Internet DRAFT - draft-bagnulo-ipv6-rfc3484-update
draft-bagnulo-ipv6-rfc3484-update
Network Working Group M. Bagnulo
Internet-Draft UC3M
Expires: June 4, 2006 December 2005
Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support
draft-bagnulo-ipv6-rfc3484-update-00
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 June 4, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
Abstract
This note describes the limitations of RFC 3484 in multihomed
environments and proposes possible updates to the default address
selection mechanisms in order to cope with the identified
limitations.
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Limitations of RFC 3484 in multihomed environments . . . . . . 3
2.1. Reference topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1.1. RFC 3484 and the shim6 protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. The problem: address selection after failures . . . . . . 5
3. Updates to RFC 3484 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Providing guidance to the applications for selecting
source addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.1. Considered scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1.2. Retrying with different source addresses . . . . . . . 7
3.1.3. Providing an ordered list of source address . . . . . 8
3.2. Modifications to the IP layer source address selection
mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.1. Considered scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.2. TCP sockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.2.3. UDP sockets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 12
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
1. Introduction
A way to solve the issue of site multihoming is to have a separate
site prefix for each connection of the site, and to derive as many
addresses for each hosts. This approach to multi-homing has the
advantage of minimal impact on the inter-domain routing fabric, since
each site prefix can be aggregated within the larger prefix of a
specific provider; however, it opens a number of issues, that have to
be addressed in order to provide a multihoming solution compatible
with such addressing scheme.
In this memo we will present the issues that such multihoming
configuration presents with respect to the address selection
mechanisms. In particular, in section 2 of this memo, we describe
the limitations of current source and destination address selection
mechanisms specified in RFC 3484 in the described multihoming
configuration. In section 3 we describe possible modifications to
RFC 3484 to cope with the identified limitations.
2. Limitations of RFC 3484 in multihomed environments
2.1. Reference topology
In the following discussion, we will use this reference topology:
/-- ( A ) ---( )
X (site X) ( IPv6 ) ---(C)---(site Y)Y
\-- ( B ) ---( )
The topology features two hosts, X and Y. The site of X is multihomed
while the site of Y is single homed. Host X has two global IPv6
addresses, which we will note "A:X" and "B:X", formed by combining
the prefixes allocated by ISP A and B to "site X" with the host
identifier of X. Y has only one address "C:Y".
We assume that Y, when it starts engaging communication with X, has
learned the addresses A:X and B:X, for example because they were
published in the DNS. We do not assume that the DNS is dynamic:
there will be situations in which both A:X and B:X are published,
while in fact only one is reachable. We assume that X, when it
receives packets from Y, has only access to information contained in
the packet coming from Y, e.g. the source address; we do not assume
that X can retrieve by external means the set of addresses associated
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
to Y. similar assumptions are made when X is initiating the
communication, only that in this case, a single address i.e. C:Y is
published in the DNS
In this scenario, both ISPA and ISPB are performing ingress filtering
and have not relaxed the source address checks. So, we assume that
an ingress filtering compatibility mechanism [2] is available in the
multihomed site (Site X) so that packets are forwarded through the
ISP that corresponds to the source address prefix included in the
packet by the host.
2.1.1. RFC 3484 and the shim6 protocol
The shim6 working group is developing a shim protocol to preserve
established communications through outages. Through the shim
protocol a pair of shim enabled communicating peers will be able to
survive outages affecting the path used for the communication using
alternative addresses to exchange packets. Communications will be
preserved because even though a different address pair is being used
for the communications, exchanged packets are presented to the upper
layers as containing the addresses used initially. In order to
perform this function, shim protocol support from both peers involved
in the communication is required.
The problem addressed in this note is somehow different, since the
goal of considered mechanisms is to enable the establishment of a new
communication after an outage. In this case, the communication has
not yet been established and the address pair to be used for
exchanging packet is being determined at this very moment. It is
possible then to try with different source and destination addresses
until a working address pair is discovered. Another difference is
that in this case, the mechanisms are located only in the multihomed
end of the communication and no special support other than regular
IPv6 is required from the non-multihomed peer. Essentially , the
proposed mechanisms are aimed to allow a node in a multihomed site
that implements them to be able to establish a new communication
after an outage with an external host that does not have any
multihoming specific support mechanism. (In the reference topology
depicted above, the mechanisms reside in the Host X and no
multihoming mechanisms are located in Host Y)
It is also possible to use the mechanisms described in this note to
establish communications between two shim enabled peers. However,
whether this is the best approach to follow in this case will be
determined by the merits of the modifications to current address
selection mechanisms proposed to overcome the limitations that
current mechanisms exhibits in multihomed environments. It may well
be that in the case of two shim enabled communicating peers, it makes
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
more sense to define special mechanisms that require cooperation from
both nodes to establish new communications after an outage.
