Network Working Group                                    F. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft                            Boeing Research and Technology
Intended status: Informational                          January 13, 2009
Expires: July 17, 2009

                   Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 July 17, 2009.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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
   ( 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.


   Enterprise networks connect routers over various link types, and may
   also connect to provider networks and/or the global Internet.  Nodes

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   in enterprise networks must have a way to automatically provision IP
   addresses/prefixes and other information, and must also support
   internetworking operation even in highly-dynamic networks.  This
   document specifies a Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET) abstraction
   for autoconfiguration and operation of nodes in enterprise networks.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Enterprise Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  Enterprise Interior Router (EIR) Autoconfiguration . . . .  9
     4.2.  Enterprise Border Router (EBR) Autoconfiguration . . . . . 11
       4.2.1.  VET Interface Autoconfiguration  . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.2.  Provider-Aggregated (PA) Prefix Autoconfiguration  . . 12
       4.2.3.  Provider-Independent (PI) Prefix Autoconfiguration . . 13
     4.3.  Enterprise Border Gateway (EBG) Autoconfiguration  . . . . 13
     4.4.  VET Host Autoconfiguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Internetworking Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.1.  Routing Protocol Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.2.  PA Prefix Maintenance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  IPv6 EBG Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.4.  IPv6 PI Prefix Registration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.5.  IPv6 Next-Hop EBR Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.6.  Forwarding Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.7.  SEAL Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     5.8.  Generating Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.9.  Processing Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     5.10. Mobility and Multihoming Considerations  . . . . . . . . . 20
     5.11. Enterprise-Local Communications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.12. Multicast  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.13. Service Discovery  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     5.14. Enterprise Partitioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Appendix A.  Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) Considerations  . . 27
   Appendix B.  Change Log  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

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 internetworking operation,
   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

   Figure 1 above depicts the architectural model for an enterprise

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   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

   Enterprise routers must have a means for supporting both Provider-
   Independent (PI) and Provider-Independent (PA) IP prefixes for
   global-scope communications.  This is especially true for enterprise
   scenarios that involve mobility and multihoming.  Ingress filtering
   for multi-homed sites, adaptation based on authenticated ICMP
   feedback from on-path routers, effective tunnel path MTU mitigations
   and routing scaling suppression are also required in many enterprise
   network scenarios.  The VET specification provides a comprehensive
   solution that addresses these issues and more.

   VET 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.  As a result, VET
   provides a map-and-encaps architecture using IP-in-IP tunneling based
   on both forwarding table and mapping service lookups (defined

   The VET principles can be either directly or indirectly traced to the
   deliberations of the ROAD group in January 1992, and also to still
   earlier works including NIMROD [RFC1753], the Catenet model for
   internetworking [CATENET][IEN48][RFC2775], etc.  [RFC1955] captures
   the high-level architectural aspects of the ROAD group deliberations
   in a "New Scheme for Internet Routing and Addressing [ENCAPS] for

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

2.  Terminology

   The mechanisms within this document build upon the fundamental
   principles of IP-within-IP encapsulation.  The terms "inner" and
   "outer" are used to respectively refer to the innermost IP {address,

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   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].

      the same as defined in [RFC4852].

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

   Mobile Ad-hoc Network (MANET)
      a connected topology of mobile or fixed routers that maintain a
      routing structure among themselves over dynamic links, where a
      wide variety of MANETs share common properties with enterprise
      networks.  Characteristics of MANETs are defined in [RFC2501],
      Section 3.

      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.  As depicted in Figure 1, 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 interfaces.

   Enterprise Interior Router (EIR)
      a fixed or mobile enterprise router that forwards packets over one
      or more sets of enterprise-interior interface, where each set
      connects to a distinct enterprise.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   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.  In
      particular, 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 VET interfaces configued over child
      enterprises to a provider network - either directly via a
      provider-edge interface, or indirectly via another VET interface
      configured over a parent enterprise.  EBRs may act as EBGs on some
      VET interfaces and as ordinary EBRs on other VET interfaces.  All
      EBGs are also EBRs.

   enterprise-interior interface
      a EIR's attachment to a link within an enterprise.  Packets sent
      over enterprise-interior interfaces may be forwarded over multiple
      additional enterprise-interior interfaces within the enterprise
      before they are forwarded via an enterprise-edge interface,
      provider-edge interface or a VET interface configured over a
      different enterprise.

   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

   internal-virtual interface
      a virtual interface that is a special case of either an
      enterprise-edge or an enterprise-interior interface.  Internal-
      virtual interfaces that are also enterprise-edge interfaces are
      often loopback interfaces of some form.  Internal-virtual
      interfaces that are also enterprise-interior interfaces are often
      tunnel interfaces of some form configured over another enterprise-
      interior 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.

