Network Working Group                                    F. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                      Boeing Phantom Works
Intended status: Informational                          October 14, 2008
Expires: April 17, 2009

                   Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   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-

   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

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 17, 2009.


   Enterprise networks connect routers over various link types, and may
   also connect to provider networks and/or the global Internet.
   Routers in enterprise networks must have a way to automatically
   provision IP addresses/prefixes and other information, and must also
   support post-autoconfiguration operations even for highly-dynamic
   networks.  This document specifies a Virtual Enterprise Traversal
   (VET) abstraction for autoconfiguration and operation of routers in
   enterprise networks.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Enterprise Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Enterprise-interior Interface Autoconfiguration  . . . . .  9
     4.2.  VET Interface Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  Enterprise Border Gateway Discovery and Enterprise
           Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.4.  Site-interior Interface Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . 11
       4.4.1.  Autoconfiguration of IPv4 Addresses/Prefixes . . . . . 11
       4.4.2.  Autoconfiguration of IPv6 Addresses/Prefixes . . . . . 12
       4.4.3.  Prefix and Route Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.5.  Portable and Self-Configured IP Prefixes . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Post-Autoconfiguration Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  Forwarding Packets to Destinations Outside of the
           Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  Enterprise-Local Communications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.4.  Service Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Appendix A.  Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) Considerations  . . 19
   Appendix B.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 24

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

1.  Introduction

   Enterprise networks [RFC4852] connect routers over various link types
   (see: [RFC4861], Section 2.2).  Certain Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
   (MANETs) [RFC2501] can be considered as a challenging example of an
   enterprise network, in that their topologies may change dynamically
   over time and that they may employ little/no active management by a
   centralized network administrative authority.  These specialized
   characteristics for MANETs require careful consideration, but the
   same principles apply equally to other enterprise network scenarios.

   This document specifies a Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)
   abstraction for autoconfiguration and runtime operation of enterprise
   routers over various interface types, where addresses of different
   scopes may be assigned on various types of interfaces with diverse
   properties.  Both IPv4 [RFC0791] and IPv6 [RFC2460] are discussed
   within this context.  The use of standard DHCP [RFC2131][RFC3315] and
   neighbor discovery [RFC0826][RFC4861] mechanisms is assumed unless
   otherwise specified.

                             Provider-edge Interfaces
                                  x   x        x
                                  |   |        |
             +--------------------+---+--------+----------+    E
             |                    |   |        |          |    n
             |    I               |   |  ....  |          |    t
             |    n           +---+---+--------+---+      |    e
             |    t           |   +--------+      /|      |    r
             |    e  I   x----+   |  Host  |   I /*+------+--< p  I
             |    r  n        |   |Function|   n|**|      |    r  n
             |    n  t        |   +--------+   t|**|      |    i  t
             |    a  e   x----+              V e|**+------+--< s  e
             |    l  r      . |              E r|**|  .   |    e  r
             |       f      . |              T f|**|  .   |       f
             |    V  a      . |   +--------+   a|**|  .   |    I  a
             |    i  c      . |   | Router |   c|**|  .   |    n  c
             |    r  e   x----+   |Function|   e \*+------+--< t  e
             |    t  s        |   +--------+      \|      |    e  s
             |    u           +---+---+--------+---+      |    r
             |    a               |   |  ....  |          |    i
             |    l               |   |        |          |    o
             +--------------------+---+--------+----------+    r
                                  |   |        |
                                  x   x        x
                           Enterprise-edge Interfaces

                 Figure 1: Enterprise Router Architecture

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   Figure 1 above depicts the architectural model for an enterprise
   router.  As shown in the figure, an enterprise router may have a
   variety of interface types including enterprise-edge, enterprise-
   interior, provider-edge, internal-virtual, as well as VET interfaces
   used for encapsulation of inner IP packets within outer IP headers.
   The different types of interfaces are defined, and the
   autoconfiguration mechanisms used for each type are specified.  This
   architecture applies equally for MANET routers, in which enterprise-
   interior interfaces correspond to the wireless multihop radio
   interfaces typically associated with MANETs.  Out of scope for this
   document is the autoconfiguration of provider interfaces, which must
   be coordinated in a manner specific to the service provider's

   The VET specification represents a functional superset of 6over4
   [RFC2529] and ISATAP [RFC5214], and further supports additional
   encapsulations such as IPsec [RFC4301], SEAL [I-D.templin-seal], etc.

   The VET principles can be either directly or indirectly traced to the
   deliberations of the ROAD group in January 1992, and likely also to
   still earlier works.  [RFC1955] captures the high-level architectural
   aspects of the ROAD group deliberations in a "New Scheme for Internet
   Routing and Addressing [ENCAPS] for IPNG".

   VET is related to the present-day activites of the IETF autoconf,
   dhc, ipv6, manet and v6ops working groups.