2.2. The problem: address selection after failures
In case that a failure occurs in one of the ISPs of the multihomed
site, it may not be possible to establish a new communication towards
a destination outside the site using the addresses derived from the
prefix of the ISP affected by the failure. For instance, in the case
that the link between ISPA and the Internet fails, it will not be
possible to establish a communication between X and Y using address
A:X. In this case, any communication involving this address will fail
because:
o If Y tries to establish a communication with X using A:X as a
destination address, packets would be discarded because there is
no path available from the Internet to ISPA.
o If X tries to communicate with Y using A:X as a source address,
packets will be routed through ISPA in order to comply with
ingress filters, and because ISPA has no link available with the
rest of the Internet, the packet will be discarded (it should be
noted that even if the packet could make it to Y, reply packets
from Y to X would contain A:X as a destination address, which is
unreachable from Y).
So, in order to establish a communication between X and Y when a
failure has occurred in ISPA, the address derived from ISPA block
i.e. A:X, must not be used for the communication.
The solution for this problem has to be provided by the address
selection mechanisms. In particular, when the communication is
established from the host Y to the host X, the solution has to be
provided by the destination address selection mechanism at host Y and
when the communication is established from the host X to the host Y,
the solution has to be provided by the source address selection
mechanism at host X. Default address selection for IPv6 hosts is
specified in RFC 3484 [1]
We will next analyze the support provided by RFC 3484 when the
communication is established from host Y to host X. In this case,
host Y has two possible destination addresses A:X and B:X. Without
any additional knowledge, both addresses are equivalent to host Y, so
the default destination address selection mechanism will return a
list of the two addresses ordered as they were returned by the
resolver. It may occur that A:X is first. In this case, host Y will
use A:X to reach host X and it will fail. At this point, RFC 3484
states that if there are other destination addresses available, the
application should retry to establish the communication, using the
next address in the list. If the application retries with address
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
B:X, the communication will be established successfully.
In conclusion, the current destination address selection mechanism is
enough to deal with this situation (as long as applications retry
with all the addresses).
Next, we will analyze the support provided by RFC 3484 when the
communication is established from host X to host Y. In this case,
destination address selection performed in host X is trivial, since
there is only one address available for Y (C:Y). Source address
selection mechanism as specified in RFC 3484 will not prefer any of
the two source addresses if no additional information is available,
so any of the addresses can be selected as source address. In the
case that address A:X is selected, the communication will fail. In
this case there are no alternative destination address to retry with,
so the communication will definitely fail.
In conclusion, the source address selection mechanism defined in RFC
3484 is not enough to support this scenario. This memo defines
mechanisms to provide a solution for this case.
3. Updates to RFC 3484
RFC 3484 essentially performs two functions:
o It provides an ordered list of destination addresses to the
application that are used to initiate a communication. In
addition RFC 3484 states that the application should iterate
through all the addresses contained in the list until they find a
working address
o In case that the application does not select a source address, the
source address selection mechanism describes how the IP layer
selects the source address for a given destination address.
However, RFC 3484 does not provides support for the following
situations:
o When the source address is specified by the application, the
source address selection mechanism does not provide any guidance
to the application about how to select the source address for
communicating with a destination address. In particular, RFC 3484
does not recommend that the application should iterate through all
available source addresses until a working address pair is found.
o When the source address is unspecified by the application and it
is selected by the IP layer, the source address selection
mechanism does not take into account that a given destination
address may be reachable when using a certain source address and
unreachable when using another source address.
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
The result is that when an outage occurs, current source address
selection mechanisms specified in RFC 3484 may not be able to find a
working source and destination address pair, even though, one exists.
In this section, we describe some modifications to RFC 3484 that are
aimed to cope with these issues, and enable the source address
selection mechanism to discover the available working pairs.
Accordingly to the structure of RFC 3484, the proposed modifications
are divided in two components:
o A set of rules that provide guidance to the application when it
decides to select the source address itself, similar to those
already available for the selection of the destination address.
o A modification to the source address selection mechanism performed
by the IP layer, so that unreachable source and destination
address pairs are detected and alternative address pairs are tried
for establishing a communication.
3.1. Providing guidance to the applications for selecting source
addresses
3.1.1. Considered scenario
In this case the application selects the source address to use when
sending packet to a given destination address (e.g. using bind()).
The stack and the source address selection mechanisms should honour
this choice. The goal of the proposed mechanisms is to provide
guidance to the application in order to perform this source address
selection. Current RFC 3484 specification is silent in this case.
In order to fill this void, we propose two changes as described in
the following sections.
3.1.2. Retrying with different source addresses
Current RFC 3484 states that when more than one destination address
are available, the application should iterate through them until a
working address is found. However, RFC 3484 is silent with respect
to the case where multiple source addresses are available and the
application decides to select the source address to be used.
So, the proposed change is to update RFC 3484 to include that:
In the case that the application decides to select the source
address used in the communication (e.g. using bind()) the
application should iterate through all the source and destination
address pairs available until a working pair is found.