   Routing Locator (RLOC)
      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.  RLOCs are used as identifiers for operating the

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

      routing protocol and/or locators for packet forwarding within the
      scope of the enterprise.  RLOCs are used as the *outer* IP
      addresses during encapsulation, and can also be used as addresses
      for enterprise-internal communications that do not require

   Provider-Independent (PI) prefix
      an IPv6 or IPv4 prefix (e.g., 2001:DB8::/48, 192.0.2/24, etc.)
      that is routable within a limited scope and may also appear in a
      global mapping table.  PI prefixes that can appear in a global
      mapping table are typically delegated to an EBR by a registry, but
      are not aggregated by a provider network.  Local-use IPv6 and IPv4
      prefixes (e.g., FD00::/8, 192.168/16, etc.) are another example of
      a PI prefix, but these typically do not appear in a global mapping

   Provider Aggregated (PA) prefix
      an IPv6 or IPv4 prefix that is either derived from a PI prefix or
      delegated directly to a provider network by a registry.

   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 (NBMA) 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.

      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 therefore presents an
      automatic tunneling abstraction that represents the enterprise as
      a single IP hop.

   VET host
      any node (host or router) that configures a VET interface for host
      operation only.  Note that a single node may configure some of its
      VET interfaces as host interfaces and others as router interfaces.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   VET node
      any node that configures and uses a VET interface.

   The following additional acronyms are used throughout the document:

   CGA - Cryptographically Generated Address
   DHCP[v4,v6] - the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
   FIB - Forwarding Information Base
   ISATAP - Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol
   NBMA - Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access
   ND - Neighbor Discovery
   PA - Provider Aggregated
   PI - Provider Independent
   PIO - Prefix Information Option
   PRL - Potential Router List
   PRLNAME - Identifying name for the PRL (default is "isatap")
   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 are also Enterprise
   Interior Routers (EIRs), and 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 either directly or indirectly 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 and/or be a subnetwork of a larger
   enterprise.  An enterprise may further encompass a set of branch
   offices and/or nomadic hosts connected to a home office over one or
   several service providers, e.g., through Virtual Private Network
   (VPN) tunnels.

   Enterprises that comprise link types with sufficiently similar
   properties (e.g., Layer-2 (L2) address formats, maximum transmission
   units (MTUs), etc.) can configure a sub-IP layer routing service 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.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   Enterprises that comprise link types with diverse properties and/or
   configure multiple IP subnets must also provide a routing service
   that operates as an IP layer mechanism.  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 enterprise-local-scoped communications
   over its enterprise-interior interfaces.  The router function engages
   in the enterprise-interior routing protocol, connects any of the
   enterprise router's edge networks to the enterprise and may also
   connect the enterprise to provider networks (see: Figure 1).

   In addition to other interface types, VET nodes configure VET
   interfaces that view all other VET nodes in an enterprise as single-
   hop neighbors, where the enterprise can also appear as a single IP
   hop within another enterprise.  VET nodes 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, EBRs, EBGs and VET hosts configure themselves for operation as
   specified in the following subsections:

4.1.  Enterprise Interior Router (EIR) Autoconfiguration

   EIRs configure enterprise-interior interfaces and engage in routing
   protocols over those interfaces.

   When an 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], IPv6 Privacy Addresses [RFC4941],
   StateLess Address AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) using EUI-64 interface

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   identifiers [RFC4862], etc.  The mechanisms specified in [RFC3927]
   provide an IPv4 link-local address generation capability.

   Next, the EIR configures a Routing Locator (RLOC) 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 RLOC via explicit management, DHCP autoconfiguration,
   pseudo-random self-generation from a suitably large address pool, or
   through an alternate autoconfiguration mechanism.  In some enterprise
   use cases (e.g., highly dynamic MANETs), assignment of RLOCs as
   singleton addresses (i.e., as /32s for IPv4 and /128s for IPv6) may
   be necessary to avoid multilink subnet issues.

   EIRs that configure RLOCs using DHCP may require relay support from
   other EIRs within the enterprise; the EIR can alternatively configure
   both a DHCP client and relay that are connected, e.g., via a pair of
   back-to-back connected ethernet interfaces, a tun/tap interface, a
   loopback interface, custom S/W coding, etc.  For DHCPv6, relays that
   do not already know the RLOC of a server relay requests to the
   'All_DHCP_Servers' site-scoped IPv6 multicast group.  For DHCPv4,
   relays that do not already know the RLOC of a server relay requests
   to the site-scoped IPv4 multicast group address 'All_DHCPv4_Servers'
   (see: Section 6).  DHCPv4 servers that delegate RLOCs join the
   'All_DHCPv4_Servers' multicast group and service any DHCPv4 messages
   received for that group.

   Self-generation of RLOCs for IPv6 can be from a large IPv6 local-use
   address range, e.g., IPv6 Unique Local Addresses [RFC4193].  Self-
   generation of RLOCs for IPv4 can be from a large IPv4 private address
   range (e.g., [RFC1918]).  When self-generation is used alone, the EIR
   must continuously monitor the RLOCs for uniqueness, e.g., by
   monitoring the routing protocol, but care must be taken in the
   interaction of this monitoring with existing mechanisms.

