Internet DRAFT - draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc
draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc
Network Working Group M. Boucadair
Internet-Draft C. Jacquenet
Intended status: Standards Track Orange
Expires: April 11, 2018 T. Reddy
Cisco
October 8, 2017
DHCP Options for Network-Assisted Multipath TCP (MPTCP)
draft-boucadair-mptcp-dhc-08
Abstract
Because of the lack of Multipath TCP (MPTCP) support at the server
side, some service providers now consider a network-assisted model
that relies upon the activation of a dedicated function called MPTCP
Conversion Point (MCP). Network-assisted MPTCP deployment models are
designed to facilitate the adoption of MPTCP for the establishment of
multi-path communications without making any assumption about the
support of MPTCP by the communicating peers. MCPs located in the
network are responsible for establishing multi-path communications on
behalf of endpoints, thereby taking advantage of MPTCP capabilities
to achieve different goals that include (but are not limited to)
optimization of resource usage (e.g., bandwidth aggregation), of
resiliency (e.g., primary/backup communication paths), and traffic
offload management.
This document focuses on the explicit deployment scheme where the
identity of the MPTCP Conversion Point(s) is explicitly configured on
connected hosts. This document specifies DHCP (IPv4 and IPv6)
options to configure hosts with Multipath TCP (MPTCP) parameters.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of This Memo
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 https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
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 11, 2018.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
(https://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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. DHCPv6 MPTCP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. DHCPv6 Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. DHCPv4 MPTCP Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. DHCPv4 Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.1. DHCPv6 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7.2. DHCPv4 Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. DHCP Server Configuration Guidelines . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
1. Introduction
One of the promising deployment scenarios for Multipath TCP (MPTCP,
[RFC6824]) is to enable a Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) that is
connected to multiple networks (e.g., DSL, LTE, WLAN) to optimize the
usage of such resources. This deployment scenario relies on MPTCP
Conversion Points (MCPs) located on both the CPE and network sides
(Figure 1). The latter plays the role of traffic concentrator. An
MCP terminates the MPTCP sessions established from a CPE, before
redirecting traffic into a legacy TCP session. Further Network-
Assisted MPTCP deployment and operational considerations are
discussed in [I-D.nam-mptcp-deployment-considerations].
+------------+ _--------_ +----------------+
| | ( LTE ) | |
| CPE +=======+ +===+ Backbone |
| (MCP) | (_ _) | Network |
| | (_______) |+--------------+|
| | IP Network #1 || Concentrator ||------> Internet
| | || (MCP) ||
| | |+--------------+|
| | IP Network #2 | |
| | _--------_ | |
| | ( DSL ) | |
| +=======+ +==+ |
| | (_ _) | |
+-----+------+ (_______) +----------------+
|
---- LAN ----
|
end-nodes
Figure 1: "Network-Assisted" MPTCP Design
This document focuses on the explicit mode that consists in
configuring explicitly the reachability information of the MCP on a
host. Concretely, the explicit mode has several advantages, e.g.,:
o It does not impose any specific constraint on the location of the
MCP. For example, the MCP can be located in any access network,
located upstream in the core network, or located in a data canter
facility.
o Tasks required for activating the explicit mode are minimal. In
particular, this mode does not require any specific routing and/or
forwarding policies for handling outbound packets other than
ensuring that an MCP is reachable from a CPE, and vice versa
(which is straightforward IP routing policy operation).
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
o The engineering effort to change the location of an MCP for some
reason (e.g., to better accommodate dimensioning constraints, to
move the MCP to a data canter, to enable additional MCP instances
closer to the customer premises, etc.) is minimal
o An operator can easily enforce strategies for differentiating the
treatment of MPTCP connections that are directly initiated by an
MPTCP-enabled host connected to an MCP if the explicit mode is
enabled. Typically, an operator may decide to offload MPTCP
connections originated by an MPTCP-enabled terminal from being
forwarded through a specific MCP, or decide to relay them via a
specific MCP. Such policies can be instructed to the MCP.
