
configured to check that packets arriving from the untrusted zone
have destination address in the range of secure zone and source
address of trusted hosts in the untrusted zone. This works but
leaves the firewall open to DDOS attack from outside.
If routers in the untrusted zone are configured with source-
destination routing (and, possibly, unicast RPF check) and receive
via dynamic routing protocol routes <destination: secure zone;
source: trusted host in the untrusted zone> then DDOS attack is
dropped by routers on the edge of source-destination routing area.
DDOS attack does not even reach the firewall whose resources are
freed to deal with Deep Packet Inspection. On the other hand,
security policy is managed in a single point - on a router injecting
relevant source-destination routes into the dynamic routing protocol.
2.4. Walled-garden Enterprise services
Apart from transfering from multihomed personal networks to
multihomed PA enterprise setups without any changes, source-
destination routing can also be used to correctly route services that
assign their own prefixes to customers using the particular service.
This is distinct from internet connectivity only in that it does not
provide a default route. Applying source-destination routing, the
entire routing domain is aware of the specific constraints of the
routes involved.
Additionally, if the walled-garden's destination prefix is advertised
as blackhole route, this ensures that communication with the service
will only be routed using the specific D/S route, never leaking onto
unintended paths like a default route.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
This is very similar to firewall/filtering functionality, except the
feature is distributed onto routers.
2.5. Information Source for Neighbor Management
Having information on source address restrictions for routes
distributed, routers can rely on this additional information to
improve their behaviour towards hosts connected to them. This
specifically includes IPv6 Router Advertisements, which is described
in [I-D.linkova-v6ops-conditional-ras].
3. Principle of operation
The mechanism in this document is such that a source prefix is added
to all route entries. This document assumes all entries have a
source prefix, with ::/0 as default value for entries installed
without a specified source prefix. This need not be implemented in
this particular way, however the system MUST behave exactly as if it
were. In particular, a difference in behaviour between routes with a
source prefix of ::/0 and routes without source prefix MUST NOT be
visible.
For uniqueness considerations, the source prefix factors MUST be
taken into account for comparisons. Two routes with identical
information except the source prefix MAY exist and MUST be installed
and matched.
3.1. Lookup ordering and disambiguation
When a router is making packet forwarding decision, that is
consulting its routing table in order to determine outgoing interface
and next-hop to forward the packet to, it will use information from
packet's header to look up best matching route from the routing
table. This section describes lookup into the source-destination
routing table.
For longest-match lookups, the source prefix is matched after the
destination prefix. This is to say, first the longest matching
destination prefix is found, then the table is searched for the route
with the longest source prefix match, while only considering routes
with exactly the destination prefix previously found. If and only if
no such route exists (because none of the source prefixes match), the
lookup moves to the next less specific destination prefix.
A router MUST continue to a less specific destination prefix if no
route matches on the source prefix. It MUST NOT terminate lookup on
such an event.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
Using A < B to mean "A is more specific than B", this is represented
as:
A < B := Adst < Bdst
|| (Adst == Bdst && Asrc < Bsrc)
Implementations MAY implement lookup algorithm differently from step-
by-step description given above but if they do so then outcome of the
algorithm MUST be exactly the same as if above steps were used. A
variation providing improved performance, as well as a variation
matching existing implementations with reversed order are described
in Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2, respectively.
3.2. Ordering Rationale
Ordering of searching for address match is important and reversing it
would lead to semantically different behavior. This standard
requires most specific match on destination address to be found
before looking for match on source address.
Choosing destination to be evaluated first caters to the assumption
that local networks should have full, contiguous connectivity to each
other. This implies that those specific local routes always match
first based on destination, and use a zero ("all sources") source
prefix.
If the source prefix were to be matched first, this would result in a
less specific (e.g. default) route with a source prefix to match
before those local routes. In other terms, this would essentially
divide local connectivity into zones based on source prefix, which is
not the intention of this document.
Hence, this document describes destination-first match search.