   A combined approach using both DHCP and self-generation is also
   possible in which the EIR first self-generates a temporary RLOC used
   only for the purpose of procuring an actual RLOC taken from a
   disjoint addressing range.  The EIR then assigns the temporary RLOC
   to an enterprise-interior interface, engages in the routing protocol
   and performs a DHCP client/relay exchange using the temporary RLOC as
   the address of the relay.  When the DHCP server delegates an actual
   RLOC, the EIR abandons the temporary RLOC, assigns the actual RLOC to
   the enterprise-interior interface and re-engages in the routing

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

4.2.  Enterprise Border Router (EBR) Autoconfiguration

   EBRs are EIRs that configure VET interfaces over distinct sets of
   underlying enterprise-interior interfaces; an EBR can connect to
   multiple enterprises, in which case it would configure multiple VET
   interfaces.  EBRs perform the following autoconfiguration operations:

4.2.1.  VET Interface Autoconfiguration

   VET interface autoconfiguration entails: 1) interface initialization,
   2) EBG discovery and enterprise identification, and 3) IPv6 stateless
   address autoconfiguration.  These functions are specified in the
   following sections:  Interface Initialization

   EBRs configure a VET interface over a set of underlying enterprise-
   interior interfaces belonging to the same enterprise, where the VET
   interface presents a Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA)
   abstraction in which all EBRs in the enterprise appear as single hop
   neighbors through the use of IP-in-IP encapsulation.

   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 link-local address embeds an IPv4 RLOC assigned to an
   underlying enterprise-interior interface, and need not be checked for
   uniqueness since the IPv4 RLOC itself was already checked (see:
   Section 4.1).  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 VET nodes as single-hop neighbors from the viewpoint of the
   inner IP protocol.  Enterprise Border Gateway Discovery and Enterprise

   The EBR next discovers a list of EBGs for each of its VET interfaces.
   The list can be discovered through information conveyed in the
   routing protocol and/or through the Potential Router List (PRL)
   discovery mechanisms outlined in ([RFC5214], Section 8.3.2).  In
   multicast-capable enterprises, they can also listen for
   advertisements on the 'rasadv' [RASADV] IPv4 multicast group address.

   In particular, whether or not routing information is available the

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   EBR can discover the list of EBGs in the PRL by resolving an
   identifying name for the PRL ('PRLNAME') using an enterprise local
   name resolution service (e.g., an enterprise-local DNS service, LLMNR
   [RFC4759], etc.).  'PRLNAME' is formed as 'hostname.domainname',
   where 'hostname' is an enterprise-specific name string and
   'domainname' is an enterprise-specific DNS suffix when such a suffix
   is available.

   The EBR discovers 'PRLNAME' through manual configuration, a DHCP
   option, 'rasadv' protocol advertisements, link-layer information
   (e.g., an IEEE 802.11 SSID) or through some other means specific to
   the enterprise.  In the absence of other information, the EBR sets
   the 'hostname' component of 'PRLNAME' to "isatap" and sets the
   'domainname' component only if an enterprise-specifc DNS suffix
   "" is known (e.g., as "").

   After discovering 'PRLNAME', the EBR can discover the list of EBGs by
   resolving 'PRLNAME' to a list of IPv4 addresses through a name
   service lookup.  'PRLNAME' as well as the RLOCs of EBGs and/or the IP
   prefixes they aggregate serve as an identifier for the enterprise.

4.2.2.  Provider-Aggregated (PA) Prefix Autoconfiguration

   EBRs can acquire Provider-Aggregated (PA) prefixes through
   autoconfiguration exchanges with EBGs over VET interfaces.  When IPv4
   is used as the inner IP protocol, the EBR acquires PA prefixes via an
   unspecified automated IPv4 prefix delegation exchange, explicit
   management, etc.

   When IPv6 is used as the inner IP protocol, the EBR acquires PA
   prefixes via IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
   exchanges.  In particular, the EBR (acting as a requesting router)
   can use DHCPv6 prefix delegation [RFC3633] over the VET interface to
   obtain PA IPv6 prefixes from the server (acting as a delegating

   The EBR obtains prefixes using either a 2-message or 4-message DHCPv6
   exchange [RFC3315].  For example, to perform the 2-message exchange
   the EBR's DHCPv6 client forwards a Solicit message with an IA_PD
   option to its DHCPv6 relay, i.e., the EBR acts as a combined client/
   relay (see: Section 4.1).  The relay then forwards the message over
   the VET interface to the EBG.  The forwarded Solicit message will
   elicit a reply from the server containing PA IPv6 prefix delegations.

   The EBR can 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

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   to perform the delegation.

   After the EBR receives PA prefix delegations, it can provision the
   prefixes on its enterprise-edge interfaces as well as on other VET
   interfaces for which it is configured as an EBG.

