Multiple Interfaces (Mif)                                    J. Korhonen
Internet-Draft                                    Nokia Siemens Networks
Updates: 3484bis                                           T. Savolainen
(if approved)                                                      Nokia
Intended status: Experimental                              March 7, 2011
Expires: September 8, 2011


    Controlling Traffic Offloading Using Neighbor Discovery Protocol
                  draft-korhonen-mif-ra-offload-00.txt

Abstract

   This specification defines an extension to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
   Protocol, which allows management of IPv6 traffic offloading to IPv4
   and moving IPv4 traffic away from a specific interface.  The
   specification updates the source and destination algorithms described
   in RFC 3484bis.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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



Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirements and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Problem Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   4.  Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.1.  Neighbor Discovery Offload Option  . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     4.2.  Lowering the Preference of IPv6 Default Addresses  . . . .  5
     4.3.  Lowering IPv4 Default Router Preference  . . . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Router Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Host Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   7.  Modification to Default Address Selection  . . . . . . . . . .  7
   8.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Appendix A.  Address selection examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     A.1.  Case 1: IPv6-only cellular and IPv4-only WLAN accesses . .  8
     A.2.  Case 2: WLAN access with multiple prefixes . . . . . . . .  9
     A.3.  Case 3: WLAN and cellular interface with cellular's
           IPv4 not default route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     A.4.  Case 4: Dual-stack cellular access . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     A.5.  Case 5: Dual-stack cellular and single stack WLAN  . . . . 10
     A.6.  Case 6: Coexistence with RFC4191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10





















Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


1.  Introduction

   This specification defines an extension to Neighbor Discovery
   Protocol [RFC4861], which allows management of IPv6 traffic
   offloading to IPv4 and moving IPv4 traffic away from a specific
   network connection.

   The described solution is intended to be used during transition
   towards IPv6, during which time multi-interfaced hosts are often
   likely to have network interfaces with IPv4-only capability.  A
   common scenario where coexistence of IPv4 and IPv6 network interfaces
   is expected to occur is when a smartphone has IPv6-enabled cellular
   connection and IPv4-only WLAN connection active at the same time.

   This specification updates the source and destination algorithm
   described in RFC 3484bis [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise]


2.  Requirements and Terminology

   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].


3.  Problem Background

   Current Internet hosts generally prefer IPv6 addresses over IPv4
   addresses when performing source and destination address selections,
   as is recommended in [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise].

   A multi-interfaced host may have IPv6 enabled on a more 'expensive'
   interface and a 'cheaper' interface may have support only for IPv4.
   In such a scenario it might be desirable for hosts to prefer IPv4 in
   communication instead of IPv6.

   The above mentioned problem can occur, for example, when a smartphone
   has simultaneously IPv6-enabled cellular connection
   ([I-D.korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps]) and IPv4-only WLAN connectivity
   active.  When connecting to dual-stack capable destinations it would
   oftentimes be generally more efficient to use WLAN network interface.
   Furthermore, a cellular network operator may want hosts to offload
   traffic away from cellular network whenever hosts have alternate
   network accesses available.

   Similar issue can arise also when a host has multiple interfaces with
   IPv4 connectivity.  The cheaper interface should oftentimes be used
   for the communication, but it may not be clear for a host which one



Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


   of the available interfaces it should prefer.


4.  Solution

   This document introduces a new Neighbor Discovery option that a
   network can use to communicate 'lower-than-IPv4' preference for
   advertised prefix(es), and hence for host's IPv6 address, and also
   the level of router's willingness to act as an IPv4 default router.

   The new Neighbor Discovery option was chosen to support hosts without
   DHCPv6 [RFC3315] support and also to work on networks not utilizing
   DHCPv6.

   The new Neighbor Discovery option shall be phased out when IPv4 usage
   diminishes.

