Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-anima-grasp
draft-ietf-anima-grasp
Network Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track B. Carpenter, Ed.
Expires: January 8, 2018 Univ. of Auckland
B. Liu, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
July 7, 2017
A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15
Abstract
This document specifies the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol
(GRASP), which enables autonomic nodes and autonomic service agents
to dynamically discover peers, to synchronize state with each other,
and to negotiate parameter settings with each other. GRASP depends
on an external security environment that is described elsewhere. The
technical objectives and parameters for specific application
scenarios are to be described in separate documents. Appendices
briefly discuss requirements for the protocol and existing protocols
with comparable features.
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 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 January 8, 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
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
(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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. GRASP Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2. High Level Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. High Level Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4. Quick Operating Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms . . . . . 12
2.5.1. Required External Security Mechanism . . . . . . . . 12
2.5.2. Discovery Unsolicited Link-Local (DULL) GRASP . . . . 13
2.5.3. Transport Layer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5.4. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures . . . . . . . . . 15
2.5.5. Negotiation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.6. Synchronization and Flooding Procedures . . . . . . . 21
2.6. GRASP Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.7. Session Identifier (Session ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.8. GRASP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.8.1. Message Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.8.2. GRASP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.8.3. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.8.4. Discovery Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.8.5. Discovery Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.8.6. Request Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.8.7. Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.8.8. Negotiation End Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.8.9. Confirm Waiting Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.8.10. Synchronization Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.8.11. Flood Synchronization Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.8.12. Invalid Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.8.13. No Operation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.9. GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.9.1. Format of GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.9.2. Divert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.9.3. Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.9.4. Decline Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.9.5. Locator Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.10. Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.10.1. Format of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.10.2. Objective flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
2.10.3. General Considerations for Objective Options . . . . 38
2.10.4. Organizing of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.10.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options . . . . . 41
3. Implementation Status [RFC Editor: please remove] . . . . . . 41
3.1. BUPT C++ Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2. Python Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5. CDDL Specification of GRASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Appendix A. Open Issues [RFC Editor: This section should be
empty. Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Appendix B. Closed Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . 54
Appendix C. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . 62
Appendix D. Example Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
D.1. Discovery Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
D.2. Flood Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
D.3. Synchronization Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
D.4. Simple Negotiation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
D.5. Complete Negotiation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Appendix E. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization
and Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
E.1. Requirements for Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
E.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation
Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
E.3. Specific Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix F. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols . . . . . . 78
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1. Introduction
The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and
more complicated. Large-scale ISP and enterprise networks have
become more and more problematic for human based management. Also,
operational costs are growing quickly. Consequently, there are
increased requirements for autonomic behavior in the networks.
General aspects of autonomic networks are discussed in [RFC7575] and
[RFC7576].
One approach is to largely decentralize the logic of network
management by migrating it into network elements. A reference model
for autonomic networking on this basis is given in
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]. The reader should consult this
document to understand how various autonomic components fit together.
In order to fulfill autonomy, devices that embody Autonomic Service
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Agents (ASAs, [RFC7575]) have specific signaling requirements. In
particular they need to discover each other, to synchronize state
with each other, and to negotiate parameters and resources directly
with each other. There is no limitation on the types of parameters
and resources concerned, which can include very basic information
needed for addressing and routing, as well as anything else that
might be configured in a conventional non-autonomic network. The
atomic unit of discovery, synchronization or negotiation is referred
to as a technical objective, i.e, a configurable parameter or set of
parameters (defined more precisely in Section 2.1).
Negotiation is an iterative process, requiring multiple message
exchanges forming a closed loop between the negotiating entities. In
fact, these entities are ASAs, normally but not necessarily in
different network devices. State synchronization, when needed, can
be regarded as a special case of negotiation, without iteration.
Both negotiation and synchronization must logically follow discovery.
More details of the requirements are found in Appendix E.
Section 2.3 describes a behavior model for a protocol intended to
support discovery, synchronization and negotiation. The design of
GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) in Section 2 of this
document is based on this behavior model. The relevant capabilities
of various existing protocols are reviewed in Appendix F.
The proposed discovery mechanism is oriented towards synchronization
and negotiation objectives. It is based on a neighbor discovery
process on the local link, but also supports diversion to peers on
other links. There is no assumption of any particular form of
network topology. When a device starts up with no pre-configuration,
it has no knowledge of the topology. The protocol itself is capable
of being used in a small and/or flat network structure such as a
small office or home network as well as in a large professionally
managed network. Therefore, the discovery mechanism needs to be able
to allow a device to bootstrap itself without making any prior
assumptions about network structure.
Because GRASP can be used as part of a decision process among
distributed devices or between networks, it must run in a secure and
strongly authenticated environment.
In realistic deployments, not all devices will support GRASP.
Therefore, some autonomic service agents will directly manage a group
of non-autonomic nodes, and other non-autonomic nodes will be managed
traditionally. Such mixed scenarios are not discussed in this
specification.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
2. GRASP Protocol Overview
2.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in
ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual
English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key
words.
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575].
The following additional terms are used throughout this document:
o Discovery: a process by which an ASA discovers peers according to
a specific discovery objective. The discovery results may be
different according to the different discovery objectives. The
discovered peers may later be used as negotiation counterparts or
as sources of synchronization data.
o Negotiation: a process by which two ASAs interact iteratively to
agree on parameter settings that best satisfy the objectives of
both ASAs.
o State Synchronization: a process by which ASAs interact to receive
the current state of parameter values stored in other ASAs. This
is a special case of negotiation in which information is sent but
the ASAs do not request their peers to change parameter settings.
All other definitions apply to both negotiation and
synchronization.
o Technical Objective (usually abbreviated as Objective): A
technical objective is a data structure, whose main contents are a
name and a value. The value consists of a single configurable
parameter or a set of parameters of some kind. The exact format
of an objective is defined in Section 2.10.1. An objective occurs
in three contexts: Discovery, Negotiation and Synchronization.
Normally, a given objective will not occur in negotiation and
synchronization contexts simultaneously.
* One ASA may support multiple independent objectives.
* The parameter(s) in the value of a given objective apply to a
specific service or function or action. They may in principle
be anything that can be set to a specific logical, numerical or
string value, or a more complex data structure, by a network
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
node. Each node is expected to contain one or more ASAs which
may each manage subsidiary non-autonomic nodes.
* Discovery Objective: an objective in the process of discovery.
Its value may be undefined.
* Synchronization Objective: an objective whose specific
technical content needs to be synchronized among two or more
ASAs. Thus, each ASA will maintain its own copy of the
objective.
* Negotiation Objective: an objective whose specific technical
content needs to be decided in coordination with another ASA.
Again, each ASA will maintain its own copy of the objective.
A detailed discussion of objectives, including their format, is
found in Section 2.10.
o Discovery Initiator: an ASA that starts discovery by sending a
discovery message referring to a specific discovery objective.
o Discovery Responder: a peer that either contains an ASA supporting
the discovery objective indicated by the discovery initiator, or
caches the locator(s) of the ASA(s) supporting the objective. It
sends a Discovery Response, as described later.
o Synchronization Initiator: an ASA that starts synchronization by
sending a request message referring to a specific synchronization
objective.
o Synchronization Responder: a peer ASA which responds with the
value of a synchronization objective.
o Negotiation Initiator: an ASA that starts negotiation by sending a
request message referring to a specific negotiation objective.
o Negotiation Counterpart: a peer with which the Negotiation
Initiator negotiates a specific negotiation objective.
o GRASP Instance: This refers to an instantiation of a GRASP
protocol engine, likely including multiple threads or processes as
well as dynamic data structures such as a discovery cache, running
in a given security environment on a single device.
o GRASP Core: This refers to the code and shared data structures of
a GRASP instance, which will communicate with individual ASAs via
a suitable Application Programming Interface (API).
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
o Interface or GRASP Interface: Unless otherwise stated, these refer
to a network interface - which might be physical or virtual - that
a specific instance of GRASP is currently using. A device might
have other interfaces that are not used by GRASP and which are
outside the scope of the autonomic network.
2.2. High Level Deployment Model
A GRASP implementation will be part of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure (ANI) in an autonomic node, which must also provide an
appropriate security environment. In accordance with
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model], this SHOULD be the Autonomic
Control Plane (ACP) [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. As a
result, all autonomic nodes in the ACP are able to trust each other.
It is expected that GRASP will access the ACP by using a typical
socket programming interface and the ACP will make available only
network interfaces within the autonomic network. If there is no ACP,
the considerations described in Section 2.5.1 apply.
There will also be one or more Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs). In
the minimal case of a single-purpose device, these components might
be fully integrated with GRASP and the ACP. A more common model is
expected to be a multi-purpose device capable of containing several
ASAs, such as a router or large switch. In this case it is expected
that the ACP, GRASP and the ASAs will be implemented as separate
processes, which are able to support asynchronous and simultaneous
operations, for example by multi-threading.
In some scenarios, a limited negotiation model might be deployed
based on a limited trust relationship such as that between two
administrative domains. ASAs might then exchange limited information
and negotiate some particular configurations.
GRASP is explicitly designed to operate within a single addressing
realm. Its discovery and flooding mechanisms do not support
autonomic operations that cross any form of address translator or
upper layer proxy.
A suitable Application Programming Interface (API) will be needed
between GRASP and the ASAs. In some implementations, ASAs would run
in user space with a GRASP library providing the API, and this
library would in turn communicate via system calls with core GRASP
functions. Details of the API are out of scope for the present
document. For further details of possible deployment models, see
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model].
An instance of GRASP must be aware of the network interfaces it will
use, and of the appropriate global-scope and link-local addresses.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
In the presence of the ACP, such information will be available from
the adjacency table discussed in [I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model].
In other cases, GRASP must determine such information for itself.
Details depend on the device and operating system. In the rest of
this document, the terms 'interfaces' or 'GRASP interfaces' refers
only to the set of network interfaces that a specific instance of
GRASP is currently using.
Because GRASP needs to work with very high reliability, especially
during bootstrapping and during fault conditions, it is essential
that every implementation continues to operate in adverse conditions.
For example, discovery failures, or any kind of socket exception at
any time, must not cause irrecoverable failures in GRASP itself, and
must return suitable error codes through the API so that ASAs can
also recover.
GRASP must not depend upon non-volatile data storage. All run time
error conditions, and events such as address renumbering, network
interface failures, and CPU sleep/wake cycles, must be handled in
such a way that GRASP will still operate correctly and securely
(Section 2.5.1) afterwards.
An autonomic node will normally run a single instance of GRASP, used
by multiple ASAs. Possible exceptions are mentioned below.
2.3. High Level Design
This section describes the behavior model and general design of
GRASP, supporting discovery, synchronization and negotiation, to act
as a platform for different technical objectives.
o A generic platform:
The protocol design is generic and independent of the
synchronization or negotiation contents. The technical contents
will vary according to the various technical objectives and the
different pairs of counterparts.
o Normally, a single main instance of the GRASP protocol engine will
exist in an autonomic node, and each ASA will run as an
independent asynchronous process. However, scenarios where
multiple instances of GRASP run in a single node, perhaps with
different security properties, are possible (Section 2.5.2). In
this case, each instance MUST listen independently for GRASP link-
local multicasts, and all instances MUST be woken by each such
multicast, in order for discovery and flooding to work correctly.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
o Security infrastructure:
As noted above, the protocol itself has no built-in security
functionality, and relies on a separate secure infrastructure.
o Discovery, synchronization and negotiation are designed together:
The discovery method and the synchronization and negotiation
methods are designed in the same way and can be combined when this
is useful, allowing a rapid mode of operation described in
Section 2.5.4. These processes can also be performed
independently when appropriate.
* Thus, for some objectives, especially those concerned with
application layer services, another discovery mechanism such as
the future DNS Service Discovery [RFC7558] MAY be used. The
choice is left to the designers of individual ASAs.
o A uniform pattern for technical objectives:
The synchronization and negotiation objectives are defined
according to a uniform pattern. The values that they contain
could be carried either in a simple binary format or in a complex
object format. The basic protocol design uses the Concise Binary
Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049], which is readily
extensible for unknown future requirements.
o A flexible model for synchronization:
GRASP supports synchronization between two nodes, which could be
used repeatedly to perform synchronization among a small number of
nodes. It also supports an unsolicited flooding mode when large
groups of nodes, possibly including all autonomic nodes, need data
for the same technical objective.
