Internet Research Task Force F. Templin, Ed.
(IRTF) Boeing Research & Technology
Internet-Draft September 1, 2010
Intended status: Experimental
Expires: March 5, 2011
The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
draft-templin-iron-12.txt
Abstract
Since the Internet must continue to support escalating growth due to
increasing demand, it is clear that current routing architectures and
operational practices must be updated. This document proposes an
Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) that supports sustainable
growth through Provider Independent addressing while requiring no
changes to end systems and no changes to the existing routing system.
IRON further addresses other important issues including routing
scaling, mobility management, multihoming, traffic engineering and
NAT traversal. While business considerations are an important
determining factor for widespread adoption, they are out of scope for
this document. This document is a product of the IRTF Routing
Research Group.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 5, 2011.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The Internet Routing Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. IR[CE] - IRON Customer Edge Router . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. IR[VE] - IRON Virtual Prefix Company Edge Router . . . . . 8
3.3. IR[VC] - IRON Virtual Prefix Company Core Router . . . . . 9
3.4. IR[VP] - IRON Virtual Prefix Company Combined Router . . . 10
4. IRON Organizational Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. IRON Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. IR[VC] Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. IR[VE] Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. IR[CE] Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. IRON Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1. IR[CE] Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. IR[VE] Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.3. IR(VC) Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.4. IRON Reference Operating Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.4.1. Both Hosts Within IRON EUNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.4.2. Mixed IRON and Non-IRON Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.5. Mobility, Multihoming and Traffic Engineering
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5.1. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.5.2. Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5.3. Inbound Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.5.4. Outbound Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.6. Renumbering Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6.7. NAT Traversal Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.8. Nested EUN Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.8.1. Host A Sends Packets to Host Z . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.8.2. Host Z Sends Packets to Host A . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8. Related Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix A. IRON VPs Over Internetworks with Different
Address Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix B. Scaling Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
1. Introduction
Growth in the number of entries instantiated in the Internet routing
system has led to concerns for unsustainable routing scaling
[I-D.narten-radir-problem-statement]. Operational practices such as
increased use of multihoming with IPv4 Provider-Independent (PI)
addressing are resulting in more and more fine-grained prefixes
injected into the routing system from more and more end-user
networks. Furthermore, the forthcoming depletion of the public IPv4
address space has raised concerns for both increased deaggregation
(leading to yet further routing table entries) and an impending
address space run-out scenario. At the same time, the IPv6 routing
system is beginning to see growth in IPv6 Provider-Aggregated (PA)
prefixes [BGPMON] which must be managed in order to avoid the same
routing scaling issues the IPv4 Internet now faces. Since the
Internet must continue to scale to accommodate increasing demand, it
is clear that new routing methodologies and operational practices are
needed.
Several related works have investigated routing scaling issues.
Virtual Aggregation (VA) [I-D.ietf-grow-va] and Aggregation in
Increasing Scopes (AIS) [I-D.zhang-evolution] are global routing
proposals that introduce routing overlays with Virtual Prefixes (VPs)
to reduce the number of entries required in each router's Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) and Routing Information Base (RIB). Routing
and Addressing in Networks with Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER)
[RFC5720] examines recursive arrangements of enterprise networks that
can apply to a very broad set of use case scenarios
[I-D.russert-rangers]. In particular, RANGER supports encapsulation
and secure redirection by treating each layer in the recursive
hierarchy as a virtual non-broadcast, multiple access (NBMA) "link".
RANGER is an architectural framework that includes Virtual Enterprise
Traversal (VET) [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and the Subnetwork
Adaptation and Encapsulation Layer (SEAL) [I-D.templin-intarea-seal]
as its functional building blocks.
This document proposes an Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
with goals of supporting sustainable growth while requiring no
changes to the existing routing system. IRON borrows concepts from
VA, AIS and RANGER, and further borrows concepts from the Internet
Vastly Improved Plumbing (Ivip) [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch] architecture
proposal along with its associated Translating Tunnel Router (TTR)
mobility extensions [TTRMOB]. Indeed, the TTR model to a great
degree inspired the IRON mobility architecture design discussed in
this document. The Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal
techniques adapted for IRON were inspired by the Simple Address
Mapping for Premises Legacy Equipment (SAMPLE) proposal
[I-D.carpenter-softwire-sample].
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
IRON specifically seeks to provide scalable PI addressing without
changing the current BGP [RFC4271] routing system. IRON observes the
Internet Protocol standards [RFC0791][RFC2460]. Other network layer
protocols that can be encapsulated within IP packets (e.g., OSI/CLNP
[RFC1070], etc.) are also within scope.
The IRON is a global routing system comprising virtual overlay
networks managed by Virtual Prefix Companies (VPCs) that own and
manage Virtual Prefixes (VPs) from which End User Network (EUN) PI
prefixes (EPs) are delegated to customer sites. The IRON is
motivated by a growing customer demand for multihoming, mobility
management and traffic engineering while using stable PI addressing
to avoid network renumbering [RFC4192][RFC5887]. The IRON uses the
existing IPv4 and IPv6 global Internet routing systems as virtual
links for tunneling inner network protocol packets within outer IPv4
or IPv6 headers (see: Section 3). The IRON requires deployment of a
small number of new BGP core routers and supporting servers, as well
as IRON-aware routers/servers in customer EUNs. No modifications to
hosts, and no modifications to most routers are required.
Note: This document is offered in compliance with Internet Research
Task Force (IRTF) document stream procedures [RFC5743]; it is not an
IETF product and is not a standard. The views in this document were
considered controversial by the IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) but
the RG reached a consensus that the document should still be
published. The document will undergo a period of review within the
RRG and through selected expert reviewers prior to publication. The
following sections discuss details of the IRON architecture.
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
End User Network (EUN)
an edge network that connects an organization's devices (e.g.,
computers, routers, printers, etc.) to the Internet and possibly
also the IRON.
Internet Service Provider (ISP)
a service provider which physically connects customer EUNs to the
Internet. In other words, an ISP is responsible for providing IP
connectivity to a customer owning an EUN.
Provider Aggregated (PA) address or prefix
a network layer address or prefix delegated to an EUN by an ISP.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
Provider Independent (PI) address or prefix
a network layer address or prefix delegated to an EUN by a third
party independently of the EUN's ISP arrangements.
Virtual Prefix (VP)
a PI prefix block (e.g., an IPv4 /16, an IPv6 /20, an OSI NSAP
prefix, etc.) that is owned and managed by a Virtual Prefix
Company (VPC).
End User Network PI prefix (EP)
a more-specific PI prefix derived from a VP (e.g., an IPv4 /28, an
IPv6 /56, etc.) and delegated to an EUN by a VPC.
EP Address (EPA)
a network layer address belonging to an EP and assigned to the
interface of an end system in an EUN.
Locator
an IP address assigned to the interface of a router or end system
within a public or private network. Locators taken from public IP
prefixes are routable on a global basis, while locators taken from
private IP prefixes are made public via Network Address
Translation (NAT).
Virtual Prefix Company (VPC)
a company that owns and manages a set of VPs from which it
delegates End User Network PI Prefixes (EPs) to EUNs
Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
an overlay network configured over the global Internet. The IRON
supports routing through encapsulation of inner packets with EPA
addresses within outer headers that use locator addresses.
3. The Internet Routing Overlay Network
The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) consists of IRON Routers
(IRs) that automatically tunnel the packets of end-to-end
communication sessions within encapsulating headers used for
Internetwork routing. IRs use Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)
[I-D.templin-intarea-vet] in conjunction with the Subnetwork
Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL) [I-D.templin-intarea-seal]
to encapsulate inner network layer packets within outer headers as
shown in Figure 1:
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
+-------------------------+
| Outer headers with |
~ locator addresses ~
| (IPv4 or IPv6) |
+-------------------------+
| SEAL Header |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| Inner Packet Header | --> | Inner Packet Header |
~ with EP addresses ~ --> ~ with EP addresses ~
| (IPv4, IPv6, OSI, etc.) | --> | (IPv4, IPv6, OSI, etc.) |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
| | --> | |
~ Inner Packet Body ~ --> ~ Inner Packet Body ~
| | --> | |
+-------------------------+ +-------------------------+
Inner packet before Outer packet after
before encapsulation after encapsulation
Figure 1: Encapsulation of Inner Packets Within Outer IP Headers
VET specifies the automatic tunneling mechanisms used for
encapsulation, while SEAL specifies the format and usage of the SEAL
header as well as a set of control messages. Most notably, IRs use
the SEAL Control Message Protocol (SCMP) to deterministically
exchange and authenticate control messages such as route
redirections, indications of Path Maximum Transmission Unit (PMTU)
limitations, destination unreachables, etc.