In addition an additional rule must be added to the source address
selection algorithm:
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
Rule 0: Avoid unreachable source addresses.
If the address pair with source address SA and destination address D
is known to be not working, then prefer SB
3.1.3. Providing an ordered list of source address
In addition to recommending that when the application selects the
source address, it should try with all available address pairs to
establish the communication, it would also make sense to provide some
guidance about which addresses to try first. It should be noted that
RFC 3484 does provides an ordered list of destination addresses so
that the application can try with the multiple available destination
addresses in the suggested order. A similar approach is here
suggested for the source addresses
Currently, there are several ways for an application to retrieve the
list of available source addresses i.e. the addresses available in
the local host. A possibility would be to let the source address
selection mechanism order that list before it is returned to the
application. The problem with this approach is that available calls
to retrieve the source address set have no destination address
information associated, and the problem being dealt here is the
selection of a source address to use with a given destination
address.
A possible approach then is to define a new function to retrieve an
ordered list of available source addresses for a given destination
address. In this case, the application would have an ordered list of
destination addresses and for each of them the application would
retrieve an ordered list of potential source addresses. It should be
noted that current RFC 3484 already provides an algorithm to order
the set of source addresses, but instead of returning the ordered
list it just uses the "best" one. This basically means that the
algorithm for sorting the source addresses for a given destination
address is already available in RFC 3484. In this case, only the new
function that returns the ordered list of source addresses for a
given destination address needs to be defined (of course,
applications need to be modified so that the new function is used)
In the approach described in the previous paragraph an application
would obtain an ordered list of destination addresses and for each
destination address an ordered list of source addresses. This option
is attractive because it does not requires major changes in the way
source and destination address selection mechanisms described in RFC
3484 operate (the only change required is a new function call).
However, such approach has the drawback that the resulting order of
address pairs to try may not be the optimal, since for each
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
destination address, all the available source address would be tried
before moving on to the next destination address. A possible
workaround for this limitation would be that an ordered list of
address pairs is returned instead of an ordered list of destination
addresses and for each destination address, an ordered list of source
addresses. The drawback of this approach is that not only a major
change in the source and destination address selection is required to
produce a list of ordered source and destination address pairs
instead of a list of source addresses and a list of destination
addresses, but also application should use a new function that
returns the ordered list of address pairs instead of the function
currently used to retrieve the destination address list.
3.2. Modifications to the IP layer source address selection mechanism
3.2.1. Considered scenario
In this case the application that is communicating has not selected
the source address to be used (i.e. no bind() to a specific source
address). In this case, it is up to the IP layer to select the
proper source address to include in the outgoing packets. The source
address selection is then performed at the connect() time for
connected sockets or when each packet is sent for non-connected
sockets. We will next consider two different cases: TCP sockets, and
UDP sockets.
3.2.2. TCP sockets
In this case, the application has selected a destination address and
it has open a TCP socket. Then it performs a connect(). At this
point in time, the 3-way handshake of TCP is executed. Normally, a
source address is selected before performing the handshake and the
SYN packet is sent using this selected source address. In order to
deal with unreachable source addresses in this case, the proposed
approach is that if the 3-way handshake can not be completed using
one of the source addresses, the IP layer should iterate through the
rest of the available source addresses until a working source address
is found and the 3-way handshake of TCP is completed. The list of
source addresses to try with is ordered using the source address
selection algorithm described in the current RFC3484.
3.2.3. UDP sockets
In this case, it is not possible to use a similar approach to the one
described for TCP, because there is no way to determine if a given
source address is working or not, because there is no connection
establishment packet exchange as in the case of TCP. So, in this
case, the basic action that can be performed would be to keep trace
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
of the source address that has been used and some hints if those have
worked or not. In particular, the proposed approach is to keep trace
of incoming packets with a given address pair as a possible hint of a
working address pair. A detailed description of how this would work
is included in [3]. In any case, the goal here is to keep track of
the source addresses tried for each destination address and whether
these have worked or not (according to the previous definition of
"working"). If they have not worked, then they should be avoided as
long as alternative addresses are available. If they have worked,
they should be preferred over other potential source addresses for
that destination address.
4. Acknowledgments
Thanks to Pierre Baume for reviewing this document and providing
feedback
5. References
[1] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
[2] Huitema, C. and M. Bagnulo, "Ingress Filtering compatibility for
IPv6 multihomed sites",
ID draft-huitema-shim6-ingress-filtering-00.txt, October 2005.
[3] Bagnulo, M., "Address selection in multihomed environments",
ID draft-bagnulo-shim6-addr-selection-00.txt, October 2005.
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
Author's Address
Marcelo Bagnulo
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Av. Universidad 30
Leganes, Madrid 28911
SPAIN
Phone: 34 91 6248814
Email: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Updating RFC 3484 for multihoming support December 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Bagnulo Expires June 4, 2006 [Page 12]