4. Routing protocol considerations
As with the destination-only routing, source-destination routes will
typically be disseminated throughout the network by dynamic routing
protocols. It is expected that multiple dynamic routing protocols
will be adapted to the needs of source-destination routing
architecture. Specification of dynamic routing protocols is outside
of scope of this document. This section lists requirements and
considerations for the dynamic source-destination routing protocols.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
4.1. Source information
Dynamic routing protocols will need to be able to propagate source
range information together with destination prefix and other
accompanying routing information. Source range information may be
propagated with all destination prefixes or only some of them.
Destination prefixes advertised without associated source range MUST
be treated as having default source range ::/0.
Dynamic routing protocols MUST be able to propagate multiple routes
whose destination prefix is the same but associated source ranges are
different. Such unique pairs of source and destination MUST be
treated as different source-destination routes.
There is no limitation on how source range information is propagated
and associated with destination prefixes. Individual protocols may
choose to propagate source range together with a destination prefix
in the form of prefix, in the form of index to list of known source
ranges or in any other form allowing receiver to reconstruct pair of
destination prefix and associated source range.
4.2. Loop-freeness considerations
It is expected that some existing dynamic routing protocols will be
enhanced to propagate source-destination routing information. In
this case the protocol may be configured to operate in a network
where some, but not all, routers support source-destination routing
and others are still using destination-only routing. Even if all
routers within a network are capable of source-destination routing,
it is very likely that on edges of the network they will have to
forward packets to routers doing destination-only routing.
Since a router implementing source-destination routing can have
additional, more granular routes than one that doesn't implement it,
persistent loops can form between these systems.
Thus specifications of source-destination routing protocols (either
newly defined protocols or enhancements to already existing one) MUST
take provisions to guarantee loop-free operations.
There are 3 possible approaches to avoid looping condition:
1. Guarantee that next-hop gateway of a source-destination route
supports source-destination routing, for example calculate an
alternate topology including only routers that support source-
destination routing architecture
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
2. If next-hop gateway is not aware of source-destination routing
then a source-destination path can lead to it only if next-hop
router is 'closer' to the destination in terms of protocol's
routing metric; important particular case of the rule is if
destination-only routing is pointing to the same next-hop gateway
3. Discard the packet (i.e. treat source-destination route as
unreachable)
In many practical cases routing information on the edges of source-
destination routing domain will be provided by an operator via
configuration. Dynamic routing protocol will only disseminate this
trusted external routing information. For example, returning to the
use case of multihomed Home network (Section 2.1), both routers R1
and R2 will have default static routes pointing to ISPs.
Above considerations require a knowledge of the next-hop router's
capabilities. For routing protocols based on hop-by-hop flooding
(RIP [RFC2080], BGP [RFC4271]), knowing the peer's capabilities is
sufficient. Information about if peer supports source-destination
routing can either be negotiated explicitly or simply be deduced from
the fact that systems would propagate source-destination routing
information only if they understand it. Protocols building a link-
state database (OSPFv3 [RFC5340], IS-IS [RFC5308]) have the
additional opportunity to calculate alternate paths based on
knowledge of the entire domain but cannot assume that routers
understand source-destination routing information only because they
participated in its flooding. Such protocols MUST explicitly
advertise support for the source-destination routing.
4.3. Recursive routing
Dynamic routing protocols may propagate routing information in a
recursive way. Examples of such recursion is forwarding address in
OSPFv3 [RFC5340] AS-External-LSAs and NEXT_HOP attribute in BGP
[RFC4271] NLRI.
Dynamic routing protocol supporting recursive routes MUST specify how
this recursive routing information is interpreted in the context of
source-destination routing as part of standardizing source-
destination routing extensions for the protocol. Section 5.1 lists
several possible strategies protocols can choose from.