* There may be some network parameters for which a more
traditional flooding mechanism such as DNCP [RFC7787] is
considered more appropriate. GRASP can coexist with DNCP.
o A simple initiator/responder model for negotiation:
Multi-party negotiations are very complicated to model and cannot
readily be guaranteed to converge. GRASP uses a simple bilateral
model and can support multi-party negotiations by indirect steps.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
o Organizing of synchronization or negotiation content:
The technical content transmitted by GRASP will be organized
according to the relevant function or service. The objectives for
different functions or services are kept separate, because they
may be negotiated or synchronized with different counterparts or
have different response times. Thus a normal arrangement would be
a single ASA managing a small set of closely related objectives,
with a version of that ASA in each relevant autonomic node.
Further discussion of this aspect is out of scope for the current
document.
o Requests and responses in negotiation procedures:
The initiator can negotiate a specific negotiation objective with
relevant counterpart ASAs. It can request relevant information
from a counterpart so that it can coordinate its local
configuration. It can request the counterpart to make a matching
configuration. It can request simulation or forecast results by
sending some dry run conditions.
Beyond the traditional yes/no answer, the responder can reply with
a suggested alternative value for the objective concerned. This
would start a bi-directional negotiation ending in a compromise
between the two ASAs.
o Convergence of negotiation procedures:
To enable convergence, when a responder suggests a new value or
condition in a negotiation step reply, it should be as close as
possible to the original request or previous suggestion. The
suggested value of later negotiation steps should be chosen
between the suggested values from the previous two steps. GRASP
provides mechanisms to guarantee convergence (or failure) in a
small number of steps, namely a timeout and a maximum number of
iterations.
o Extensibility:
GRASP intentionally does not have a version number, and can be
extended by adding new message types and options. The Invalid
Message (M_INVALID) will be used to signal that an implementation
does not recognize a message or option sent by another
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
implementation. In normal use, new semantics will be added by
defining new synchronization or negotiation objectives.
2.4. Quick Operating Overview
An instance of GRASP is expected to run as a separate core module,
providing an API (such as [I-D.liu-anima-grasp-api]) to interface to
various ASAs. These ASAs may operate without special privilege,
unless they need it for other reasons (such as configuring IP
addresses or manipulating routing tables).
The GRASP mechanisms used by the ASA are built around GRASP
objectives defined as data structures containing administrative
information such as the objective's unique name, and its current
value. The format and size of the value is not restricted by the
protocol, except that it must be possible to serialize it for
transmission in CBOR, which is no restriction at all in practice.
GRASP provides the following mechanisms:
o A discovery mechanism (M_DISCOVERY, M_RESPONSE), by which an ASA
can discover other ASAs supporting a given objective.
o A negotiation request mechanism (M_REQ_NEG), by which an ASA can
start negotiation of an objective with a counterpart ASA. Once a
negotiation has started, the process is symmetrical, and there is
a negotiation step message (M_NEGOTIATE) for each ASA to use in
turn. Two other functions support negotiating steps (M_WAIT,
M_END).
o A synchronization mechanism (M_REQ_SYN), by which an ASA can
request the current value of an objective from a counterpart ASA.
With this, there is a corresponding response function (M_SYNCH)
for an ASA that wishes to respond to synchronization requests.
o A flood mechanism (M_FLOOD), by which an ASA can cause the current
value of an objective to be flooded throughout the autonomic
network so that any ASA can receive it. One application of this
is to act as an announcement, avoiding the need for discovery of a
widely applicable objective.
Some example messages and simple message flows are provided in
Appendix D.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
2.5. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms
2.5.1. Required External Security Mechanism
GRASP does not specify transport security because it is meant to be
adapted to different environments. Every solution adopting GRASP
MUST specify a security and transport substrate used by GRASP in that
solution.
The substrate MUST enforce sending and receiving GRASP messages only
between members of a mutually trusted group running GRASP. Each
group member is an instance of GRASP. The group members are nodes of
a connected graph. The group and graph is created by the security
and transport substrate and called the GRASP domain. The substrate
must support unicast messages between any group members and (link-
local) multicast messages between adjacent group members. It must
deny messages between group members and non group members. With this
model, security is provided by enforcing group membership, but any
member of the trusted group can attack the entire network until
revoked.
Substrates MUST use cryptographic member authentication and message
integrity for GRASP messages. This can be end-to-end or hop-by-hop
across the domain. The security and transport substrate MUST provide
mechanisms to remove untrusted members from the group.
If the substrate does not mandate and enforce GRASP message
encryption then any service using GRASP in such a solution MUST
provide protection and encryption for message elements whose exposure
could constitute an attack vector.
The security and transport substrate for GRASP in the ANI is the ACP.
Unless otherwise noted, we assume this security and transport
substrate in the remainder of this document. The ACP does mandate
the use of encryption; therefore GRASP in the ANI can rely on GRASP
message being encrypted. The GRASP domain is the ACP: all nodes in
an autonomic domain connected by encrypted virtual links formed by
the ACP. The ACP uses hop-by-hop security (authentication/
encryption) of messages. Removal of nodes relies on standard PKI
certificate revocation or expiry of sufficiently short lived
certificates. Refer to [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] for
more details.
As mentioned in Section 2.3, some GRASP operations might be performed
across an administrative domain boundary by mutual agreement, without
the benefit of an ACP. Such operations MUST be confined to a
separate instance of GRASP with its own copy of all GRASP data
structures running across a separate GRASP domain with a security and
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
transport substrate. In the most simple case, each point-to-point
interdomain GRASP peering could be a separate domain and the security
and transport substrate could be built using transport or network
layer security protocols. This is subject to future specifications.
An exception to the requirements for the security and transport
substrate exists for highly constrained subsets of GRASP meant to
support the establishment of a security and transport substrate,
described in the following section.
2.5.2. Discovery Unsolicited Link-Local (DULL) GRASP
Some services may need to use insecure GRASP discovery, response and
flood messages without being able to use pre-existing security
associations, for example as part of discovery for establishing
security associations such as a security substrate for GRASP.
Such operations being intrinsically insecure, they need to be
confined to link-local use to minimize the risk of malicious actions.
Possible examples include discovery of candidate ACP neighbors
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane], discovery of bootstrap
proxies [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] or perhaps
initialization services in networks using GRASP without being fully
autonomic (e.g., no ACP). Such usage MUST be limited to link-local
operations on a single interface and MUST be confined to a separate
insecure instance of GRASP with its own copy of all GRASP data
structures. This instance is nicknamed DULL - Discovery Unsolicited
Link-Local.
The detailed rules for the DULL instance of GRASP are as follows:
o An initiator MAY send Discovery or Flood Synchronization link-
local multicast messages which MUST have a loop count of 1, to
prevent off-link operations. Other unsolicited GRASP message
types MUST NOT be sent.
o A responder MUST silently discard any message whose loop count is
not 1.
o A responder MUST silently discard any message referring to a GRASP
Objective that is not directly part of a service that requires
this insecure mode.
o A responder MUST NOT relay any multicast messages.
o A Discovery Response MUST indicate a link-local address.
o A Discovery Response MUST NOT include a Divert option.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
o A node MUST silently discard any message whose source address is
not link-local.
To minimize traffic possibly observed by third parties, GRASP traffic
SHOULD be minimized by using only Flood Synchronization to announce
objectives and their associated locators, rather than by using
Discovery and Response. Further details are out of scope for this
document
2.5.3. Transport Layer Usage
All GRASP messages, after they are serialized as a CBOR byte string,
are transmitted as such directly over the transport protocol in use.
The transport protocol(s) for a GRASP domain are specified by the
security and transport substrate as introduced in Section 2.5.1.
GRASP discovery and flooding messages are designed for GRASP domain
wide flooding through hop-by-hop link-local multicast forwarding
between adjacent GRASP nodes. The GRASP security and transport
substrate needs to specify how these link local multicasts are
transported. This can be unreliable transport (UDP) but it SHOULD be
reliable transport (e.g., TCP).
If the substrate specifies an unreliable transport such as UDP for
discovery and flooding messages, then it MUST NOT use IP
fragmentation because of its loss characteristic, especially in
multi-hop flooding. GRASP MUST then enforce at the user API level a
limit to the size of discovery and flooding messages, so that no
fragmentation can occur. For IPv6 transport this means that those
messages must be at most 1280 bytes sized IPv6 packets (unless there
is a known larger minimum link MTU across the whole GRASP domain).
All other GRASP messages are unicast beteween group members of the
GRASP domain. These MUST use a reliable transport protocol because
GRASP itself does not provide for error detection, retransmission or
flow control. Unless otherwise specified by the security and
transport substrate, TCP MUST be used.
The security and transport substrate for GRASP in the ANI is the ACP.
Unless otherwise noted, we assume this security and transport
substrate in the remainder of this document when describing GRASPs
message transport. In the ACP, TCP is used for GRASP unicast
messages. GRASP discovery and flooding messages also use TCP: These
link-local messages are forwarded by replicating them to all adjacent
GRASP nodes on the link via TCP connections to those adjacent GRASP
nodes. Because of this, GRASP in the ANI has no limitations on the
size of discovery and flooding messages with respect to fragmentation
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
issues. UDP is used in the ANI with GRASP only with DULL when the
ACP is built to discover ACP/GRASP neighbors on links.
For link-local UDP multicast, the GRASP protocol listens to the well-
known GRASP Listen Port (Section 2.6). Transport connections for
Discovery and Flooding on relay nodes must terminate in GRASP
instances (eg: GRASP ASAs) so that link-local multicast, hop-by-hop
flooding of M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD and hop-by-hop forwarding of
M_RESPONSE and caching of those responses along the path work
correctly.
Unicast transport connections used for synchronization and
negotiation can terminate directly in ASAs that implement objectives
and therefore this traffic does not need to pass through GRASP
instances. For this, the ASA listens on its own dynamically assigned
ports, which are communicated to its peers during discovery.
Alternatively, the GRASP instance can also terminate the unicast
transport connections and pass the traffic from/to the ASA if that is
preferrable in some implementation (eg: to better decouple ASAs from
network connections).
2.5.4. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures
2.5.4.1. Separated discovery and negotiation mechanisms
Although discovery and negotiation or synchronization are defined
together in GRASP, they are separate mechanisms. The discovery
process could run independently from the negotiation or
synchronization process. Upon receiving a Discovery (Section 2.8.4)
message, the recipient node should return a response message in which
it either indicates itself as a discovery responder or diverts the
initiator towards another more suitable ASA. However, this response
may be delayed if the recipient needs to relay the discovery onwards,
as described below.
The discovery action (M_DISCOVERY) will normally be followed by a
negotiation (M_REQ_NEG) or synchronization (M_REQ_SYN) action. The
discovery results could be utilized by the negotiation protocol to
decide which ASA the initiator will negotiate with.
The initiator of a discovery action for a given objective need not be
capable of responding to that objective as a Negotiation Counterpart,
as a Synchronization Responder or as source for flooding. For
example, an ASA might perform discovery even if it only wishes to act
a Synchronization Initiator or Negotiation Initiator. Such an ASA
does not itself need to respond to discovery messages.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
It is also entirely possible to use GRASP discovery without any
subsequent negotiation or synchronization action. In this case, the
discovered objective is simply used as a name during the discovery
process and any subsequent operations between the peers are outside
the scope of GRASP.
2.5.4.2. Discovery Overview
A complete discovery process will start with a multicast (of
M_DISCOVERY) on the local link. On-link neighbors supporting the
discovery objective will respond directly (with M_RESPONSE). A
neighbor with multiple interfaces may respond with a cached discovery
response. If it has no cached response, it will relay the discovery
on its other GRASP interfaces. If a node receiving the relayed
discovery supports the discovery objective, it will respond to the
relayed discovery. If it has a cached response, it will respond with
that. If not, it will repeat the discovery process, which thereby
becomes iterative. The loop count and timeout will ensure that the
process ends. Further details are given below.
A Discovery message MAY be sent unicast to a peer node, which SHOULD
then proceed exactly as if the message had been multicast, except
that when TCP is used, the response will be on the same socket as the
query. However, this mode does not guarantee successful discovery in
the general case.
