| V6OPS Working Group | P. Matthews |
| Internet-Draft | Nokia |
| Intended status: Informational | V. Kuarsingh |
| Expires: May 1, 2017 | Cisco |
| October 28, 2016 |
Some Design Choices for IPv6 Networks
draft-ietf-v6ops-design-choices-11
This document presents advice on certain routing-related design choices that arise when designing IPv6 networks (both dual-stack and IPv6-only). The intended audience is someone designing an IPv6 network who is knowledgeable about best current practices around IPv4 network design, and wishes to learn the corresponding practices for IPv6.
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 May 1, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
This document discusses routing-related design choices that arise when designing a Pv6-only or dual-stack network. The focus is on choices that do not come up when designing an IPv4-only network. The document presents each choice and the alternatives, and then discusses the pros and cons of the alternatives in detail. Where consensus currently exists around the best practice, this is documented; otherwise the document simply summarizes the current state of the discussion. Thus this document serves to both document the reasoning behind best current practices for IPv6, and to allow a designer to make an informed choice where no such consensus exists.
The design choices presented apply to both Service Provider and Enterprise network environments. Where choices have selection criteria which differ between the Service Provider and the Enterprise environment, this is noted. The designer is encouraged to ensure that they familiarize themselves with any of the discussed technologies to ensure the best selection is made for their environment.
This document does not present advice on strategies for adding IPv6 to a network, nor does it discuss transition in these areas, see [RFC6180] for general advice,[RFC6782] for wireline service providers, [RFC6342]for mobile network providers, [RFC5963] for exchange point operators, [RFC6883] for content providers, and both [RFC4852] and [RFC7381] for enterprises. Nor does this document discuss the particulars of creating an IPv6 addressing plan; for advice in this area, see [RFC5375] or [v6-addressing-plan].
Finally, this document focuses on unicast routing design only and does not cover multicast or the issues involved in running MPLS over IPv6 transport.
Each subsection below presents a design choice and discusses the pros and cons of the various options. If there is consensus in the industry for a particular option, then the consensus position is noted.
This section discusses the choice of addresses for router loopbacks and links between routers. It does not cover the choice of addresses for end hosts.
In IPv6, all interfaces are assigned a Link-Local Address (LLA) [ref]. The Link-Local address can only be used for communicating with devices that are on-link, so often additional addresses are assigned which are able to communicate off-link. These additional addresses can be one of three types:
This document uses the term "multi-hop address" to collectively refer to these three types of addresses.
PI GUAs are, for many situations, the most flexible of these choices. Their main disadvantages are that a regional address registry will only allocate them to organizations that meet certain qualifications, and one must pay an annual fee. These disadvantages mean that some smaller organization may not qualify or be willing to pay for these addresses.
PA GUAs have the advantage that they are usually provided at no extra charge when you contract with an upstream provider. However, they have the disadvantage that, when switching upstream providers, one must give back the old addresses and get new addresses from the new provider ("renumbering"). Though IPv6 has mechanisms to make renumbering easier than IPv4, these techniques are not generally applicable to routers and renumbering is still fairly hard [RFC 5887]. PA GUAs also have the disadvantage that it is not easy to have multiple upstream providers ("multi-homing") if they are used (see section 1 of [RFC5533] ).
ULAs have the advantage that they are extremely easy to obtain and cost nothing. However, they have the disadvantage that they cannot be routed on the Internet, so must be used only within a limited scope. In many situations, this is not a problem, but in certain situations this can be problematic. Though there is currently no document that describes these situations, many of them are similar to those described in RFC 6752. See also [I-D.ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations].
Not discussed in this document is the possibility of using the technology described in RFC 6296 to work around some of the limitations of PA GUAs and ULAs.
As mentioned above, all interfaces in IPv6 always have a link-local address. This section addresses the question of when and where to assign multi-hop addresses in addition to the LLA. We consider four options:
Option (a) means that the router cannot be reached (ping, management, etc.) from farther than one-hop away. The authors are not aware of anyone using this option.
Option (b) means that the loopback interfaces are effectively useless, since link-local addresses cannot be used for the purposes that loopback interfaces are usually used for. So option (b) degenerates into option (d).
Thus the real choice comes down to option (c) vs. option (d).
Option (c) has two advantages over option (d). The first advantage is ease of configuration. In a network with a large number of links, the operator can just assign one multi-hop address to each router and then enable the IGP, without going through the tedious process of assigning and tracking the addresses on each link. The second advantage is security. Since packets with link-local addresses cannot be should not be routed, it is very difficult to attack the associated nodes from an off-link device. This implies less effort around maintaining security ACLs.