The IRON is manifested through a business model in which Virtual
Prefix Companies (VPCs) own and manage virtual overlay networks
comprising a set of IRs that are distributed throughout the Internet
and serve highly-aggregated Virtual Prefixes (VPs). VPCs delegate
sub-prefixes from their VPs which they lease to customers as End User
Network PI prefixes (EPs). The customers in turn assign the EPs to
their customer edge IRs which connect their End User Networks (EUNs)
to the IRON.
VPCs may have no affiliation with the ISP networks from which
customers obtain their basic Internet connectivity. Therefore,
unless the ISP also acts as a VPC the customer must have two business
relationships - one with the ISP and a second with the VPC. In that
case, the VPC can open for business and begin serving its customers
immediately without the need to coordinate its activities with ISPs
or with other VPCs. Further details on business considerations are
out of scope for this document.
The IRON requires no changes to end systems and no changes to most
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
routers in the Internet. Instead, the IRON comprises IRs that are
deployed either as new platforms or as modifications to existing
platforms. IRs may be deployed incrementally without disturbing the
existing Internet routing system, and act as waypoints (or "cairns")
for navigating the IRON. The functional roles for IRs are described
in the following sections.
3.1. IR[CE] - IRON Customer Edge Router
An IR[CE] is a Customer Edge router (or host with embedded gateway
function) that logically connects the customer's EUNs and their
associated EPs to the IRON via tunnels as shown in Figure 2. IR[CE]s
obtain EPs from VPCs and use them to number subnets and interfaces
within their EUNs. An IR[CE] can be deployed on the same physical
platform that also connects the customer's EUNs to its ISPs, but it
may also be a separate router or even a standalone server system
located within the EUN. (This model applies even if the EUN connects
to the ISP via a Network Address Translator (NAT) - see Section 6.7).
.-.
,-( _)-.
+--------+ .-(_ (_ )-.
| IR[CE] |--(_ ISP )
+---+----+ `-(______)-'
| <= T \ .-.
.-. u \ ,-( _)-.
,-( _)-. n .-(_ (- )-.
.-(_ (_ )-. n (_ Internet )
(_ EUN ) e `-(______)-
`-(______)-' l ___
| s => (:::)-.
+----+---+ .-(::::::::)
| Host | .-(::::::::::::)-.
+--------+ (:::: The IRON ::::)
`-(::::::::::::)-'
`-(::::::)-'
Figure 2: IR[CE] Connecting EUN to the IRON
3.2. IR[VE] - IRON Virtual Prefix Company Edge Router
An IR[VE] is a VPC's overlay network edge router that provides
forwarding and mapping services for the EPs owned by customer
IR[CE]s. In typical deployments, a VPC will deploy many IR[VE]s
around the IRON in a globally-distributed fashion (e.g., as depicted
in Figure 3) so that IR[CE] clients can discover those that are
nearby.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
+--------+ +--------+
| IR[VE] | | IR[VE] |
| Boston | | Tokyo |
+--+-----+ ++-------+
+--------+ \ /
| IR[VE] | \ ___ /
| Seattle| \ (:::)-. +--------+
+------+-+ .-(::::::::)------+ IR[VE] |
\.-(::::::::::::)-. | Paris |
(:::: The IRON ::::) +--------+
`-(::::::::::::)-'
+--------+ / `-(::::::)-' \ +--------+
| IR[VE] + | \--- + IR[VE] |
| Moscow | +----+---+ | Sydney |
+--------+ | IR[VE] | +--------+
| Cairo |
+--------+
Figure 3: IR[VE] Global Distribution Example
Each IR[VE] serves as a customer-facing tunnel endpoint router that
IR[CE]s form bidirectional tunnels with over the IRON. Each IR[VE]
also associates with an Internet-facing IR[VC] that can forward
packets from the IRON out to the native public Internet and vice-
versa as discussed in the next section.
3.3. IR[VC] - IRON Virtual Prefix Company Core Router
An IR[VC] is a VPC's overlay network core router that acts as a
gateway between the IRON and the native public Internet. It
therefore also serves as an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR)
that is owned and managed by the VPC.
Each VPC configures one or more IR[VC]s which advertise the company's
VPs into the IPv4 and IPv6 global Internet BGP routing systems. Each
IR[VC] associates with all of the VPC's overlay network IR[VE]
routers, e.g., via tunnels over the IRON, via a direct interconnect
such as an Ethernet cable, etc. The IR[VC] role (as well as its
relationship with overlay network IR[VE]s) is depicted in Figure 4:
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
,-( _)-.
.-(_ (_ )-.
(_ Internet )
`-(______)-' | +--------+
| |--| IR[VE] |
+----+---+ | +--------+
| IR[VC] |----| +--------+
+--------+ |--| IR[VE] |
_|| | +--------+
(:::)-. (Ethernet)
.-(::::::::)
+--------+ .-(::::::::::::)-. +--------+
| IR[VE] |=(:::: The IRON ::::)=| IR[VE] |
+--------+ `-(::::::::::::)-' +--------+
`-(::::::)-'
|| (Tunnels)
+--------+
| IR[VE] |
+--------+
Figure 4: IR[VC] Connecting IRON to Native Internet
3.4. IR[VP] - IRON Virtual Prefix Company Combined Router
An IR[VP] is a VPC's overlay network router that combines the
functions of both the IR[VE] and IR[VC]. While not in itself a
fundamental building block of the architecture, it is mentioned here
to clarify an implementation option available to VPCs.
In the IR[VP] model, the IR[VE] and IR[VC] functions can be thought
of as "half-gateway" functions that together comprise a unified
IR[VP]. The IR[VE] and IR[VC] functions can therefore be discussed
separately even when both functions reside within the same physical
IR[VP] platform as shown in Figure 5:
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
,-( _)-.
.-(_ (_ )-.
(_ Internet )
`-(______)-'
|
+----------+----------+
| IR[VC] half-gateway |
+---------------------+
| IR[VE] half-gateway |
+----------+----------+
<- IR[VP] Unified Gateway ->
_|_
(:::)-.
.-(::::::::)
.-(::::::::::::)-.
(:::: The IRON ::::)
`-(::::::::::::)-'
`-(::::::)-'
Figure 5: IR[VP] Combining IR[VE] and IR[VC] Functions
4. IRON Organizational Principles
The IRON consists of the union of all VPC overlay networks worldwide.
Each such overlay network represents a distinct "patch" on the
Internet "quilt", where the patches are stitched together by tunnels
over the links, routers, bridges, etc. that connect the public
Internet. When a new VPC overlay network is deployed, it becomes yet
another patch on the quilt. The IRON is therefore a composite
overlay network consisting of multiple individual patches, where each
patch coordinates its activities independently of all others (with
the exception that the IR[VE]s of each patch must be aware of all
VP's in the IRON).
Each VPC overlay network in the IRON maintains a set of IR[VC]s that
connect the overlay network directly to the public IPv4 and IPv6
Internets. Each IR[VC] advertises the VPC overlay network's IPv4 VPs
into the IPv4 BGP routing system and advertises the overlay network's
IPv6 VPs into the IPv6 BGP routing system. IR[VC]s will therefore
receive packets with EPA destination addresses sent by end systems in
the Internet and direct them toward EPA-addressed end systems
connected to the VPC overlay network.