4.1.  Neighbor Discovery Offload Option

   This specification defines a new Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] option
   called Offload (Type TBD) to be used in Router Advertisements.  The
   option is illustrated in Figure 1.  Router and hosts implementing
   this specification MUST understand the Offload option.

    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=1    |L|D|        Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Gateway                            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

               Figure 1: Router Advertisement Offload Option

   Type

      TBD by IANA.

   Length

      MUST be set to 1.

   L (Lower-than-IPv4 Preference)

      In addition to [RFC4191] defined Prf handling, the additional 'L'
      flag bit indicates 'Lower-than-IPv4' preference.  From the
      [RFC4191] point of view, the 'Lower-than-IPv4' does not have any
      affect.  The 'L' bit affects the source and destination address



Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


      selection for IPv6 addresses configured from prefixes advertised
      by the Router Advertisement containing the Offload option.

   D (Default IPv4 Gateway Preference)

      Indicates the willingness of the Dual-Stack capable router (who
      originated the Router Advertisement) to serve as a default gateway
      for the IPv4 traffic.  If 'D' is unset (0) then the router
      indicates no specific to be or not to be a default gateway for
      IPv4 traffic.  If 'D' is set (1) then the router explicitly
      indicates it is not willing to serve as a default gateway for IPv4
      traffic if there are other usable gateways present in the same or
      other available interfaces.

   Reserved

      A 14-bit unused field.  It MUST be initialized to zero by the
      sender and MUST be ignored by the receiver.

   Gateway

      The address of the dual-stack router's IPv4 interface used as the
      next-hop from hosts point of view for sending and receiving IPv4
      traffic on this link.  The IPv4 address MUST belong to the same
      interface that originated the Router Advertisement containing this
      option.  If the router is IPv6 only or the 'D' bit unset (0), then
      this field MUST be set to unspecified address (0.0.0.0).

   The behavior of 'lower-than-IPv4 Preference' (see Section 4.2) and
   'Default IPv4 Gateway Preference' (see Section 4.3) are discussed in
   more detail in the following sections.  The Offload option is only
   used in Router Advertisement messages.

4.2.  Lowering the Preference of IPv6 Default Addresses

   Router originating a Router Advertisement (RA) with the 'L' bit set
   in the Offload option indicates that it SHOULD NOT be used for
   forwarding IPv6 traffic for destinations that are also reachable with
   IPv4 (via other interfaces) or IPv6 destinations are also reachable
   using other interfaces.

   If a host implements this specification, the 'L' bit required
   behavior can be achieved either by host implementation dependent
   means (especially relevant in cellular hosts that have a per
   application 'silo view' of the networking stack) or by modifying the
   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise] policy table and the default address
   selection algorithm.




Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


   In the latter case, the [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise] is modified so
   that the addresses configured from the prefixes advertised by the
   'lower-than-IPv4 Preference' router MUST be treated as 'deprecated'
   if there is no more specific route for the intended IPv6 destination
   (i.e. other than default router for the intended destination would be
   selected).  The modification concerns both the source address
   selection algorithm and the destination address selection algorithm.
   The expected behavior is that other available preferred IPv6
   addresses get selected over 'lower-than-IPv4' IPv6 addresses and even
   IPv4 destinations are preferred over IPv6 destinations when only
   'lower-than-IPv4' IPv6 addresses are available as IPv6 source
   addresses.  The lifetime of the [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise]
   modifications caused by 'Lower-than-IPv4' preference are tied to the
   lifetime indicated in the Router Advertisement.

4.3.  Lowering IPv4 Default Router Preference

   The 'D' flag bit in the Offload option indicates the willingness of
   the Router Advertisement originating Dual-Stack capable router to
   serve as a default gateway for IPv4 traffic.  When 'D' is unset (0),
   the router does not indicate any preference of being or not being a
   default gateway for IPv4 traffic.  If 'D' is set (1), the router
   indicates that it SHOULD NOT be used as a default gateway for IPv4
   traffic, if other default gateways are present in the same or other
   available interfaces.  The 'Gateway' field in the Offload option
   contains the IPv4 address of the Dual-Stack interface that originated
   the Router Advertisement.  The address serves as the identification
   of the next-hop IPv4 routers.


