PCP Working Group | M. Boucadair |
Internet-Draft | France Telecom |
Updates: 6887 (if approved) | R. Penno |
Intended status: Standards Track | D. Wing |
Expires: June 20, 2015 | P. Patil |
T. Reddy | |
Cisco | |
December 17, 2014 |
PCP Server Selection
draft-ietf-pcp-server-selection-07
The document specifies the behavior to be followed by a PCP client to contact its PCP server(s) when one or several PCP server IP addresses are configured.
This document updates RFC6887.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
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 June 20, 2015.
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. 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.
A host may have multiple network interfaces (e.g., 3G, IEEE 802.11, etc.); each configured with different PCP servers. Each PCP server learned must be associated with the interface on which it was learned. Generic multi-interface considerations are documented in Section 8.4 of [RFC6887]. Multiple PCP server IP addresses may be configured on a PCP client in some deployment contexts such as multi-homing (see Appendix A). A PCP server may also have multiple IP addresses associated with it. It is out of scope of this document to enumerate all deployment scenarios that require multiple PCP server IP addresses to be configured.
If a PCP client discovers multiple PCP server IP addresses, it needs to determine which actions it needs to undertake (e.g., whether PCP entries are to be installed in all or a subset of discovered IP addresses, whether some PCP entries are to be removed, etc.). This document makes the following assumptions:
This document specifies the behavior to be followed by a PCP client [RFC6887] to contact its PCP server(s) [RFC6887] when it is configured with one or several PCP server IP addresses (e.g., using DHCP [RFC7291]).
This document makes use of the following terms:
This section describes the behavior a PCP client follows to contact its PCP server when the PCP client has multiple IP addresses for a single PCP server.
For efficiency, the PCP client SHOULD use the same Mapping Nonce for requests sent to all IP addresses belonging to the same PCP server.
This section describes the behavior a PCP client follows to contact multiple PCP servers, with each PCP server reachable on a list of IP addresses. There is no requirement that these multiple PCP servers have the same capabilities.
If several PCP servers are configured, each with multiple IP addresses, the PCP client contacts all PCP servers using the procedure described in Section 3.
As specified in Section 11.2 and Section 12.2 of [RFC6887], the PCP client must use a different Mapping Nonce for each PCP server it communicates with.
If the PCP client is configured, using some means, with the capabilities of each PCP server, a PCP client may choose to contact all PCP servers simultaneously or iterate through them with a delay.
This procedure may result in a PCP client instantiating multiple mappings maintained by distinct PCP servers. The decision to use all these mappings or delete some of them depends on the purpose of the PCP request. For example, if the PCP servers are configuring firewall (not NAT) functionality then the client would by default (i.e., unless it knows that they all replicate state among them) need to use all the PCP servers.
ISP Network | | ......................................................... | | Subscriber Network +-------+--------+ +----+-----------+ | PCP-Server-A | | PCP-Server-B | | (rtr1) | | (rtr2) | +-------+--------+ +----+-----------+ 192.0.2.1 | | 198.51.100.1 2001:db8:1111::1 | | 2001:db8:2222::1 | | | | -------+--------------+----------- | | 203.0.113.0 | 2001:db8:3333::1 +---+---+ | Host | +-------+ Edge Routers (rtr1, rtr2)
Figure 1
Figure 1 depicts an example that is used to illustrate the server selection procedure specified in Section 3 and Section 4. In this example, PCP servers (A and B) are co-located with edge routers (rtr1, rtr2) with each PCP server controlling its own device.