Each VPC overlay network also manages a set of IR[VE]s that connect
customer EUNs to the IRON and to the IPv6 and IPv4 Internets via
their associations with IR[VC]s. IR[VE]s therefore need not be BGP
routers themselves and can be simple commodity hardware platforms.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
Moreover, the IR[VE] and IR[VC] functions can be deployed together on
the same physical platform as an IR[VP] or they may be deployed on
separate platforms (e.g., for load balancing purposes).
Each IR[VE] maintains a working set of IR[CE]s for which it caches
EP-to-IR[CE] mappings in its Forwarding Information Base (FIB). Each
IR[VE] also in turn propagates the list of EPs in its working set to
each of the IR[VC]s in the VPC overlay network via a dynamic routing
protocol (e.g., an overlay network internal BGP instance that carries
only the EP-to-IR[VE] mappings and does not interact with the
external BGP routing system). Each IR[VE] therefore only needs to
track the EPs for its current working set of IR[CE]s, while each
IR[VC] will maintain a full EP-to-IR[VE] mapping table that
represents reachability information for all EPs in the VPC overlay
network.
Customers establish IR[CE]s to connect their EUNs to both the VPC
overlay network and to the rest of the IRON. Each EUN can connect to
the IRON via one or multiple IR[CE]s as long as the multiple IR[CE]s
coordinate with one another, e.g., to mitigate EUN partitions.
Unlike IR[VC]s and IR[VE]s, IR[CE]s may use private addresses behind
one or several layers of NATs. The IR[CE] initially discovers a list
of nearby IR[VE]s through an anycast discovery process (described
below). It then selects one of these nearby IR[VE]s as its server
and forms a bidirectional tunnel with the IR[VE] through an initial
exchange followed by periodic keepalives.
After the IR[CE] selects a serving IR[VE], it forwards initial
outbound packets from its EUNs by tunneling them to its own serving
IR[VE] which in turn forwards them to the nearest IR[VC] within the
IRON that serves the final destination. The IR[CE] will subsequently
receive redirect messages informing it of a more direct route through
the IR[VE] that serves the final destination.
The IRON can also be used to support VPs of network layer address
families that cannot be routed natively in the underlying
Internetwork (e.g., OSI/CLNP over the public Internet, IPv6 over
IPv4-only Internetworks, IPv4 over IPv6-only Internetworks, etc.).
Further details for support of IRON VPs over non-native Internetworks
are discussed in Appendix A.
5. IRON Initialization
IRON initialization entails the startup actions of IRs within the VPC
overlay network and customer EUNs. The following sections discuss
these startups procedures.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
5.1. IR[VC] Initialization
Before its first operational use, each IR[VC] in a VPC overlay
network is provisioned with the list of VPs that it will serve as
well as the locators for all IR[VE]s that belong to the same overlay
network. The IR[VC] is also provisioned with external BGP
interconnections the same as for any BGP router.
Upon startup, the IR[VC] engages in BGP routing exchanges with its
peers in the IPv4 and IPv6 Internets the same as for any BGP router.
It then connects to all of the IR[VE]s in the overlay network (e.g.,
via a TCP connection over a bidirectional tunnel, via an iBGP route
reflector, etc.) for the purpose of discovering EP->IR[VE] mappings.
After the IR[VC] has fully populated its EP->IR[VE] mapping
information database, it is said to be "synchronized" wrt its VPs.
After this initial synchronization procedure, the IR[VC] then
advertises the overlay network's VPs externally. In particular, the
IR[VC] advertises the IPv6 VPs into the IPv6 BGP routing system and
advertises the IPv4 VPs into the IPv4 BGP routing system. The IR[VC]
additionally advertises an IPv4 /24 companion prefix (e.g.,
192.0.2.0/24) into the IPv4 routing system and an IPv6 ::/64
companion prefix (e.g., 2001:DB8::/64) into the IPv6 routing system
(note that these may also be sub-prefixes taken from a VP). The
IR[VC] then configures the host number '1' in the IPv4 companion
prefix (e.g., as 192.0.2.1) and the interface identifier '0' in the
IPv6 companion prefix (e.g., as 2001:DB8::0) and assigns the
resulting addresses as subnet router anycast addresses
[RFC3068][RFC2526] for the VPC overlay network. (See Appendix A for
more information on the discovery and use of companion prefixes.)
The IR[VC] then engages in ordinary packet forwarding operations.
5.2. IR[VE] Initialization
Before its first operational use, each IR[VE] in a VPC overlay
network is provisioned with the locators for all IR[VC]s that serve
the overlay network's VPs. In order to support route optimization,
the IR[VE] must also be provisioned with the list of all VPs in the
IRON (i.e., and not just the VPs of its own overlay network) so that
it can discern EPA and non-EPA addresses. (The IR[VE] could
therefore be greatly simplified if the list of VPs could be covered
within a small number of very short prefixes, e.g., one or a few IPv6
::/20's) The IR[VE] must also discover the VP companion prefix
relationships discussed in Section 5.1, e.g., via a global database
such as discussed in Appendix A.
Upon startup, each IR[VE] must connect to all of the IR[VC]s within
its overlay network (e.g., via a TCP connection over a bidirectional
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
tunnel, via an iBGP route reflector, etc.) for the purpose of
reporting its EP->IR[VE] mappings. The IR[VE] then actively listens
for IR[CE] customers which register their EP prefixes as part of
establishing a bidirectional tunnel. When a new IR[CE] registers its
EP prefixes, the IR[VE] announces the new EP additions to all
IR[VC]s; when an existing IR[CE] unregisters its EP prefixes, the
IR[VE] withdraws its announcements.
5.3. IR[CE] Initialization
Before its first operational use, each IR[CE] must obtain one or more
EPs from its VPC as well as the companion prefixes associated with
the VPC overlay network (see Section 5.1). The IR[CE] must also
obtain a certificate and a public/private key pair from the VPC that
it can later use to prove ownership of its EPs. This implies that
each VPC must run its own key infrastructure to be used only for the
purpose of verifying a customer's claimed right to use an EP. Hence,
the VPC need not coordinate its key infrastructure with any other
organization.
Upon startup, the IR[CE] sends an SCMP Router Solicitation (SRS)
message to the VPC overlay network subnet router anycast address to
discover the nearest IR[VC]. The IR[VC] will return an SCMP Router
Advertisement message that lists the locator addresses of one or more
nearby IR[VE]s. (This list is analogous to the ISATAP Potential
Router List (PRL) [RFC5214].)
After the IR[CE] receives an SRA message from the nearby IR[VC]
listing the locator addresses of nearby IR[VE]s, it sends SRS test
messages to one or more of the locator addresses to elicit SRA
messages. The IR[VE] that configures the locator will include the
header of the soliciting SRS message in its SRA message so that the
IR[CE] can determine the number of hops along the forward path. The
IR[VE] also includes a metric in its SRA messages indicating its
service availability so that the IR[CE] can avoid selecting IR[VE]s
that are overloaded. The IR[VE] also includes a challenge/response
puzzle that the IR[CE] must answer if it wishes to enlist this
IR[VE]'s services.
When the IR[CE] receives these SRA messages, it can measure the round
trip time between sending the SRS and receiving the SRA as an
indication of round-trip delay. If the IR[CE] wishes to enlist the
services of a specific IR[VE] (e.g., based on the measured
performance), it then calculates the answer to the puzzle using its
keying information and sends the answer back to the IR[VE] in a new
SRS message that also contains all of the IR[CE]'s EP prefixes for
which it claims ownership. If the IR[CE] answered the puzzle
correctly, the IR[VE] will send back a new SRA message that includes
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
a non-zero default router lifetime and that signifies the
establishment of a bidirectional tunnel. (A zero default router
lifetime on the other hand signifies that the IR[VE] is currently
unable to establish a bidirectional tunnel, e.g., due to heavy load,
due to challenge/response failure, etc.)
Note that in the above procedure it is essential that the IR[CE]
select one and only one IR[VE]. This is to allow the VPC overlay
network mapping system to have one and only one active EP-to-IR[VE]
mapping at any point in time which shares fate with the IR[VE]
itself. If this IR[VE] fails, the IR[CE] will quickly select a new
one which will automatically update the VPC overlay network mapping
system with a new EP-to-IR[VE] mapping.
