Analysis and scenarios of multiple interfaces in a host
draft-hong-mif-analysis-scenario-01
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-Drafts.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 14, 2010.
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 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your
rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
Abstract
This document includes an analysis of multiple interfaces in a host and a description of scenarios of multiple interfaces with the respect of the relationship between layer 2 connection and layer 3 connection. The current TCP/IP mechanism and networking methods are suitable for single network interface. When a host has multiple interfaces, the current TCP/IP mechanism and networking methods cannot directly be used for them. A network interface establishes layer 2 connection to layer 2 entity (e.g., WLAN Access Point) and it does not mean providing proper layer 3 connection. So every active network interfaces do not guarantee successful IP layer operations. In this document, we describe some problems for a host which has multiple interfaces as an aspect of host's operations and usage scenarios of multiple interfaces in a host.
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction
2.
Analysis of the problems of multiple interface usage
2.1.
Relation between network interface and destination address
2.2.
Consideration for asymmetric routing path
3.
Usage scenarios of multiple interfaces in a host
3.1.
Scenario 1: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and single L3 network
3.2.
Scenario 2: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and same subnet)
3.3.
Scenario 3: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and different subnet)
3.4.
Scenario 4: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
3.5.
Scenario 5: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
3.6.
Scenario 6: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
3.7.
Scenario 7: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
3.8.
Scenario 8: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 network and single L3 network
3.9.
Scenario 9: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and same subnet)
3.10.
Scenario 10: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and different subnet)
3.11.
Scenario 11: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
3.12.
Scenario 12: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
3.13.
Scenario 13: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
3.14.
Scenario 14: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
3.15.
Remarks of analysis of usage scenarios
4.
Conclusions
5.
Security Considerations
6.
IANA Considerations
7.
References
7.1.
Normative References
7.2.
Informative References
§
Authors' Addresses
1.
Introduction
In future ubiquitous networks, many services and many access technologies are expected to be interworked and harmonized for better services. To do so, a host must have a ability to connect different access technology networks and different network interfaces for each access technology.
Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775][1] (Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” June 2004.) and NEMO Basic Support [RFC3963]
[2] (Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, “Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol,” January 2005.) can solve the problem of the change of IPv6 network
address when a mobile node or a mobile router moves. But these protocols are developed for a mobile node with a single network interface and a mobile router with a single egress network interface. Due to multiple interfaces, many things should be considered such as multiple CoA, multiple HoA, and multiple HA. We cannot directly use basic Mobile IPv6 for a mobile node with multiple network interfaces. IETF MEXT working group are targeting to solve these problems and has many progress.
If a host has multiple interfaces, this situation influences not only mobility issues (e.g., extending Mobile IPv6/NEMO Basic Support) but also general networking operations and TCP/IP mechanism [I-D.blanchet-mif-problem-statement][3] (Blanchet, M., “Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement, draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01 (work in progress),” June 2009.).
In this document we analyze the problems of multiple interfaces in a host as an aspect of host's operations with the focusing on routing issues. Because of the simultaneous usage of multiple interfaces in communications, current networking methods which are based on single interface may have several problems. And we describe the usage scenarios of multiple interfaces in a host with the respect of the relationship between layer connection and layer 3 connection. A network interface establishes layer 2 connection to layer 2 entity (e.g., WLAN Access Point) and it does not mean providing proper layer 3 connection. So every active network interfaces do not guarantee successful IP layer operations. In this document, we categorize each usage scenarios by the usage of the number of network interface, layer 2 network, and layer 3 network. And in each scenario, we identify whether that scenario belongs to MIF scope or not and what kind of problems should be considered.
2.
Analysis of the problems of multiple interface usage
2.1.
Relation between network interface and destination address
A host with multiple interfaces may simultaneously use its interfaces for communication with a correspondent node. If a host simultaneously uses multiple interfaces, it seems that the following two cases can be considered.
- All interfaces activates and simultaneously sends/receives packets at a time. (all of them has layer 3 connections)
- All interfaces activates but just some of them sends/receives packets at a time. (some of them just have layer 2 connections)
If a host has single interface, the relation between network interface and destination address is static and is one-to-one mapping. But, if a host has multiple interfaces, this relation is different.
Let's consider the first case (All interfaces activates and simultaneously sends/receives packets at a time) and identify the relation between network interface and destination address.
In the following, we assume a host with two network interfaces IF1 and IF2 of different access technologies. Each interface is configured with an IP address, respectively IP1 and IP2, and the address of a correspondent node is IP3.