5. Applicability To Specific Situations
This section discusses how source-destination routing is used
together with some common networking techniques dependent on routes
in the routing table.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
5.1. Recursive Route Lookups
Recursive routes provide indirect path information where instead of
supplying outgoing interface and next-hop gateway directly they
specify that next-hop information must be taken from another route in
the same routing table. It is said that one route 'recurses' via
another route which is 'resolving' recursion. Recursive routes may
either be carried by dynamic routing protocols or provided via
configuration as recursive static routes.
Recursive source-destination routes have additional complication in
how source address range should be considered while finding source-
destination route to resolve recusion.
There are several possible approaches:
1. Ignore source-destination routes, resolve recursion only via
destination-only routes (i.e. routes with source range ::/0)
2. Require that both the recursive and resolving routes have the
same source range associated with them; this requirement may be
too restrictive to be useful in many cases
3. Require that source range associated with recursive route is a
subset of source range associated with route resolving recursion
(i.e. source range of the resolving route is less specific
superset of recursive route's source range)
4. Create multiple instances of the route whose nexthop is being
resolved with different source prefixes; this option is further
elaborated in Section 5.1.1
When recursive routing information is propagated in a dynamic routing
protocol, it is up to the protocol specification to select and
standardize appropriate scheme of recusrsive resolution.
Recursive resolution of configured static routes is local to router
where recursive static routes were configured, thus behavior is
implementation's choice. Implementations SHOULD provide option (3)
from the above list as their default method of recursive static route
resolution. This is both to guarantee that destination-only
recursive static routes do not change their behavior when router's
software is upgraded to support source-destination routing and at the
same time make source-destination recursive routes useful.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
5.1.1. Recursive route expansion
When doing recursive nexthop resolution, the route that is being
resolved is installed in potentially multiple copies, inheriting all
possible more-specific routes that match the nexthop as destination.
The algorithm to do this is:
1. form the set of attributes for lookup by using the (unresolved,
recursive) nexthop as destination (with full host prefix length,
i.e. /128), copy all other attributes from the original route
2. find all routes that overlap with this set of attributes
(including both more-specific and less-specific routes)
3. order the result from most to less specific
4. for each route, install a route using the original route's
destination and the "logical and" overlap of each extra match
attribute with same attribute from the set. Copy nexthop data
from the route under iteration. Then, reduce the set of extra
attributes by what was covered by the route just installed
("logical AND NOT").
Example recursive route resolution
route to be resolved:
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456::/48,
recursive nexthop via 2001:db8:abcd::1
routes considered for recursive nexthop:
::/0, via fe80::1
2001:db8:abcd::/48, via fe80::2
2001:db8:abcd::/48, source 2001:db8:3456:3::/64, via fe80::3
2001:db8:abcd::1/128, source 2001:db8:3456:4::/64, via fe80::4
recursive resolution result:
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456::/48, via fe80::2
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456:3::/64, via fe80::3
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456:4::/64, via fe80::4
5.2. Unicast Reverse Path Filtering
Unicast reverse path filtering MUST use dst-src routes analog to its
usage of destination-only routes. However, the system MAY match
either only incoming source against routes' destinations, or it MAY
match source and destination against routes' destination and source.
It MUST NOT ignore dst-src routes on uRPF checks.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
5.3. Multicast Reverse Path Forwarding
Multicast Reverse Path Lookups are used to find paths towards the
(known) sender of multicast packets. Since the destination of these
packets is the multicast group, it cannot be matched against the
source part of a dst-src route. Therefore, dst-src routes MUST be
ignored for Multicast RPF lookups.
5.4. Testing for Connectivity Availability
There are situations where systems' behaviour depends on the fact
whether "connectivity" is available in a broad sense. These systems
may have previously tested for the existence of a default route in
the routing table.
Since the default route may now be qualified with a source prefix,
this test can fail. If no additional information is available to
qualify this test, systems SHOULD test for the existence of any
default route instead, e.g. include routes with default destination
but non-default source prefix.