2.  Terminology

   The mechanisms within this document build upon the fundamental
   principles of IP-within-IP encapsulation.  The terms "inner" and
   "outer" are used throughout this document to respectively refer to
   the innermost IP {address, protocol, header, packet, etc.} *before*
   encapsulation, and the outermost IP {address, protocol, header,
   packet, etc.} *after* encapsulation.  VET also supports the inclusion
   of "mid-layer" encapsulations between the inner and outer layers,
   including IPSec [RFC4301], the Subnetwork Encapsulation and
   Adaptation Layer (SEAL) [I-D.templin-seal], etc.

   The terminology in the normative references apply; the following
   terms are defined within the scope of this document:

      the same as defined in [RFC3819].

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

      the same as defined in [RFC4852].

      a logical and/or physical grouping of interfaces that connect a
      topological area less than or equal to the enterprise in scope.  A
      site within an enterprise can be considered as an enterprise unto

   Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)
      a connected topology of mobile or fixed routers that maintain a
      routing structure among themselves over asymmetric reachability
      links (see: [RFC4861], Section 2.2), where a wide variety of
      MANETs share common properties with enterprise networks.  Further
      information on MANETs can be found in [RFC2501].

      throughout the remainder of this document, the term "enterprise"
      is used to collectively refer to any of enterprise/site/MANET,
      i.e., the VET mechanisms and operational principles apply equally
      to enterprises, sites and MANETs.

   enterprise router
      an Enterprise Interior Router, Enterprise Border Router, or
      Enterprise Border Gateway.  For the purose of this specification,
      an enterprise router comprises a router function, a host function,
      one or more enterprise-interior interfaces and zero or more
      internal virtual, enterprise-edge, provider-edge and VET

   Enterprise Interior Router (EIR)
      a fixed or mobile enterprise router that forwards packets over a
      set of enterprise-interior interfaces connected to the same

   Enterprise Border Router (EBR)
      an EIR that connects edge networks to the enterprise, and/or
      connects multiple enterprises together.  An EBR configures a
      seperate VET interface over each set of enterprise-interior
      interfaces that connect the EBR to each distinct enterprise, i.e.,
      an EBR may configure mulitple VET interfaces - one for each
      distinct enterprise.  All EBRs are also EIRs.

   Enterprise Border Gateway (EBG)
      an EBR that connects the enterprise to provider networks and can
      delegate addresses/prefixes to other EBRs within the enterprise.
      All EBGs are also EBRs.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   internal-virtual interface
      an EBR's attachment to an internal virual link (e.g., a loopback
      ).  An internal-virtual interface is a special case of an
      enterprise-edge interface.

   enterprise-edge interface
      an EBR's attachment to a link (e.g., an ethernet, a wireless
      personal area network, etc.) on an arbitrarily-complex edge
      network that the EBR connects to an enterprise and/or to provider
      networks.  By this definition, an internal-virtual interface that
      configures non-link-local addresses also qualifies as an
      enterprise-edge interface.

   provider-edge interface
      an EBR's attachment to the Internet, or to a provider network
      outside of the enterprise via which the Internet can be reached.

   enterprise-interior Interface
      a EIR's attachment to a link within an enterprise.  An enterprise-
      interior interface is "neutral" in its orientation, i.e., it is
      inherently neither an enterprise-edge nor provider-edge interface.
      In particular, a packet may need to be forwarded over several
      enterprise-interior interfaces before it is forwarded via either
      an enterprise-edge or provider-edge interface.

   Enterprise Local Address (ELA)
      an enterprise-scoped IP address (e.g., an IPv6 Unique Local
      Address [RFC4193], an IPv4 privacy address [RFC1918], etc.) that
      is assigned to an enterprise-interior interface and unique within
      the enterprise.  ELAs are used as identifiers for operating the
      routing protocol and/or locators for packet forwarding within the
      scope of the enterprise; ELAs are also used as *outer* IP
      addresses during encapsulation.

   Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)
      an abstraction that uses IP-in-IP encapsulation to span a multi-
      link enterprise in a single (inner) IP hop.

   VET interface
      an EBR's Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access interface used for Virtual
      Enterprise Traversal.  The EBR configures a VET interface over a
      set of underlying enterprise-interior interface(s) belonging to
      the same enterprise.  When there are multiple distinct enterprises
      (each with their own distinct set of enterprise-interior
      interfaces), the EBR configures a separate VET interface over each
      set of enterprise-interior interfaces, i.e., the EBR configures
      multiple VET interfaces.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

      The VET interface encapsulates each inner IP packet in any mid-
      layer headers plus an outer IP header then forwards it on an
      underlying enterprise-interior interface such that the TTL/Hop
      Limit in the inner header is not decremented as the packet
      traverses the enterprise.  The VET interface presents an automatic
      tunneling abstraction that represents the enterprise as a single
      IP hop.