2.5.4.3. Discovery Procedures
Discovery starts as an on-link operation. The Divert option can tell
the discovery initiator to contact an off-link ASA for that discovery
objective. If the security and transport substrate of the GRASP
domain (see Section 2.5.3) uses UDP link-local multicast then the
discovery initiator sends these to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS link-local
multicast address (Section 2.6) and and all GRASP nodes need to
listen to this address to act as discovery responder. Because this
port is unique in a device, this is a function of the GRASP instance
and not of an individual ASA. As a result, each ASA will need to
register the objectives that it supports with the local GRASP
instance.
If an ASA in a neighbor device supports the requested discovery
objective, the device SHOULD respond to the link-local multicast with
a unicast Discovery Response message (Section 2.8.5) with locator
option(s), unless it is temporarily unavailable. Otherwise, if the
neighbor has cached information about an ASA that supports the
requested discovery objective (usually because it discovered the same
objective before), it SHOULD respond with a Discovery Response
message with a Divert option pointing to the appropriate Discovery
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Responder. However, it SHOULD NOT respond with a cached response on
an interface if it learnt that information from the same interface,
because the peer in question will answer directly if still
operational.
If a device has no information about the requested discovery
objective, and is not acting as a discovery relay (see below) it MUST
silently discard the Discovery message.
The discovery initiator MUST set a reasonable timeout on the
discovery process. A suggested value is 100 milliseconds multiplied
by the loop count embedded in the objective.
If no discovery response is received within the timeout, the
Discovery message MAY be repeated, with a newly generated Session ID
(Section 2.7). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for subsequent
repetitions, to limit the load during busy periods. The details of
the backoff algorithm will depend on the use case for the objective
concerned but MUST be consistent with the recommendations in
[RFC8085] for low data-volume multicast. Frequent repetition might
be symptomatic of a denial of service attack.
After a GRASP device successfully discovers a locator for a Discovery
Responder supporting a specific objective, it SHOULD cache this
information, including the interface index [RFC3493] via which it was
discovered. This cache record MAY be used for future negotiation or
synchronization, and the locator SHOULD be passed on when appropriate
as a Divert option to another Discovery Initiator.
The cache mechanism MUST include a lifetime for each entry. The
lifetime is derived from a time-to-live (ttl) parameter in each
Discovery Response message. Cached entries MUST be ignored or
deleted after their lifetime expires. In some environments,
unplanned address renumbering might occur. In such cases, the
lifetime SHOULD be short compared to the typical address lifetime.
The discovery mechanism needs to track the node's current address to
ensure that Discovery Responses always indicate the correct address.
If multiple Discovery Responders are found for the same objective,
they SHOULD all be cached, unless this creates a resource shortage.
The method of choosing between multiple responders is an
implementation choice. This choice MUST be available to each ASA but
the GRASP implementation SHOULD provide a default choice.
Because Discovery Responders will be cached in a finite cache, they
might be deleted at any time. In this case, discovery will need to
be repeated. If an ASA exits for any reason, its locator might still
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
be cached for some time, and attempts to connect to it will fail.
ASAs need to be robust in these circumstances.
2.5.4.4. Discovery Relaying
A GRASP instance with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically
running in a router) MUST support discovery on all GRASP interfaces.
We refer to this as a 'relaying instance'.
DULL Instances (Section 2.5.2) are always single-interface instances
and therefore MUST NOT perform discovery relaying.
If a relaying instance receives a Discovery message on a given
interface for a specific objective that it does not support and for
which it has not previously cached a Discovery Responder, it MUST
relay the query by re-issuing a new Discovery message as a link-local
multicast on its other GRASP interfaces.
The relayed discovery message MUST have the same Session ID and
Initiator field as the incoming (see Section 2.8.4). The Initiator
IP address field is only used to allow for disambiguation of the
Session ID and is never used to address Response packets. Response
packets are sent back to the relaying instance, not the original
initiator.
The M_DISCOVERY message does not encode the transport address of the
originator or relay. Response packets must therefore be sent to the
transport layer address of the connection on which the M_DISCOVERY
message was received. If the M_DISCOVERY was relayed via a reliable
hop-by-hop transport connection, the response is simply sent back via
the same connection.
If the M_DISCOVERY was relayed via link-local (eg: UDP) multicast,
the response is sent back via a reliable hop-by-hop transport
connection with the same port number as the source port of the link-
local multicast. Therefore, if link-local multicast is used and
M_RESPONSE messages are required (which is the case in almost all
GRASP instances except for the limited use of DULL instances in the
ANI), GRASP needs to be able to bind to one port number on UDP from
which to originate the link-local multicast M_DISCOVERY messages and
the same port number on the reliable hop-by-hop transport (eg: TCP by
default) to be able to respond to transport connections from
responders that want to send M_RESPONSE messages back. Note that
this port does not need to be the GRASP_LISTEN_PORT.
The relaying instance MUST decrement the loop count within the
objective, and MUST NOT relay the Discovery message if the result is
zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it relays
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
discovery messages to a reasonable value, in order to mitigate
possible denial of service attacks. For example, the rate limit
could be set to a small multiple of the observed rate of discovery
messages during normal operation. The relaying instance MUST cache
the Session ID value and initiator address of each relayed Discovery
message until any Discovery Responses have arrived or the discovery
process has timed out. To prevent loops, it MUST NOT relay a
Discovery message which carries a given cached Session ID and
initiator address more than once. These precautions avoid discovery
loops and mitigate potential overload.
Since the relay device is unaware of the timeout set by the original
initiator it SHOULD set a suitable timeout for the relayed discovery.
A suggested value is 100 milliseconds multiplied by the remaining
loop count.
The discovery results received by the relaying instance MUST in turn
be sent as a Discovery Response message to the Discovery message that
caused the relay action.
2.5.4.5. Rapid Mode (Discovery with Negotiation or Synchronization )
A Discovery message MAY include an Objective option. This allows a
rapid mode of negotiation (Section 2.5.5.1) or synchronization
(Section 2.5.6.3). Rapid mode is currently limited to a single
objective for simplicity of design and implementation. A possible
future extension is to allow multiple objectives in rapid mode for
greater efficiency.
2.5.5. Negotiation Procedures
A negotiation initiator opens a transport connection to a counterpart
ASA using the address, protocol and port obtained during discovery.
It then sends a negotiation request (using M_REQ_NEG) to the
counterpart, including a specific negotiation objective. It may
request the negotiation counterpart to make a specific configuration.
Alternatively, it may request a certain simulation or forecast result
by sending a dry run configuration. The details, including the
distinction between a dry run and a live configuration change, will
be defined separately for each type of negotiation objective. Any
state associated with a dry run operation, such as temporarily
reserving a resource for subsequent use in a live run, is entirely a
matter for the designer of the ASA concerned.
Each negotiation session as a whole is subject to a timeout (default
GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 2.6), initialised when the
request is sent (see Section 2.8.6). If no reply message of any kind
is received within the timeout, the negotiation request MAY be
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
repeated, with a newly generated Session ID (Section 2.7). An
exponential backoff SHOULD be used for subsequent repetitions. The
details of the backoff algorithm will depend on the use case for the
objective concerned.
If the counterpart can immediately apply the requested configuration,
it will give an immediate positive (O_ACCEPT) answer (using M_END).
This will end the negotiation phase immediately. Otherwise, it will
negotiate (using M_NEGOTIATE). It will reply with a proposed
alternative configuration that it can apply (typically, a
configuration that uses fewer resources than requested by the
negotiation initiator). This will start a bi-directional negotiation
(using M_NEGOTIATE) to reach a compromise between the two ASAs.
The negotiation procedure is ended when one of the negotiation peers
sends a Negotiation Ending (M_END) message, which contains an accept
(O_ACCEPT) or decline (O_DECLINE) option and does not need a response
from the negotiation peer. Negotiation may also end in failure
(equivalent to a decline) if a timeout is exceeded or a loop count is
exceeded. When the procedure ends for whatever reason, the transport
connection SHOULD be closed. A transport session failure is treated
as a negotiation failure.
A negotiation procedure concerns one objective and one counterpart.
Both the initiator and the counterpart may take part in simultaneous
negotiations with various other ASAs, or in simultaneous negotiations
about different objectives. Thus, GRASP is expected to be used in a
multi-threaded mode or its logical equivalent. Certain negotiation
objectives may have restrictions on multi-threading, for example to
avoid over-allocating resources.
Some configuration actions, for example wavelength switching in
optical networks, might take considerable time to execute. The ASA
concerned needs to allow for this by design, but GRASP does allow for
a peer to insert latency in a negotiation process if necessary
(Section 2.8.9, M_WAIT).
2.5.5.1. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Negotiation Linkage)
A Discovery message MAY include a Negotiation Objective option. In
this case it is as if the initiator sent the sequence M_DISCOVERY,
immediately followed by M_REQ_NEG. This has implications for the
construction of the GRASP core, as it must carefully pass the
contents of the Negotiation Objective option to the ASA so that it
may evaluate the objective directly. When a Negotiation Objective
option is present the ASA replies with an M_NEGOTIATE message (or
M_END with O_ACCEPT if it is immediately satisfied with the
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
proposal), rather than with an M_RESPONSE. However, if the recipient
node does not support rapid mode, discovery will continue normally.
It is possible that a Discovery Response will arrive from a responder
that does not support rapid mode, before such a Negotiation message
arrives. In this case, rapid mode will not occur.
This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a
higher efficiency could be achieved. However, a network in which
some nodes support rapid mode and others do not will have complex
timing-dependent behaviors. Therefore, the rapid negotiation
function SHOULD be disabled by default.
2.5.6. Synchronization and Flooding Procedures
2.5.6.1. Unicast Synchronization
A synchronization initiator opens a transport connection to a
counterpart ASA using the address, protocol and port obtained during
discovery. It then sends a synchronization request (using M_REQ_SYN)
to the counterpart, including a specific synchronization objective.
The counterpart responds with a Synchronization message (M_SYNCH,
Section 2.8.10) containing the current value of the requested
synchronization objective. No further messages are needed and the
transport connection SHOULD be closed. A transport session failure
is treated as a synchronization failure.
If no reply message of any kind is received within a given timeout
(default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 2.6), the
synchronization request MAY be repeated, with a newly generated
Session ID (Section 2.7). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for
subsequent repetitions. The details of the backoff algorithm will
depend on the use case for the objective concerned.
2.5.6.2. Flooding
In the case just described, the message exchange is unicast and
concerns only one synchronization objective. For large groups of
nodes requiring the same data, synchronization flooding is available.
For this, a flooding initiator MAY send an unsolicited Flood
Synchronization message containing one or more Synchronization
Objective option(s), if and only if the specification of those
objectives permits it. This is sent as a multicast message to the
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast address (Section 2.6).
Receiving flood multicasts is a function of the GRASP core, as in the
case of discovery multicasts (Section 2.5.4.3).
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
To ensure that flooding does not result in a loop, the originator of
the Flood Synchronization message MUST set the loop count in the
objectives to a suitable value (the default is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
Also, a suitable mechanism is needed to avoid excessive multicast
traffic. This mechanism MUST be defined as part of the specification
of the synchronization objective(s) concerned. It might be a simple
rate limit or a more complex mechanism such as the Trickle algorithm
[RFC6206].
A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all GRASP
interfaces. If it receives a multicast Flood Synchronization message
on a given interface, it MUST relay it by re-issuing a Flood
Synchronization message as a link-local multicast on its other GRASP
interfaces. The relayed message MUST have the same Session ID as the
incoming message and MUST be tagged with the IP address of its
original initiator.
Link-layer Flooding is supported by GRASP by setting the loop count
to 1, and sending with a link-local source address. Floods with
link-local source addresses and a loop count other than 1 are
invalid, and such messages MUST be discarded.
The relaying device MUST decrement the loop count within the first
objective, and MUST NOT relay the Flood Synchronization message if
the result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it
relays Flood Synchronization messages to a reasonable value, in order
to mitigate possible denial of service attacks. For example, the
rate limit could be set to a small multiple of the observed rate of
flood messages during normal operation. The relaying device MUST
cache the Session ID value and initiator address of each relayed
Flood Synchronization message for a time not less than twice
GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. To prevent loops, it MUST NOT relay
a Flood Synchronization message which carries a given cached Session
ID and initiator address more than once. These precautions avoid
synchronization loops and mitigate potential overload.