4.2.3.  Provider-Independent (PI) Prefix Autoconfiguration

   Independent of any PA prefixes, EBRs can acquire and use Provider-
   Independent (PI) prefixes that are either delegated by a registration
   authority or self-configured by the EBR

   When an EBR acquires a PI prefix, it must also obtain credentials
   (e.g., from a certification authority) that it can use to prove
   prefix ownership through Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971]

   The minimum-sized PI prefix that an EBR may acquire is a /56.

4.3.  Enterprise Border Gateway (EBG) Autoconfiguration

   EBGs are EBRs that connect child enterprises to a provider network
   via ordinay provider-edge interfaces and/or VET interfaces configured
   over parent enterprises.  EBGs autoconfigure provider-edge interfaces
   in a manner that is specific to its provider connections, and
   autoconfigure VET interfaces as specified in Section 4.2.1.  EBGs
   that support PA prefix delegation also configure a DHCP relay/server.

   For each VET interface on which it is configured as an EBG, the EBG
   must arrange to add its enterprise-interior interface addresses
   (i.e., its RLOCs) to the PRL (see: Section, and must
   maintain these resource records in accordance with ([RFC5214],
   Section 9).  In particular, for each such VET interface the EBG adds
   its RLOCs to name service resource records for 'PRLNAME'.

4.4.  VET Host Autoconfiguration

   Nodes that cannot be attached via an EBR's enterprise-edge interface
   (e.g., nomadic laptops that connect to a home office via a Virtual
   Private Network (VPN)) can instead be configured for operation as a
   simple host connected to the VET interface.  Such VET hosts perform
   the same VET interface autoconfiguration procedures as specified for
   EBRs in Section 4.2.1, but they configure their VET interfaces as
   host interfaces (and not router interfaces).  VET hosts can then send
   packets to other hosts on the VET interface, or to off-enterprise
   destinations via a next-hop EBR.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   Note that a node may be configured as a host on some VET interfaces
   and as an EBR/EBG on other VET interfaces.

5.  Internetworking Operation

   Following the autoconfiguration procedures specified in Section 4,
   EIRs, EBRs, EBGs and VET hosts engage in normal internetworking
   operations as discussed in the following sections:

5.1.  Routing Protocol Participation

   Following autoconfiguration, EIRs engage in any routing protocols
   over their enterprise-interior interfaces and forward outer IP
   packets within the enterprise as for any ordinary router.

   EBRs can additionally engage in any inner IP routing protocols over
   enterprise-edge and provider-edge 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 protocols.

5.2.  PA Prefix Maintenance

   When an EBR uses DHCP prefix delegation to obtain PA prefixes via an
   EBG, the DHCP server ensures that the delegations are unique and that
   the EBG's router function will forward IP packets over the VET
   interface to the correct EBR.

   The DHCP prefix delegations remain active as long as the EBR
   continues to issue renewals over the VET interface before lease
   lifetimes expire.  The lease lifetime also keeps the delegation state
   active even if communications between the EBR and DHCP server are
   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).

   Additionnally, ordinary requesting routers on enterprise edge
   interfaces can maintain PA prefix delegations exactly as specified in

5.3.  IPv6 EBG Discovery

   EBGs follow the router and prefix discovery procedures specified in
   ([RFC5214], Section 8.2).  They send solicited RAs over VET
   interfaces for which they are configured as gateways with default
   router lifetimes, with PIOs that contain PA prefixes for SLAAC, and
   with any other required options/parameters.  EBGs must set the 'M'

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   flag in RAs to 0, since the use of DHCPv6 for address configuration
   on VET interfaces is undefined.  EBGs can also include PIOs with the
   'L' bit set to 0 and with a prefix such as '2001:DB8::/48' as a hint
   of an aggregated prefix from which it is willing to delegate longer
   PA prefixes.

   VET nodes follow the router and prefix discovery procedures specified
   in ([RFC5214], Section 8.3).  They discover EBGs within the
   enterprise as specified in Section, then perform SEND-
   protected RS/RA exchanges with the EBGs to establish and maintain
   default routes.  In particular the VET node sends SEND-protected
   unicast RS messages to EBGs over its VET interface(s) to receive
   SEND-protected RAs.  When the VET node receives an RA, it configures
   a default route based on the Router Lifetime.  If the RA contains
   Prefix Information Options (PIOs) with the 'A' and 'L' bits set to 1,
   the VET node also autoconfigures IPv6 addresses from the advertised
   prefixes using SLAAC and assigns them to the VET interface.
   Thereafter, the VET accepts packets that are fowarded by EBGs for
   which they have current default routing information.