   The following additional acronyms are used throughout the document:

   CGA - Cryptographically Generated Address
   DHCP[v4,v6] - the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
   IP[v4,v6] - the Internet Protocol
   ISATAP - Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol
   ND - Neighbor Discovery
   PIO - Prefix Information Option
   RIO - Route Information Option
   RS/RA - IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Router Solicitation/Advertisement
   SEAL - Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer
   SLAAC - IPv6 StateLess Address AutoConfiguation

3.  Enterprise Characteristics

   Enterprises consist of links that are connected by enterprise routers
   as depicted in Figure 1.  All enterprise routers also serve as
   Enterprise Interior Routers (EIRs) that typically participate in a
   routing protocol over enterprise-interior interfaces to discover
   routes that may include multiple Layer-2 or Layer-3 forwarding hops.
   Enterprise Border Routers (EBRs) are EIRs that connect edge networks
   and/or join multiple enterprises together, while Enterprise Border
   Gateways (EBGs) are EBRs that connect enterprises to provider
   networks.  An enterprise may be as simple as a small collection of
   enterprise routers (and their attached edge networks); an enterprise
   may also contain other enterprises/sites and/or be a subnetwork of a
   larger enterprise.  An enterprise may further encompass a set of
   branch offices connected to a home office over one or several service
   providers, e.g., through Virtual Private Network (VPN) tunnels.

   Enterprises that comprise homogeneous link types within a single IP
   subnet can configure the routing protocol to operate as a sub-IP
   layer mechanism such that IP sees the enterprise as an ordinary
   shared link the same as for a (bridged) campus LAN.  In that case, a
   single IP hop is sufficient to traverse the enterprise without IP
   layer encapsulation.

   Enterprises that comprise heterogeneous link types and/or multiple IP
   subnets must also provide a routing service that operates as an IP

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   layer mechanism, e.g., to accommodate media types with dissimilar
   Layer-2 address formats and maximum transmission units (MTUs).  In
   that case, multiple IP hops may be necessary to traverse the
   enterprise such that specific autoconfiguration procedures are
   necessary to avoid multilink subnet issues [RFC4903].  In particular,
   we describe herein the use of IP-in-IP encapsulation to span the
   enterprise in a single (inner) IP hop in order to avoid the multilink
   subnet issues that arise when enterprise-interior interfaces are used
   directly by applications.

   Conceptually, an enterprise router (i.e, an EIR/EBR/EBG) embodies
   both a host function and router function.  The host function supports
   global-scoped communications over any of the enterprise router's non-
   enterprise-interior interfaces according to the weak end system model
   [RFC1122] and also supports non-global-scoped communications over its
   enterprise-interior interfaces.  The router function connects the
   enterprise router's attached edge networks to the enterprise and/or
   connects the enterprise to other networks including the Internet
   (see: Figure 1).

   In addition to other interface types, EBRs configure VET interfaces
   that view all other EBRs in an enterprise as single-hop neighbors,
   where the enterprise can also appear as a single IP hop within
   another enterprise.  EBRs configure a separate VET interface for each
   distinct enterprise to which they connect, and discover a list of
   EBRs for each VET interface that can be used for forwarding packets
   to off-enterprise destinations.  The following sections present the
   Virtual Enterprise Traversal approach.

4.  Autoconfiguration

   EIRs configure one or more enterprise-interior interfaces and engage
   in routing protocols over those interfaces.  They also configure zero
   or more provider-edge interfaces that connect the enterprise to a
   service provider, and zero or more enterprise-edge interfaces that
   attach edge networks to the enterprise.

   EIRs that configure enterprise-edge and/or provider-edge interfaces
   also act as EBRs, and configure a VET interface over a set of
   underlying enterprise-interior interfaces belonging to the same
   enterprise.  (Note that an EBR may connect to multiple distinct
   enterprises, in which case it would configure multiple VET
   interfaces.)  EIRs obtain addresses/prefixes and other
   autoconfiguration information using the mechanisms specified in the
   following sections.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

4.1.  Enterprise-interior Interface Autoconfiguration

   When a EIR joins an enterprise, it first configures a unique IPv6
   link-local address on each enterprise-interior interface that
   requires an IPv6 link-local capability and an IPv4 link-local address
   on each enterprise-interior interface that requires an IPv4 link-
   local capability.  IPv6 link-local address generation mechanisms that
   provide sufficient uniqueness include Cryptographically Generated
   Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972], StateLess Address AutoConfiguration
   (SLAAC) using EUI-64 interface identifiers [RFC4862], etc.  The
   mechanisms specified in [RFC3927] provide an IPv4 link-local address
   generation capability.