Countering these advantages are various disadvantages to option (c) compared with option (d):
It should be noted that it is quite possible for the same link-local address to be assigned to multiple interfaces. This can happen because the MAC address is duplicated (due to manufacturing process defaults or the use of virtualization), because a device deliberately re-uses automatically-assigned link-local addresses on different links, or because an operator manually assigns the same easy-to-type link-local address to multiple interfaces. All these are allowed in IPv6 as long as the addresses are used on different links.
For more discussion on the pros and cons, see [RFC7404]. See also [RFC5375] for IPv6 unicast address assignment considerations.
Today, most operators use option (d).
Having considered above whether or not to use a "multi-hop address", we now consider which of the addresses to use.
When selecting between these three "multi-hop address" types, one needs to consider exactly how they will be used. An important consideration is how Internet traffic is carried across the core of the network. There are two main options: (1) the classic approach where Internet traffic is carried as unlabeled traffic hop-by-hop across the network, and (2) the more recent approach where Internet traffic is carried inside an MPLS LSP (typically as part of a L3 VPN).
Under the classic approach:
Under the MPLS approach:
If a network is going to carry both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic, as many networks do today, then a question arises: Should an operator mix IPv4 and IPv6 traffic or keep them separated? More specifically, should the design:
Option (a) implies a single layer-3 interface at each end of the connection with both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses; while option (b) implies two layer-3 interfaces at each end, one for IPv4 addresses and one with IPv6 addresses.
The advantages of option (a) include:
For these reasons, there is a relatively strong consensus in the operator community that option (a) is the preferred way to go. Most networks today use option (a) wherever possible.
However, there can be times when option (b) is the pragmatic choice. Most commonly, option (b) is used to work around limitations in network equipment. One big example is the generally poor level of support today for individual statistics on IPv4 traffic vs IPv6 traffic when option (a) is used. Other, device-specific, limitations exist as well. It is expected that these limitations will go away as support for IPv6 matures, making option (b) less and less attractive until the day that IPv4 is finally turned off.
For the most part, the use of static routes in IPv6 parallels their use in IPv4. There is, however, one exception, which revolves around the choice of next-hop address in the static route. Specifically, should an operator:
Recall that the IPv6 specs for OSPF [RFC5340] and ISIS [RFC5308] dictate that they always use link-locals for next-hop addresses. For static routes, [RFC4861] section 8 says:
This implies that using a GUA or ULA as the next hop will prevent a router from sending Redirect messages for packets that "hit" this static route. All this argues for using a link-local as the next-hop address in a static route.
However, there are two cases where using a link-local address as the next-hop clearly does not work. One is when the static route is an indirect (or multi-hop) static route. The second is when the static route is redistributed into another routing protocol. In these cases, the above text from RFC 4861 notwithstanding, either a GUA or ULA must be used.
Furthermore, many network operators are concerned about the dependency of the default link-local address on an underlying MAC address, as described in the previous section.
Today most operators use GUAs as next-hop addresses.
One of the main decisions for a network operator looking to deploy IPv6 is the choice of IGP (Interior Gateway Protocol) within the network. The main options are OSPF, IS-IS and EIGRP. RIPng is another option, but very few networks run RIP in the core these days, so it is covered in a separate section below.
OSPF [RFC2328] [RFC5340] and IS-IS [RFC5120][RFC5120] are both standardized link-state protocols. Both protocols are widely supported by vendors, and both are widely deployed. By contrast, EIGRP [RFC7868] is a Cisco proprietary distance-vector protocol. EIGRP is rarely deployed in service-provider networks, but is quite common in enterprise networks, which is why it is discussed here.
It is out of scope for this document to describe all the differences between the three protocols; the interested reader can find books and websites that go into the differences in quite a bit of detail. Rather, this document simply highlights a few differences that can be important to consider when designing IPv6 or dual-stack networks.
Versions: There are two versions of OSPF: OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. The two versions share many concepts, are configured in a similar manner and seem very similar to most casual users, but have very different packet formats and other "under the hood" differences. The most important difference is that OSPFv2 will only route IPv4, while OSPFv3 will route both IPv4 and IPv6. OSPFv2 was by far the most widely deployed version of OSPF when this document was published. By contrast, both IS-IS and EIGRP have just a single version, which can route both IPv4 and IPv6.