Note that this mechanism is unreliable in the case of sleeping nodes,
or new nodes that join the network, or nodes that rejoin the network
after a fault. An ASA that initiates a flood SHOULD repeat the flood
at a suitable frequency, which MUST be consistent with the
recommendations in [RFC8085] for low data-volume multicast. The ASA
SHOULD also act as a synchronization responder for the objective(s)
concerned. Thus nodes that require an objective subject to flooding
can either wait for the next flood or request unicast synchronization
for that objective.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
The multicast messages for synchronization flooding are subject to
the security rules in Section 2.5.1. In practice this means that
they MUST NOT be transmitted and MUST be ignored on receipt unless
there is an operational ACP or equivalent strong security in place.
However, because of the security weakness of link-local multicast
(Section 4), synchronization objectives that are flooded SHOULD NOT
contain unencrypted private information and SHOULD be validated by
the recipient ASA.
2.5.6.3. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Synchronization Linkage)
A Discovery message MAY include a Synchronization Objective option.
In this case the Discovery message also acts as a Request
Synchronization message to indicate to the Discovery Responder that
it could directly reply to the Discovery Initiator with a
Synchronization message Section 2.8.10 with synchronization data for
rapid processing, if the discovery target supports the corresponding
synchronization objective. The design implications are similar to
those discussed in Section 2.5.5.1.
It is possible that a Discovery Response will arrive from a responder
that does not support rapid mode, before such a Synchronization
message arrives. In this case, rapid mode will not occur.
This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a
higher efficiency could be achieved. However, a network in which
some nodes support rapid mode and others do not will have complex
timing-dependent behaviors. Therefore, the rapid synchronization
function SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY be configured on
or off by Intent.
2.6. GRASP Constants
o ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS
A link-local scope multicast address used by a GRASP-enabled
device to discover GRASP-enabled neighbor (i.e., on-link) devices.
All devices that support GRASP are members of this multicast
group.
* IPv6 multicast address: TBD1
* IPv4 multicast address: TBD2
o GRASP_LISTEN_PORT (TBD3)
A well-known UDP user port that every GRASP-enabled network device
MUST listen to for link-local multicasts when UDP is used for
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
M_DISCOVERY or M_FLOOD messages in the GRASP instance This user
port MAY also be used to listen for TCP or UDP unicast messages in
a simple implementation of GRASP (Section 2.5.3).
o GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT (60000 milliseconds)
The default timeout used to determine that an operation has failed
to complete.
o GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT (6)
The default loop count used to determine that a negotiation has
failed to complete, and to avoid looping messages.
o GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE (2048)
The default maximum message size in bytes.
2.7. Session Identifier (Session ID)
This is an up to 32-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple
sessions between the same two devices. A new Session ID MUST be
generated by the initiator for every new Discovery, Flood
Synchronization or Request message. All responses and follow-up
messages in the same discovery, synchronization or negotiation
procedure MUST carry the same Session ID.
The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally. It
MUST be generated by a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) using a
locally generated seed which is unlikely to be used by any other
device in the same network. The PRNG SHOULD be cryptographically
strong [RFC4086]. When allocating a new Session ID, GRASP MUST check
that the value is not already in use and SHOULD check that it has not
been used recently, by consulting a cache of current and recent
sessions. In the unlikely event of a clash, GRASP MUST generate a
new value.
However, there is a finite probability that two nodes might generate
the same Session ID value. For that reason, when a Session ID is
communicated via GRASP, the receiving node MUST tag it with the
initiator's IP address to allow disambiguation. In the highly
unlikely event of two peers opening sessions with the same Session ID
value, this tag will allow the two sessions to be distinguished.
Multicast GRASP messages and their responses, which may be relayed
between links, therefore include a field that carries the initiator's
global IP address.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
There is a highly unlikely race condition in which two peers start
simultaneous negotiation sessions with each other using the same
Session ID value. Depending on various implementation choices, this
might lead to the two sessions being confused. See Section 2.8.6 for
details of how to avoid this.
2.8. GRASP Messages
2.8.1. Message Overview
This section defines the GRASP message format and message types.
Message types not listed here are reserved for future use.
The messages currently defined are:
Discovery and Discovery Response (M_DISCOVERY, M_RESPONSE).
Request Negotiation, Negotiation, Confirm Waiting and Negotiation
End (M_REQ_NEG, M_NEGOTIATE, M_WAIT, M_END).
Request Synchronization, Synchronization, and Flood
Synchronization (M_REQ_SYN, M_SYNCH, M_FLOOD.
No Operation and Invalid (M_NOOP, M_INVALID).
2.8.2. GRASP Message Format
GRASP messages share an identical header format and a variable format
area for options. GRASP message headers and options are transmitted
in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049]. In this
specification, they are described using CBOR data definition language
(CDDL) [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]. Fragmentary CDDL is
used to describe each item in this section. A complete and normative
CDDL specification of GRASP is given in Section 5, including
constants such as message types.
Every GRASP message, except the No Operation message, carries a
Session ID (Section 2.7). Options are then presented serially in the
options field.
In fragmentary CDDL, every GRASP message follows the pattern:
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, ?initiator,
*grasp-option]
MESSAGE_TYPE = 1..255
session-id = 0..4294967295 ;up to 32 bits
grasp-option = any
The MESSAGE_TYPE indicates the type of the message and thus defines
the expected options. Any options received that are not consistent
with the MESSAGE_TYPE SHOULD be silently discarded.
The No Operation (noop) message is described in Section 2.8.13.
The various MESSAGE_TYPE values are defined in Section 5.
All other message elements are described below and formally defined
in Section 5.
If an unrecognized MESSAGE_TYPE is received in a unicast message, an
Invalid message (Section 2.8.12) MAY be returned. Otherwise the
message MAY be logged and MUST be discarded. If an unrecognized
MESSAGE_TYPE is received in a multicast message, it MAY be logged and
MUST be silently discarded.
2.8.3. Message Size
GRASP nodes MUST be able to receive unicast messages of at least
GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE bytes. GRASP nodes MUST NOT send unicast messages
longer than GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE bytes unless a longer size is
explicitly allowed for the objective concerned. For example, GRASP
negotiation itself could be used to agree on a longer message size.
The message parser used by GRASP should be configured to know about
the GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE, or any larger negotiated message size, so
that it may defend against overly long messages.
The maximum size of multicast messages (M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD)
depends on the link layer technology or link adaptation layer in use.
2.8.4. Discovery Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery message follows the pattern:
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective]
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
A discovery initiator sends a Discovery message to initiate a
discovery process for a particular objective option.
The discovery initiator sends all Discovery messages via UDP to port
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT at the link-local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast
address on each link-layer interface in use by GRASP. It then
listens for unicast TCP responses on a given port, and stores the
discovery results (including responding discovery objectives and
corresponding unicast locators).
The listening port used for TCP MUST be the same port as used for
sending the Discovery UDP multicast, on a given interface. In an
implementation with a single GRASP instance in a node this MAY be
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT. To support multiple instances in the same node,
the GRASP discovery mechanism in each instance needs to find, for
each interface, a dynamic port that it can bind to for both sending
UDP link-local multicast and listening for TCP, before initiating any
discovery.
The 'initiator' field in the message is a globally unique IP address
of the initiator, for the sole purpose of disambiguating the Session
ID in other nodes. If for some reason the initiator does not have a
globally unique IP address, it MUST use a link-local address for this
purpose that is highly likely to be unique, for example using
[RFC7217]. Determination of a node's globally unique IP address is
implementation-dependent.
A Discovery message MUST include exactly one of the following:
o a discovery objective option (Section 2.10.1). Its loop count
MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops
(default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). If the discovery initiator
requires only on-link responses, the loop count MUST be set to 1.
o a negotiation objective option (Section 2.10.1). This is used
both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery
target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiatior with
a Negotiation message for rapid processing, if it could act as the
corresponding negotiation counterpart. The sender of such a
Discovery message MUST initialize a negotiation timer and loop
count in the same way as a Request Negotiation message
(Section 2.8.6).
o a synchronization objective option (Section 2.10.1). This is used
both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery
target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiator with
a Synchronization message for rapid processing, if it could act as
the corresponding synchronization counterpart. Its loop count
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops
(default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
As mentioned in Section 2.5.4.2, a Discovery message MAY be sent
unicast to a peer node, which SHOULD then proceed exactly as if the
message had been multicast.
2.8.5. Discovery Response Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery Response message follows the
pattern:
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, ttl,
(+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective)]
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
A node which receives a Discovery message SHOULD send a Discovery
Response message if and only if it can respond to the discovery.
It MUST contain the same Session ID and initiator as the Discovery
message.
It MUST contain a time-to-live (ttl) for the validity of the
response, given as a positive integer value in milliseconds. Zero
implies a value significantly greater than GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT
milliseconds (Section 2.6). A suggested value is ten times that
amount.
It MAY include a copy of the discovery objective from the
Discovery message.
It is sent to the sender of the Discovery message via TCP at the port
used to send the Discovery message (as explained in Section 2.8.4).
In the case of a relayed Discovery message, the Discovery Response is
thus sent to the relay, not the original initiator.
In all cases, the transport session SHOULD be closed after sending
the Discovery Response. A transport session failure is treated as no
response.
If the responding node supports the discovery objective of the
discovery, it MUST include at least one kind of locator option
(Section 2.9.5) to indicate its own location. A sequence of multiple
kinds of locator options (e.g. IP address option and FQDN option) is
also valid.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
If the responding node itself does not support the discovery
objective, but it knows the locator of the discovery objective, then
it SHOULD respond to the discovery message with a divert option
(Section 2.9.2) embedding a locator option or a combination of
multiple kinds of locator options which indicate the locator(s) of
the discovery objective.
More details on the processing of Discovery Responses are given in
Section 2.5.4.
2.8.6. Request Messages
In fragmentary CDDL, Request Negotiation and Request Synchronization
messages follow the patterns:
request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective]
request-synchronization-message = [M_REQ_SYN, session-id, objective]
A negotiation or synchronization requesting node sends the
appropriate Request message to the unicast address of the negotiation
or synchronization counterpart, using the appropriate protocol and
port numbers (selected from the discovery result). If the discovery
result is an FQDN, it will be resolved first.
A Request message MUST include the relevant objective option. In the
case of Request Negotiation, the objective option MUST include the
requested value.
When an initiator sends a Request Negotiation message, it MUST
initialize a negotiation timer for the new negotiation thread. The
default is GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. Unless this timeout is
modified by a Confirm Waiting message (Section 2.8.9), the initiator
will consider that the negotiation has failed when the timer expires.
Similarly, when an initiator sends a Request Synchronization, it
SHOULD initialize a synchronization timer. The default is
GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. The initiator will consider that
synchronization has failed if there is no response before the timer
expires.
When an initiator sends a Request message, it MUST initialize the
loop count of the objective option with a value defined in the
specification of the option or, if no such value is specified, with
GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
If a node receives a Request message for an objective for which no
ASA is currently listening, it MUST immediately close the relevant
socket to indicate this to the initiator. This is to avoid
unnecessary timeouts if, for example, an ASA exits prematurely but
the GRASP core is listening on its behalf.
To avoid the highly unlikely race condition in which two nodes
simultaneously request sessions with each other using the same
Session ID (Section 2.7), when a node receives a Request message, it
MUST verify that the received Session ID is not already locally
active. In case of a clash, it MUST discard the Request message, in
which case the initiator will detect a timeout.
2.8.7. Negotiation Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation message follows the pattern:
negotiate-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
A negotiation counterpart sends a Negotiation message in response to
a Request Negotiation message, a Negotiation message, or a Discovery
message in Rapid Mode. A negotiation process MAY include multiple
steps.
The Negotiation message MUST include the relevant Negotiation
Objective option, with its value updated according to progress in the
negotiation. The sender MUST decrement the loop count by 1. If the
loop count becomes zero the message MUST NOT be sent. In this case
the negotiation session has failed and will time out.
