6MAN WG E. Nordmark
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Expires: November 24, 2011 May 23, 2011
Neighbor Unreachability Detection is too impatient
draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-00.txt
Abstract
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery includes Neighbor Unreachability Detection.
That function is very useful when a host has an alternative, for
instance multiple default routers, since it allows the host to switch
to the alternative in short time. This time is 3 seconds after the
node starts probing. However, if there are no alternatives, this is
far too impatient. This document proposes an approach where an
implementation can choose the timeout behavior to be different based
on whether or not there are alternatives.
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 November 24, 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
Nordmark Expires November 24, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft NUD is too impatient May 2011
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Proposed Remedy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Nordmark Expires November 24, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft NUD is too impatient May 2011
1. Introduction
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] includes Neighbor Unreachability
Detection, which detects when a neighbor is no longer reachable. The
timeouts specified are very short (three transmissions spaced one
second apart). That can be appropriate when there are alternative
paths the packet can be sent. For example, if a host has multiple
default routers in its Default Router List, or if the host has a
Neigbor Cache Entry (NCE) created by a Redirect message. The effect
of NUD reporting a failure in those cases is that the host will try
the alternative; the next router in the Default Router List, or
discard the NCE which will also send using a different router.
For that reason the timeouts where chosen to be short; this ensures
that if a default router fails the host can use the next router in
less than 45 seconds.
However, where there is no alternative there are several benefits in
making NUD try probing for a longer time. One of those benefits is
to be more robust against transient failures, such as spanning tree
recovergence and other layer 2 issues that can take many seconds to
resolve. Marking the NCE as unreachable in that case causes
additional multicast on the network. Assuming there are IP packets
to send, the lack of an NCE will result in multicast Neighbor
Solicitations every second instead of the unicast Neighbor
Solicitations that NUD sends.
As a result IPv6 is operationally more brittle than IPv4. For IPv4
there is no mandatory time limit on the retransmission behavior for
ARP [RFC0826] which allows implementors to pick more robust schemes.
The following constant values in [RFC4861] seem to have been made
part of IPv6 conformance testing: MAX_MULTICAST_SOLICIT,
MAX_UNICAST_SOLICIT, RETRANS_TIMER. While such strict conformance
testing seems consistent with the the specificiation, it means that
we need to update the standard if we want to allow IPv6 Neighbor
Discovery to be as operationally robust as ARP.
2. Proposed Remedy
We can clarify that the giving up after three packets spaced one
second apart is only REQUIRED when there is an alternative, such as
an additional default route or a redirect.
If implementations transmit more than MAX_*CAST_SOLICIT packets they
MAY use binary exponential backoff of the retransmit timer. This is
so that if we end up with implementations that try for a very long
Nordmark Expires November 24, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft NUD is too impatient May 2011
time we don't end up with a steady background level of
retransmissions.
3. Security Considerations
Relaxing the retransmission behavior for NUD has no impact on
security. In particular, it doesn't impact applying Secure Neighbor
Discovery [RFC3971].
4. IANA Considerations
This are no IANA considerations for this document.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control
Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
5.2. Informative References
[RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or
converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet
address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37,
RFC 826, November 1982.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Nordmark Expires November 24, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft NUD is too impatient May 2011
Author's Address
Erik Nordmark
Cisco Systems, Inc.
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA, 95035
USA
Phone: +1 408 527 6625
Email: nordmark@cisco.com
Nordmark Expires November 24, 2011 [Page 5]