Because the host simultaneously use two interfaces and two interfaces are involved in sending/receiving packets, the routing information (for relation between network interface and destination address) could be configured as shown in the following table. In this table, to send packets to IP3, there are two available network interface; IF1 and IF2. The relation between network interface and destination address which is one-to-one mapping is changed to one(destination address)-to-many(network interface) mapping. So other relevant routing tables and routing caches should be support this change.
_________
| CN |
|_________|
| IP3
/ \
+------------------+ +------------------+
| Network 1 (N1) | | Network 2 (N2) |
| | | |
+------------------+ +------------------|
Interface 1(IF1) \ / \ / Interface 2 (IF2)
IP1 | | IP2
|_________|
| host |
|_________|
Figure 1: All I/F activates and simultaneously sends/receives packets at a time
|
| Location (Used I/F) | (Source Address, Destination Address) | Relation btw a Destination Addr. and a network I/F |
|---|
| N1 (IF1) |
(IP1, IP3) |
IP3 -> IF1 |
| N2 (IF2) |
(IP2, IP3) |
IP3 -> IF2 |
Table 1: Relation between destination address and network interfaces
|
Let's consider the second case (All interfaces activates but just some of them sends/receives packets at a time) and identify the relation between network interface and destination address. Let's assume that in the beginning time, IF1 is used and as time goes by, IF 2 is used. At the beginning time of communication, when the host uses (IF1, IP1) and sends packets to a correspondent node, the source address and destination address of packets is (IP1, IP3) and the used network interface is IF1. As time goes by and the host selects IF2 to send/receive packets, and then the host uses (IF2, IP2) and the used network interface is IF2. Before this change, the destination address (IP3) of the correspondent node is mapped to a network interface IF1. However after this change, when an application tries to send packets to the correspondent node, it continually tries to use a network interface IF1 if the relation between destination address IP3 and network interface IF1 is not properly updated. So, if all interfaces activates but just some of them sends/receives packets at a time, the proper update between network interface and destination address is needed.
_________
| CN |
|_________|
| IP3
/ \
+------------------+ +------------------+
| Network 1 (N1) | | Network 2 (N2) |
| | | |
+------------------+ +------------------|
Interface 1(IF1) \ / \ / Interface 2 (IF2)
IP1 | | IP2
|_________|
| host |
|_________|
Figure 2: All I/F activates but just some I/F sends/receives packets at a time
|
| Location (Used I/F) | (Source Address, Destination Address) | Relation btw a Destination Addr. and a network I/F |
|---|
| N1 (IF1) |
(IP1, IP3) |
IP3 -> IF1 |
| N2 (IF2) |
(IP2, IP3) |
IP3 -> ? |
Table 2: Relation between destination address and network interfaces
|
2.2.
Consideration for asymmetric routing path
In current network, a host can be equipped one or more network interfaces. Each network interface can be assigned one or multiple IP address. With this configuration, a host can connect to different networks and use different services at the same time. Since a host usually has a node-scoped routing table, in some cases it cannot differentiate exactly which interface that a packet will be forwarded.
We consider the following scenario: A host H1 has two network interfaces IF1 and IF2. Each network interface connects to a specific sub-network with a corresponding IP address as showed in the table.
_________
| CN |
|_________|
| IP3
\
+------------------+ \ +------------------+
| Network 1 (N1) | \| Network 2 (N2) |
| Gateway (G1) | | Gateway (G2) |
+------------------+ +------------------|
\ /
Interface 1(IF1) \ / Interface 2 (IF2)
IP1 | | IP2
|_________|
| host(H1)|
|_________|
Figure 3: A host with two interfaces
|
| Interface | Gateway | IP address | Network |
|---|
| IF1 |
G1 |
IP1 |
N1 |
| IF2 |
G2 |
IP2 |
N2 |
Table 3: Network configuration
|
The node has a routing table as follow.
| Destination | Gateway | Interface |
|---|
| * |
G1 |
IF1 |
| N3 |
G2 |
IF2 |
| N4 |
G2 |
IF2 |
Now we assume that there is a correspond node CN in the network N5. CN has only one connection with the network N2 via the gateway G2. Let CN send a TCP packet to H1 via the gateway G2. When host H1 receives this packet, it will send an ACK packet back to CN. First H1 will check its routing table to find the gateway for sending ACK packet. Because the routing table does not have any dedicated routing entry for the network N3, H1 will send ACK packet to the default gateway G1. However CN does not have any connection with this network, the ACK packet cannot reach CN. Thus to maintain a connection, the response of a packet should be routed via the same interface that it is received.
3.