2.8.8. Negotiation End Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation End message follows the pattern:
end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option]
A negotiation counterpart sends an Negotiation End message to close
the negotiation. It MUST contain either an accept or a decline
option, defined in Section 2.9.3 and Section 2.9.4. It could be sent
either by the requesting node or the responding node.
2.8.9. Confirm Waiting Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Confirm Waiting message follows the pattern:
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time]
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
A responding node sends a Confirm Waiting message to ask the
requesting node to wait for a further negotiation response. It might
be that the local process needs more time or that the negotiation
depends on another triggered negotiation. This message MUST NOT
include any other options. When received, the waiting time value
overwrites and restarts the current negotiation timer
(Section 2.8.6).
The responding node SHOULD send a Negotiation, Negotiation End or
another Confirm Waiting message before the negotiation timer expires.
If not, when the initiator's timer expires, the initiator MUST treat
the negotiation procedure as failed.
2.8.10. Synchronization Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Synchronization message follows the pattern:
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
A node which receives a Request Synchronization, or a Discovery
message in Rapid Mode, sends back a unicast Synchronization message
with the synchronization data, in the form of a GRASP Option for the
specific synchronization objective present in the Request
Synchronization.
2.8.11. Flood Synchronization Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Flood Synchronization message follows the
pattern:
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
+[objective, (locator-option / [])]]
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
A node MAY initiate flooding by sending an unsolicited Flood
Synchronization Message with synchronization data. This MAY be sent
to port GRASP_LISTEN_PORT at the link-local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS
multicast address, in accordance with the rules in Section 2.5.6.
The initiator address is provided, as described for Discovery
messages (Section 2.8.4), only to disambiguate the Session ID.
The message MUST contain a time-to-live (ttl) for the validity of
the contents, given as a positive integer value in milliseconds.
There is no default; zero indicates an indefinite lifetime.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
The synchronization data are in the form of GRASP Option(s) for
specific synchronization objective(s). The loop count(s) MUST be
set to a suitable value to prevent flood loops (default value is
GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
Each objective option MAY be followed by a locator option
associated with the flooded objective. In its absence, an empty
option MUST be included to indicate a null locator.
A node that receives a Flood Synchronization message MUST cache the
received objectives for use by local ASAs. Each cached objective
MUST be tagged with the locator option sent with it, or with a null
tag if an empty locator option was sent. If a subsequent Flood
Synchronization message carrying an objective with same name and the
same tag, the corresponding cached copy of the objective MUST be
overwritten. If a subsequent Flood Synchronization message carrying
an objective with same name arrives with a different tag, a new
cached entry MUST be created.
Note: the purpose of this mechanism is to allow the recipient of
flooded values to distinguish between different senders of the same
objective, and if necessary communicate with them using the locator,
protocol and port included in the locator option. Many objectives
will not need this mechanism, so they will be flooded with a null
locator.
Cached entries MUST be ignored or deleted after their lifetime
expires.
2.8.12. Invalid Message
In fragmentary CDDL, an Invalid message follows the pattern:
invalid-message = [M_INVALID, session-id, ?any]
This message MAY be sent by an implementation in response to an
incoming unicast message that it considers invalid. The session-id
MUST be copied from the incoming message. The content SHOULD be
diagnostic information such as a partial copy of the invalid message
up to the maximum message size. An M_INVALID message MAY be silently
ignored by a recipient. However, it could be used in support of
extensibility, since it indicates that the remote node does not
support a new or obsolete message or option.
An M_INVALID message MUST NOT be sent in response to an M_INVALID
message.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
2.8.13. No Operation Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a No Operation message follows the pattern:
noop-message = [M_NOOP]
This message MAY be sent by an implementation that for practical
reasons needs to initialize a socket. It MUST be silently ignored by
a recipient.
2.9. GRASP Options
This section defines the GRASP options for the negotiation and
synchronization protocol signaling. Additional options may be
defined in the future.
2.9.1. Format of GRASP Options
GRASP options are CBOR objects that MUST start with an unsigned
integer identifying the specific option type carried in this option.
These option types are formally defined in Section 5. Apart from
that the only format requirement is that each option MUST be a well-
formed CBOR object. In general a CBOR array format is RECOMMENDED to
limit overhead.
GRASP options may be defined to include encapsulated GRASP options.
2.9.2. Divert Option
The Divert option is used to redirect a GRASP request to another
node, which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation or
synchronization. It may redirect to an entity that is known as a
specific negotiation or synchronization counterpart (on-link or off-
link) or a default gateway. The divert option MUST only be
encapsulated in Discovery Response messages. If found elsewhere, it
SHOULD be silently ignored.
A discovery initiator MAY ignore a Divert option if it only requires
direct discovery responses.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Divert option follows the pattern:
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
The embedded Locator Option(s) (Section 2.9.5) point to diverted
destination target(s) in response to a Discovery message.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
2.9.3. Accept Option
The accept option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
that the proposed negotiation content is accepted.
The accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Accept option follows the pattern:
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
2.9.4. Decline Option
The decline option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
the proposed negotiation content is declined and end the negotiation
process.
The decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Decline option follows the pattern:
decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason]
reason = text ;optional UTF-8 error message
Note: there might be scenarios where an ASA wants to decline the
proposed value and restart the negotiation process. In this case it
is an implementation choice whether to send a Decline option or to
continue with a Negotiate message, with an objective option that
contains a null value, or one that contains a new value that might
achieve convergence.
2.9.5. Locator Options
These locator options are used to present reachability information
for an ASA, a device or an interface. They are Locator IPv6 Address
Option, Locator IPv4 Address Option, Locator FQDN (Fully Qualified
Domain Name) Option and URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) Option.
Since ASAs will normally run as independent user programs, locator
options need to indicate the network layer locator plus the transport
protocol and port number for reaching the target. For this reason,
the Locator Options for IP addresses and FQDNs include this
information explicitly. In the case of the URI Option, this
information can be encoded in the URI itself.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Note: It is assumed that all locators used in locator options are in
scope throughout the GRASP domain. As stated in Section 2.2, GRASP
is not intended to work across disjoint addressing or naming realms.
2.9.5.1. Locator IPv6 address option
In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv6 address option follows the pattern:
ipv6-locator-option = [O_IPv6_LOCATOR, ipv6-address,
transport-proto, port-number]
ipv6-address = bytes .size 16
transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP
IPPROTO_TCP = 6
IPPROTO_UDP = 17
port-number = 0..65535
The content of this option is a binary IPv6 address followed by the
protocol number and port number to be used.
Note 1: The IPv6 address MUST normally have global scope. However,
during initialization, a link-local address MAY be used for specific
objectives only (Section 2.5.2). In this case the corresponding
Discovery Response message MUST be sent via the interface to which
the link-local address applies.
Note 2: A link-local IPv6 address MUST NOT be used when this option
is included in a Divert option.
Note 3: The IPPROTO values are taken from the existing IANA Protocol
Numbers registry in order to specify TCP or UDP. If GRASP requires
future values that are not in that registry, a new registry for
values outside the range 0..255 will be needed.
2.9.5.2. Locator IPv4 address option
In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv4 address option follows the pattern:
ipv4-locator-option = [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, ipv4-address,
transport-proto, port-number]
ipv4-address = bytes .size 4
The content of this option is a binary IPv4 address followed by the
protocol number and port number to be used.
Note: If an operator has internal network address translation for
IPv4, this option MUST NOT be used within the Divert option.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
2.9.5.3. Locator FQDN option
In fragmentary CDDL, the FQDN option follows the pattern:
fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text,
transport-proto, port-number]
The content of this option is the Fully Qualified Domain Name of the
target followed by the protocol number and port number to be used.
Note 1: Any FQDN which might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST NOT be used
when this option is used within the Divert option.
Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option.
It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external
services.
2.9.5.4. Locator URI option
In fragmentary CDDL, the URI option follows the pattern:
uri-locator = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text,
transport-proto / null, port-number / null]
The content of this option is the Uniform Resource Identifier of the
target followed by the protocol number and port number to be used (or
by null values if not required) [RFC3986].
Note 1: Any URI which might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as one based on a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST
NOT be used when this option is used within the Divert option.
Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option.
It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external
services. Therefore its use is not further described in this
specification.
2.10. Objective Options
2.10.1. Format of Objective Options
An objective option is used to identify objectives for the purposes
of discovery, negotiation or synchronization. All objectives MUST be
in the following format, described in fragmentary CDDL:
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?objective-value]
objective-name = text
objective-value = any
loop-count = 0..255
All objectives are identified by a unique name which is a UTF-8
string [RFC3629], to be compared byte by byte.
The names of generic objectives MUST NOT include a colon (":") and
MUST be registered with IANA (Section 6).
The names of privately defined objectives MUST include at least one
colon (":"). The string preceding the last colon in the name MUST be
globally unique and in some way identify the entity or person
defining the objective. The following three methods MAY be used to
create such a globally unique string:
1. The unique string is a decimal number representing a registered
32 bit Private Enterprise Number (PEN) [RFC5612] that uniquely
identifies the enterprise defining the objective.
2. The unique string is a fully qualified domain name that uniquely
identifies the entity or person defining the objective.
3. The unique string is an email address that uniquely identifies
the entity or person defining the objective.
The GRASP protocol treats the objective name as an opaque string.
For example, "EX1", "32473:EX1", "example.com:EX1", "example.org:EX1
and "user@example.org:EX1" would be five different objectives.
The 'objective-flags' field is described below.
The 'loop-count' field is used for terminating negotiation as
described in Section 2.8.7. It is also used for terminating
discovery as described in Section 2.5.4, and for terminating flooding
as described in Section 2.5.6.2. It is placed in the objective
rather than in the GRASP message format because, as far as the ASA is
concerned, it is a property of the objective itself.
The 'objective-value' field is to express the actual value of a
negotiation or synchronization objective. Its format is defined in
the specification of the objective and may be a simple value or a
data structure of any kind, as long as it can be represented in CBOR.
It is optional because it is optional in a Discovery or Discovery
Response message.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
2.10.2. Objective flags
An objective may be relevant for discovery only, for discovery and
negotiation, or for discovery and synchronization. This is expressed
in the objective by logical flag bits:
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &(
F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery
F_NEG: 1 ; valid for negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2 ; valid for synchronization
F_NEG_DRY: 3 ; negotiation is dry-run
)
These bits are independent and may be combined appropriately, e.g.
(F_DISC and F_SYNCH) or (F_DISC and F_NEG) or (F_DISC and F_NEG and
F_NEG_DRY).
Note that for a given negotiation session, an objective must be
either used for negotiation, or for dry-run negotiation. Mixing the
two modes in a single negotiation is not possible.
2.10.3. General Considerations for Objective Options
As mentioned above, Objective Options MUST be assigned a unique name.
As long as privately defined Objective Options obey the rules above,
this document does not restrict their choice of name, but the entity
or person concerned SHOULD publish the names in use.
Names are expressed as UTF-8 strings for convenience in designing
Objective Options for localized use. For generic usage, names
expressed in the ASCII subset of UTF-8 are RECOMMENDED. Designers
planning to use non-ASCII names are strongly advised to consult
[RFC7564] or its successor to understand the complexities involved.
Since the GRASP protocol compares names byte by byte, all issues of
Unicode profiling and canonicalization MUST be specified in the
design of the Objective Option.
All Objective Options MUST respect the CBOR patterns defined above as
"objective" and MUST replace the "any" field with a valid CBOR data
definition for the relevant use case and application.
An Objective Option that contains no additional fields beyond its
"loop-count" can only be a discovery objective and MUST only be used
in Discovery and Discovery Response messages.
The Negotiation Objective Options contain negotiation objectives,
which vary according to different functions/services. They MUST be
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
carried by Discovery, Request Negotiation or Negotiation messages
only. The negotiation initiator MUST set the initial "loop-count" to
a value specified in the specification of the objective or, if no
such value is specified, to GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
For most scenarios, there should be initial values in the negotiation
requests. Consequently, the Negotiation Objective options MUST
always be completely presented in a Request Negotiation message, or
in a Discovery message in rapid mode. If there is no initial value,
the value field SHOULD be set to the 'null' value defined by CBOR.
Synchronization Objective Options are similar, but MUST be carried by
Discovery, Discovery Response, Request Synchronization, or Flood
Synchronization messages only. They include value fields only in
Synchronization or Flood Synchronization messages.