   Next, the EIR configures an Enterprise Local Address (ELA) of the
   outer IP protocol version on each of its enterprise-interior
   interfaces and engages in any routing protocols on those interfaces.
   The EIR can configure an ELA via explicit management, DHCP
   autoconfiguration, pseudo-random self-generation from a suitably
   large address pool, or through an alternate autoconfiguration

   DHCP configuration of ELAs may require support from relays within the
   enterprise that have already autoconfigured an ELA as well as an
   enterprise-wide multicast forwarding capability.  For DHCPv6, relays
   that do not already know the ELA of a server relay requests to the
   'All_DHCP_Servers' site-scoped IPv6 multicast group.  For DHCPv4,
   relays that do not already know the ELA of a server relay requests to
   the site-scoped IPv4 multicast group address TBD (see: Section 6).
   DHCPv4 servers that delegate ELAs join the TBD multicast group and
   service any DHCPv4 messages received for that group.

   Self-generation of ELAs for IPv6 can be from a large IPv6 local-use
   address range, e.g., IPv6 Unique Local Addresses [RFC4193].  Self-
   generation of ELAs for IPv4 can be from a large IPv4 private address
   range, e.g., [I-D.fuller-240space].  When self-generation is used
   alone, the EIR must continuously monitor the ELAs for uniqueness,
   e.g., by monitoring the routing protocol, sending beacons, etc.
   (This continuous monitoring process is sometimes known as "in-service
   duplicate address detection").

   A combined approach using both DHCP and self-generation is also
   possible.  In this combined approach, the EIR first self-generates a
   temporary ELA which it will use only for the purpose of procuring an
   actual ELA from a DHCP server.  Acting as a combined client/relay,
   the EIR then assigns the temporary ELA to an enterprise-interior
   interface, engages in the routing protocol and performs a relay-
   server exchange using the temporary ELA as an address for the relay.
   When the DHCP server delegates an actual ELA, the EIR abandons the

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   temporary ELA, assigns the actual ELA to the enterprise-interior
   interface and re-engages in the routing protocol.  Note that the
   range of ELAs delegated by a DHCP server must be disjoint from the
   range of ELAs used by the EIR for self-generation.

4.2.  VET Interface Autoconfiguration

   EBRs configure a VET interface over a set of underlying enterprise-
   interior interfaces belonging to the same enterprise, where the VET
   interface presents a virtual view of all EBRs in the enterprise as
   single hop neighbors.  Inner IP packets forwarded over the VET
   interface are encapsulated in any mid-layer headers (e.g., IPsec, the
   SEAL header, etc.) followed by an outer IP header, then submitted to
   the outer IP forwarding engine for transmission on an underlying
   enterprise-interior interface.  Further encapsulation details are
   specified in Section 5.

   When IPv6 and IPv4 are used as the inner/outer protocols
   (respectively), the EBR autoconfigures an ISATAP link-local address
   ([RFC5214], Section 6.2) on the VET interface to support packet
   forwarding and operation of the IPv6 neighbor discovery protocol.
   The ISATAP address embeds an IPv4 ELA assigned to an underlying
   enterprise-interior interface, and need not be checked for uniqueness
   since the IPv4 ELA itself was already determined to be unique.  Link-
   local address configuration for other inner/outer IP protocol
   combinations is through administrative configuration or through an
   unspecified alternate method.

   After the EBR configures a VET interface, it can communicate with
   other EBRs as single-hop neighbors.  It can also confirm reachability
   of other EBRs through Neighbor Discovery (ND) and/or DHCP exchanges
   over the VET interface, or through other means such as information
   conveyed in the routing protocol.

   The EBR must be able to detect and recover from the loss of VET
   interface neighbors due to e.g., enterprise network partitions, node
   failures, etc.  Mechanisms specified outside of this document such as
   monitoring the routing protocol, ND beaconing/polling, DHCP renewals/
   leasequeries, upper layer protocol hints of forward progress,
   bidirectional forward detection, detection of network attachment,
   etc. can be used according to the particular deployment scenario.

4.3.  Enterprise Border Gateway Discovery and Enterprise Identification

   After the EBR configures its VET interfaces, it next discovers a list
   of EBGs for each distinct enterprise to which it connects.  The list
   can be discovered through information conveyed in the routing
   protocol or through the discovery mechanisms outlined in [RFC5214],

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   Section 8.3.2.

   In particular, whether or not routing information is available the
   EBR can discover the list of EBGs by resolving an identifying name
   for the enterprise using an Enterprsie-local name resolution service
   (such as LLMNR [RFC4759] over the VET interface).  In the absence of
   other identifying names, the EBR can resolve either the hostname
   "6over4" or the FQDN "" (i.e., if an enterprise-
   specific suffix "" is known) for multicast-capable
   enterprises.  For non-multicast enterprises, the EBR can instead
   resolve the hostname "isatap" or the FQDN "".

   Identifying names along with addresses of EBGs and/or the prefixes
   they aggregate serve as an identifier for the enterprise.