5.  Router Behavior

   A router configuration SHOULD allow network administrator to add and
   configure this option into Router Advertisement messages.


6.  Host Behavior

   A multi-interface capable host SHOULD monitor presence of this option
   in received Router Advertisement messages.  When the option is
   received, the source and destination selection algorithms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise] shall be temporarily modified as
   described in Section 4.2.  The IPv4 source address selection and
   default gateway preferences shall temporarily be updated as described
   in 4.3.






Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


7.  Modification to Default Address Selection

   The 'lower-than-IPv4 Preference' affects the Source Address Selection
   Rule 3.  The notation Lower(SA) returns true if the address SA was
   configured from the prefixes advertised by a 'lower-than-IPv4
   Preference' router.  Lower(SA) returns false is the address SA was
   configured from prefixes advertised by other than 'lower-than-IPv4
   Preference' router.  The notation Default(D) returns false if the
   address D has more specific routes (i.e. other than the default
   route).  Default(D) returns true if the address D points only to a
   default route.  The modified Rule 3 would be as follows:

   Rule 3:  Avoid deprecated addresses.

      The addresses SA and SB have the same scope.  If Lower(SA) == true
      and Default(D) == true, then mark SA temporarily as "deprecated".
      If Lower(SB) == true and Default(D) == true, then mark SB
      temporarily as "deprecated".  If one of the two source addresses
      is "preferred" and one of them is "deprecated" (in the [RFC4862]
      sense), then prefer the one that is "preferred."

   Similar modification also concerns the Destination Address Selection
   Rule 3 when checking whether a candidate source address for a given
   destination is deprecated.


8.  Security Considerations

   The Offload option allows malicious hosts and routers to affect a
   victim host's next hop and default address selection if spoofing of
   Router Advertisements are possible on the access link.  This is a
   well-known and understood security threat [RFC3756] and can be
   mitigated using, for example, Secure Neighbor Discovery [RFC3971].


9.  IANA Considerations

   This specification defines a new Neighbor Discovery option described
   in Section 4.1.


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise]
              Matsumoto, A., Kato, J., and T. Fujisaki, "Update to RFC
              3484 Default Address Selection for IPv6",



Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


              draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-01 (work in progress),
              October 2010.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

10.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps]
              Korhonen, J., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen, T.,
              Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3GPP Evolved Packet
              System", draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps-06 (work in
              progress), February 2011.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3756]  Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
              Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756,
              May 2004.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
              Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.

   [RFC4191]  Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
              More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.


Appendix A.  Address selection examples

   Link-local addresses are omitted in all following examples.  The
   assumption is that possible destinations have a global scope and all
   IPv6 enabled interfaces have atleast one global scope IPv6 address.
   Therefore, the default address selection would always output global
   scope addresses over link-local addresses.

A.1.  Case 1: IPv6-only cellular and IPv4-only WLAN accesses

   A host has obtained global IPv6 address, 2001:db8::2, on a cellular
   interface and with it has received Neighbor Discovery option with



Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


   'lower-than-IPv4' preference.  The host also has global IPv4 address,
   192.0.2.2, on a WLAN interface.

   When connecting to a dual-stack enabled destination, both 2001:db8::2
   and 192.0.2.2 are considered as source addresses candidates.  IPv4
   address is selected, because 2001:db8::2 is considered deprecated.
   Hence host uses WLAN for communication.

   When connecting to IPv6-only destination, 2001:db8::2 is selected and
   cellular network used, as there are no other IPv6 addresses
   available.

A.2.  Case 2: WLAN access with multiple prefixes

   A host has obtained two global IPv6 addresses, one of which was from
   a router indicating 'lower-than-IPv4' preference.  For example, 2001:
   db8:1::2 from router with 'lower-than-IPv4' preference and
   2001:db8:2::3 from router without any special preferences.