5.4.  IPv6 PI Prefix Registration

   When an EBR discovers next-hop EBGs for the enterprise, it must
   register its PI prefixes by sending SEND-protected RAs to a set of
   one or more EBGs with Route information Options (RIOs) [RFC4191] that
   contain the EBR's PI prefixes.  Each RA must include the RLOC of an
   EBG as the outer IP destination address and an ISATAP link-local
   address derived from the RLOC as the inner IP destination address.
   The RAs must also include a CGA link-local inner source address along
   with a SEND signature that can be used to validate the CGA plus any
   certificates needed to prove ownership of the PI prefixes.  The EBR
   additionally tracks the set of EBGs that it sends RAs to so that it
   can send subsequent RAs to the same set.

   When the EBG receives the RA, it uses SEND to authenticate the
   message; if the authentication fails, the EBG discards the RA.
   Otherwise, the EBG installs the PI prefixes with their respective
   lifetimes in its Forwarding Information Base (FIB) and configures
   them for both ingress filtering [RFC3704] and forwarding purposes.
   In particular, the EBG configures the FIB entries as ingress filter
   rules to accept packets received on the VET interface with a source
   address taken from the PI prefixes.  It also configures the FIB
   entries to forward packets received on other interfaces with a
   destination address taken from the PI prefixes to the EBR that
   registered the prefixes on the VET interface.

   The EBG then publishes the PI prefixes in the enterprise mapping
   system.  For enterprises that are managed under a cooperative

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   administrative authority, the EBG publishes the PI prefixes in the
   enterprise-local name service [RFC1035] using a secure automated name
   service update mechanism [RFC3007].  For VET interfaces configured
   over enterprises that are managed in a distributed fashion, EBG
   should instead respond directly to LLMNR [RFC4759] name service

   The EBG publishes each /56 prefix taken from the PI prefixes as a
   seperate FQDN that consists of a sequence of 14 nibbles in reverse
   order (i.e., the same as in [RFC3596], Section 2.5) followed by the
   string 'PRLNAME'.  For example, when 'PRLNAME' is
   "", the EBG publishes the prefix '2001:DB8::/56'
   ''.  The EBG includes
   the inner IPv6 CGA source address (e.g., in a DNS AAAA record) and
   the outer IPv4 source address of the RA (e.g., in a DNS A resource
   record) in each prefix publication.  If the prefix was already
   installed in the name service, the EBG instead adds the outer IPv4
   source address (e.g., in an additional DNS AAAA record) to the pre-
   existing publication.

   After the EBG authenticates the RA and publishes the PI prefixes, it
   next acts as an EBR on the VET interfaces configured over any of its
   provider enterprises and "relays" the RA to the default routers
   (i.e., EBGs) on those interfaces.  The EBR tracks the set of EBGs
   that it relays the RA to, and should relay subsequent RAs to the same
   set of EBGs.  Each relayed RA is formatted exactly as for the
   original RA, except that it uses the EBR's own CGA as the inner
   source address and an RLOC taken from the VET interface as the outer
   IP source address.  The RA authentication and PI prefix publication
   recurses in this fashion and ends when a default mapping service for
   the interdomain routing core is reached.  (In the case of the global
   Internet interdomain routing core, the 'PRLNAME' for the default
   mapping service is "".)

   After the initial PI prefix registration, the EBR that owns the
   prefix(es) must periodically send additional RAs to its set of EBGs
   to refresh prefix lifetimes.  As long as the EBGs have retained
   sufficient state from a previous RA authentication as a means for
   detecting spoofed packets, however, authentication of these
   "keepalive" RAs is not required.

   This procedure has a close analogy in the Teredo method of
   maintaining state in network middleboxes through the periodic
   transmission of "bubbles" [RFC4380].

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

5.5.  IPv6 Next-Hop EBR Discovery

   VET nodes discover destination-specific next-hop EBRs within the
   enterprise by querying the name service for the /56 IPv6 PI prefix
   taken from a packet's destination address.  For example, for the IPv6
   destination address '2001:DB8:1:2::1' and 'PRLNAME'
   "" the VET node can lookup the domain name:
   ''.  If the name
   service lookup succeeds, it will return an IPv6 CGA address (e.g., in
   a DNS AAAA record) and IPv4 addresses (e.g., in DNS A records) that
   correspond to the RLOCs assigned to enterprise interior interfaces of
   next-hop EBRs.

   When a VET node forwards a packet to an EBG that has a mapping for
   the destination, the EBG forwards the packet to a next-hop EBR on the
   VET interface and returns an ICMPv6 Redirect [RFC4861].  If the
   packet's source address is on-link on the VET interface, the EBG
   returns an ordinary "router-to-host" redirect with the source address
   of the packet as its destination.  If the packet's source address is
   not on-link, the EBG instead returns a "router-to-router" redirect
   with the link-local ISATAP address of the previous-hop EBR as its
   destination.  The EBG also includes in the redirect one or more link-
   layer address options that contain the IPv4 RLOC addresses of
   potential next-hop EBRs, where the target link-layer address options
   are formatted exactly as specified in [RFC2529].