4.4.  Site-interior Interface Autoconfiguration

   EBRs can acquire addresses and/or prefix delegations for assignment
   on enterprise-edge interfaces through autoconfiguration exchanges
   with EBGs over the VET interface.  Site-interior interface
   autoconfiguration considerations are discussed in the following

4.4.1.  Autoconfiguration of IPv4 Addresses/Prefixes

   When IPv4 is used as the inner protocol, the EBR discovers the
   addresses of one or more EBGs that delegate IPv4 prefixes then
   performs a DHCPv4 prefix delegation exchange
   [I-D.ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc] over the VET interface to obtain IPv4
   prefixes for assignment and/or sub-delegation on its enterprise-edge

   To perform the DHCPv4 prefix delegation exchange, a DHCPv4 client
   associated with the EBR's host function forwards a DHCPDISCOVER
   message with a Subnet Allocation option to a DHCPv4 relay associated
   with its router function, i.e., the EBR acts as both client and
   relay.  The relay then forwards the message over the VET interface to
   the DHCPv4 server on an EBG.  The forwarded DHCPDISCOVER will elicit
   a DHCPOFFER from the server containing IPv4 prefix delegations, and
   the EBR completes the delegation through a DHCPREQUEST/DHCPACK

   When the EBR receives IPv4 prefix delegations, it assigns the
   prefixes on enterprise-edge interfaces; it does not assign them on
   the VET interface nor on enterprise-interior interfaces.  The EBR can
   also obtain /32 prefixes using DHCPv4 prefix delegation the same as
   for any IPv4 prefix, and can assign them as IPv4 addresses with /32
   netmasks on enterprise-edge interfaces.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

4.4.2.  Autoconfiguration of IPv6 Addresses/Prefixes

   When IPv6 is used as the inner protocol, the EBR sends unicast IPv6
   Router Solicitation (RS) messages to EBGs over the VET interface to
   receive Router Advertisements (RAs) with Prefix Information Options
   (PIOs) and/or with the 'M' flag set to signify whether DHCPv6
   autoconfiguration is available.  When the EBR receives an RA
   containing PIOs with the 'A' and 'L' bits set to 1, it autoconfigures
   IPv6 addresses from the prefixes using SLAAC and assigns them to the
   VET interface.  (When IPv4 is used as the outer IP protocol, the
   addresses are autoconfigured and assigned as ISATAP addresses the
   same as specified in [RFC5214].)

   When the EBR receives an RA with the 'M' flag set to 1, the EBG that
   sent the RA also hosts a DHCPv6 server capable of delegating IPv6
   prefixes (support for the EBG acting as a DHCPv6 relay may be
   considered in the future).  If the RA also contains PIOs with the 'L'
   bit set to 0, the EBR can use them as hints of prefixes the server is
   willing to delegate.  For example, an EBG can include a PIO with a
   prefix such as 2001:DB8::/48 as a hint of an aggregated prefix from
   which it is willing to delegate longer prefixes.  Whether or not such
   hints are available, the EBR (acting as a requesting router) can use
   DHCPv6 prefix delegation [RFC3633] over a VET interface to obtain
   IPv6 prefixes from an EBG (acting as a delegating router).  The EBR
   can then use the delegated prefixes for assignment and/or sub-
   delegation on its enterprise-edge interfaces; it can also act as an
   EBG on enterprises on which it is configured as a provider, and offer
   sub-delegations of the prefixes over a VET interface to other EBRs in
   those enterprises.

   The EBR obtains prefixes using either a 2-message or 4-message DHCPv6
   exchange [RFC3315].  For example, to perform the 2-message exchange a
   DHCPv6 client associated with the EBR's host function forwards a
   Solicit message with an IA_PD option to a DHCPv6 relay associated
   with its router function, i.e., the EBR acts as both client and
   relay.  The relay then forwards the message over the VET interface to
   the DHCPv6 server.  The forwarded Solicit message will elicit a Reply
   from the server containing IPv6 prefix delegations.  When the EBR
   receives IPv6 prefix delegations, it assigns the prefixes on
   enterprise-edge interfaces only; it does not assign them on provider-
   edge, VET, or enterprise-interior interfaces (see: [RFC3633], Section

   The EBR can also propose a specific prefix to the DHCPv6 server per
   Section 7 of [RFC3633], e.g., if a prefix delegation hint is
   available.  The server will check the proposed prefix for consistency
   and uniqueness, then return it in the reply to the EBR if it was able
   to perform the delegation.  The EBR can use mechanisms such as CGAs

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   [RFC3972], IPv6 privacy address [RFC4941], etc. to self-generate
   addresses in conjunction with prefix delegation.