However, if the test can be associated with a source address or
source prefix, this data SHOULD be used in looking up a default
route. Depending on the application, it MAY also be useful to -
possibly additionally - consider "connectivity" to be available if
any route exists where the route's source prefix covers the prefix or
address under consideration, allowing arbitrary destination prefixes.
Note though that this approach to routing SHOULD NOT be used to infer
a list of source prefixes in an enumerative manner, or even to guess
domain information. Specifically, if an operator uses more specific
source prefixes to refine their routing, the inferred information
will provide bogus extraneous output. This is distinct from the
connectivity tests mentioned above in that those actually inquire the
routing system, unlike domain information or enumeration, which is
higher-layer application information.
6. Interoperability
As pointed out in Section 4.2 traffic may permanently loop between
routers forwarding packets based only on their destination IP address
and routers using both source and destination addresses for
forwarding decision.
In networks where the same dynamic routing protocol is being used to
propagate routing information between both types of systems the
protocol may address some or all traffic looping problems.
Recommendations to protocol designers are discussed in Section 4.2.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
When routing information is coming from outside of the routing
protocol (for example, being provided by operator in the form of
static routes or network protocols not aware of source-destination
routing paradigm) it may not be possible for the router to ascertain
loop-free properties of such routing information. In these cases
consistent (and loop-free) packet forwarding is woven into network
topology and must be taken into consideration at design time.
It is possible to design network with mixed deployment of routers
supporting and not supporting source-destination routing. Thus
gradual enablement of source-destination routing in existing networks
is also possible but has to be carefully planned and evaluated for
each network design individually.
Generally, source-destination routing will not cause traffic loops
when disjoint 'islands' of source-destination routing do not exchange
source-destination routing information. One particular case of this
rule is a network which contains single contiguous 'island' of
routers aware of source-destination routing. Example SOHO network
from Section 2.1 which demonstrates this design approach:
______ ___ ,,------.
/ \ _( )_ ,' ``.
___ / +----+ _( )_ ,' `.
/ \ / | R1 |---(_ ISP 1 _)---/ \
/ \----/ +----+ (_ _) / \
/ Dst \ / Source- \ (___) ( )
( only )( destination ) ( The Internet )
( routing )( aware ) ___ ( )
\ area / \ routing / _( )_ \ /
\ /----\ area +----+ _( )_ \ /
\___/ \ | R2 |---(_ ISP 2 _)----`. ,'
\ +----+ (_ _) `. ,'
\______/ (___) ``------''
|----------------------------|
SOHO network
Example of multihomed small network with partial deployment of
source-destination routing
6.1. Interoperability in Distance-Vector Protocols
Distance-Vector routing protocols (BGP, RIPng, BABEL), operating on a
hop-by-hop basis, can address interoperability and migration concerns
on that level. With routing information being flooded in the reverse
direction of traffic being forwarded using that information, a hop
that floods is the same hop that forwards.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
This makes dealing with destination/source-unaware routers easy if
destination/source routes are made to be ignored by such unaware
routers, and flooding of such routes is inhibited.
If D/S routes are discarded by non-D/S routers, D/S routers will not
receive non-working routes and can select from other available
working D/S routes.
Note that for this to work, non-D/S routers MUST NOT flood D/S
routing information. This can be achieved in 2 ways:
1. Using some preexisting encoding to signal non-D/S routers to not
flood these particular routes
2. Ignoring flooded D/S information on D/S routers by having them
detect that they received it from a non-D/S router (e.g. using
some capability signalling to identify non-D/S routers.) This
handling likely needs to be performed on a level of same-link
neighborships.
Also note that the considerations in this section only apply if data
path and flooding path are congruent.
6.2. Interoperability in Link-State Protocols
For Link-State routing protocols (OSPF, IS-IS), there is no relation
between route flooding and forwarding. Instead, forwarding decisions
are based on shortest-path calculation on top of the received
topology information.