6. IRON Operation
Following the IRON initialization detailed in Section 5, IRs engage
in the steady-state process of receiving and forwarding packets. All
IRs forward encapsulated packets over the IRON using the mechanisms
of VET [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and SEAL [I-D.templin-intarea-seal],
while IR[VC]s (and in some cases IR[VE]s) additionally forward
packets to and from the native IPv6 and IPv4 Internets. IRs also use
SCMP to coordinate with other IRs, including the process of sending
and receiving redirect messages, error messages, etc. (Note however
that an IR must not send an SCMP message in response to an SCMP error
message.) Each IR operates as specified in the following sub-
sections.
6.1. IR[CE] Operation
After selecting its serving IR[VE] as specified in Section 5.3, the
IR[CE] should register each of its ISP connections with the IR[VE] in
order to establish multiple bidirectional tunnels for multihoming
purposes. To do so, it sends periodic SRS messages to its serving
IR[VE] via each of its ISPs to establish additional bidirectional
tunnels and to keep each tunnel alive. These messages need not
include challenge/response mechanisms since prefix proof of ownership
was already established in the initial exchange and a nonce in the
SEAL header can be used to confirm that the SRS message was sent by
the correct IR[CE]. This implies that a single nonce is used to
represent the set of all bidirectional tunnels between the IR[CE] and
the IR[VE]. Therefore, there are multiple bidirectional tunnels, and
the nonce names this "bundle" of tunnels. (The IR[CE] and IR[VE] may
conceptually represent this "bundle" as a single tunnel with multiple
locator addresses, however each such locator address must be tested
independently in case there are NATs on the path.)
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
If the IR[CE] ceases to receive SRA messages from its serving IR[VE]
via a specific ISP connection, it marks the IR[VE] as unreachable
from that address and therefore over that ISP connection. (The
IR[CE] should also inform its serving IR[VE] of this outage via one
of its working ISP connections.) If the IR[CE] ceases to receive SRA
messages from its serving IR[VE] via multiple ISP connections, it
marks the IR[VE] as unusable and quickly attempts to establish a
bidirectional tunnel with a new IR[VE]. The act of establishing the
tunnel with a new serving IR[VE] will automatically purge the stale
mapping state associated with the old serving IR[VE].
When an end system in an EUN sends a flow of packets to a
correspondent, the packets are forwarded through the EUN via normal
routing until they reach the IR[CE], which then tunnels the initial
packets to its serving IR[VE] as the next hop. In particular, the
IR[CE] encapsulates each packet in an outer header with its locator
as the source address and the locator of its serving IR[VE] as the
destination address. Note that after sending the initial packets of
a flow, the IR[CE] may receive important SCMP messages such as
indications of PMTU limitations, redirects that point to a better
next hop, etc. It is therefore essential that the IR[CE] send the
initial packets through its serving IR[VE] to avoid loss of SCMP
messages that cannot traverse a NAT in the reverse direction.
The IR[CE] uses the mechanisms specified in VET and SEAL to
encapsulate each forwarded packet. The IR[CE] further uses the SCMP
protocol to coordinate with other IRs, including accepting redirects
and other SCMP messages. When the IR[CE] receives an SCMP message,
it checks the nonce field of the encapsulated packet-in-error to
verify that the message corresponds to the tunnel to its serving
IR[VE] and accepts the message if the nonce matches. (Note however
that the outer source and destination addresses of the packet-in-
error may be different than those in the original packet due to
possible IR[VE] and/or IR[VC] address rewritings.)
6.2. IR[VE] Operation
After an IR[VE] is initialized, it responds to SRSs from IR[CE]s by
sending SRAs as described in Section 6.1. When the IR[VE] receives
an SRS message from a new IR[CE], it sends back an SRA message with a
challenge/response puzzle. The IR[CE] in turn sends an SRS message
with an answer to the puzzle. If this authentication fails, the
IR[VE] discards the message. Otherwise, it creates tunnel state for
this new IR[CE], records the IR[CE]'s EPs (see Section 5.3) in its
FIB, and records the locator address from the SCMP message as the
link-layer address of the next hop. The IR[VE] next sends an SRA
message back to the IR[CE] to complete the tunnel establishment.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
When the IR[VE] receives a SEAL-encapsulated packet from one of its
IR[CE] tunnel endpoints, it examines the inner destination address.
If the inner destination address is not an EPA, the IR[VE]
decapsulates the packet and forwards it unencapsulated into the
Internet if it is able to do so without loss due to ingress
filtering. Otherwise, the IR[VE] re-encapsulates the packet (i.e.,
it removes the outer header and replaces it with a new outer header
of the same address family) and sets the outer destination address to
the locator address of an IR[VC] within its VPC overlay network. It
then forwards the re-encapsulated packet to the IR[VC], which will in
turn decapsulate it and forward it into the Internet.
If the inner destination address is an EPA, however, the IR[VE]
rewrites the outer source address to one of its own locator addresses
and rewrites the outer destination address to the subnet router
anycast address taken from the companion prefix associated with the
inner destination address (where the companion prefix of the same
address family as the outer IP protocol is used). The IR[VE] then
forwards the revised packet into the Internet via a default or more-
specific route, where it will be directed to the closest IR[VC]
within the destination VPC overlay network. After sending the
packet, the IR[VE] may then receive an SCMP error or redirect message
from an IR[VC]/IR[VE] within the destination VPC overlay network. In
that case, the IR[VE] verifies that the nonce in the message matches
the tunnel corresponding to the IR[CE] that sent the original inner
packet and discards the message if the nonce does not match.
Otherwise, the IR[VE] re-encapsulates the SCMP message in a new outer
header that uses the source address, destination address and nonce
parameters associated with the tunnel to the IR[CE]; it then forwards
the message to the IR[CE]. This arrangement is necessary to allow
SCMP messages to flow through any NATs on the path.
When an IR[VE] ('A') receives a SEAL-encapsulated packet from an
IR[VC] or from the Internet, if the inner destination address matches
an EP in its FIB 'A' re-encapsulates the packet in a new outer header
that uses the source address, destination address and nonce
parameters associated with the tunnel and forwards it to its client
IR[CE] ('B') which in turn decapsulates the packet and forwards it to
the correct end system in the EUN. If 'B' has left notice with 'A'
that it has moved to a new IR[VE] ('C'), however, 'A' will instead
forward the packet to 'C' and also send an SCMP redirect message back
to the source of the packet. In this way, 'B' can leave behind
forwarding information when changing between IR[VE]s 'A' and 'C'
(e.g., due to mobility events) without exposing packets to loss.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
6.3. IR(VC) Operation
After each IR[VC] has synchronized its VPs (see: Section 5.1) it
advertises the full set of the company's VPs and companion prefixes
into the IPv4 and IPv6 Internet BGP routing systems. These prefixes
will be represented as ordinary routing information in the BGP, and
any packets originating from the IPv4 or IPv6 Internet destined to an
address covered by one of the prefixes will be forwarded to one of
the VPC overlay network's IR[VC]s.
When an IR[VC] receives a packet from the Internet destined to an EPA
covered by one of its VPs, it behaves as an ordinary IP router. In
particular, the IR[VC] looks in its FIB to discover a locator of the
IR[VE] that serves the EP that covers the destination address. The
IR[VC] then simply encapsulates the packet with its own locator as
the outer source address and the locator of the IR[VE] as the outer
destination address and forwards the packet to the IR[VE].
When an IR[VC] receives a packet from the Internet destined to one of
its subnet router anycast addresses, it discards the packet if it is
not SEAL-encapsulated. If the packet is an SCMP SRS message, the
IR[VC] instead sends an SRA message back to the source listing the
locator addresses of nearby IR[VE] routers then discards the message.
The IR[VC] otherwise discards all other SCMP messages.