4.4.3.  Prefix and Route Maintenance

   When DHCP prefix delegation is used, an EBG's DHCP server ensures
   that the delegations are unique within the enterprise and that its
   router function will forward IP packets over the VET interface to the
   EBR to which the prefix was delegated.  The prefix delegation remains
   active as long as the EBR continues to issue renewals over the VET
   interface before the lease lifetime expires.  The lease lifetime also
   keeps the delegation state active even if communications between the
   EBR and EBG is disrupted for a period of time (e.g., due to an
   enterprise network partition) before being reestablished (e.g., due
   to an enterprise network merge).

   Since the DHCP client and relay are co-resident on the same EBR, no
   special coordination is necessary for the EBG to maintain routing
   information.  The EBG simply retains forwarding information base
   entries that identify the EBR as the next-hop toward the prefix via
   the VET interface, and issues ordinary redirects over the VET
   interface when necessary .

4.5.  Portable and Self-Configured IP Prefixes

   Independent of any EBG-aggregated addresses/prefixes (see:
   Section 4.4), an EBR can retain portable IP prefixes (e.g., prefixes
   taken from a home network, IPv6 Unique Local Addresses (ULAs)
   [RFC4193][I-D.ietf-ipv6-ula-central], etc.) as it travels between
   visited enterprise networks as long it coordinates in some fashion,
   e.g., with a mapping agent, prefix aggregation authority, etc.  EBRs
   can sub-delegate portable (and other self-configured) prefixes on
   networks connected on their enterprise-edge interfaces.

   Portable prefixes are not aggregated, redistributed or advertised by
   EBGs and can therefore travel with the EBR as it moves to new visited
   networks and/or configures peering arrangements with other nodes.
   Generation and coordination of portable (and other self-configured)
   prefixes can therefore occur independently of any other
   autoconfiguration considerations.

5.  Post-Autoconfiguration Operation

   After a EIR has been autoconfigured, it participates in any routing
   protocols over enterprise-interior interfaces and forwards outer IP
   packets within the enterprise as for any ordinary router.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   EBRs can additionally engage in any inner IP routing protocols over
   enterprise-edge, provider-edge and VET interfaces interfaces, and can
   use those interfaces for forwarding inner IP packets to off-
   enterprise destinations.  Note that these inner IP routing protocols
   are separate and distinct from any enterprise-interior routing

   The following sections discuss post-autoconfiguration operations:

5.1.  Forwarding Packets to Destinations Outside of the Enterprise

   EBRs consult the inner IP forwarding table to determine the next hop
   address (e.g., the VET interface address of another EBR) for
   forwarding packets to destinations outside of the enterprise.  When
   there is no forwarding information available, the EBR can discover
   the next-hop through FQDN or reverse lookup using the same name
   resolution services as for EBG discovery (see Section 4.3).

   For forwarding to next-hop addresses over VET interfaces that use
   IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation, EBRs determine the outer destination
   address through static extraction of the IPv4 address embedded in the
   next-hop ISATAP address.  For other IP-in-IP encapsulations,
   determination of the outer destination address is through
   administrative configuration or through an unspecified alternate

   EBRs that use IPv6 as the inner protocol can discover default router
   preferences and more-specific routes [RFC4191] by sending an RS over
   the VET interface to elicit an RA from another EBR.  After default
   and/or more-specific routes are discovered, the EBR can forward IP
   packets via a specific EBR as the next-hop router on the VET
   interface.  When multiple default routers are available, the EBR can
   use default router preferences, routing protocol information, traffic
   engineering configurations, etc. to select the best exit router.

5.2.  Enterprise-Local Communications

   When permitted by policy, pairs of EIRs that configure the endpoints
   of a communications session can avoid VET interface encapsulation by
   directly invoking the outer IP protocol using ELAs assigned to their
   enterprise-interior interfaces.  For example, when the outer protocol
   is IPv4, a pair of communicating EIRs can use IPv4 ELAs for direct
   communications over their enterprise-interior interfaces without
   using the VET interface.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

5.3.  Multicast

   In multicast-capable deployments, EIRs provide an enterprise-wide
   multicasting service such as Simplified Multicast Forwarding (SMF)
   [I-D.ietf-manet-smf] over their enterprise-interior interfaces such
   that outer IP multicast messages of site- or greater scope will be
   propagated across the enterprise.  For such deployments, EBRs can
   also provide an inner IP multicast/broadcast capability over their
   VET interfaces through mapping of the inner IP multicast address
   space to the outer IP multicast address space.

   EBRs encapsulate inner IP multicast messages sent over the VET
   interface in any mid-layer headers (e.g., IPsec, SEAL, etc.) plus an
   outer IP header with a site-scoped outer IP multicast address as the
   destination.  For the case of IPv6 and IPv4 as the inner/outer
   protocols (respectively), [RFC2529] provides mappings from the IPv6
   multicast address space to the IPv4 multicast address space.  For
   other IP-in-IP encapsulations, mappings are established through
   administrative configuration or through an unspecified alternate

   For multicast-capable enterprises, use of the inner IP multicast
   service for operating the ND protocol over the VET interface is
   available but should be used sparingly to minimize enterprise-wide
   flooding.  Therefore, EBRs should use unicast ND services over the
   VET interface instead of multicast whenever possible.