The example describes behavior when a single IP address for one PCP server is not responsive. The PCP client is configured with two PCP servers for the same interface, PCP-Server-A and PCP-Server-B each having two IP addresses, an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address. The PCP client wants an IPv4 mapping so it orders the addresses as follows:
Suppose that:
It sends two PCP requests at the same time, the first to 192.0.2.1 (corresponding to PCP-Server-A) and the second to 198.51.100.1 (corresponding to PCP-Server-B). The path to 198.51.100.1 is working so a PCP response is received. Because the path to 192.0.2.1 is broken, no PCP response is received. The PCP client retries 4 times to elicit a response from 192.0.2.1 and finally gives up on that address and sends a PCP message to 2001::db8:1111:1. That path is working, and a response is received. Thereafter, the PCP client should continue using that responsive IP address for PCP-Server-A (2001:db8:1111::1). In this particular case, it will have to use THIRD_PARTY option for IPv4 mappings.
PCP related security considerations are discussed in [RFC6887].
This document does not specify how PCP server addresses are provisioned on the PCP client. It is the responsibility of PCP server provisioning document(s) to elaborate on security considerations to discover legitimate PCP servers.
This document does not request any action from IANA.
Many thanks to Dave Thaler, Simon Perreault, Hassnaa Moustafa, and Ted Lemon for their reviews and comments.
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[RFC6724] | Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A. and T. Chown, "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012. |
[RFC6887] | Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R. and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April 2013. |
[RFC1122] | Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. |
[RFC4116] | Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B. and V. Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations", RFC 4116, July 2005. |
[RFC7291] | Boucadair, M., Penno, R. and D. Wing, "DHCP Options for the Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7291, July 2014. |
The main problem of a PCP multi-homing situation can be succinctly described as 'one PCP client, multiple PCP servers'. As described in Section 3, if a PCP client discovers multiple PCP servers, it should send requests to all of them with assumptions described in Section 1.
The following sub-sections describe multi-homing examples to illustrate the PCP client behavior.
In this example of an IPv6 multi-homed network, two or more routers co-located with firewalls are present on a single link shared with the host(s). Each router is in turn connected to a different service provider network and the host in this environment would be offered multiple prefixes and advertised multiple DNS servers. Consider a scenario in which firewalls within an IPv6 multi-homing environment also implement a PCP server. The PCP client learns the available PCP servers using DHCP [RFC7291] or any other provisioning mechanism. In reference to Figure 2, a typical model is to embed DHCP servers in rtr1 and rtr2. A host located behind rtr1 and rtr2 can contact these two DHCP servers and retrieve from each server the IP address(es) of the corresponding PCP server.
The PCP client will send PCP requests in parallel to each of the PCP servers.
================== | Internet | ================== | | | | +----+-+ +-+----+ | ISP1 | | ISP2 | +----+-+ +-+----+ ISP Network | | ......................................................... | | | | Subscriber Network +-------+---+ +----+------+ | rtr1 with | | rtr2 with | | FW1 | | FW2 | +-------+---+ +----+------+ | | | | -------+----------+------ | +---+---+ | Host | +-------+
Figure 2: IPv6 Multihoming
In this example an IPv4 multi-homed network described in 'NAT- or RFC2260-based multi-homing' (Section 3.3 of [RFC4116]), the gateway router is connected to different service provider networks. This method uses Provider-Aggregatable (PA) addresses assigned by each transit provider to which the site is connected. The site uses NAT to translate the various provider addresses into a single set of private-use addresses within the site. In such a case, two PCP servers might have to be present to configure NAT to each of the transit providers. The PCP client learns the available PCP servers using DHCP [RFC7291] or any other provisioning mechanism. In reference to Figure 3, a typical model is to embed the DHCP server and the PCP servers in rtr1. A host located behind rtr1 can contact the DHCP server to obtain IP addresses of the PCP servers. The PCP client will send PCP requests in parallel to each of the PCP servers.
===================== | Internet | ===================== | | | | +----+--------+ +-+------------+ | ISP1 | | ISP2 | | | | | +----+--------+ +-+------------+ ISP Network | | | | .............................................................. | | | Port1 | Port2 Subscriber Network | | +----+-------------------+ |rtr1: NAT & PCP servers | | GW Router | +----+-------------------+ | | | -----+-------------- | +-+-----+ | Host | (private address space) +-------+
Figure 3: IPv4 Multihoming