Transport. IS-IS runs over layer 2 (e.g. Ethernet). This means that the functioning of IS-IS has no dependencies on the IP layer: if there is a problem at the IP layer (e.g. bad addresses), two routers can still exchange IS-IS packets. By contrast, OSPF and EIGRP both run over the IP layer. This means that the IP layer must be configured and working OSPF or EIGRP packets to be exchanged between routers. For EIGRP, the dependency on the IP layer is simple: EIGRP for IPv4 runs over IPv4, while EIGRP for IPv6 runs over IPv6. For OSPF, the story is more complex: OSPFv2 runs over IPv4, but OSPFv3 can run over either IPv4 or IPv6. Thus it is possible to route both IPv4 and IPv6 with OSPFv3 running over IPv6 or with OSPFv3 running over IPv4. This means that there are number of choices for how to run OSPF in a dual-stack network:
Summarization and MPLS: For most casual users, the three protocols are fairly similar in what they can do, with two glaring exceptions: summarization and MPLS. For summarization, both OSPF and IS-IS have the concept of summarization between areas, but the two area concepts are quite different, and an area design that works for one protocol will usually not work for the other. EIGRP has no area concept, but has the ability to summarize at any router. Thus a large network will typically have a very different OSPF, IS-IS and EIGRP designs, which is important to keep in mind if you are planning on using one protocol to route IPv4 and a different protocol for IPv6. The other difference is that OSPF and IS-IS both support RSVP-TE, a widely-used MPLS signaling protocol, while EIGRP does not: this is due to OSPF and IS-IS both being link-state protocols while EIGRP is a distance-vector protocol.
The table below sets out possible combinations of protocols to route both IPv4 and IPv6, and makes some observations on each combination. Here "EIGRP-v4" means "EIGRP for IPv4" and similarly for "EIGRP-v6". For OSPFv3, it is possible to run it over either IPv4 or IPv6; this is not indicated in the table.
| IGP for IPv4 | IGP for IPv6 | Protocol separation | Similar configuration possible | Multiple Known Deployments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OSPFv2 | OSPFv3 | YES | YES | YES (8) |
| OSPFv2 | IS-IS | YES | - | YES (3) |
| OSPFv2 | EIGRP-v6 | YES | - | - |
| OSPFv3 | OSPFv3 | NO | YES | - |
| OSPFv3 | IS-IS | YES | - | - |
| OSPFv3 | EIGRP-v6 | YES | - | - |
| IS-IS | OSPFv3 | YES | - | YES (2) |
| IS-IS | IS-IS | - | YES | YES (12) |
| IS-IS | EIGRP-v6 | YES | - | - |
| EIGRP-v4 | OSPFv3 | YES | - | ? (1) |
| EIGRP-v4 | IS-IS | YES | - | - |
| EIGRP-v4 | EIGRP-v6 | - | YES | ? (2) |
In the column "Multiple Known Deployments", a YES indicates that a significant number of production networks run this combination, with the number of such networks indicated in parentheses following, while a "?" indicates that the authors are only aware of one or two small networks that run this combination. Data for this column was gathered from an informal poll of operators on a number of mailing lists. This poll was not intended to be a thorough scientific study of IGP choices, but to provide a snapshot of known operator choices at the time of writing (Mid-2015) for successful production dual stack network deployments. There were twenty six (26) network implementations represented by 17 respondents. Some respondents provided information on more then one network or network deployment. Due to privacy considerations, the networks' represented and respondents are not listed in this document.
A number of combinations are marked as offering “Protocol separation”. These options use a different IGP protocol for IPv4 vs IPv6. With these options, a problem with routing IPv6 is unlikely to affect IPv4 or visa-versa. Some operator may consider this as a benefit when first introducing dual stack capabilities or for ongoing technical reasons.
Three combinations are marked “Similar configuration possible”. This means it is possible (but not required) to use very similar IGP configuration for IPv4 and IPv6: for example, the same area boundaries, area numbering, link costing, etc. If you are happy with your IPv4 IGP design, then this will likely be a consideration. By contrast, the options that use, for example, IS-IS for one IP version and OSPF for the other version will require considerably different configuration, and will also require the operations staff to become familiar with the difference between the two protocols.
It should be noted that a number of ISPs have run OSPF as their IPv4 IGP for quite a few years, but have selected IS-IS as their IPv6 IGP. However, there are very few (none?) that have made the reverse choice. This is, in part, because routers generally support more nodes in an IS-IS area than in the corresponding OSPF area, and because IS-IS is seen as more secure because it runs at layer 2.