The design of an objective interacts in various ways with the design
of the ASAs that will use it. ASA design considerations are
discussed in [I-D.carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines].
2.10.4. Organizing of Objective Options
Generic objective options MUST be specified in documents available to
the public and SHOULD be designed to use either the negotiation or
the synchronization mechanism described above.
As noted earlier, one negotiation objective is handled by each GRASP
negotiation thread. Therefore, a negotiation objective, which is
based on a specific function or action, SHOULD be organized as a
single GRASP option. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to organize multiple
negotiation objectives into a single option, nor to split a single
function or action into multiple negotiation objectives.
It is important to understand that GRASP negotiation does not support
transactional integrity. If transactional integrity is needed for a
specific objective, this must be ensured by the ASA. For example, an
ASA might need to ensure that it only participates in one negotiation
thread at the same time. Such an ASA would need to stop listening
for incoming negotiation requests before generating an outgoing
negotiation request.
A synchronization objective SHOULD be organized as a single GRASP
option.
Some objectives will support more than one operational mode. An
example is a negotiation objective with both a "dry run" mode (where
the negotiation is to find out whether the other end can in fact make
the requested change without problems) and a "live" mode, as
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
explained in Section 2.5.5. The semantics of such modes will be
defined in the specification of the objectives. These objectives
SHOULD include flags indicating the applicable mode(s).
An issue requiring particular attention is that GRASP itself is not a
transactionally safe protocol. Any state associated with a dry run
operation, such as temporarily reserving a resource for subsequent
use in a live run, is entirely a matter for the designer of the ASA
concerned.
As indicated in Section 2.1, an objective's value may include
multiple parameters. Parameters might be categorized into two
classes: the obligatory ones presented as fixed fields; and the
optional ones presented in some other form of data structure embedded
in CBOR. The format might be inherited from an existing management
or configuration protocol, with the objective option acting as a
carrier for that format. The data structure might be defined in a
formal language, but that is a matter for the specifications of
individual objectives. There are many candidates, according to the
context, such as ABNF, RBNF, XML Schema, YANG, etc. The GRASP
protocol itself is agnostic on these questions. The only restriction
is that the format can be mapped into CBOR.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED to mix parameters that have significantly
different response time characteristics in a single objective.
Separate objectives are more suitable for such a scenario.
All objectives MUST support GRASP discovery. However, as mentioned
in Section 2.3, it is acceptable for an ASA to use an alternative
method of discovery.
Normally, a GRASP objective will refer to specific technical
parameters as explained in Section 2.1. However, it is acceptable to
define an abstract objective for the purpose of managing or
coordinating ASAs. It is also acceptable to define a special-purpose
objective for purposes such as trust bootstrapping or formation of
the ACP.
To guarantee convergence, a limited number of rounds or a timeout is
needed for each negotiation objective. Therefore, the definition of
each negotiation objective SHOULD clearly specify this, for example a
default loop count and timeout, so that the negotiation can always be
terminated properly. If not, the GRASP defaults will apply.
There must be a well-defined procedure for concluding that a
negotiation cannot succeed, and if so deciding what happens next
(e.g., deadlock resolution, tie-breaking, or revert to best-effort
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
service). This MUST be specified for individual negotiation
objectives.
2.10.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options
The names "EX0" through "EX9" have been reserved for experimental
options. Multiple names have been assigned because a single
experiment may use multiple options simultaneously. These
experimental options are highly likely to have different meanings
when used for different experiments. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be
used without an explicit human decision and MUST NOT be used in
unmanaged networks such as home networks.
These names are also RECOMMENDED for use in documentation examples.
3. Implementation Status [RFC Editor: please remove]
Two prototype implementations of GRASP have been made.
3.1. BUPT C++ Implementation
o Name: BaseNegotiator.cpp, msg.cpp, Client.cpp, Server.cpp
o Description: C++ implementation of GRASP core and API
o Maturity: Prototype code, interoperable between Ubuntu.
o Coverage: Corresponds to draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-03.
Since it was implemented based on the old version draft, the most
significant limitations comparing to current protocol design
include:
* Not support CBOR
* Not support Flooding
* Not support loop avoidance
* only coded for IPv6, any IPv4 is accidental
o Licensing: Huawei License.
o Experience: https://github.com/liubingpang/IETF-Anima-Signaling-
Protocol/blob/master/README.md
o Contact: https://github.com/liubingpang/IETF-Anima-Signaling-
Protocol
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
3.2. Python Implementation
o Name: graspy
o Description: Python 3 implementation of GRASP core and API.
o Maturity: Prototype code, interoperable between Windows 7 and
Linux.
o Coverage: Corresponds to draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13. Limitations
include:
* insecure: uses a dummy ACP module
* only coded for IPv6, any IPv4 is accidental
* FQDN and URI locators incompletely supported
* no code for rapid mode
* relay code is lazy (no rate control)
* all unicast transactions use TCP (no unicast UDP).
Experimental code for unicast UDP proved to be complex and
brittle.
* optional Objective option in Response messages not implemented
* workarounds for defects in Python socket module and Windows
socket peculiarities
o Licensing: Simplified BSD
o Experience: Tested on Windows, Linux and MacOS.
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/graspy/graspy.pdf
o Contact: https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/graspy/
4. Security Considerations
A successful attack on negotiation-enabled nodes would be extremely
harmful, as such nodes might end up with a completely undesirable
configuration that would also adversely affect their peers. GRASP
nodes and messages therefore require full protection. As explained
in Section 2.5.1, GRASP MUST run within a secure environment such as
the Autonomic Control Plane [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane],
except for the constrained instances described in Section 2.5.2.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
- Authentication
A cryptographically authenticated identity for each device is
needed in an autonomic network. It is not safe to assume that a
large network is physically secured against interference or that
all personnel are trustworthy. Each autonomic node MUST be
capable of proving its identity and authenticating its messages.
GRASP relies on a separate external certificate-based security
mechanism to support authentication, data integrity protection,
and anti-replay protection.
Since GRASP must be deployed in an existing secure environment,
the protocol itself specifies nothing concerning the trust anchor
and certification authority. For example, in the Autonomic
Control Plane [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane], all nodes
can trust each other and the ASAs installed in them.
If GRASP is used temporarily without an external security
mechanism, for example during system bootstrap (Section 2.5.1),
the Session ID (Section 2.7) will act as a nonce to provide
limited protection against third parties injecting responses. A
full analysis of the secure bootstrap process is in
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra].
- Authorization and Roles
The GRASP protocol is agnostic about the roles and capabilities of
individual ASAs and about which objectives a particular ASA is
authorized to support. An implementation might support
precautions such as allowing only one ASA in a given node to
modify a given objective, but this may not be appropriate in all
cases. For example, it might be operationally useful to allow an
old and a new version of the same ASA to run simultaneously during
an overlap period. These questions are out of scope for the
present specification.
- Privacy and confidentiality
GRASP is intended for network management purposes involving
network elements, not end hosts. Therefore, no personal
information is expected to be involved in the signaling protocol,
so there should be no direct impact on personal privacy.
Nevertheless, applications that do convey personal information
cannot be excluded. Also, traffic flow paths, VPNs, etc. could be
negotiated, which could be of interest for traffic analysis.
Operators generally want to conceal details of their network
topology and traffic density from outsiders. Therefore, since
insider attacks cannot be excluded in a large network, the
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
security mechanism for the protocol MUST provide message
confidentiality. This is why Section 2.5.1 requires either an ACP
or an alternative security mechanism.
- Link-local multicast security
GRASP has no reasonable alternative to using link-local multicast
for Discovery or Flood Synchronization messages and these messages
are sent in clear and with no authentication. They are only sent
on interfaces within the autonomic network (see Section 2.1 and
Section 2.5.1). They are however available to on-link
eavesdroppers, and could be forged by on-link attackers. In the
case of Discovery, the Discovery Responses are unicast and will
therefore be protected (Section 2.5.1), and an untrusted forger
will not be able to receive responses. In the case of Flood
Synchronization, an on-link eavesdropper will be able to receive
the flooded objectives but there is no response message to
consider. Some precautions for Flood Synchronization messages are
suggested in Section 2.5.6.2.
- DoS Attack Protection
GRASP discovery partly relies on insecure link-local multicast.
Since routers participating in GRASP sometimes relay discovery
messages from one link to another, this could be a vector for
denial of service attacks. Some mitigations are specified in
Section 2.5.4. However, malicious code installed inside the
Autonomic Control Plane could always launch DoS attacks consisting
of spurious discovery messages, or of spurious discovery
responses. It is important that firewalls prevent any GRASP
messages from entering the domain from an unknown source.
- Security during bootstrap and discovery
A node cannot trust GRASP traffic from other nodes until the
security environment (such as the ACP) has identified the trust
anchor and can authenticate traffic by validating certificates for
other nodes. Also, until it has succesfully enrolled
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] a node cannot assume that
other nodes are able to authenticate its own traffic. Therefore,
GRASP discovery during the bootstrap phase for a new device will
inevitably be insecure. Secure synchronization and negotiation
will be impossible until enrollment is complete. Further details
are given in Section 2.5.2.
- Security of discovered locators
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
When GRASP discovery returns an IP address, it MUST be that of a
node within the secure environment (Section 2.5.1). If it returns
an FQDN or a URI, the ASA that receives it MUST NOT assume that
the target of the locator is within the secure environment.
5. CDDL Specification of GRASP
<CODE BEGINS>
grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, ?initiator,
*grasp-option]
MESSAGE_TYPE = 0..255
session-id = 0..4294967295 ;up to 32 bits
grasp-option = any
message /= discovery-message
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective]
message /= response-message ;response to Discovery
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, ttl,
(+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective]
message /= synch-message ;response to Synchronization request
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
message /= flood-message
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
+[objective, (locator-option / [])]]
message /= request-negotiation-message
request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective]
message /= request-synchronization-message
request-synchronization-message = [M_REQ_SYN, session-id, objective]
message /= negotiation-message
negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
message /= end-message
end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option ]
message /= wait-message
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time]
message /= invalid-message
invalid-message = [M_INVALID, session-id, ?any]
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
noop-message = [M_NOOP]
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason]
reason = text ;optional UTF-8 error message
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
locator-option /= [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, ipv4-address,
transport-proto, port-number]
ipv4-address = bytes .size 4
locator-option /= [O_IPv6_LOCATOR, ipv6-address,
transport-proto, port-number]
ipv6-address = bytes .size 16
locator-option /= [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text, transport-proto, port-number]
locator-option /= [O_URI_LOCATOR, text,
transport-proto / null, port-number / null]
transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP
IPPROTO_TCP = 6
IPPROTO_UDP = 17
port-number = 0..65535
initiator = ipv4-address / ipv6-address
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &(
F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery
F_NEG: 1 ; valid for negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2 ; valid for synchronization
F_NEG_DRY: 3 ; negotiation is dry-run
)
objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?objective-value]
objective-name = text ;see section "Format of Objective Options"
objective-value = any
loop-count = 0..255
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
; Constants for message types and option types
M_NOOP = 0
M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQ_NEG = 3
M_REQ_SYN = 4
M_NEGOTIATE = 5
M_END = 6
M_WAIT = 7
M_SYNCH = 8
M_FLOOD = 9
M_INVALID = 99
O_DIVERT = 100
O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102
O_IPv6_LOCATOR = 103
O_IPv4_LOCATOR = 104
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 105
O_URI_LOCATOR = 106
<CODE ENDS>
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol
(GRASP).
Section 2.6 explains the following link-local multicast addresses,
which IANA is requested to assign for use by GRASP:
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast address (IPv6): (TBD1). Assigned in
the IPv6 Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses registry.
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast address (IPv4): (TBD2). Assigned in
the IPv4 Multicast Local Network Control Block.
Section 2.6 explains the following User Port, which IANA is requested
to assign for use by GRASP for both UDP and TCP:
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT: (TBD3)
Service Name: Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)
Transport Protocols: UDP, TCP
Assignee: iesg@ietf.org
Contact: chair@ietf.org
Description: See Section 2.6
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document)
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
The IANA is requested to create a GRASP Parameter Registry including
two registry tables. These are the GRASP Messages and Options
Table and the GRASP Objective Names Table.