If the packet is an ordinary SEAL packet (i.e., one that encapsulates
an inner packet) the IR[VC] sends an SCMP redirect message of the
same address family back to the source with the locator of the
serving IR[VE] as the redirected target. The source and destination
addresses of the SCMP redirect message use the outer destination and
source addresses of the original packet, respectively. After sending
the redirect message, the IR[VC] then rewrites the outer destination
address of the SEAL-encapsulated packet to the locator of the IR[VE]
and forwards the revised packet to the IR[VE]. Note that in this
arrangement any errors that occur on the path between the IR[VC] and
the IR[VE] will be delivered to the original source but with a
different destination address due to this IR[VC] address rewriting.
6.4. IRON Reference Operating Scenarios
The IRON supports communications when one or both hosts are located
within EP-addressed EUNs regardless of whether the EPs are
provisioned by the same VPC or by different VPCs. When both hosts
are within IRON EUNs, route redirections that eliminate unnecessary
IR[VE]s and IR[VC]s from the path are possible. When only one host
is within an IRON EUN, however, route optimization cannot be used.
The following sections discuss the two scenarios.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
6.4.1. Both Hosts Within IRON EUNs
When both hosts are within IRON EUNs, it is sufficient to consider
the scenario in a unidirectional fashion, i.e., by tracing packet
flows only in the forward direction from the source host to
destination host. The reverse direction can be considered
separately, and incurs the same considerations as for the forward
direction.
In this scenario, the initial packets of a flow produced by a source
host must flow through both the source's serving IR[VE] and an IR[VC]
of the destination host, but route optimization can eliminate these
elements from the path for subsequent packets in the flow. Figure 6
shows the flow of initial packets from host A to host B within two
IRON EUNs.
________________________________________
.-( .-. )-.
.-( ,-( _)-. )-.
.-( +========+(_ (_ +=====+ )-.
.( || (_|| Internet ||_) || ).
.( || ||-(______)-|| vv ).
.( +--------++--+ || || +------------+ ).
( +==>| IR[VE](A) | vv || | IR[VE](B) |====+ )
( // +---------++-+ +--++----++--+ +------------+ \\ )
( // .-. | \<-- | IR[VC](B) | .-. \\ )
( //,-( _)-. | +------------+ ,-( _)-\\ )
( .||_ (_ )-. | .-(_ (_ ||. )
( _|| ISP A .) | (redirect) (__ ISP B ||_))
( ||-(______)-' | `-(______)|| )
( || | | | vv )
( +-----+-----+ | +-----+-----+ )
| IR[CE](A) | <--+ | IR[CE](B) |
+-----+-----+ The IRON +-----+-----+
| ( (Overlaid on the native Internet) ) |
.-. .-( .-) .-.
,-( _)-. .-(________________________)-. ,-( _)-.
.-(_ (_ )-. .-(_ (_ )-.
(_ IRON EUN A ) (_ IRON EUN B )
`-(______)-' `-(______)-'
| |
+---+----+ +---+----+
| Host A | | Host B |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 6: Initial Packet Flow Before Redirects
With reference to Figure 6, host A sends packets destined to host B
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
via its network interface connected to EUN A. Routing within EUN A
will direct the packets to IR[CE](A) as a default router for the EUN
which then uses VET and SEAL to encapsulate them in outer headers
with its locator address as the outer source address and the locator
address of its serving IR[VE](A) as the outer destination address.
IR[CE](A) then simply releases the encapsulated packets into its ISP
network connection that provided its locator. The ISP will release
the packets into the Internet without filtering since the (outer)
source address is topologically correct. Once the packets have been
released into the Internet, routing will direct them to IR[VE](A).
IR[VE](A) receives the encapsulated packets from IR[CE](A) then
rewrites the outer source address to one of its own locator
addresses, and rewrites the outer destination address to the subnet
router anycast address of the appropriate address family associated
with the inner destination address. IR[VE](A) then releases the
revised packets into the Internet where routing will direct them to
IR[VC](B).
IR[VC](B) will intercept the encapsulated packets from IR[VE](A) then
check its FIB to discover an entry that covers inner destination
address B with IR[VE](B) as the next hop. IR[VC](B) then returns
SCMP redirect messages to IR[VE](A) (*), rewrites the outer
destination address of the encapsulated packets to the locator
address of IR[VE](B), and forwards these revised packets to
IR[VE](B).
IR[VE](B) will receive the encapsulated packets from IR[VC](B) then
check its FIB to discover an entry that covers destination address B
with IR[CE](B) as the next hop. IR[VE](B) then re-encapsulates the
packets in a new outer header that uses the source address,
destination address and nonce parameters associated with the tunnel
to IR[CE](B). IR[VE](B) then releases these re-encapsulated packets
into the Internet, where routing will direct them to IR[CE](B).
IR[CE](B) will in turn decapsulate the packets and forward the inner
packets to host B via EUN B.
(*) Note that after the initial flow of packets, IR[VE](A) will have
received one or more SCMP redirect messages from IR[VC](B) listing
IR[VE](B) as a better next hop. IR[VE](A) will in turn forward the
redirects to IR[CE](A), which will thereafter forward its
encapsulated packets directly to the locator address of IR[VE](B)
without involving either IR[VE](A) or IR[VC](B) as shown in Figure 7:
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
________________________________________
.-( .-. )-.
.-( ,-( _)-. )-.
.-( +=============> .-(_ (_ )-.======+ )-.
.( // (__ Internet _) || ).
.( // `-(______)-' vv ).
.( // +------------+ ).
( // | IR[VE](B) |====+ )
( // +------------+ \\ )
( // .-. .-. \\ )
( //,-( _)-. ,-( _)-\\ )
( .||_ (_ )-. .-(_ (_ ||. )
( _|| ISP A .) (__ ISP B ||_))
( ||-(______)-' `-(______)|| )
( || | | vv )
( +-----+-----+ The IRON +-----+-----+ )
| IR[CE](A) | (Overlaid on the native Internet) | IR[CE](B) |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
| ( ) |
.-. .-( .-) .-.
,-( _)-. .-(________________________)-. ,-( _)-.
.-(_ (_ )-. .-(_ (_ )-.
(_ IRON EUN A ) (_ IRON EUN B )
`-(______)-' `-(______)-'
| |
+---+----+ +---+----+
| Host A | | Host B |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 7: Sustained Packet Flow After Redirects
6.4.2. Mixed IRON and Non-IRON Hosts
When one host is within an IRON EUN and the other is in a non-IRON
EUN (i.e., one that connects to the native Internet instead of the
IRON), the IR elements involved depend on the packet flow directions.
The cases are described in the following sections.
6.4.2.1. From IRON Host A to Non-IRON Host B
Figure 8 depicts the IRON reference operating scenario for packets
flowing from Host A in an IRON EUN to Host B in a non-IRON EUN:
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
_________________________________________
.-( )-. )-.
.-( +-------)----+ )-.
.-( | IR[VC](A) |--------------+ )-.
.( +------------+ \ ).
.( +=======>| IR[VE](A) | \ ).
.( // +--------)---+ \ ).
( // ) \ )
( // The IRON ) \ )
( // .-. ) \ .-. )
( //,-( _)-. ) \ ,-( _)-. )
( .||_ (_ )-. ) The Native Internet .-|_ (_ )-. )
( _|| ISP A ) ) (_ | ISP B ))
( ||-(______)-' ) |-(______)-' )
( || | )-. v | )
( +-----+ ----+ )-. +-----+-----+ )
| IR[CE](A) |)-. | Router B |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
| ( ) |
.-. .-(____________________________________)-. .-.
,-( _)-. ,-( _)-.
.-(_ (_ )-. .-(_ (_ )-.
(_ IRON EUN A ) (_ non-IRON EUN )
`-(______)-' `-(___B___)-'
| |
+---+----+ +---+----+
| Host A | | Host B |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 8: From IRON Host A to Non-IRON Host B
In this scenario, host A sends packets destined to host B via its
network interface connected to IRON EUN A. Routing within EUN A will
direct the packets to IR[CE](A) as a default router for the EUN which
then uses VET and SEAL to encapsulate them in outer headers with its
locator address as the outer source address and the locator address
of IR[VE](A) as the outer destination address. The ISP will pass the
packets without filtering since the (outer) source address is
topologically correct. Once the packets have been released into the
native Internet, routing will direct them to IR[VE](A).