Implementing such differentiating behavior if the implicit mode is
in use may be complex to achieve.
o Multiple MCPs can be supported to service the same CPE, e.g., an
MCP can be enabled for internal services (to optimize the delivery
of some operator-specific services) while another MCP may be
solicited for external services (e.g., access to the Internet).
The explicit mode allows the deployment of such scenario owing to
the provisioning of an MCP selection policy table that relies upon
the destination IP prefixes to select the MCP to involve for an
ongoing MPTCP connection, for instance.
o Because the MCP's reachability information is explicitly
configured on the CPE, means to guarantee successful inbound
connections can be enabled in the CPE to dynamically discover the
external IP address that has been assigned for communicating with
remote servers, instruct the MCP to maintain active bindings so
that incoming packets can be successfully redirected towards the
appropriate CPE, etc.
o Troubleshooting and root cause analysis may be facilitated in the
explicit mode since faulty key nodes that may have caused a
service degradation are known. Because of the loose adherence to
the traffic forwarding and routing polices, troubleshooting a
service degradation that is specific to multi-access serviced
customers should first investigate the behavior of the involved
MCP.
This document defines DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315] options
that can be used to configure hosts with MCP IP addresses.
This specification assumes an MCP is reachable through one or
multiple IP addresses. As such, a list of IP addresses can be
returned in the DHCP MPTCP option. Also, it assumes the various
network attachments provided to an MPTCP-enabled CPE are managed by
the same administrative entity.
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
o Multipath Conversion Point (MCP): a function that terminates a
transport flow and relays all data received over it over another
transport flow. This element is located upstream in the network.
One or multiple MCPs can be deployed in the network side to assist
MPTCP-enabled devices to establish MPTCP connections via available
network attachments.
On the uplink path, the MCP terminates the MPTCP connections
[RFC6824] received from its customer-facing interfaces and
transforms these connections into legacy TCP connections [RFC0793]
towards upstream servers.
On the downlink path, the MCP turns the legacy server's TCP
connection into MPTCP connections towards its customer-facing
interfaces.
o DHCP refers to both DHCPv4 [RFC2131] and DHCPv6 [RFC3315].
o DHCP client denotes a node that initiates requests to obtain
configuration parameters from one or more DHCP servers.
o DHCP server refers to a node that responds to requests from DHCP
clients.
3. DHCPv6 MPTCP Option
3.1. Format
The DHCPv6 MPTCP option can be used to configure a list of IPv6
addresses of an MCP.
The format of this option is shown in Figure 2. As a reminder, this
format follows the guidelines for creating new DHCPv6 options
(Section 5.1 of [RFC7227]).
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_V6_MPTCP | Option-length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| ipv6-address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| ipv6-address |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: DHCPv6 MPTCP option
The fields of the option shown in Figure 2 are as follows:
o Option-code: OPTION_V6_MPTCP (TBA, see Section 7.1)
o Option-length: Length of the 'MCP IP Address(es)' field in octets.
MUST be a multiple of 16.
o MCP IPv6 Addresses: Includes one or more IPv6 addresses [RFC4291]
of the MCP to be used by the MPTCP client.
Note, IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses (Section 2.5.5.2 of [RFC4291])
are allowed to be included in this option.
To return more than one MCPs to the requesting DHCPv6 client, the
DHCPv6 server returns multiple instances of OPTION_V6_MPTCP. Some
guidelines for DHCP servers are elaborated in Appendix A.
3.2. DHCPv6 Client Behavior
Clients MAY request option OPTION_V6_MPTCP, as defined in [RFC3315],
Sections 17.1.1, 18.1.1, 18.1.3, 18.1.4, 18.1.5, and 22.7. As a
convenience to the reader, we mention here that the client includes
requested option codes in the Option Request Option.
The DHCPv6 client MUST be prepared to receive multiple instances of
OPTION_V6_MPTCP; each instance is to be treated separately as it
corresponds to a given MCP: there are as many MCPs as instances of
the OPTION_V6_MPTCP option.
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
If an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address is received in OPTION_V6_MPTCP, it
indicates that the MCP has the corresponding IPv4 address.
The DHCPv6 client MUST silently discard multicast and host loopback
addresses [RFC6890] conveyed in OPTION_V6_MPTCP.