GRASP Messages and Options Table. The values in this table are names
paired with decimal integers. Future values MUST be assigned using
the Standards Action policy defined by [RFC8126]. The following
initial values are assigned by this document:
M_NOOP = 0
M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQ_NEG = 3
M_REQ_SYN = 4
M_NEGOTIATE = 5
M_END = 6
M_WAIT = 7
M_SYNCH = 8
M_FLOOD = 9
M_INVALID = 99
O_DIVERT = 100
O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102
O_IPv6_LOCATOR = 103
O_IPv4_LOCATOR = 104
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 105
O_URI_LOCATOR = 106
GRASP Objective Names Table. The values in this table are UTF-8
strings which MUST NOT include a colon (":"), according to
Section 2.10.1. Future values MUST be assigned using the
Specification Required policy defined by [RFC8126].
To assist expert review of a new objective, the specification should
include a precise description of the format of the new objective,
with sufficient explanation of its semantics to allow independent
implementations. See Section 2.10.3 for more details. If the new
objective is similar in name or purpose to a previously registered
objective, the specification should explain why a new objective is
justified.
The following initial values are assigned by this document:
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
EX0
EX1
EX2
EX3
EX4
EX5
EX6
EX7
EX8
EX9
7. Acknowledgements
A major contribution to the original version of this document was
made by Sheng Jiang and significant contributions were made by
Toerless Eckert. Significant early review inputs were received from
Joel Halpern, Barry Leiba, Charles E. Perkins, and Michael
Richardson. William Atwood provided important assistance in
debugging a prototype implementation.
Valuable comments were received from Michael Behringer, Jeferson
Campos Nobre, Laurent Ciavaglia, Zongpeng Du, Yu Fu, Joel Jaeggli,
Zhenbin Li, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Pierre Peloso, Reshad Rahman,
Markus Stenberg, Martin Stiemerling, Rene Struik, Martin Thomson,
Dacheng Zhang, and participants in the NMRG research group, the ANIMA
working group, and the IESG.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]
Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise data
definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to
express CBOR data structures", draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-
cbor-cddl-11 (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Behringer, M., Eckert, T., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic
Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-
plane-07 (work in progress), July 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines]
Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Guidelines for Autonomic
Service Agents", draft-carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines-02
(work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp]
Behringer, M., Chaparadza, R., Petre, R., Li, X., and H.
Mahkonen, "IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)",
draft-chaparadza-intarea-igcp-00 (work in progress), July
2011.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason,
S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-
keyinfra-07 (work in progress), July 2017.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]
Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L.,
Pierre, P., Liu, B., Nobre, J., and J. Strassner, "A
Reference Model for Autonomic Networking", draft-ietf-
anima-reference-model-04 (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity]
Eckert, T. and M. Behringer, "Using Autonomic Control
Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM", draft-ietf-
anima-stable-connectivity-03 (work in progress), July
2017.
[I-D.liu-anima-grasp-api]
Carpenter, B., Liu, B., Wang, W., and X. Gong, "Generic
Autonomic Signaling Protocol Application Program Interface
(GRASP API)", draft-liu-anima-grasp-api-04 (work in
progress), June 2017.
[I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp]
Stenberg, M., "Autonomic Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", draft-stenberg-anima-adncp-00 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2334] Luciani, J., Armitage, G., Halpern, J., and N. Doraswamy,
"Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2334, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2334>.
[RFC2608] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day,
"Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2608, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2608>.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.
[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, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
[RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations
for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 62, RFC 3416, DOI 10.17487/RFC3416, December 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3416>.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5612] Eronen, P. and D. Harrington, "Enterprise Number for
Documentation Use", RFC 5612, DOI 10.17487/RFC5612, August
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5612>.
[RFC5971] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
Signalling Transport", RFC 5971, DOI 10.17487/RFC5971,
October 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5971>.
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7558] Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M., and D. Migault,
"Requirements for Scalable DNS-Based Service Discovery
(DNS-SD) / Multicast DNS (mDNS) Extensions", RFC 7558,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7558, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7558>.
[RFC7564] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework:
Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of
Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols",
RFC 7564, DOI 10.17487/RFC7564, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7564>.
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
[RFC7576] Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap
Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7576>.
[RFC7787] Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", RFC 7787, DOI 10.17487/RFC7787, April 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7787>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Appendix A. Open Issues [RFC Editor: This section should be empty.
Please remove]
o 68. (Placeholder)
Appendix B. Closed Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove]
o 1. UDP vs TCP: For now, this specification suggests UDP and TCP
as message transport mechanisms. This is not clarified yet. UDP
is good for short conversations, is necessary for multicast
discovery, and generally fits the discovery and divert scenarios
well. However, it will cause problems with large messages. TCP
is good for stable and long sessions, with a little bit of time
consumption during the session establishment stage. If messages
exceed a reasonable MTU, a TCP mode will be required in any case.
This question may be affected by the security discussion.
RESOLVED by specifying UDP for short message and TCP for longer
one.
o 2. DTLS or TLS vs built-in security mechanism. For now, this
specification has chosen a PKI based built-in security mechanism
based on asymmetric cryptography. However, (D)TLS might be chosen
as security solution to avoid duplication of effort. It also
allows essentially similar security for short messages over UDP
and longer ones over TCP. The implementation trade-offs are
different. The current approach requires expensive asymmetric
cryptographic calculations for every message. (D)TLS has startup
overheads but cheaper crypto per message. DTLS is less mature
than TLS.
RESOLVED by specifying external security (ACP or (D)TLS).
o The following open issues applied only if the original security
model was retained:
* 2.1. For replay protection, GRASP currently requires every
participant to have an NTP-synchronized clock. Is this OK for
low-end devices, and how does it work during device
bootstrapping? We could take the Timestamp out of signature
option, to become an independent and OPTIONAL (or RECOMMENDED)
option.
* 2.2. The Signature Option states that this option could be any
place in a message. Wouldn't it be better to specify a
position (such as the end)? That would be much simpler to
implement.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
RESOLVED by changing security model.
o 3. DoS Attack Protection needs work.
RESOLVED by adding text.
o 4. Should we consider preferring a text-based approach to
discovery (after the initial discovery needed for bootstrapping)?
This could be a complementary mechanism for multicast based
discovery, especially for a very large autonomic network.
Centralized registration could be automatically deployed
incrementally. At the very first stage, the repository could be
empty; then it could be filled in by the objectives discovered by
different devices (for example using Dynamic DNS Update). The
more records are stored in the repository, the less the multicast-
based discovery is needed. However, if we adopt such a mechanism,
there would be challenges: stateful solution, and security.
RESOLVED for now by adding optional use of DNS-SD by ASAs.
Subsequently removed by editors as irrelevant to GRASP istelf.
o 5. Need to expand description of the minimum requirements for the
specification of an individual discovery, synchronization or
negotiation objective.
RESOLVED for now by extra wording.
o 6. Use case and protocol walkthrough. A description of how a
node starts up, performs discovery, and conducts negotiation and
synchronisation for a sample use case would help readers to
understand the applicability of this specification. Maybe it
should be an artificial use case or maybe a simple real one, based
on a conceptual API. However, the authors have not yet decided
whether to have a separate document or have it in the protocol
document.
RESOLVED: recommend a separate document.
o 7. Cross-check against other ANIMA WG documents for consistency
and gaps.
RESOLVED: Satisfied by WGLC.
o 8. Consideration of ADNCP proposal.
RESOLVED by adding optional use of DNCP for flooding-type
synchronization.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
o 9. Clarify how a GDNP instance knows whether it is running inside
the ACP. (Sheng)
RESOLVED by improved text.
o 10. Clarify how a non-ACP GDNP instance initiates (D)TLS.
(Sheng)
RESOLVED by improved text and declaring DTLS out of scope for this
draft.
o 11. Clarify how UDP/TCP choice is made. (Sheng) [Like DNS? -
Brian]
RESOLVED by improved text.
o 12. Justify that IP address within ACP or (D)TLS environment is
sufficient to prove AN identity; or explain how Device Identity
Option is used. (Sheng)
RESOLVED for now: we assume that all ASAs in a device are trusted
as soon as the device is trusted, so they share credentials. In
that case the Device Identity Option is useless. This needs to be
reviewed later.
o 13. Emphasise that negotiation/synchronization are independent
from discovery, although the rapid discovery mode includes the
first step of a negotiation/synchronization. (Sheng)
RESOLVED by improved text.
o 14. Do we need an unsolicited flooding mechanism for discovery
(for discovery results that everyone needs), to reduce scaling
impact of flooding discovery messages? (Toerless)
RESOLVED: Yes, added to requirements and solution.
o 15. Do we need flag bits in Objective Options to distinguish
distinguish Synchronization and Negotiation "Request" or rapid
mode "Discovery" messages? (Bing)
RESOLVED: yes, work on the API showed that these flags are
essential.
o 16. (Related to issue 14). Should we revive the "unsolicited
Response" for flooding synchronisation data? This has to be done
carefully due to the well-known issues with flooding, but it could
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
be useful, e.g. for Intent distribution, where DNCP doesn't seem
applicable.
RESOLVED: Yes, see #14.
o 17. Ensure that the discovery mechanism is completely proof
against loops and protected against duplicate responses.
RESOLVED: Added loop count mechanism.
o 18. Discuss the handling of multiple valid discovery responses.
RESOLVED: Stated that the choice must be available to the ASA but
GRASP implementation should pick a default.
o 19. Should we use a text-oriented format such as JSON/CBOR
instead of native binary TLV format?
RESOLVED: Yes, changed to CBOR.
o 20. Is the Divert option needed? If a discovery response
provides a valid IP address or FQDN, the recipient doesn't gain
any extra knowledge from the Divert. On the other hand, the
presence of Divert informs the receiver that the target is off-
link, which might be useful sometimes.
RESOLVED: Decided to keep Divert option.
o 21. Rename the protocol as GRASP (GeneRic Autonomic Signaling
Protocol)?
RESOLVED: Yes, name changed.
o 22. Does discovery mechanism scale robustly as needed? Need hop
limit on relaying?
RESOLVED: Added hop limit.
o 23. Need more details on TTL for caching discovery responses.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 24. Do we need "fast withdrawal" of discovery responses?
RESOLVED: This doesn't seem necessary. If an ASA exits or stops
supporting a given objective, peers will fail to start future
sessions and will simply repeat discovery.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
o 25. Does GDNP discovery meet the needs of multi-hop DNS-SD?
RESOLVED: Decided not to consider this further as a GRASP protocol
issue. GRASP objectives could embed DNS-SD formats if needed.
o 26. Add a URL type to the locator options (for security bootstrap
etc.)
RESOLVED: Done, later renamed as URI.
o 27. Security of Flood multicasts (Section 2.5.6.2).
RESOLVED: added text.
o 28. Does ACP support secure link-local multicast?
RESOLVED by new text in the Security Considerations.
o 29. PEN is used to distinguish vendor options. Would it be
better to use a domain name? Anything unique will do.
RESOLVED: Simplified this by removing PEN field and changing
naming rules for objectives.
o 30. Does response to discovery require randomized delays to
mitigate amplification attacks?
RESOLVED: WG feedback is that it's unnecessary.
o 31. We have specified repeats for failed discovery etc. Is that
sufficient to deal with sleeping nodes?
RESOLVED: WG feedback is that it's unnecessary to say more.
o 32. We have one-to-one synchronization and flooding
synchronization. Do we also need selective flooding to a subset
of nodes?
RESOLVED: This will be discussed as a protocol extension in a
separate draft (draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution).
o 33. Clarify if/when discovery needs to be repeated.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 34. Clarify what is mandatory for running in ACP, expand
discussion of security boundary when running with no ACP - might
rely on the local PKI infrastructure.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
RESOLVED: Done.
o 35. State that role-based authorization of ASAs is out of scope
for GRASP. GRASP doesn't recognize/handle any "roles".
RESOLVED: Done.
o 36. Reconsider CBOR definition for PEN syntax. ( objective-name
= text / [pen, text] ; pen = uint )
RESOLVED: See issue 29.
o 37. Are URI locators really needed?
RESOLVED: Yes, e.g. for security bootstrap discovery, but added
note that addresses are the normal case (same for FQDN locators).
o 38. Is Session ID sufficient to identify relayed responses?