IR[VE](A) receives the encapsulated packets from IR[CE](A) then re-
encapsulates and forwards them to IR[VC](A), which simply
decapsulates them and releases the unencapsulated packets into the
Internet. Once the packets are released into the Internet, routing
will direct them to the final destination B. (Note that IR[VE](A) and
IR[VC](A) are depicted in Figure 8 as two halves of a unified
IR[VP](A). In that case, the "forwarding" between IR[VE](A) and
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
IR[VC](A) is a zero-instruction imaginary operation.)
This scenario always involves an IR[VE](A) and IR[VC](A) owned by the
VPC that provides service to IRON EUN A. It therefore imparts a cost
that would need to be borne by either the VPC or its customers.
6.4.2.2. From Non-IRON Host B to IRON Host A
Figure 9 depicts the IRON reference operating scenario for packets
flowing from Host B in an Non-IRON EUN to Host A in an IRON EUN:
_______________________________________
.-( )-. )-.
.-( +-------)----+ )-.
.-( | IR[VC](A) |<-------------+ )-.
.( +------------+ \ ).
.( +========| IR[VE](A) | \ ).
.( // +--------)---+ \ ).
( // ) \ )
( // The IRON ) \ )
( // .-. ) \ .-. )
( //,-( _)-. ) \ ,-( _)-. )
( .||_ (_ )-. ) The Native Internet .-|_ (_ )-. )
( _|| ISP A ) ) (_ | ISP B ))
( ||-(______)-' ) |-(______)-' )
( vv | )-. | | )
( +-----+ ----+ )-. +-----+-----+ )
| IR[CE](A) |)-. | Router B |
+-----+-----+ +-----+-----+
| ( ) |
.-. .-(____________________________________)-. .-.
,-( _)-. ,-( _)-.
.-(_ (_ )-. .-(_ (_ )-.
(_ IRON EUN A ) (_ non-IRON EUN )
`-(______)-' `-(___B___)-'
| |
+---+----+ +---+----+
| Host A | | Host B |
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 9: From Non-IRON Host B to IRON Host A
In this scenario, host B sends packets destined to host A via its
network interface connected to non-IRON EUN B. Routing will direct
the packets to IR[VC](A) which then forwards them to IR[VE](A) using
encapsulation if necessary. (Note that in this diagram IR[VE](A) and
IR[VC](A) are depicted as two halves of a unified IR[VP](A). In that
case, the "forwarding" between IR[VE](A) and IR[VC](A) is a zero-
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
instruction imaginary operation.)
IR[VE](A) will then check its FIB to discover an entry that covers
destination address A with IR[CE](A) as the next hop. IR[VE](A) then
(re-)encapsulates the packets in an outer header that uses the source
address, destination address and nonce parameters associated with the
tunnel to IR[CE](A). IR[VE](A) next releases these (re-)encapsulated
packets into the Internet, where routing will direct them to
IR[CE](A). IR[CE](A) will in turn decapsulate the packets and
forward the inner packets to host A via its network interface
connected to IRON EUN A.
This scenario always involves an IR[VE](A) and IR[VC](A) owned by the
VPC that provides service to IRON EUN A. It therefore imparts a cost
that would need to be borne by either the VPC or its customers.
6.5. Mobility, Multihoming and Traffic Engineering Considerations
While IR[VE]s and IR[VC]s can be considered as fixed infrastructure,
IR[CE]s may need to move between different network points of
attachment, connect to multiple ISPs, or explicitly manage their
traffic flows. The following sections discuss mobility, multi-homing
and traffic engineering considerations for IR[CE]s.
6.5.1. Mobility Management
When an IR[CE] changes its network point of attachment (e.g., due to
a mobility event), it configures one or more new locators. If the
IR[CE] has not moved far away from its previous network point of
attachment, it simply informs its serving IR[VE] of any locator
additions or deletions. This operation is performance-sensitive, and
should be conducted immediately to avoid packet loss.
If the IR[CE] has moved far away from its previous network point of
attachment, however, it re-issues the anycast discovery procedure
described in Section 6.1 to discover whether its candidate set of
serving IR[VE]s has changed. If the IR[CE]'s current serving IR[VE]
is also included in the new list received from the VPC, this serves
as indication that the IR[CE] has not moved far enough to warrant
changing to a new serving IR[VE]. Otherwise, the IR[CE] may wish to
move to a new serving IR[VE] in order to maintain optimal routing.
This operation is not performance-critical, and therefore can be
conducted over a matter of seconds/minutes instead of milliseconds/
microseconds.
To move to a new IR[VE], the IR[CE] first engages in the EP
registration process with the new IR[VE] and maintains the
registrations through periodic SRS/SRA exchanges the same as
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
described in Section 6.1. The IR[CE] then informs its former IR[VE]
that it has moved by providing it with the locator address of the new
IR[VE]. The IR[CE] then discontinues the SRS/SRA keepalive process
with the former IR[VE], which will garbage-collect the stale FIB
entries when their lifetime expires. This will allow the former
IR[VE] to redirect existing correspondents to the new IR[VE] so that
no packets are lost.
6.5.2. Multihoming
An IR[CE] may register multiple locators with its serving IR[VE]. It
can assign metrics with its registrations to inform its IR[VE] of
preferred locators, and can select outgoing locators according to its
local preferences. Multihoming is therefore naturally supported.
6.5.3. Inbound Traffic Engineering
An IR[CE] can dynamically adjust the priorities of its prefix
registrations with its serving IR[VE] in order to influence inbound
traffic flows. It can also change between serving IR[VE]s when
multiple IR[VE]s are available, but should strive for stability in
its IR[VE] selection in order to limit VPC network routing churn.
6.5.4. Outbound Traffic Engineering
An IR[CE] can select outgoing locators, e.g., based on current QoS
considerations such as minimizing one-way delay or one-way delay
variance.
6.6. Renumbering Considerations
As new link layer technologies and/or service models emerge,
customers will be motivated to select their service providers through
healthy competition between ISPs. If a customer's EUN addresses are
tied to a specific ISP, however, the customer may be forced to
undergo a painstaking EUN renumbering process if it wishes to change
to a different ISP [RFC4192][RFC5887].
When a customer obtains EP prefixes from a VPC, it can change between
ISPs seamlessly and without need to renumber. If the VPC itself
applies unreasonable costing structures for use of the EPs, however,
the customer may be compelled to seek a different VPC and would again
be required to confront a renumbering scenario. The IRON approach to
renumbering avoidance therefore depends on VPCs conducting ethical
business practices and offering reasonable rates.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
6.7. NAT Traversal Considerations
The Internet today consists of a global public IPv4 routing and
addressing system with non-IRON EUNs that use either public or
private IPv4 addressing. The latter class of EUNs connect to the
public Internet via Network Address Translators (NATs). When an
IR[CE] is located behind a NAT, its selects IR[VE]s using the same
procedures as for IR[CE]s with public addresses, i.e., it will send
SRS messages to IR[VE]s in order to get SRA messages in return. The
only requirement is that the IR[CE] must configure its SEAL
encapsulation to use a transport protocol that supports NAT
traversal, namely UDP.
Since the IR[VE] maintains state about its IR[CE] customers, it can
discover locator information for each IR[CE] by examining the UDP
port number and IP address in the outer headers of SRS messages.
When there is a NAT in the path, the UDP port number and IP address
in the SRS message will correspond to state in the NAT box and might
not correspond to the actual values assigned to the IR[CE]. The
IR[VE] can then encapsulate packets destined to hosts serviced by the
IR[CE] within outer headers that use this IP address and UDP port
number. The NAT box will receive the packets, translate the values
in the outer headers to match those assigned to the IR[CE], then
forward the packets to the IR[CE]. In this sense, the IR[VE]'s
"locator" for the IR[CE] consists of the concatenation of the IP
address and UDP port number.
IRON does not introduce any new issues to complications raised for
NAT traversal or for applications embedding address referrals in
their payload.