4. DHCPv4 MPTCP Option
4.1. Format
The DHCPv4 MPTCP option can be used to configure a list of IPv4
addresses of an MCP. The format of this option is illustrated in
Figure 3.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Code | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| List-Length | List of |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MPTCP |
/ MCP IPv4 Addresses /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
| List-Length | List of | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MPTCP | |
/ MCP IPv4 Addresses / |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
. ... . Optional
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| List-Length | List of | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MPTCP | |
/ MCP IPv4 Addresses / |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
Figure 3: DHCPv4 MPTCP option
The fields of the option shown in Figure 3 are as follows:
o Code: OPTION_V4_MPTCP (TBA, see Section 7.2);
o Length: Length of all included data in octets. The minimum length
is 5.
o List-Length: Length of the "List of MCP IPv4 Addresses" field in
octets; MUST be a multiple of 4.
o List of MCP IPv4 Addresses: Contains one or more IPv4 addresses of
the MCP to be used by the MPTCP client. The format of this field
is shown in Figure 4.
o OPTION_V4_MPTCP can include multiple lists of MCP IPv4 addresses;
each list is treated separately as it corresponds to a given MCP.
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
When several lists of MCP IPv4 addresses are to be included,
"List-Length" and "MCP IPv4 Addresses" fields are repeated.
0 8 16 24 32 40 48
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
| a1 | a2 | a3 | a4 | a1 | a2 | ...
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+--
IPv4 Address 1 IPv4 Address 2 ...
This format assumes that an IPv4 address is encoded as a1.a2.a3.a4.
Figure 4: Format of the List of MCP IPv4 Addresses
OPTION_V4_MPTCP is a concatenation-requiring option. As such, the
mechanism specified in [RFC3396] MUST be used if OPTION_V4_MPTCP
exceeds the maximum DHCPv4 option size of 255 octets.
Some guidelines for DHCP servers are elaborated in Appendix A.
4.2. DHCPv4 Client Behavior
To discover one or more MCPs, the DHCPv4 client MUST include
OPTION_V4_MPTCP in a Parameter Request List Option [RFC2132].
The DHCPv4 client MUST be prepared to receive multiple lists of MCP
IPv4 addresses in the same OPTION_V4_MPTCP; each list is to be
treated as a separate MCP instance.
The DHCPv4 client MUST silently discard multicast and host loopback
addresses [RFC6890] conveyed in OPTION_V4_MPTCP.
5. Security Considerations
The security considerations in [RFC2131] and [RFC3315] are to be
considered.
MPTCP-related security considerations are discussed in [RFC6824].
Means to protect the MCP against Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks must
be enabled. Such means include the enforcement of ingress filtering
policies at the boundaries of the network. In order to prevent
exhausting the resources of the MCP by creating an aggressive number
of simultaneous subflows for each MPTCP connection, the administrator
should limit the number of allowed subflows per host for a given
connection.
Attacks outside the domain can be prevented if ingress filtering is
enforced. Nevertheless, attacks from within the network between a
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
host and an MCP instance are yet another actual threat. Means to
ensure that illegitimate nodes cannot connect to a network should be
implemented.
Traffic theft is also a risk if an illegitimate MCP is inserted in
the path. Indeed, inserting an illegitimate MCP in the forwarding
path allows to intercept traffic and can therefore provide access to
sensitive data issued by or destined to a host. To mitigate this
threat, secure means to discover an MCP (for non-transparent modes)
should be enabled.
6. Privacy Considerations
Generic privacy-related considerations are discussed in [RFC7844].
The MCP may have access to privacy-related information (e.g.,
International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI), link identifier,
subscriber credentials, etc.). The MCP must not leak such sensitive
information outside an administrative domain.
7. IANA Considerations
7.1. DHCPv6 Option
IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv6 Option Code in
the registry maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/
dhcpv6-parameters:
Option Name Value
--------------- -----
OPTION_V6_MPTCP TBA
7.2. DHCPv4 Option
IANA is requested to assign the following new DHCPv4 Option Code in
the registry maintained in http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-
dhcp-parameters/:
Option Name Value Data length Meaning
--------------- ----- ------------- ---------------------------------
OPTION_V4_MPTCP TBA Variable; the Includes one or multiple lists of
minimum MCP IP addresses; each list is
length is 5. treated as a separate MCP.