Usage scenarios of multiple interfaces in a host
If a host has only single network interface (or although it has multiple interfaces but only one interface is activated at one time) and it is connected to single network, the activated interface is established to one layer 2 entity (e.g., WLAN Access Point) and it is also established to one layer 3 entity (e.g., router). It means that single layer 2 connection (where the single network interface is activated via a layer 2 entity) is only mapped to single layer 3 connection.
Meanwhile, if a host has multiple interfaces (or it has single interface and it is connected to multiple networks) and it is connected to multiple networks, the host may have multiple activated interfaces. And each activated interface may be established to different layer 2 entity. Because each layer 2 entity may be connected to different networks, some activated interfaces may be connected to global networks and some activated interfaces may be connected to non-global networks (e.g., private networks). In this case, the one-to-one mapping between single layer 2 connection and single layer 3 connection is not made. There may be various usage scenarios by the relation between layer 2 networks and layer 3 networks.
3.1.
Scenario 1: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and single L3 network
This scenario illustrates a host with single interface that is connected to single layer 2 network and single layer 3 network. This scenario is a general network configuration now a days. In this case, there is no issues as an aspects of MIF.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +--------------------+
\\
+-----\\---------+ +----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ +----------------+
\\Prefix1
+---------\\---+ +--------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +--------------+
\
\
+----+
|I/F |
+-----+ 1 +-----+
| +----+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 4: A host with single I/F to single L2 and L3 network
|
The following table shows status of a host on this scenario.
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1 |
L3 Router1 |
(Prefix1), (1, 1) |
via Router1 |
Table 5: Status of a host
|
3.2.
Scenario 2: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and same subnet)
This scenario illustrates a host with single interface that is connected to multiple layer 2 networks and single layer 3 network. In layer 3 operation's aspect, same link and same subnet is used. This scenario seems that it is not possible when we use typical layer 2 technologies such as WLAN. But it is acknowledged that some particular access technology such as CDMA makes it possible. But, in real field, it is not easy to see this configuration. Although the single interface is connected to multiple layer 2 entity, the host is connected to single layer 3 network, because the two layer 2 entities are connected to same router and receive same prefix information. In this case, the host must properly decide which layer 2 entity should be used. But, there is no issue as an aspect of MIF.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +--------------------+
\\
+-----\\---------+ +----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| === ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) \\ ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ \\ +----------------+
Prefix1\\ \\Prefix1
+---------\\---+ \\ +--------------+
( +----------+ ) == +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+----+
|I/F |
+-----+ 1 +-----+
| +----+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 5: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1 |
(Prefix1), (1, 1) |
via Router1 |
Table 6: Status of a host
|
3.3.
Scenario 3: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and different subnet)
This scenario illustrates a host with single interface that is connected to multiple layer 2 networks and single layer 3 network. In layer 3 operation's aspect, same link but different subnet is used. This scenario seems that it is not possible when we use typical layer 2 technologies such as WLAN. But it is acknowledged that some particular access technology such as CDMA makes it possible. But, in real field, it is not easy to see this configuration. Because the host receives two different prefix information from same Router, MIF issues exists in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers. The host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used to make proper connection.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +--------------------+
\\
+-----\\---------+ +----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| === ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) \\ ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ \\ +----------------+
Prefix1\\ \\Prefix2
+---------\\---+ \\ +--------------+
( +----------+ ) == +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+----+
|I/F |
+-----+ 1 +-----+
| +----+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 6: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1 |
Table 7: Status of a host
|
3.4.
Scenario 4: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with single interface that is connected to single layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, only Router 1 is connected to public network, the host must decide which default router should be used to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +-------//-----------+
\\ //
+-----\\---------+ +-----//---------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) === |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) // ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ // +----------------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ // +--------------+
( +----------+ === ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +--------------+
\
\
+----+
|I/F |
+-----+ 1 +-----+
| +----+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 7: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1 |
Table 8: Status of a host
|
3.5.
Scenario 5: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with single interface that is connected to single layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, both Router 1 and Router 2 are connected to public network, the host can use any default router to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ===== ( Networks )
( ) \\ ( )
+-------\\-----------+ \\ +--------------------+
\\ \\
+-----\\---------+ \\----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) === |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) // ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ // +----------------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ // +--------------+
( +----------+ === ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +--------------+
\
\
+----+
|I/F |
+-----+ 1 +-----+
| +----+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 8: A host with single I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1, Router2 |
Table 9: Status of a host
|
3.6.