When IS-IS is used to route both IPv4 and IPv6, then there is an additional choice of whether to run IS-IS in single-topology or multi-topology mode.
With single-topology mode (also known as Native mode) [RFC5308]:
With multi-topology mode [ref]:
In the informal poll of operators, out of 12 production networks that ran IS-IS for both IPv4 and IPv6, 6 used single topology mode, 4 used multi-topology mode, and 2 did not specify. One motivation often cited by then operators for using Single Topology mode was because some device did not support multi-topology mode.
When asked, many people feel multi-topology mode is superior to single-topology mode because it provides greater flexibility at minimal extra cost. Never-the-less, as shown by the poll results, a number of operators have used single-topology mode successfully.
Note that this issue does not come up with OSPF, since there is nothing that corresponds to IS-IS single-topology mode with OSPF.
A protocol option not described in the table above is RIP for IPv4 and RIPng for IPv6 [RFC2080]. These are distance vector protocols that are almost universally considered to be inferior to OSPF, IS-IS, or EIGRP for general use.
However, there is one specialized use where RIP/RIPng is still considered to be appropriate: in star topology networks where a single core device has lots and lots of links to edge devices and each edge device has only a single path back to the core. In such networks, the single path means that the limitations of RIP/RIPng are mostly not relevant and the very light-weight nature of RIP/RIPng gives it an advantage over the other protocols mentioned above. One concrete example of this scenario is the use of RIP/RIPng between cable modems and the CMTS.
BGP these days is multi-protocol. It can carry routes of many different types, or more precisely, many different AFI/SAFI combinations. It can also carry routes when the BGP session, or more accurately the underlying TCP connection, runs over either IPv4 or IPv6 (here referred to as either "IPv4 transport" or "IPv6 transport"). Given this flexibility, one of the biggest questions when deploying BGP in a dual-stack network is the question of which route types should be carried over sessions using IPv4 transport and which should be carried over sessions using IPv6 transport.
This section discusses this question for the three most-commonly-used SAFI values: unlabeled (SAFI 1), labeled (SAFI 4) and VPN (SAFI 128). Though we do not explicitly discuss other SAFI values, many of the comments here can be applied to the other values.
Consider the following table:
| Route Family | Transport | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Unlabeled IPv4 | IPv4 | Works well |
| Unlabeled IPv4 | IPv6 | Next-hop |
| Unlabeled IPv6 | IPv4 | Next-hop |
| Unlabeled IPv6 | IPv6 | Works well |
| Labeled IPv4 | IPv4 | Works well |
| Labeled IPv4 | IPv6 | Next-hop |
| Labeled IPv6 | IPv4 | (6PE) Works well |
| Labeled IPv6 | IPv6 | Next-hop or MPLS over IPv6 |
| VPN IPv4 | IPv4 | Works well |
| VPN IPv4 | IPv6 | Next-hop |
| VPN IPv6 | IPv4 | (6VPE) Works well |
| VPN IPv6 | IPv6 | Next-hop or MPLS over IPv6 |
The first column in this table lists various route families, where “unlabeled” means SAFI 1, “labeled” means the routes carry an MPLS label (SAFI 4, see [RFC3107]), and “VPN” means the routes are normally associated with a layer-3 VPN (SAFI 128, see [RFC4364]). The second column lists the protocol used to transport the BGP session, frequently specified by giving either an IPv4 or IPv6 address in the “neighbor” statement.
The third column comments on the combination in the first two columns:
Also, it is important to note that changing the set of address families being carried over a BGP session requires the BGP session to be reset (unless something like [I-D.ietf-idr-dynamic-cap] or [I-D.ietf-idr-bgp-multisession] is in use). This is generally more of an issue with eBGP sessions than iBGP sessions: for iBGP sessions it is common practice for a router to have two iBGP sessions, one to each member of a route reflector pair, so one can change the set of address families on first one of the sessions and then the other.
The following subsections discuss specific combinations in more detail.
Unlabeled routes are commonly carried on eBGP sessions, as well as on iBGP sessions in networks where Internet traffic is carried unlabeled across the network.
In these scenarios, there are three reasonable choices:
Options (a) and (b) have the advantage that one one BGP session is required between pairs of routers. However, option (c) is widely considered to be the best choice. There are several reasons for this :
Rarely, there are situations where option (c) is not practical. In those cases today, most operators use option (a), carrying both route types over a single BGP session.
