INTERNET-DRAFT                                               W A Simpson
                                                              DayDreamer
Intended status: Experimental                                18 May 2011


             Generation of Unique IS-IS System Identifiers
                    draft-simpson-isis-ppp-unique-01


Abstract

   The IS-IS routing protocol (Intermediate System to Intermediate
   System, ISO 10589) requires unique System Identifiers at the link
   layer.  A common practice has been to use an existing IEEE 802 MAC
   link-layer interface identifier.  When no unique MAC is available,
   this document specifies automatic generation of identifiers.  It is
   fully interoperable with systems that do not support this extension.

   Additionally, the extension automatically resolves conflicts between
   System Identifiers.

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.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.

   This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not
   be created, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to
   translate it into languages other than English.









Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011               [Page i]


DRAFT                          ISIS Unique                   18 May 2011


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."



                            Table of Contents


     1.     Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
        1.1       Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
     2.     Random Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   1
        2.1       PPP Links  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     3.     Resolving Conflicts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     IANA CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     NORMATIVE REFERENCES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     INFORMATIVE REFERENCES  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     CONTACTS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6



















Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011              [Page ii]


DRAFT                          ISIS Unique                   18 May 2011


1.  Introduction

   The System Identifier is 6 octets for OSI end systems, and 7 octets
   for IS-IS routers or pseudonodes.  This identifier is not required to
   be the Destination or Source of any packet.  (See [ISO10589],
   [RFC1195], and [RFC5342] for further details.)

   Typically, IS-IS implementations base the identifier on an existing
   Media Access Control (MAC) link-layer interface identifier.  The
   48-bit MAC is usually composed of a 24-bit Organizationally Unique
   Identifier (OUI) followed by a 24-bit Network Interface Controller
   (NIC) specific number.

   Other systems have a configured identifier that is independent of the
   interfaces.


1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MAY", "MUST, "MUST NOT", "OPTIONAL", "RECOMMENDED",
   "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", and "SHOULD NOT" in this document are to be
   interpreted as described in [RFC2119].



2.  Random Generation

   Some systems have only point-to-point or other links without any
   conveniently available MAC, and do not have a configured identifier.
   This status might change dynamically, as hot swap interfaces are
   added or removed.

   In this case, a 48-bit System Identifier MUST be randomly generated.
   (See [RFC4086] for requirements.)

   To mitigate against potential assignment conflicts, this System
   Identifier (considered as a pseudo-MAC) MUST have both the "locally-
   assigned" and "broadcast/multicast" (group) bits set; that is, the
   least significant two bits of the most significant octet are equal to
   0x3.

   The probability of conflict is reduced to a birthday attack of the
   order N/2**23; where N is the number of systems in the same IS-IS
   area.  [Schneier] This is considerably less likely than a duplicate
   MAC (see below).






Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011               [Page 1]


DRAFT                          ISIS Unique                   18 May 2011


2.1.  PPP Links

   PPP [RFC1661] links (such as [RFC1377]) already specify negotiation
   of a randomly generated unique 32-bit Magic Number "to detect looped-
   back links and other Data Link Layer anomalies."  Although only a
   single interface negotiation is described in the main document, it
   has long been understood [RFC1220] [Simpson1992] [Baker1992] that the
   term "unique" applies across all local system interfaces.  This
   protects against patch-panel errors in addition to looped-back
   modems, to detect unexpected loopbacks of a link from an endpoint to
   itself.  [Simpson1993] [RFC1663] [RFC1717]

   An implementation conforming with this specification MUST have
   different Magic Numbers for every link in a single system, and each
   end of every link between two peers MUST have Magic Numbers which are
   unique to those peers.  That is, the Magic Number MUST be unique for
   all visible interfaces.

   Whenever such a Magic Number has been successfully negotiated, only
   the most significant 2 octets of a pseudo-OUI are randomly generated,
   followed by (concatenated to) the selected Magic Number.

   To mitigate against potential assignment conflicts, this System
   Identifier (considered as a pseudo-OUI) MUST have both the "locally-
   assigned" and "broadcast/multicast" (group) bits set; that is, the
   least significant two bits of the most significant octet are equal to
   0x3.

   The probability of conflict is considerably less than the wholly
   generated pseudo-MAC (above), as the Magic Number has already been
   determined to be locally unique.  The pseudo-OUI differentiates among
   PPP systems in the same IS-IS area.



















Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011               [Page 2]


DRAFT                          ISIS Unique                   18 May 2011


3.  Resolving Conflicts

   Field experience has shown that IEEE 802 MAC identifiers are
   frequently not unique.  Companies that manufacture more than 2**24
   (16,777,214) devices will often reuse the same MAC.  The probability
   of conflict is defined by a birthday attack of the order N/2**16;
   where N is the number of systems in the same IS-IS area.

   Also, many companies reuse the same MAC for different product lines,
   or different speeds or types of media.  Some implementations failed
   to correctly convert the MAC to canonical form [RFC2469], causing
   unintentional conflicts through multi-media bridges.