Scenario 6: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with single interface that is connected to multiple layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different layer 2 entity and different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, only Router 1 is connected to public network, the host must decide which default router should be used to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +-----------//-------+
\\ //
+-----\\---------+ +---------//-----+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ +-----//---------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ +---//---------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+----+
|I/F |
+-----+ 1 +-----+
| +----+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 9: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1 |
Table 10: Status of a host
|
3.7.
Scenario 7: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with single interface that is connected to multiple layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different layer 2 entity and different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, both Router 1 and Router 2 are connected to public network, the host can use any default router to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ===== ( Networks )
( ) \\ ( )
+-------\\-----------+ \\ +--------------------+
\\ \\
+-----\\---------+ \\----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ +-----//---------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ +---//---------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+----+
|I/F |
+-----+ 1 +-----+
| +----+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 10: A host with single I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1, Router2 |
Table 11: Status of a host
|
3.8.
Scenario 8: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 network and single L3 network
This scenario illustrates a host with multiple interfaces that are connected to single layer 2 network and single layer 3 network. We assume that in this scenario, although the host has multiple interfaces but only single interface is activated and connected to layer 2 and layer 3 network at a time. It is same case of scenario 1. This scenario is a general network configuration now a days. In this case, there is no issues as an aspects of MIF.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +--------------------+
\\
+-----\\---------+ +----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ +----------------+
\\Prefix1
+---------\\---+ +--------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +--------------+
\
\
+---+ +---+
|I/F| |I/F|
+--+ 1 +--+ 2 +--+
| +---+ +---+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 11: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 and L3 network
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1 |
L3 Router1 |
(Prefix1), (1, 1) |
via Router1 |
Table 12: Status of a host
|
3.9.
Scenario 9: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and same subnet)
This scenario illustrates a host with multiple interfaces that are connected to multiple layer 2 networks and single layer 3 network. Although, multiple layer 2 entity is used, in layer 3 operation's aspect, same link and same subnet is used. In this case, the host has only one prefix information and other MIF issues do not exist except for the choosing proper network interface.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +--------------------+
\\
+-----\\---------+ +----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| === ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) \\ ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ \\ +----------------+
Prefix1\\ \\Prefix1
+---------\\---+ \\ +--------------+
( +----------+ ) == +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+---+ +---+
|I/F| |I/F|
+--+ 1 +--+ 2 +--+
| +---+ +---+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 12: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1 |
(Prefix1), (1, 1) |
via Router1 |
Table 13: Status of a host
|
3.10.
Scenario 10: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network(same link and different subnet)
This scenario illustrates a host with multiple interfaces that are connected to multiple layer 2 networks and single layer 3 network. In layer 3 operation's aspect, same link but different subnet is used. Because the host receives two different prefix information from same router, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers. The host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used to make proper connection.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +--------------------+
\\
+-----\\---------+ +----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| === ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) \\ ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ \\ +----------------+
Prefix1\\ \\Prefix2
+---------\\---+ \\ +--------------+
( +----------+ ) == +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+---+ +---+
|I/F| |I/F|
+--+ 1 +--+ 2 +--+
| +---+ +---+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 13: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and single L3 network
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1 |
Table 14: Status of a host
|
3.11.
Scenario 11: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with multiple interfaces that are connected to single layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, only Router 1 is connected to public network, the host must decide which default router should be used to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +-------//-----------+
\\ //
+-----\\---------+ +-----//---------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) === |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) // ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ // +----------------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ // +--------------+
( +----------+ === ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\\_____ +--------------+
\ \
\ \
+---+ +---+
|I/F| |I/F|
+--+ 1 +--+ 2 +--+
| +---+ +---+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 14: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1 |
Table 15: Status of a host
|
3.12.
Scenario 12: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with multiple interfaces that are connected to single layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, both Router 1 and Router 2 are connected to public network, the host can use any default router to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ===== ( Networks )
( ) \\ ( )
+-------\\-----------+ \\ +--------------------+
\\ \\
+-----\\---------+ \\----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) === |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) // ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ // +----------------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ // +--------------+
( +----------+ === ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\\_____ +--------------+
\ \
\ \
+---+ +---+
|I/F| |I/F|
+--+ 1 +--+ 2 +--+
| +---+ +---+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 15: A host with multiple I/F to single L2 network and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1, Router2 |
Table 16: Status of a host
|
3.13.
Scenario 13: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with multiple interfaces that are connected to multiple layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different layer 2 entity and different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, only Router 1 is connected to public network, the host must decide which default router should be used to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ) ( Networks )
( ) ( )
+-------\\-----------+ +-----------//-------+
\\ //
+-----\\---------+ +---------//-----+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ +-----//---------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ +---//---------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+---+ +---+
|I/F| |I/F|
+--+ 1 +--+ 2 +--+
| +---+ +---+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 16: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1 |
Table 17: Status of a host
|
3.14.