6.8. Nested EUN Considerations
Each IR[CE] configures a locator that may be taken from an ordinary
non-EPA address assigned by an ISP or from an EPA address taken from
an EP assigned to another IR[CE]. In that case, the IR[CE] is said
to be "nested" within the EUN of another IR[CE], and recursive
nestings of multiple layers of encapsulations may be necessary.
For example, in the network scenario depicted in Figure 10 IR[CE](A)
configures a locator EPA(B) taken from the EP assigned to EUN(B).
IR[CE](B) in turn configures a locator EPA(C) taken from the EP
assigned to EUN(C). Finally, IR[CE](C) configures a locator ISP(D)
taken from a non-EPA address delegated by an ordinary ISP(D). Using
this example, the "nested-IRON" case must be examined in which a host
A which configures the address EPA(A) within EUN(A) exchanges packets
with host Z located elsewhere in the Internet.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
.-.
ISP(D) ,-( _)-.
+-----------+ .-(_ (_ )-.
| IR[CE](C) |--(_ ISP(D) )
+-----+-----+ `-(______)-'
| <= T \ .-.
.-. u \ ,-( _)-.
,-( _)-. n .-(_ (- )-.
.-(_ (_ )-. n (_ Internet )
(_ EUN(C) ) e `-(______)-'
`-(______)-' l ___
| EPA(C) s => (:::)-.
+-----+-----+ .-(::::::::)
| IR[CE](B) | .-(::::::::::::)-. +-----------+
+-----+-----+ (:::: The IRON ::::) | IR[VC](Z) |
| `-(::::::::::::)-' +-----------+
.-. `-(::::::)-' +-----------+
,-( _)-. | IR[VE](Z) |
.-(_ (_ )-. +-----------+ +-----------+
(_ EUN(B) ) | IR[VE](C) | +-----------+
`-(______)-' +-----------+ | IR[CE](Z) |
| EPA(B) +-----------+ +-----------+
+-----+-----+ | IR[VE](B) | +--------+
| IR[CE](A) | +-----------+ | Host Z |
+-----------+ +-----------+ +--------+
| | IR[VE](A) |
.-. +-----------+
,-( _)-. EPA(A)
.-(_ (_ )-. +--------+
(_ EUN(A) )---| Host A |
`-(______)-' +--------+
Figure 10: Nested EUN Example
The two cases of host A sending packets to host Z, and host Z sending
packets to host A, must be considered separately as described below.
6.8.1. Host A Sends Packets to Host Z
Host A first forwards a packet with source address EPA(A) and
destination address Z into EUN(A). Routing within EUN(A) will direct
the packet to IR[CE](A), which encapsulates it in an outer header
with EPA(B) as the outer source address and IR[VE](A) as the outer
destination address then forwards the once-encapsulated packet into
EUN(B). Routing within EUN[B] will direct the packet to IR[CE](B),
which encapsulates it in an outer header with EPA(C) as the outer
source address and IR[VE](B) as the outer destination address then
forwards the twice-encapsulated packet into EUN(C). Routing within
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
EUN(C) will direct the packet to IR[CE](C), which encapsulates it in
an outer header with ISP(D) as the outer source address and IR[VE](C)
as the outer destination address. IR[CE](C) then sends this triple-
encapsulated packet into the ISP(D) network, where it will be routed
into the Internet to IR[VE](C).
When IR[VE](C) receives the triple-encapsulated packet, it removes
the outer layer of encapsulation and forwards the resulting twice-
encapsulated packet into the Internet to IR[VE](B). Next, IR[VE](B)
removes the outer layer of encapsulation and forwards the resulting
once-encapsulated packet into the Internet to IR[VE](A). Next,
IR[VE](A) checks the address type of the inner address 'Z'. If Z is
a non-EPA address, IR[VE](A) simply decapsulates the packet and
forwards it into the Internet. Otherwise, IR[VE](A) rewrites the
outer source and destination addresses of the once-encapsulated
packet and forwards it to IR[VC](Z). IR[VC](Z) in turn rewrites the
outer destination address of the packet to the locator for IR[VE](Z),
then forwards the packet and sends a redirect to IR[VE](A) (which
forwards the redirect to IR[CE](A)). IR[VE](Z) then re-encapsulates
the packet and forwards it to IR[CE](Z), which decapsulates it and
forwards the inner packet to host Z. Subsequent packets from
IR[CE](A) will then use IR[VE](Z) as the next hop toward host Z,
which eliminates IR[VE](A) and IR[VC](Z) from the path.
6.8.2. Host Z Sends Packets to Host A
Whether or not host Z configures an EPA address, its packets destined
to Host A will eventually reach IR[VE](A). IR[VE](A) will have a
mapping that lists IR[CE](A) as the next hop toward EPA(A).
IR[VE](A) will then encapsulate the packet with EPA(B) as the outer
destination address and forward the packet into the Internet.
Internet routing will convey this once-encapsulated packet to
IR[VE](B) which will have a mapping that lists IR[CE](B) as the next
hop toward EPA(B). IR[VE](B) will then encapsulate the packet with
EPA(C) as the outer destination address and forward the packet into
the Internet. Internet routing will then convey this twice-
encapsulated packet to IR[VE](C) which will have a mapping that lists
IR[CE](C) as the next hop toward EPA(C). IR[VE](C) will then
encapsulate the packet with ISP(D) as the outer destination address
and forward the packet into the Internet. Internet routing will then
convey this triple-encapsulated packet to IR[CE](C).
When the triple-encapsulated packet arrives at IR[CE](C), it strips
the outer layer of encapsulation and forwards the twice-encapsulated
packet to EPA(C) which is the locator address of IR[CE](B). When
IR[CE](B) receives the twice-encapsulated packet, it strips the outer
layer of encapsulation and forwards the once-encapsulated packet to
EPA(B) which is the locator address of IR[CE](A). When IR[CE](A)
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
receives the once-encapsulated packet, it strips the outer layer of
encapsulation and forwards the unencapsulated packet to EPA(A) which
is the host address of host A.
7. Additional Considerations
Considerations for the scalability of Internet Routing due to
multihoming, traffic engineering and provider-independent addressing
are discussed in [I-D.narten-radir-problem-statement].
Route optimization considerations for mobile networks are found in
[RFC5522].
8. Related Initiatives
IRON builds upon the concepts RANGER architecture [RFC5720], and
therefore inherits the same set of related initiatives.
Virtual Aggregation (VA) [I-D.ietf-grow-va] and Aggregation in
Increasing Scopes (AIS) [I-D.zhang-evolution] provide the basis for
the Virtual Prefix concepts.
Internet vastly improved plumbing (Ivip) [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch] has
contributed valuable insights, including the use of real-time
mapping. The use of IR[VE]s as mobility anchor points is directly
influenced by Ivip's associated TTR mobility extensions [TTRMOB].
[I-D.bernardos-mext-nemo-ro-cr] discussed a route optimization
approach using a Correspondent Router (CR) model. The IRON IR[VE]
construct is similar to the CR concept described in this work,
however the manner in which customer EUNs coordinates with IR[VE]s is
different and based on the redirection model associated with NBMA
links.
Numerous publications have proposed NAT traversal techniques. The
NAT traversal techniques adapted for IRON were inspired by the Simple
Address Mapping for Premises Legacy Equipment (SAMPLE) proposal
[I-D.carpenter-softwire-sample].
9. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations for this document.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
10. Security Considerations
Security considerations that apply to tunneling in general are
discussed in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns]. Additional
considerations that apply also to IRON are discussed in RANGER
[RFC5720], VET [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and SEAL
[I-D.templin-intarea-seal].
IR[CE]s require a means for securely registering their EP-to-locator
bindings with their VPC. Each VPC provides its customer IR[CE]s with
a secure means for registering and re-registering their mappings.
11. Acknowledgements
This ideas behind this work have benefited greatly from discussions
with colleagues; some of which appear on the RRG and other IRTF/IETF
mailing lists. Robin Whittle and Steve Russert co-authored the TTR
mobility architecture which strongly influenced IRON. Eric
Fleischman pointed out the opportunity to leverage anycast for
discovering topologically-close servers. Thomas Henderson
recommended a quantitative analysis of scaling properties.