5.4.  Service Discovery

   EIRs can peform enterprise-wide service discovery using a suitable
   name-to-address resolution service.  Examples of flooding-based
   services include the use of LLMNR [RFC4759] over the VET interface or
   mDNS [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] over an underlying
   enterprise-interior interface.  More scalable and efficient service
   discovery mechanisms are for further study.

6.  IANA Considerations

   A Site-Local Scope IPv4 multicast group (TBD) for DHCPv4 server
   discovery is requested.  The allocation should be taken from the Site-Local Scope range in the IANA
   'multicast-addresses' registry.

7.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations for MANETs are found in [RFC2501].

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   Security concerns with tunneling along with recommendations that
   apply also to VET are found in
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns] [RFC5214].

8.  Related Work

   The authors acknowledge the work done by Brian Carpenter and Cyndi
   Jung in [RFC2529] that introduced the concept of intra-site automatic
   tunneling.  This concept was later called: "Virtual Ethernet" and
   investigated by Quang Nguyen under the guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang.
   As for this document, these architectural principles also follow from
   earlier works articulated by the ROAD group deliberations of 1992.

   Telcordia has proposed DHCP-related solutions for the CECOM MOSAIC
   program.  The Naval Research Lab (NRL) Information Technology
   Division uses DHCP in their MANET research testbeds.  Various
   proposals within the IETF have suggested similar mechanisms.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The following individuals gave direct and/or indirect input that was
   essential to the work: Jari Arkko, Teco Boot, Emmanuel Bacelli, James
   Bound, Thomas Clausen, Bob Hinden, Joe Macker, Thomas Narten,
   Alexandru Petrescu, John Spence, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler, Michaela
   Vanderveen and others in the IETF AUTOCONF and MANET working groups.
   Many others have provided guidance over the course of many years.

10.  Contributors

   The following individuals have contributed to this document:

   Eric Fleischman (
   Thomas Henderson (
   Steven Russert (
   Seung Yi (

   Ian Chakeres ( contributed to earlier versions
   of the document.

11.  References

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

11.1.  Normative References

              Johnson, R., "Subnet Allocation Option",
              draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07 (work in progress),
              July 2008.

              Hoagland, J., Krishnan, S., and D. Thaler, "Security
              Concerns With Tunneling",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-00 (work in
              progress), July 2008.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [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.

   [RFC2131]  Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
              RFC 2131, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [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.

   [RFC3633]  Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
              Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
              December 2003.

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

   [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.

   [RFC5214]  Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
              Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
              March 2008.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

11.2.  Informative References

              Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS",
              draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-07 (work in progress),
              September 2008.

              Fuller, V., "Reclassifying 240/4 as usable unicast address
              space", draft-fuller-240space-02 (work in progress),
              March 2008.

              Chakeres, I., Macker, J., and T. Clausen, "Mobile Ad hoc
              Network Architecture", draft-ietf-autoconf-manetarch-07
              (work in progress), November 2007.

              Hinden, R., "Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-02 (work in
              progress), June 2007.

              Macker, J. and S. Team, "Simplified Multicast Forwarding
              for MANET", draft-ietf-manet-smf-07 (work in progress),
              February 2008.

              Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
              Layer (SEAL)", draft-templin-seal-23 (work in progress),
              August 2008.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC1955]  Hinden, R., "New Scheme for Internet Routing and
              Addressing (ENCAPS) for IPNG", RFC 1955, June 1996.

   [RFC2501]  Corson, M. and J. Macker, "Mobile Ad hoc Networking
              (MANET): Routing Protocol Performance Issues and
              Evaluation Considerations", RFC 2501, January 1999.

   [RFC2529]  Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
              Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529, March 1999.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   [RFC3056]  Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains
              via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001.

   [RFC3753]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
              RFC 3753, June 2004.

   [RFC3819]  Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
              Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
              Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
              RFC 3819, July 2004.

   [RFC3927]  Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
              Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
              May 2005.

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, March 2005.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4759]  Stastny, R., Shockey, R., and L. Conroy, "The ENUM Dip
              Indicator Parameter for the "tel" URI", RFC 4759,
              December 2006.

   [RFC4852]  Bound, J., Pouffary, Y., Klynsma, S., Chown, T., and D.
              Green, "IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis - IP Layer 3
              Focus", RFC 4852, April 2007.

   [RFC4903]  Thaler, D., "Multi-Link Subnet Issues", RFC 4903,
              June 2007.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007.

