Network Working Group | S. Vinapamula |
Internet-Draft | Juniper Networks |
Intended status: Best Current Practice | M. Boucadair |
Expires: April 30, 2015 | France Telecom |
October 27, 2014 |
Recommendation for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-03
This document discusses issues induced by the change of the Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) IPv6 address and sketches a set of recommendations to solve those issues.
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 April 30, 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.
IPv6 deployment models assumes IPv6 prefixes are delegated by Service Providers to the connected CPEs (Customer Premise Equipments) or hosts, which in their turn derive IPv6 addresses out of that prefix. In the case of DS-Lite [RFC6333], the Basic Bridging BroadBand (B4) element derives an IPv6 address for the softwire setup purposes.
A B4 element might obtain a new external IPv6 address, for a variety of reasons including a reboot of the CPE, power outage, DHCP lease expiry, or other action undertaken by the Service Provider. If this occurs, traffic forwarded to a B4's previous address might be delivered to another B4 that now acquired that address. This affects all mapping types, whether implicit (e.g., by sending a TCP SYN) or explicit (e.g., using PCP [RFC6887]).
The main goal of this document is to propose recommendations to soften the impact of such renumbering issues.
Note that in some deployments, CPE renumbering may be required to accommodate some privacy-related requirements to avoid the same prefix be assigned to the same customer. It is out of scope of this document to discuss such contexts.
This document complements [RFC6908].
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 [RFC2119].
Since the network behind B4 can be overlapping across multiple CPEs, B4 address plays a key role in identifying associated resources assigned for each of the connections. These resources maintain state of Endpoint-Independent Mapping (EIM), Endpoint-Independent Filtering (EIF), preserve external IPv4 address assigned in the AFTR, and PCP mappings and flows.
However, there can be change in B4 address for any reason, may be because of change in CPE device or may be because of security extensions enabled in generating the IPv6 address. When the address change, the associated mappings created in the AFTR are no more valid. This may result in creation of new set of mappings.
Furthermore, a mis-behaving user may be tempted to change the B4's IPv6 address in order to "grab" more ports and resources at the AFTR side. This behavior can be seen as a potential DoS attack from mis-behaving users. Note that this DoS attack can be achieved whatever port assignment policy configured to the AFTR (individual ports, port sets, randomized port bulks, etc.).
Service Providers may want to limit the usage of these resources on per subscriber basis for fairness resources usage. To that aim , a subscriber is identified by the delegated IPv6 prefix and not the derived B4 address. These policies are used for dimensioning purposes and also to ensure that AFTR resources are not exhausted. However when there is a change in B4 address, this policy doesn't resolve stale mappings hanging around in the system, consuming not only system resources, but also reducing the available quota of resources per subscriber.
Clearing those mappings can be envisaged, but that will cause a lot of churn in the AFTR and could be disruptive to existing connections.
When services are hosted behind B4 element, and when there is a change in B4 address which if results in change in NAT address, these services have to advertise about their change, whenever there is a change of the B4 address. Means to discover the change of B4 address and NAT address is therefore required. Also, it doesn't address latency issues where a service has to advertise its newly assigned external IP address and port and the clients have to consume and re-initiate connections.
PCP-specific failure scenarios are discussed in [I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure].
In order to mitigate the issues discussed in Section 3, the following recommendations are made:
Security considerations related to DS-Lite are discussed in [RFC6333].
Enforcing the recommendations in Section 4 defends against DoS attacks that would result in varying the source IPv6 address to exhaust AFTR resources.
This document does not require any action from IANA.
G. Krishna and C. Jacquenet reviewed document and provided useful comments.
Thanks to I. Farrer for the comments.
[RFC2119] | Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. |
[RFC6333] | Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J. and Y. Lee, "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011. |
[RFC6887] | Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R. and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April 2013. |
[I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure] | Boucadair, M. and R. Penno, "Analysis of Port Control Protocol (PCP) Failure Scenarios", Internet-Draft draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-06, May 2013. |
[RFC6908] | Lee, Y., Maglione, R., Williams, C., Jacquenet, C. and M. Boucadair, "Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite", RFC 6908, March 2013. |