The following individuals provided essential review input: Mohamed
Boucadair, Wesley Eddy, Dae Young Kim and Robin Whittle.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
12.2. Informative References
[BGPMON] net, B., "BGPmon.net - Monitoring Your Prefixes,
http://bgpmon.net/stat.php", June 2010.
[I-D.bernardos-mext-nemo-ro-cr]
Bernardos, C., Calderon, M., and I. Soto, "Correspondent
Router based Route Optimisation for NEMO (CRON)",
draft-bernardos-mext-nemo-ro-cr-00 (work in progress),
July 2008.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
[I-D.carpenter-softwire-sample]
Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Legacy NAT Traversal for
IPv6: Simple Address Mapping for Premises Legacy Equipment
(SAMPLE)", draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00 (work in
progress), June 2010.
[I-D.ietf-grow-va]
Francis, P., Xu, X., Ballani, H., Jen, D., Raszuk, R., and
L. Zhang, "FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation",
draft-ietf-grow-va-03 (work in progress), August 2010.
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns]
Hoagland, J., Krishnan, S., and D. Thaler, "Security
Concerns With IP Tunneling",
draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-02 (work in
progress), August 2010.
[I-D.narten-radir-problem-statement]
Narten, T., "On the Scalability of Internet Routing",
draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05 (work in
progress), February 2010.
[I-D.russert-rangers]
Russert, S., Fleischman, E., and F. Templin, "RANGER
Scenarios", draft-russert-rangers-05 (work in progress),
July 2010.
[I-D.templin-intarea-seal]
Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
Layer (SEAL)", draft-templin-intarea-seal-16 (work in
progress), July 2010.
[I-D.templin-intarea-vet]
Templin, F., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)",
draft-templin-intarea-vet-16 (work in progress),
July 2010.
[I-D.whittle-ivip-arch]
Whittle, R., "Ivip (Internet Vastly Improved Plumbing)
Architecture", draft-whittle-ivip-arch-04 (work in
progress), March 2010.
[I-D.zhang-evolution]
Zhang, B. and L. Zhang, "Evolution Towards Global Routing
Scalability", draft-zhang-evolution-02 (work in progress),
October 2009.
[RFC1070] Hagens, R., Hall, N., and M. Rose, "Use of the Internet as
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
a subnetwork for experimentation with the OSI network
layer", RFC 1070, February 1989.
[RFC2526] Johnson, D. and S. Deering, "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
Addresses", RFC 2526, March 1999.
[RFC3068] Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
RFC 3068, June 2001.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.
[RFC4192] Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
September 2005.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC4548] Gray, E., Rutemiller, J., and G. Swallow, "Internet Code
Point (ICP) Assignments for NSAP Addresses", RFC 4548,
May 2006.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
March 2008.
[RFC5522] Eddy, W., Ivancic, W., and T. Davis, "Network Mobility
Route Optimization Requirements for Operational Use in
Aeronautics and Space Exploration Mobile Networks",
RFC 5522, October 2009.
[RFC5720] Templin, F., "Routing and Addressing in Networks with
Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER)", RFC 5720,
February 2010.
[RFC5737] Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.
[RFC5743] Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
(IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, December 2009.
[RFC5887] Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering
Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010.
[TTRMOB] Whittle, R. and S. Russert, "TTR Mobility Extensions for
Core-Edge Separation Solutions to the Internet's Routing
Scaling Problem,
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/TTR-Mobility.pdf",
August 2008.
Appendix A. IRON VPs Over Internetworks with Different Address Families
The IRON architecture leverages the routing system by providing
generally shortest-path routing for packets with EPA addresses from
VPs that match the address family of the underlying Internetwork.
When the VPs are of an address family that is not routable within the
underlying Internetwork, however, (e.g., when OSI/NSAP [RFC4548] VPs
are used within an IPv4 Internetwork) a global mapping database is
required to allow IR[VE]s to map VPs to companion prefixes taken from
address families that are routable within the Internetwork. For
example, an IPv6 VP (e.g., 2001:DB8::/32) could be paired with a
companion IPv4 prefix (e.g., 192.0.2.0/24) so that encapsulated IPv6
packets can be forwarded over IPv4-only Internetworks.
Every VP in the IRON must therefore be represented in a globally
distributed Master VP database (MVPd) that maintains VP-to-companion
prefix mappings for all VPs in the IRON. The MVPd is maintained by a
globally-managed assigned numbers authority in the same manner as the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) currently maintains the
master list of all top-level IPv4 and IPv6 delegations. The database
can be replicated across multiple servers for load balancing much in
the same way that FTP mirror sites are used to manage software
distributions.
Upon startup, each IR[VE] discovers the full set of VPs for the IRON
by reading the MVPd. The IR[VE] reads the MVPd from a nearby server
and periodically checks the server for deltas since the database was
last read. After reading the MVPd, the IR[VE] has a full list of VP
to companion prefix mappings.
The IR[VE] can then forward packets toward EPAs covered by a VP by
encapsulating them in an outer header of the VP's companion prefix
address family and using any address taken from the companion prefix
as the outer destination address. The companion prefix therefore
serves as an anycast prefix.
Possible encapsulations in this model include IPv6-in-IPv4, IPv4-in-
IPv6, OSI/CLNP-in-IPv6, OSI/CLNP-in-IPv4, etc.
Appendix B. Scaling Considerations
Scaling aspects of the IRON architecture have strong implications for
its applicability in practical deployments. Scaling must be
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
considered along multiple vectors including Interdomain core routing
scaling, scaling to accommodate large numbers of customer EUNs,
traffic scaling, state requirements, etc.
In terms of routing scaling, each VPC will advertise one or more VPs
from which EPs are delegated to customer EUNs. Routing scaling will
therefore be minimized when each VP covers many EPs. For example,
the IPv6 prefix 2001:DB8::/32 contains 2^24 ::/56 EP prefixes for
assignment to EUNs. The IRON could therefore accommodate 2^32 ::/56
EPs with only 2^8 ::/32 VPs advertised in the interdomain routing
core.
In terms of traffic scaling for IR[VC]s, each IR[VC] represents an
ASBR of a "shell" enterprise network that simply directs arriving
traffic packets with EPA destination addresses towards IR[VE]s that
service customer EUNs. Moreover, the IR[VC] sheds traffic destined
to EPAs through redirection which removes it from the path for the
vast majority of traffic packets. On the other hand, each IR[VC]
must handle all traffic packets forwarded between its customer EUNs
and the non-IRON Internet. The scaling concerns for this latter
class of traffic are no different than for ASBR routers that connect
large enterprise networks to the Internet. In terms of traffic
scaling for IR[VE]s, each IR[VE] services a set of the VPC overlay
network's customer EUNs. The IR[VE] services all traffic packets
destined to its EUNs but only services the initial packets of flows
initiated from the EUNs and destined to EPAs. Therefore, traffic
scaling for EPA-addressed traffic is an asymmetric consideration and
is proportional to the number of EUNs each IR[VE] serves.
In terms of state requirements for IR[VC]s, each IR[VC] maintains a
list of all IR[VE]s in the VPC overlay network as well as FIB entries
for all customer EUNs that each IR[VE] serves. This state is
therefore dominated by the number of EUNs in the VPC overlay network.
Sizing the IR[VC] to accommodate state information for all EUNs is
therefore required during VPC overlay network planning. In terms of
state requirements for IR[VE]s, each IR[VE] maintains tunnel state
for each of the customer EUNs it serves but need not keep state for
all EUNs in the VPC overlay network. Finally, neither IR[VC]s nor
IR[VE] need keep state for final destinations of outbound traffic.
IR[CE]s source and sink all traffic packets originating from or
destined to the customer EUN. Therefore traffic scaling
considerations for IR[CE]s are the same as for any site border
router. IR[CE]s also retain state for the final destinations of
outbound traffic flows. This can be managed as soft state, since
stale entries purged from the cache will be refreshed when new
traffic packets are sent.
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft IRON September 2010
Author's Address
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707 MC 7L-49
Seattle, WA 98124
USA
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin Expires March 5, 2011 [Page 35]