When carrying labeled or VPN routes, the only widely-supported solution at time of writing is to carry both route types over IPv4. This may change in as MPLS over IPv6 becomes more widely implemented.
There are two options when carrying both over IPv4:
Using a single session is usually simplest for an iBGP session going to a route reflector handling both route families. Using a single session here usually means that the BGP session will reset when changing the set of address families, but as noted above, this is usually not a problem when redundant route reflectors are involved.
In eBGP situations, two sessions are usually more appropriate. [JUSTIFICATION?]
When running eBGP over IPv6, there are two options for the addresses to use at each end of the eBGP session (or more properly, the underlying TCP session):
Note that the choice here is the addresses to use for the eBGP sessions, and not whether the link itself has global (or unique-local) addresses. In particular, it is quite possible for the eBGP session to use link-local addresses even when the link has global addresses.
The big attraction for option (a) is security: an eBGP session using link-local addresses is extremely difficult to attack from a device that is off-link. This provides very strong protection against TCP RST and similar attacks. Though there are other ways to get an equivalent level of security (e.g. GTSM [RFC5082], MD5 [RFC5925], or ACLs), these other ways require additional configuration which can be forgotten or potentially mis-configured.
However, there are a number of small disadvantages to using link-local addresses:
For these reasons, most operators today choose to have their eBGP sessions use global addresses.
There are two themes that run though many of the design choices in this document. This section presents some general discussion on these two themes.
The proper use of link-local addresses is a common theme in the IPv6 network design choices. Link-layer addresses are, of course, always present in an IPv6 network, but current network design practice mostly ignores them, despite efforts such as [RFC7404].
There are three main reasons for this current practice:
Currently, most operators are running or planning to run networks that carry both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. Hence the question: To what degree should IPv4 and IPv6 be kept separate? As can be seen above, this breaks into two sub-questions: To what degree should IPv4 and IPv6 traffic be kept separate, and to what degree should IPv4 and IPv6 routing information be kept separate?
The general consensus around the first question is that IPv4 and IPv6 traffic should generally be mixed together. This recommendation is driven by the operational simplicity of mixing the traffic, plus the general observation that the service being offered to the end user is Internet connectivity and most users do not know or care about the differences between IPv4 and IPv6. Thus it is very desirable to mix IPv4 and IPv6 on the same link to the end user. On other links, separation is possible but more operationally complex, though it does occasionally allow the operator to work around limitations on network devices. The situation here is roughly comparable to IP and MPLS traffic: many networks mix the two traffic types on the same links without issues.
By contrast, there is more of an argument for carrying IPv6 routing information over IPv6 transport, while leaving IPv4 routing information on IPv4 transport. By doing this, one gets fate-sharing between the control and data plane for each IP protocol version: if the data plane fails for some reason, then often the control plane will too.
This document makes no requests of IANA.
This document introduces no new security considerations that are not already documented elsewhere.
The following is a brief list of pointers to documents related to the topics covered above that the reader may wish to review for security considerations.
For general IPv6 security, [RFC4942] provides guidance on security considerations around IPv6 transition and coexistence.
For OSPFv3, the base protocol specification [RFC5340] has a short security considerations section which notes that the fundamental mechanism for protecting OSPFv3 from attacks is the mechanism described in [RFC4552].
For IS-IS, [RFC5308] notes that ISIS for IPv6 raises no new security considerations over ISIS for IPv4 over those documented in [ISO10589] and [RFC5304].
For BGP, [RFC2545] notes that BGP for IPv6 raises no new security considerations over those present in BGP for IPv4. However, there has been much discussion of BGP security recently, and the interested reader is referred to the documents of the IETF's SIDR working group.
Many, many people in the V6OPS working group provided comments and suggestions that made their way into this document. A partial list includes: Rajiv Asati, Fred Baker, Michael Behringer, Marc Blanchet, Ron Bonica, Randy Bush, Cameron Byrne, Brian Carpenter, KK Chittimaneni, Tim Chown, Lorenzo Colitti, Gert Doering, Francis Dupont, Bill Fenner, Kedar K Gaonkar, Chris Grundemann, Steinar Haug, Ray Hunter, Joel Jaeggli, Victor Kuarsingh, Jen Linkova, Ivan Pepelnjak, Alexandru Petrescu, Rob Shakir, Mark Smith, Jean-Francois Tremblay, Dave Thaler, Tina Tsou, Eric Vyncke, Dan York, and Xuxiaohu.
The authors would also like to thank Pradeep Jain and Alastair Johnson for helpful comments on a very preliminary version of this document.