Appendix A.  Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) Considerations

   A-priori uniqueness determination (also known as "pre-service DAD")
   for an ELA assigned on an enterprise-interior interface (such as
   specified in [RFC4862]) would require either flooding the entire
   enterprise or somehow discovering a link in the enterprise on which a
   node that configures a duplicate address is attached and performing a
   localized DAD exchange on that link.  But, the control message

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   overhead for such an enterprise-wide DAD would be substantial and
   prone to false-negatives due to packet loss and intermittent
   connectivity.  An alternative to pre-service DAD is to autoconfigure
   pseudo-random ELAs on enterprise-interior interfaces and employ a
   passive in-service DAD (e.g., one that monitors routing protocol
   messages for duplicate assignments).

   Pseudo-random IPv6 ELAs can be generated with mechanisms such as
   CGAs, IPv6 privacy addresses, etc. with very small probability of
   collision.  Pseudo-random IPv4 ELAs can be generated through random
   assignment from a suitably large IPv4 prefix space, e.g., the soon-
   to-be-reclassified 240/4 space [I-D.fuller-240space].

   Consistent operational practices can assure uniqueness for EBG-
   aggregated addresses/prefixes, while statistical properties for
   pseudo-random address self-generation can assure uniqueness for the
   ELAs assigned on an EIR's enterprise-interior interfaces.  Still, an
   ELA delegation authority should be used when available, while a
   passive in-service DAD mechanism should be used to detect ELA
   duplications when there is no ELA delegation authority.

Appendix B.  Change Log

   (Note to RFC editor - this section to be removed before publication
   as an RFC.)

   Changes from -15 to 17:

   o  title change to "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)".

   o  changed document focus from MANET-centric to the much-broader
      Enterprise-centric, where "Enterprise" is understood to also cover
      a wide range of MANET types.

   Changes from -14 to 15:

   o  title change to "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET) for MANETs".

   o  Address review comments

   Changes from -12 to 14:

   o  title change to "The MANET Virtual Ethernet Abstraction".

   o  Minor section rearrangement.

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   o  Clartifications on portable and self-configured prefixes.

   o  Clarifications on DHCPv6 prefix delegation procedures.

   Changes from -11 to 12:

   o  title change to "MANET Autoconfiguration using Virtual Ethernet".

   o  DHCP prefix delegation for both IPv4 and IPv6 as primary address
      delegation mechanism.

   o  IPv6 SLAAC for address autoconfiguration on the VET interface.

   o  fixed editorials based on comments received.

   Changes from -10 to 11:

   o  removed the transparent/opaque VET portal abstractions.

   o  removed routing header as an option for MANET exit router

   o  included IPv6 SLAAC as an endorsed address configuration mechanism
      for the VET interface.

   Changes from -08 to -09:

   o  Introduced the term "VET".

   o  Changed address delegation language to speak of "MNBR-aggregated"
      instead of global/local.

   o  Updated figures 1-3.

   o  Explained why a MANET interface is "neutral".

   o  Removed DHCPv4 "MLA Address option".  Now, MNBRs can only be
      DHCPv4 servers; not relays.

   Changes from -07 to -08:

   o  changed terms "unenhanced" and "enhanced" to "transparent" and

   o  revised MANET Router diagram.

   o  introduced RFC3753 terminology for Mobile Router; ingress/egress

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   o  changed abbreviations to "MNR" and "MNBR".

   o  added text on ULAs and ULA-Cs to "Self-Generated Addresses".

   o  rearranged Section 3.1.

   o  various minor text cleanups

   Changes from -06 to -07:

   o  added MANET Router diagram.

   o  added new references

   o  various minor text cleanups

   Changed from -05 to -06:

   o  Changed terms "raw" and "cooked" to "unenhanced" and "enhanced".

   o  minor changes to preserve generality

   Changed from -04 to -05:

   o  introduced conceptual "virtual ethernet" model.

   o  support "raw" and "cooked" modes as equivalent access methods on
      the virutal ethernet.

   Changed from -03 to -04:

   o  introduced conceptual "imaginary shared link" as a representation
      for a MANET.

   o  discussion of autonomous system and site abstractions for MANETs

   o  discussion of autoconfiguration of CGAs

   o  new appendix on IPv6 StateLess Address AutoConfiguration

   Changes from -02 to -03:

   o  updated terminology based on RFC2461 "asymmetric reachability"
      link type; IETF67 MANET Autoconf wg discussions.

   o  added new appendix on IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and Duplicate
      Address Detection

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

   o  relaxed DHCP server deployment considerations allow DHCP servers
      within the MANET itself

   Changes from -01 to -02:

   o  minor updates for consistency with recent developments

   Changes from -00 to -01:

   o  new text on DHCPv6 prefix delegation and multilink subnet

   o  various editorial changes

Author's Address

   Fred L. Templin (editor)
   Boeing Phantom Works
   P.O. Box 3707 MC 7L-49
   Seattle, WA  98124


Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      October 2008

Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at

Templin                  Expires April 17, 2009                [Page 24]