For a D/S router to avoid loops, there are again two choices
available:
1. Detect that forwarding for a D/S route transits over a non-D/S
router and convert the route into a blackhole route to replace
looping with blackholing. This obviously impacts connectivity.
2. Perform separate SPF calculations using only the subset of D/
S-capable routers; thus D/S routers can forward D/S-routed
packets as long as they stay in contiguous islands.
The latter approach is facilitated by Multi-Topology extensions to
the respective protocols. These extensions provide a way to both
isolate D/S routing information and perform the separate SPF
calculation. Note that it is not neccessary to use multiple
topologies for distinct source prefixes; only a single additional
topology encompassing all D/S-capable routers is sufficient.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
Systems operating under the principles of this document can have
routes that are more specific than the previously most specific, i.e.
host routes. This can be a security concern if an operator was
relying on the impossibility of hijacking such a route.
While source/destination routing could be used as part of a security
solution, it is not really intended for the purpose. The approach
limits routing, in the sense that it routes traffic to an appropriate
egress, or gives a way to prevent communication between systems not
included in a source/destination route, and in that sense could be
considered similar to an access list that is managed by and scales
with routing.
9. Privacy Considerations
If a host's addresses are known, injecting a dst-src route allows
isolation of traffic from that host, which may compromise privacy.
However, this requires access to the routing system. As with similar
problems with the destination only, defending against it is left to
general mechanisms protecting the routing infrastructure.
10. Acknowledgements
The base underlying this document was first outlaid by Ole Troan and
Lorenzo Colitti in [I-D.troan-homenet-sadr] for application in the
homenet area. Significant contributions to source-specific routing
as a whole came from Juliusz Chroboczek and Matthieu Boutier.
This document itself is largely the result of discussions with Fred
Baker and derives from [I-D.baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing].
Thanks to Chris Bowers, Acee Lindem and Tony Przygienda for their
input and review.
The Linux kernel is providing an implementation of the behaviour
described here since even before the document was started.
11. Change Log
May 2017 [-04]: no changes
November 2016 [-03]:
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
added DV/LS protocol considerations
note backtracking workaround/caveat
November 2015 [-02]:
added section on source-destination routing use cases
added section on alternative lookup algorithm
added section on requirement for dynamic routing protocols
dessiminating source-destination informaton
October 2015 [-00]: renamed to draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-00,
no content changes from draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-01.
April 2015 [-01]: merged routing-extra-qualifiers draft, new
ordering rationale section
October 2014 [-00]: Initial Version
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
12.2. Informative References
[hal-00947234v1]
Boutier, M. and J. Chroboczek, "Source-sensitive routing",
hal 00947234v1, 2014, <https://hal-univ-diderot.archives-
ouvertes.fr/hal-00947234v1>.
[I-D.baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing]
Baker, F. and D. Lamparter, "IPv6 Source/Destination
Routing using IS-IS", draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-
routing-07 (work in progress), July 2017.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
[I-D.linkova-v6ops-conditional-ras]
Linkova, J. and s. stucchi-lists@glevia.com, "Using
Conditional Router Advertisements for Enterprise
Multihoming", draft-linkova-v6ops-conditional-ras-01 (work
in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.troan-homenet-sadr]
Troan, O. and L. Colitti, "IPv6 Multihoming with Source
Address Dependent Routing (SADR)", draft-troan-homenet-
sadr-01 (work in progress), September 2013.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2080, January 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2080>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5308, October 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5308>.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.
[RFC8043] Sarikaya, B. and M. Boucadair, "Source-Address-Dependent
Routing and Source Address Selection for IPv6 Hosts:
Overview of the Problem Space", RFC 8043,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8043, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8043>.
Appendix A. Implementation Options
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
A.1. Pre-expanded 2-step lookup without backtracking
The backtracking behavior (specified in Section 3.1 as "A router MUST
continue to a less specific destination prefix") has been shown to
potentially cause a significant loss of forwarding performance since
forwarding a single packet may require a large number of table
lookups. (The degenerate case is 129 destination lookups in
decreasing prefix length, each followed by a failing longest-match on
the source prefix.)