   When a VET host receives an ordinay "router-to-host" redirect, it
   processes the redirect exacly as specified in [RFC4861], Section 8.
   When an EBR receives a "router-to-router" redirect, it discovers the
   IPv4 RLOC addresses of potential next-hop EBRs by examining the
   target link-layer address options included in the redirect.  The EBR
   then installs a FIB entry that contains the /56 prefix of the
   original packet's destination and the list of IPv4 RLOCs of potential
   next-hop EBRs.  The EBR then enables the FIB entry for forwarding to
   next-hop EBRs but DOES NOT enable it for ingress filtering acceptance
   of packets from next-hop EBRs (i.e., the forwarding determination is
   unidirectional).  The EBR then sends RAs over the VET interface to
   one or more of the potential next-hop EBRs with a link-local ISATAP
   address that embeds a next-hop EBR IPv4 RLOC as the destination.  The
   RAs must include the EBR's CGA link-local address as the inner IPv6
   source address along with a SEND signature.  The RAs must also
   include a Route Information Option (RIO) [RFC4191] that contains the
   /56 PI prefix of the original packet's source address.

   When a next-hop EBR receives the RA, it uses SEND to verify the CGA
   then performs a name service lookup on the prefix in the RIO.  If the
   name service returns the correct CGA and RLOC information, the next-
   hop EBR then installs the prefix in the RIO in its FIB and enables

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   the FIB entry for ingress filtering but DOES NOT enable it for
   forwarding purposes.

   After an EBR sends initial RAs following a redirect, it should send
   periodic RAs to refresh the next-hop EBR's ingress filter prefix
   lifetimes as long as traffic is flowing.

5.6.  Forwarding Packets

   VET nodes forward packets by consulting the FIB to determine a
   specific EBR/EBG as the next-hop router on a VET interface.  When
   multiple next-hop routers are available, VET nodes can use default
   router preferences, routing protocol information, traffic engineering
   configurations, etc. to select the best exit router.  When there is
   no FIB information available, VET nodes can discover the next-hop
   EBR/EBG through the mechanisms specified in Section 5.3 and
   Section 5.5.

   VET interfaces encapsulate inner IP packets in any mid-layer headers
   followed by an outer IP header according to the specific
   encapsulation type (e.g., [RFC4301][RFC5214][I-D.templin-seal]); they
   next submit the encapsulated packet to the outer IP forwarding engine
   for transmission on an underlying enterprise-interior interface.

   For forwarding to next-hop addresses over VET interfaces that use
   IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation, VET nodes determine the outer destination
   address (i.e., the IPv4 RLOC of the next-hop EBR) 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 method.

5.7.  SEAL Encapsulation

   VET nodes that do not use IPsec encapsulation should use SEAL
   encapsulation [I-D.templin-seal] in conjunction with packet
   forwarding over VET interfaces to accommdate path MTU diversity, to
   detect source address spoofing, and to monitor next-hop EBR

   In terms of security, when a VET node receives an ICMP message, it
   can confirm that the packet-in-error within the ICMP message
   corresponds to one of its recently-sent packets by examining the
   SEAL_ID (i.e., the VET node's sequence number for a specific next-hop
   EBR).  Additionally, a next-hop EBR can track the SEAL_ID in packets
   received from EBRs for which there is an ingress filter entry and
   discard packets that have SEAL_ID values outside of the current
   window.  To maintain synchronization, the next-hop EBR resets its

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   cached SEAL_IDs for correspondent EBRs/EBGs whenever it receives a
   fresh SEND-protected RA.

   In terms of next-hop reachability, an EBR can set the SEAL
   "Acknowledgement Requested" bit in messages to receive confirmation
   that a next-hop EBR is reachable.  Setting the "Acknowledgement
   Requested" bit is also used as the method for maintaining the window
   of outstanding SEAL_ID's.

5.8.  Generating Errors

   When an EBR receives a packet for which it has no longest-prefix-
   match FIB entry for the source (i.e., an ingress filter entry), it
   drops the packet and returns a SEAL-encapsulated ICMPv6 [RFC4443]
   "Destination Unreachable; Source address failed ingress/egress
   policy" message to the previous hop EBR subject to rate limiting.

   When an EBR/EBG receives a packet for which there is no longest-
   prefix-match FIB entry for the destination, it drops the packet and
   returns a SEAL-encapsulated ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable; No route
   to destination" message to the previous hop EBR subject to rate
   limiting.  Additionally, when a VET node that is configured as an
   ordinary EBR (i.e. and not an EBG) on the VET interface receives a
   packet for which there is no longest-prefix-match FIB entry for the
   destination that is more-specific than ::/0 (i.e., default), it must
   drop the packet and return an ICMPv6 unreachable in order to prevent

5.9.  Processing Errors

   When an EBR receives an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable; Source
   address failed ingress/egress policy" message from a next-hop EBR, it
   should mark the longest-prefix-match FIB entry for the destination as
   "forwarding suspended" for the RLOC taken from the source address of
   the ICMPv6 message.  The EBR should then allow subsequent packets to
   flow through different RLOCs associated with the FIB entry until it
   forwards a new SEND-protected RA to the suspended RLOC.  If the EBR
   receives excessive ICMPv6 ingress policy errors through multiple
   RLOCs associated with the same FIB entry, it should delete the FIB
   entry and allow subsequent packets to flow through a different route.