   If a duplicated MAC is used as a System Identifier within an IS-IS
   area, this leads to the condition colloquially called "LSR War".
   Currently, IS-IS has no method to detect or resolve such conflicts.

   After detecting a conflicting System Identifier in a neighbor, or
   receiving 3 or more IS-IS Hellos and failing to resolve participation
   in an area within 10 seconds, an implementation conforming with this
   specification MUST generate a replacement System Identifier using one
   of the techniques specified above.

   The system SHOULD delay generation and transmission of this
   replacement System Identifier for a random amount of time between 0
   and MAX_GENERATION_DELAY.  Although the randomization range is
   specified in units of seconds, the actual randomly-chosen value
   SHOULD NOT be in units of whole seconds, but rather in units of the
   highest available timer resolution.

   This reduces the probability of synchronization with advertisements
   from other systems in the same IS-IS area.  If a message is received
   during the delay indicating the conflict was resolved by another
   system, the existing local System Identifier remains unchanged.


Acknowledgments

   This document parallels text originally in [RFC2153] and various
   other drafts.

   James Carlson, Donald Eastlake, Dave Katz, and Radia Perlman provided
   background information and helpful comments.








Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011               [Page 3]


DRAFT                          ISIS Unique                   18 May 2011


IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

   [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]


Operational Considerations


   MAX_GENERATION_DELAY
      Default: 1 second.  This is based on an anticipated IS-IS Hello
      interval of no more than 4 seconds.

      When Hellos are sent at a greater time interval, this MUST NOT be
      greater than interval/2, and SHOULD NOT be greater than
      interval/4.

   Configurable System Identifier
      Default 0 (off).  Although the probability of conflict with
      another System Identifier is minuscule, some implementations might
      not have a sufficient source of randomness, and could repeatedly
      select conflicting values.  An implementation conforming with this
      specification SHOULD have the capability to manually re-configure
      the System Identifier, preventing random generation of a
      replacement System Identifier.

      To mitigate against potential assignment conflicts, this System
      Identifier (considered as a pseudo-MAC) MUST have the "locally-
      assigned" bit set and "broadcast/multicast" (group) bit clear;
      that is, the least significant two bits of the most significant
      octet are equal to 0x2.



Security Considerations

   These mechanisms provide protection against compromised,
   malfunctioning, or misconfigured systems [RFC4593]; spoofing attacks
   are thwarted by quickly renegotiating a replacement System
   Identifier.

   Never-the-less, [RFC5304] increases protection against maliciously
   configured conflicting System Identifiers.







Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011               [Page 4]


DRAFT                          ISIS Unique                   18 May 2011


Normative References

   [ISO10589]  ISO/IEC 10589:2002, "Intermediate system to Intermediate
               system routeing information exchange protocol for use in
               conjunction with the Protocol for providing the
               Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473)"

   [RFC1195]   Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and
               dual environments", December 1990.

   [RFC1377]   Katz, D., "The PPP OSI Network Layer Control Protocol
               (OSINLCP)", November 1992.

   [RFC1661]   Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
               STD 51, July 1994.

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

   [RFC4086]   Eastlake, D. (3rd), Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
               "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, June
               2005.



Informative References

   [Baker1992] Baker, F., "PPP Reliable and Multi-Link Transmission",
               Message to PPP Compression List, June 29, 1992.  Message-
               Id: <9206292135.AA00620@saffron.acc.com>

   [RFC1220]   Baker, F., "Point-to-Point Protocol extensions for
               bridging", April 1991.

   [RFC1663]   Rand, D., "PPP Reliable Transmission", July 1994.

   [RFC1717]   Sklower, K., Lloyd, B., McGregor, G., and D. Carr, "The
               PPP Multilink Protocol (MP)", November 1994.

   [RFC2153]   Simpson, W., "PPP Vendor Extensions", May 1997.

   [RFC2469]   Narten, T., and C. Burton, "A Caution On The Canonical
               Ordering Of Link-Layer Addresses", December 1998.

   [RFC4593]   Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to
               Routing Protocols", October 2006.





Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011               [Page 5]


DRAFT                          ISIS Unique                   18 May 2011


   [RFC5304]   Li, T., and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
               Authentication", October 2008.

   [RFC5342]   Eastlake 3rd, D., "IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol
               Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters", BCP 141, September 2008.

   [Schneier]  Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography", John Wiley & Sons,
               1996.  ISBN 0-471-11709-9.

   [Simpson1992]
               Simpson, W., "where are we?", Message to IESG and others,
               April 17, 1992.  Message-Id:
               <269.bsimpson@vela.acs.oakland.edu>

   [Simpson1993]
               Simpson, W., "Re: Simple Multilink Proceedure for PPP -
               the document", Message to ietf-ppp and iplpdn mailing
               lists, February 21, 1993.  Message-Id:
               <988.bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>



Author's Address

   Questions about this document can be directed to:

      William Allen Simpson
      DayDreamer
      Computer Systems Consulting Services
      1384 Fontaine
      Madison Heights, Michigan  48071

          William.Allen.Simpson@Gmail.com


















Simpson                 expires November 18, 2011               [Page 6]