To avoid this, implementations can install synthetic routes to
achieve the same lookup result. This works as follows, to be
evaluated for each unique destination prefix:
1. If there is a route (D, S=::/0), end processing for D.
2. Iterate upwards one level (from D if first iteration, previous D'
otherwise) to a less specific destination. Call this D'.
3. For all routes (D', S'), i.e. all source prefixes S' under that
destiation prefix, install a copy (D, S') if and only if S'
covers some source prefix that isn't covered yet. (In terms of
set theory, S' cut by all existing S under D is not empty.)
4. Repeat at step 1.
The effect of this algorithm is that after performing a lookup on the
destination prefix, looking up the source prefix directly yields the
result that backtracking would give. This eliminates backtracking
and provides constant 2 lookup cost (after exactly one destination
longest-match, the source longest-match will provide the final,
correct result; any no-match is a final no-match).
A.2. Translation to Multi-FIB (Policy Routing) perspective
The lookup procedure described in this document requires destination-
first lookup. This is not a fit with most existing implementations
of Policy Routing. While Policy Routing has no formal specification,
it generally permits choosing from multiple routing tables / FIBs
based on, among other things, source address. Some implementations
support using more than one FIB for a single lookup, but not all do.
An implementation that can choose from multiple FIBs based on source
address is capable of correct forwarding according to this document,
provided that it supports enough FIBs. One FIB will be used for each
unique source prefix.
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
For a complete description of the required translation algorithm,
please refer to [hal-00947234v1]. It roughly works as follows:
After source-destination routing information has been collected, one
FIB table is created for each source range including the default
range ::/0. Source-destination routes then replicated into each
destination-only FIB table whose associated source address range is a
subset of route's source range. Note that this rule means routes
with default source range ::/0 are replicated into each FIB table.
In case when multiple routes with the same destination prefix are
replicated into the same FIB table only route with the most specific
source address range is installed.
For example, if source-destination routing table contains these
routes:
Destination prefix Source range Next Hop
------------------- ------------------------ --------
::/0, ::/0, NH1
2001:101:1234::/48, 2001:db8:3456:8000::/56, NH2
2001:101:5678::/48, 2001:db8:3456:8000::/56, NH3
::/0, NH4
2001:101:abcd::/48, 2001:db8:3456::/48, NH5
then 3 FIB tables will be created associated with source ranges ::/0,
2001:db8:3456::/48 and 2001:db8:3456:8000::/56. In this example
range 2001:db8:3456:8000::/56 is a subset of less specific range
2001:db8:3456::/48. Such inclusion makes a somewhat artificial
example but was intentionally selected to demonstrate hierarchy of
route replication.
And content of these FIB tables will be:
FIB 1 (source range ::/0):
Destination prefix Next Hop
------------------- --------
::/0, NH1
2001:101:5678::/48, NH4
FIB 2 (source range 2001:db8:3456::/48):
Destination prefix Next Hop
------------------- --------
::/0, NH1
2001:101:5678::/48, NH4
2001:101:abcd::/48, NH5
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing July 2017
FIB 3 (source range 2001:db8:3456:8000::/56):
Destination prefix Next Hop
------------------- --------
::/0, NH1
2001:101:1234::/48, NH2
2001:101:5678::/48, NH3
2001:101:abcd::/48, NH5
During packet forwarding, lookup first matches source address against
the list of address ranges associated with FIB tables to select a FIB
table with the most specific source address range and then does
destination-only lookup in the selected FIB table.
Authors' Addresses
David Lamparter
NetDEF
Leipzig 04103
Germany
Email: david@opensourcerouting.org
Anton Smirnov
Cisco Systems, Inc.
De Kleetlaan 6a
Diegem 1831
Belgium
Email: as@cisco.com
Lamparter & Smirnov Expires January 20, 2018 [Page 20]