   When a VET node receives an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable; No route
   to destination" message from a next-hop EBR, and the node has a
   longest-prefix-match FIB entry for the original packet's destination
   that is more-specific than ::/0, the node discards the message and
   deletes the FIB entry (i.e., to support graceful handling of mobility
   events).  If there is no FIB entry that is more-specific than ::/0,
   the VET node instead forwards the ICMPv6 message to the source

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   address of the original packet, i.e., to inform the original source
   that there is indeed no route to the final destination.

   Additionally, a VET node may receive ICMPv4 [RFC0792] "Destination
   Unreachable; net / host unreachable" messages from an EIR indicating
   that the path to a VET neighbor may be failing, but it should first
   check the SEAL_ID or IPsec sequence number in the message before
   accepting them.  If a VET node detects that the path to a next-hop
   EBR is failing, it should mark the longest-prefix-match FIB entry for
   the destination as "forwarding suspended" for the RLOC destination
   address of the ICMPv4 packet-in-error.  If the EBR receives excessive
   ICMPv4 unreachable errors through multiple RLOCs associated with the
   same FIB entry, it should delete the FIB entry and allow subsequent
   packets to flow through a different route.

5.10.  Mobility and Multihoming Considerations

   EBRs can retain their PI prefixes as they travel between distinct
   enterprise networks as long as they register the prefixes with new
   EBGs and (preferrably) withdraw the prefixes from old EBGs prior to
   departure.  Prefix registration with new EBGs is coordinated exactly
   as specified in Section 5.4; prefix withdrawl from old EBGs is simply
   through re-announcing the PI prefixes with zero lifetimes.

   Since EBRs can move about independently of one another, stale FIB
   entry state may be left in VET nodes when a neighboring EBR departs.
   Additionally, EBRs can lose state for various reasons, e.g., power
   failure, machine reboot, etc.  For this reason, EBRs are advised to
   set relatively short PI prefix lifetimes in RIO options, and to send
   additional RAs to refresh lifetimes before they expire.  (EBRs should
   place conservative limits on the RAs they send to reduce congestion,

   EBRs may register their PI prefixes with multiple EBGs for
   multihoming purposes.  EBRs should only forward packets via EBGs with
   which it has registered its PI prefixes, since other EBGs will simply
   drop the packets return ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable; Source
   address failed ingress/egress policy" messages subject to rate

   EBRs can also act as delegating routers to sub-delegate portions of
   their PI prefixes to requesting routers on their enterprise edge
   interfaces and on VET interfaces for which they are configured as
   EBGs.  In this sense, the sub-delegations of an EBR's PI prefixes
   become the PA prefixes for downstream-dependent nodes.  Downstream-
   dependent nodes that travel with a mobile provider EBR can continue
   to use addresses configured from PA prefixes; downstream-dependent
   nodes that move away from their provider EBR must perform address/

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   prefix renumbering when they assocate with a new provider.

5.11.  Enterprise-Local Communications

   When permitted by policy, end systems that configure the endpoints of
   enterprise-local communications can avoid VET interface encapsulation
   by directly invoking the outer IP protocol using RLOCs assigned to
   their enterprise-interior interfaces.  For example, when the outer
   protocol is IPv4, end systems can use IPv4 RLOCs for enterprise-local
   communications over their enterprise-interior interfaces without
   using encapsulation.

5.12.  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, VET nodes
   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.

   VET nodes 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

5.13.  Service Discovery

   VET nodes 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.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

5.14.  Enterprise Partitioning

   EBGs can physically partition an enterprise by configuring multiple
   VET interfaces over multiple distinct sets of underlying interfaces.
   In that case, each partition (i.e., each VET interface) must
   configure its own distinct 'PRLNAME' (e.g.,
   '', '', etc.).

   EBGs can logically partition an enterprise using a single VET
   interface by sending RAs with PIOs containing different IPv6 PA
   prefixes to group nodes into different logical partitions.  EBGs can
   identify partitions, e.g., by examining IPv4 RLOC prefixes, observing
   the interfaces over which RSs are received, etc.  In that case, a
   single 'PRLNAME' can cover all partitions.

6.  IANA Considerations

   A Site-Local Scope IPv4 multicast group ('All_DHCPv4_Servers') 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].

   Security considerations with tunneling that apply also to VET are
   found in [RFC2529][RFC5214].  In particular, VET nodes must verify
   that the outer IP source address of a packet received on a VET
   interface is correct for the inner IP source address using the
   procedures specified in ([RFC5214], Section 7.3) in conjunction with
   the ingress filtering mechanisms specified in this document.