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
8. Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Olivier Bonaventure for the feedback on this document.
Olivier suggested to define the option as a name but that design
approach was debated several times within the dhc wg.
Thanks to Dan Seibel, Bernie Volz, Niall O'Reilly, Simon Hobson, and
Ted Lemon for the feedback on the dhc wg mailing list.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor
Extensions", RFC 2132, DOI 10.17487/RFC2132, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2132>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3396] Lemon, T. and S. Cheshire, "Encoding Long Options in the
Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3396, November 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3396>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC6824] Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., and O. Bonaventure,
"TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with Multiple
Addresses", RFC 6824, DOI 10.17487/RFC6824, January 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6824>.
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
9.2. Informative References
[I-D.nam-mptcp-deployment-considerations]
Boucadair, M., Jacquenet, C., Bonaventure, O., Henderickx,
W., and R. Skog, "Network-Assisted MPTCP: Use Cases,
Deployment Scenarios and Operational Considerations",
draft-nam-mptcp-deployment-considerations-01 (work in
progress), December 2016.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
[RFC7227] Hankins, D., Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Jiang, S., and
S. Krishnan, "Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options",
BCP 187, RFC 7227, DOI 10.17487/RFC7227, May 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7227>.
[RFC7844] Huitema, C., Mrugalski, T., and S. Krishnan, "Anonymity
Profiles for DHCP Clients", RFC 7844,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7844, May 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7844>.
[RFC7969] Lemon, T. and T. Mrugalski, "Customizing DHCP
Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology", RFC 7969,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7969, October 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7969>.
Appendix A. DHCP Server Configuration Guidelines
DHCP servers that support the DHCP MCP option can be configured with
a list of IP addresses of the MCP(s). If multiple IP addresses are
configured, the DHCP server MUST be explicitly configured whether all
or some of these addresses refer to:
1. the same MCP: the DHCP server returns multiple addresses in the
same instance of the DHCP MCP option.
2. distinct MCPs : the DHCP server returns multiple lists of MCP IP
addresses to the requesting DHCP client (encoded as multiple
OPTION_V6_MPTCP or in the same OPTION_V4_MPTCP); each list refers
to a distinct MCP.
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
Precisely how DHCP servers are configured to separate lists of IP
addresses according to which MCP they refer to is out of scope for
this document. However, DHCP servers MUST NOT combine the IP
addresses of multiple MCPs and return them to the DHCP client as if
they were belonging to a single MCP, and DHCP servers MUST NOT
separate the addresses of a single MCP and return them as if they
were belonging to distinct MCPs. For example, if an administrator
configures the DHCP server by providing a Fully Qualified Domain Name
(FQDN) for an MCP, even if that FQDN resolves to multiple addresses,
the DHCP server MUST deliver them within a single server address
block.
DHCPv6 servers that implement this option and that can populate the
option by resolving FQDNs will need a mechanism for indicating
whether to query A records or only AAAA records. When a query
returns A records, the IP addresses in those records are returned in
the DHCPv6 response as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses.
Since this option requires support for IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, a
DHCPv6 server implementation will not be complete if it does not
query A records and represent any that are returned as IPv4-mapped
IPv6 addresses in DHCPv6 responses. The mechanism whereby DHCPv6
implementations provide this functionality is beyond the scope of
this document.
For guidelines on providing context-specific configuration
information (e.g., returning a regional-based configuration), and
information on how a DHCP server might be configured with FQDNs that
get resolved on demand, see [RFC7969].
Authors' Addresses
Mohamed Boucadair
Orange
Rennes 35000
France
Email: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Christian Jacquenet
Orange
Rennes
France
Email: christian.jacquenet@orange.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft DHCP for MPTCP October 2017
Tirumaleswar Reddy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Cessna Business Park, Varthur Hobli
Sarjapur Marathalli Outer Ring Road
Bangalore, Karnataka 560103
India
Email: tireddy@cisco.com
Boucadair, et al. Expires April 11, 2018 [Page 13]