Scenario 14: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
This scenario illustrates a host with multiple interfaces that are connected to multiple layer 2 networks and multiple layer 3 networks. Because the host is connected to different layer 2 entity and different router, it receives different prefix information. So, MIF issues exist in this case. The host can have two IP addresses and two default routers and the host must decide which IP address and which default router should be used. In this case, both Router 1 and Router 2 are connected to public network, the host can use any default router to connect to public network.
+--------------------+ +--------------------+
( ) ( )
( Public ) ( Private )
( Networks ===== ( Networks )
( ) \\ ( )
+-------\\-----------+ \\ +--------------------+
\\ \\
+-----\\---------+ \\----------------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L3 Router1| ) ( |L3 Router2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+--------\\------+ +-----//---------+
Prefix1\\ //Prefix2
+---------\\---+ +---//---------+
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
( |L2 Entity1| ) ( |L2 entity2| )
( +----------+ ) ( +----------+ )
+-------------\+ +/-------------+
\ /
\ /
+---+ +---+
|I/F| |I/F|
+--+ 1 +--+ 2 +--+
| +---+ +---+ |
| Host |
+----------------+
Figure 17: A host with multiple I/F to multiple L2 networks and multiple L3 networks
|
| L2 counter part | L3 counter part | (L3 information), (# of IP address, # of default router) | Path to Pub. Net. |
|---|
| L2 Entity1, L2 Entity2 |
L3 Router1, L3 Router2 |
(Prefix1, Prefix2), (2, 2) |
via Router1, Router2 |
Table 18: Status of a host
|
3.15.
Remarks of analysis of usage scenarios
It is understood that MIF working group tries to describe the issues of attaching to multiple networks on hosts. In some point, it seems that MIF issues are not directly related to the configuration of layer 2 network and layer 3 network, because we are focusing on host itself in MIF. But, after we describe the usage scenarios of multiple interfaces, we found that there are many possible usage scenarios and MIF issues exist in some scenarios and do not exist in other scenarios. To make effective works in MIF, we must find which scenario we should focus on. The optimal MIF's goal should be worked with irrelevant of the network configuration of layer 2 network and layer 3 network.
In describing scenarios, a host with single interface looks like having similar MIF issues with a host with multiple interfaces if we assume some particular access technology such as CDMA. It is needed to discuss whether MIF working group includes this special cases or not.
4.
Conclusions
When a host has multiple interfaces, the host can use heterogeneous network interfaces and it can provide ubiquitous access. In this document, we showed the issues when a host has multiple network interfaces as an aspect of host's operations with the focusing on routing issues such as source address and default router selection. If a host is able to use multiple interfaces simultaneously, the host must consider the proper mapping between network interface and destination address. And the asymmetric routing path may make the communication fail. In this document, we enumerate the usage scenarios of multiple interfaces in a host with the relation between layer 2 network and layer 3 network. We hope whether which scenario belongs to MIF scope and identify practical problems of multiple interfaces in each scenario.
5.
Security Considerations
This document doesn't intend to provide the MIF security analysis but one will be required.
6.
IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
7.
References
7.1. Normative References
| [1] |
Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, “Mobility Support in IPv6,” RFC 3775, June 2004 (TXT). |
| [2] |
Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert, “Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol,” RFC 3963, January 2005 (TXT). |
7.2. Informative References
| [3] |
Blanchet, M., “Multiple Interfaces Problem Statement, draft-blanchet-mif-problem-statement-01 (work in progress),” June 2009. |
Authors' Addresses
| |
Yong-Geun Hong |
| |
ETRI |
| |
161 Gajeong-Dong Yuseung-Gu |
| |
Daejeon, 305-700 |
| |
Korea |
| Phone: |
+82 42 860 6557 |
| Email: |
yonggeun.hong@gmail.com |
| | |
| |
Tran Minh Trung |
| |
ETRI |
| |
161 Gajeong-Dong Yuseung-Gu |
| |
Daejeon, 305-700 |
| |
Korea |
| Phone: |
+82 42 860 1132 |
| Email: |
trungtm2909@gmail.com |
| | |
| |
Joo-Sang Youn |
| |
DONG-EUI Univ. |
| |
Busan, |
| |
Korea |
| Phone: |
+82 51 890 1993 |
| Email: |
joosang.youn@gmail.com |