   When connecting to IPv6-only destination, both addresses are
   considered as source address candidates.  Source address selection
   chooses 2001:db8:2::3 as 2001:db8:1::2 is considered deprecated
   (Lower(2001:db8::2) == true and Default(D) == true).

A.3.  Case 3: WLAN and cellular interface with cellular's IPv4 not
      default route

   A host has obtained IPv6 address, 2001:db8::2, and IPv4 address,
   192.0.2.2, from cellular network.  The network has indicated 'lower-
   than-IPv4' preference for IPv6 and 'not your default router' for
   IPv4.  The host also has dual-stack WLAN access with 2001:db8:1::3
   and 192.0.2.30 addresses.

   When connecting to IPv4-only destination, host selects 192.0.2.30 as
   source address because default gateway on the interface of 192.0.2.2
   address is 'not default gateway'.  WLAN is used for communication.

   When connecting to IPv6-only destination, host selects 2001:db8:1::3
   from WLAN interface as the 2001:db8::2 is considered deprecated
   (Lower(2001:db8::2) == true and Default(D) == true).  WLAN is used
   for communication.

   When connecting to dual-stack destination, host selects from the four
   candidate addresses 2001:db8:1::3, as IPv6 is preferred in general
   and as that address is not deprecated.  WLAN is used for
   communication.





Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


A.4.  Case 4: Dual-stack cellular access

   A host has obtained IPv6 address, 2001:db8::2, and IPv4 address,
   192.0.2.2, from cellular network.  The network has indicated 'lower-
   than-IPv4' preference.

   When connecting to a dual-stack enabled destination, both addresses
   are considered as candidate source addresses.  IPv4 address is
   chosen, because IPv6 address is considered deprecated.

A.5.  Case 5: Dual-stack cellular and single stack WLAN

   A host has obtained IPv6 address, 2001:db8::2, and IPv4 address,
   192.0.2.2, from cellular network.  The network has indicated 'lower-
   than-IPv4' preference for IPv6 and 'not your default router' for
   IPv4.  The host also has WLAN access with 192.0.2.30 address.

   When connecting to dual-stack destination, all three addresses are
   considered as source address candidates.  The IPv4 address from WLAN,
   192.0.2.30, is selected as the IPv6 address, 2001:db8::2, is
   considered deprecated and as the IPv4 default route points to WLAN.
   Hence WLAN is used for communication.

A.6.  Case 6: Coexistence with RFC4191

   A host has obtained IPv6 address, 2001:db8:1::2/64 from cellular
   network.  The network has indicated 'lower-than-IPv4' preference for
   IPv6 and a more specific route to 2001:db8:2::/48.  The host also has
   IPv6 WLAN access with 2001:db8:3::3/64 address.

   When connecting to 2001:db8:2::1 the host selects 2001:db8:1::2 from
   cellular interface as a source address, because Lower(2001:db8:1::2)
   == true and Default(2001:db8:2::1) == false and hence the
   2001:db8:1::2 is not considered as deprecated address even though
   'lower-than-IPv4' preference was advertised.

   When connecting to 2001:db8:4::1 the host selects 2001:db8:3::3 from
   WLAN interface as a source address, because Lower(2001:db8:2::1) ==
   true and Default(2001:db8:3::3) == true) and hence 2001:db8:2::1 is
   considered as deprecated address.











Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             Traffic Offloading                 March 2011


Authors' Addresses

   Jouni Korhonen
   Nokia Siemens Networks
   Linnoitustie 6
   FI-02600 Espoo
   Finland

   Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com


   Teemu Savolainen
   Nokia
   Hermiankatu 12 D
   FI-33720 Tampere
   Finland

   Email: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com

































Korhonen & Savolainen   Expires September 8, 2011              [Page 11]