   SEND [RFC3971] and SEAL Section 5.7 provide additional securing
   mitigations to defeat rogue routers and source address spoofing.

   Rogue routers can send bogus RA messages with spoofed RLOC source
   addresses that can consume network resources and cause EBGs to
   perform extra work.  Nonetheless, EBGs should not "blacklist" such
   RLOCs, as that may result in a denial of service to the RLOCs'
   legitimate owners.

8.  Related Work

   Brian Carpenter and Cyndi Jung introduced the concept of intra-site

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   automatic tunneling in [RFC2529].  This concept was later called:
   "Virtual Ethernet" and investigated by Quang Nguyen under the
   guidance of Dr. Lixia Zhang.

   Telcordia has proposed DHCP-related solutions for MANETs through the
   CECOM MOSAIC program.

   The Naval Research Lab (NRL) Information Technology Division uses
   DHCP in their MANET research testbeds.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns] discusses security concerns
   pertaining to tunneling mechanisms.

   An automated IPv4 prefix delegation mechanism is proposed in

   MANET link types are discussed in [I-D.clausen-manet-linktype].

   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, Brian
   Carpenter, James Bound, Thomas Clausen, Joel Halpern, Bob Hinden,
   Sapumal Jayatissa, Dan Jen, Darrel Lewis, Tony Li, Joe Macker, David
   Meyer, Thomas Narten, Pekka Nikander, Alexandru Petrescu, John
   Spence, Jinmei Tatuya, Dave Thaler, Ole Troan, Michaela Vanderveen,
   Lixia Zhang 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 July 17, 2009                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

11.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, 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.

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [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.

   [RFC3007]  Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic
              Update", RFC 3007, November 2000.

   [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.

   [RFC3596]  Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
              "DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
              October 2003.

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

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

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

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

   [RFC4291]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
              Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   [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.

   [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.

11.2.  Informative References

   [CATENET]  Pouzin, L., "A Proposal for Interconnecting Packet
              Switching Networks", May 1974.

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

              Clausen, T., "The MANET Link Type",
              draft-clausen-manet-linktype-00 (work in progress),
              October 2008.

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

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

              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-08 (work in progress),

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

              November 2008.

              Hoagland, J., Krishnan, S., and D. Thaler, "Security
              Concerns With IP Tunneling",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-01 (work in
              progress), October 2008.

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

   [IEN48]    Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model for Internetworking",
              July 1978.

   [RASADV]   Microsoft, "Remote Access Server Advertisement (RASADV)
              Protocol Specification", October 2008.

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

   [RFC1753]  Chiappa, J., "IPng Technical Requirements Of the Nimrod
              Routing and Addressing Architecture", RFC 1753,
              December 1994.

   [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.

   [RFC2775]  Carpenter, B., "Internet Transparency", RFC 2775,
              February 2000.

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

   [RFC3704]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
              Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   [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.

   [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.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              February 2006.

   [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 RLOC assigned on an enterprise-interior interface 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 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

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   DAD is to autoconfigure pseudo-random RLOCs 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 RLOCs can be generated with mechanisms such as
   CGAs, IPv6 privacy addresses, etc. with very small probability of
   collision.  Pseudo-random IPv4 RLOCs can be generated through random
   assignment from a suitably large IPv4 prefix space.

   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
   RLOCs assigned on an EIR's enterprise-interior interfaces.  Still, an
   RLOC delegation authority should be used when available, while a
   passive in-service DAD mechanism should be used to detect RLOC
   duplications when there is no RLOC delegation authority.

Appendix B.  Change Log

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

   Changes from -26 to 27:

   o  Introduced new model for PI prefix management.

   o  Teredo mechanisms used in conjunction with ISATAP ("teratap"?

   Changes from -25 to 26:

   o  Clarifications on Router Discovery and Ingress FIltering.

   o  Mechanisms for detecting locator liveness

   o  Mechanisms for avoiding state synchonization requirements.

   Changes from -23 to 24:

   o  Clarifications on router discovery.

   Changes from -22 to 23:

   o  Clarifications on prefix mapping.

   Changes from -21 to 22:

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   o  Using SEAL to secure VET

   Changes from -20 to 21:

   o  Enterprise partitioning.

   o  Mapping and name service management.

   Changes from -18 to 20:

   o  Added support for simple hosts.

   o  Added EBG name service maintenace procedures

   o  Added router and prefix maintenace procedures

   Changes from -17 to 18:

   o  adjusted section headings to group autoconf operations under EIR/

   o  clarified M/O bits

   o  clarified EBG roles

   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.

   o  Clartifications on portable and self-configured prefixes.

Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   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 July 17, 2009                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   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 July 17, 2009                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft                     VET                      January 2009

   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 Research and Technology
   P.O. Box 3707 MC 7L-49
   Seattle, WA  98124


Templin                   Expires July 17, 2009                [Page 32]