Isn't the originator's address needed too?
RESOLVED: Yes, this is needed for multicast messages and their
responses.
o 39. Clarify that a node will contain one GRASP instance
supporting multiple ASAs.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 40. Add a "reason" code to the DECLINE option?
RESOLVED: Done.
o 41. What happens if an ASA cannot conveniently use one of the
GRASP mechanisms? Do we (a) add a message type to GRASP, or (b)
simply pass the discovery results to the ASA so that it can open
its own socket?
RESOLVED: Both would be possible, but (b) is preferred.
o 42. Do we need a feature whereby an ASA can bypass the ACP and
use the data plane for efficiency/throughput? This would require
discovery to return non-ACP addresses and would evade ACP
security.
RESOLVED: This is considered out of scope for GRASP, but a comment
has been added in security considerations.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
o 43. Rapid mode synchronization and negotiation is currently
limited to a single objective for simplicity of design and
implementation. A future consideration is to allow multiple
objectives in rapid mode for greater efficiency.
RESOLVED: This is considered out of scope for this version.
o 44. In requirement T9, the words that encryption "may not be
required in all deployments" were removed. Is that OK?.
RESOLVED: No objections.
o 45. Device Identity Option is unused. Can we remove it
completely?.
RESOLVED: No objections. Done.
o 46. The 'initiator' field in DISCOVER, RESPONSE and FLOOD
messages is intended to assist in loop prevention. However, we
also have the loop count for that. Also, if we create a new
Session ID each time a DISCOVER or FLOOD is relayed, that ID can
be disambiguated by recipients. It would be simpler to remove the
initiator from the messages, making parsing more uniform. Is that
OK?
RESOLVED: Yes. Done.
o 47. REQUEST is a dual purpose message (request negotiation or
request synchronization). Would it be better to split this into
two different messages (and adjust various message names
accordingly)?
RESOLVED: Yes. Done.
o 48. Should the Appendix "Capability Analysis of Current
Protocols" be deleted before RFC publication?
RESOLVED: No (per WG meeting at IETF 96).
o 49. Section 2.5.1 Should say more about signaling between two
autonomic networks/domains.
RESOLVED: Description of separate GRASP instance added.
o 50. Is Rapid mode limited to on-link only? What happens if first
discovery responder does not support Rapid Mode? Section 2.5.5,
Section 2.5.6)
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
RESOLVED: Not limited to on-link. First responder wins.
o 51. Should flooded objectives have a time-to-live before they are
deleted from the flood cache? And should they be tagged in the
cache with their source locator?
RESOLVED: TTL added to Flood (and Discovery Response) messages.
Cached flooded objectives must be tagged with their originating
ASA locator, and multiple copies must be kept if necessary.
o 52. Describe in detail what is allowed and disallowed in an
insecure instance of GRASP.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 53. Tune IANA Considerations to support early assignment request.
o 54. Is there a highly unlikely race condition if two peers
simultaneously choose the same Session ID and send each other
simultaneous M_REQ_NEG messages?
RESOLVED: Yes. Enhanced text on Session ID generation, and added
precaution when receiving a Request message.
o 55. Could discovery be performed over TCP?
RESOLVED: Unicast discovery added as an option.
o 56. Change Session-ID to 32 bits?
RESOLVED: Done.
o 57. Add M_INVALID message?
RESOLVED: Done.
o 58. Maximum message size?
RESOLVED by specifying default maximum message size (2048 bytes).
o 59. Add F_NEG_DRY flag to specify a "dry run" objective?.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 60. Change M_FLOOD syntax to associate a locator with each
objective?
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
RESOLVED: Done.
o 61. Is the SONN constrained instance really needed?
RESOLVED: Retained but only as an option.
o 62. Is it helpful to tag descriptive text with message names
(M_DISCOVER etc.)?
RESOLVED: Yes, done in various parts of the text.
o 63. Should encryption be MUST instead of SHOULD in Section 2.5.1
and Section 2.5.1?
RESOLVED: Yes, MUST implement in both cases.
o 64. Should more security text be moved from the main text into
the Security Considerations?
RESOLVED: No, on AD advice.
o 65. Do we need to formally restrict Unicode characters allowed in
objective names?
RESOLVED: No, but need to point to guidance from PRECIS WG.
o 66. Split requirements into separate document?
RESOLVED: No, on AD advice.
o 67. Remove normative dependency on draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-
cbor-cddl?
RESOLVED: No, on AD advice. In worst case, fix at AUTH48.
Appendix C. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15, 2017-07-07:
Updates following additional IESG comments:
Security (Eric Rescorla): missing brittleness of group security
concept, attack via compromised member.
TSV (Mirja Kuehlewind): clarification on the use of UDP, TCP, mandate
use of TCP (or other reliable transport).
Clarified that in ACP, UDP is not used at all.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Clarified that GRASP itself needs TCP listen port (was previously
written as if this was optional).
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-14, 2017-07-02:
Updates following additional IESG comments:
Updated 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 based on IESG security feedback (specify
dependency against security substrate).
Strengthened requirement for reliable transport protocol.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13, 2017-06-06:
Updates following additional IESG comments:
Removed all mention of TLS, including SONN, since it was under-
specified.
Clarified other text about trust and security model.
Banned Rapid Mode when multicast is insecure.
Explained use of M_INVALID to support extensibility
Corrected details on discovery cache TTL and discovery timeout.
Improved description of multicast UDP w.r.t. RFC8085.
Clarified when transport connections are opened or closed.
Noted that IPPROTO values come from the Protocol Numbers registry
Protocol change: Added protocol and port numbers to URI locator.
Removed inaccurate text about routing protocols
Moved Requirements section to an Appendix.
Other editorial and technical clarifications.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12, 2017-05-19:
Updates following IESG comments:
Clarified that GRASP runs in a single addressing realm
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Improved wording about FQDN resolution, clarified that URI usage is
out of scope.
Clarified description of negotiation timeout.
Noted that 'dry run' semantics are ASA-dependent
Made the ACP a normative reference
Clarified that LL multicasts are limited to GRASP interfaces
Unicast UDP moved out of scope
Editorial clarifications
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-11, 2017-03-30:
Updates following IETF 98 discussion:
Encryption changed to a MUST implement.
Pointed to guidance on UTF-8 names.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-10, 2017-03-10:
Updates following IETF Last call:
Protocol change: Specify that an objective with no initial value
should have its value field set to CBOR 'null'.
Protocol change: Specify behavior on receiving unrecognized message
type.
Noted that UTF-8 names are matched byte-for-byte.
Added brief guidance for Expert Reviewer of new generic objectives.
Numerous editorial improvements and clarifications and minor text
rearrangements, none intended to change the meaning.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09, 2016-12-15:
Protocol change: Add F_NEG_DRY flag to specify a "dry run" objective.
Protocol change: Change M_FLOOD syntax to associate a locator with
each objective.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Concentrated mentions of TLS in one section, with all details out of
scope.
Clarified text around constrained instances of GRASP.
Strengthened text restricting LL addresses in locator options.
Clarified description of rapid mode processsing.
Specified that cached discovery results should not be returned on the
same interface where they were learned.
Shortened text in "High Level Design Choices"
Dropped the word 'kernel' to avoid confusion with o/s kernel mode.
Editorial improvements and clarifications.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-08, 2016-10-30:
Protocol change: Added M_INVALID message.
Protocol change: Increased Session ID space to 32 bits.
Enhanced rules to avoid Session ID clashes.
Corrected and completed description of timeouts for Request messages.
Improved wording about exponential backoff and DoS.
Clarified that discovery relaying is not done by limited security
instances.
Corrected and expanded explanation of port used for Discovery
Response.
Noted that Discovery message could be sent unicast in special cases.
Added paragraph on extensibility.
Specified default maximum message size.
Added Appendix for sample messages.
Added short protocol overview.
Editorial fixes, including minor re-ordering for readability.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-07, 2016-09-13:
Protocol change: Added TTL field to Flood message (issue 51).
Protocol change: Added Locator option to Flood message (issue 51).
Protocol change: Added TTL field to Discovery Response message
(corrollary to issue 51).
Clarified details of rapid mode (issues 43 and 50).
Description of inter-domain GRASP instance added (issue 49).
Description of limited security GRASP instances added (issue 52).
Strengthened advice to use TCP rather than UDP.
Updated IANA considerations and text about well-known port usage
(issue 53).
Amended text about ASA authorization and roles to allow for
overlapping ASAs.
Added text recommending that Flood should be repeated periodically.
Editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-06, 2016-06-27:
Added text on discovery cache timeouts.
Noted that ASAs that are only initiators do not need to respond to
discovery message.
Added text on unexpected address changes.
Added text on robust implementation.
Clarifications and editorial fixes for numerous review comments
Added open issues for some review comments.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-05, 2016-05-13:
Noted in requirement T1 that it should be possible to implement ASAs
independently as user space programs.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Protocol change: Added protocol number and port to discovery
response. Updated protocol description, CDDL and IANA considerations
accordingly.
Clarified that discovery and flood multicasts are handled by the
GRASP core, not directly by ASAs.
Clarified that a node may discover an objective without supporting it
for synchronization or negotiation.
Added Implementation Status section.
Added reference to SCSP.
Editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-04, 2016-03-11:
Protocol change: Restored initiator field in certain messages and
adjusted relaying rules to provide complete loop detection.
Updated IANA Considerations.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-03, 2016-02-24:
Protocol change: Removed initiator field from certain messages and
adjusted relaying requirement to simplify loop detection. Also
clarified narrative explanation of discovery relaying.
Protocol change: Split Request message into two (Request Negotiation
and Request Synchronization) and updated other message names for
clarity.
Protocol change: Dropped unused Device ID option.
Further clarified text on transport layer usage.
New text about multicast insecurity in Security Considerations.
Various other clarifications and editorial fixes, including moving
some material to Appendix.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-02, 2016-01-13:
Resolved numerous issues according to WG discussions.
Renumbered requirements, added D9.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Protocol change: only allow one objective in rapid mode.
Protocol change: added optional error string to DECLINE option.
Protocol change: removed statement that seemed to say that a Request
not preceded by a Discovery should cause a Discovery response. That
made no sense, because there is no way the initiator would know where
to send the Request.
Protocol change: Removed PEN option from vendor objectives, changed
naming rule accordingly.
Protocol change: Added FLOOD message to simplify coding.
Protocol change: Added SYNCH message to simplify coding.
Protocol change: Added initiator id to DISCOVER, RESPONSE and FLOOD
messages. But also allowed the relay process for DISCOVER and FLOOD
to regenerate a Session ID.
Protocol change: Require that discovered addresses must be global
(except during bootstrap).
Protocol change: Receiver of REQUEST message must close socket if no
ASA is listening for the objective.
Protocol change: Simplified Waiting message.
Protocol change: Added No Operation message.
Renamed URL locator type as URI locator type.
Updated CDDL definition.
Various other clarifications and editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-01, 2015-10-09:
Updated requirements after list discussion.
Changed from TLV to CBOR format - many detailed changes, added co-
author.
Tightened up loop count and timeouts for various cases.
Noted that GRASP does not provide transactional integrity.
Various other clarifications and editorial fixes.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 68]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-00, 2015-08-14:
File name and protocol name changed following WG adoption.
Added URL locator type.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-04, 2015-06-21:
Tuned wording around hierarchical structure.
Changed "device" to "ASA" in many places.
Reformulated requirements to be clear that the ASA is the main
customer for signaling.
Added requirement for flooding unsolicited synch, and added it to
protocol spec. Recognized DNCP as alternative for flooding synch
data.
Requirements clarified, expanded and rearranged following design team
discussion.
Clarified that GDNP discovery must not be a prerequisite for GDNP
negotiation or synchronization (resolved issue 13).
Specified flag bits for objective options (resolved issue 15).
Clarified usage of ACP vs TLS/DTLS and TCP vs UDP (resolved issues
9,10,11).
Updated DNCP description from latest DNCP draft.
Editorial improvements.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-03, 2015-04-20:
Removed intrinsic security, required external security
Format changes to allow DNCP co-existence
Recognized DNS-SD as alternative discovery method.
Editorial improvements
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-02, 2015-02-19:
Tuned requirements to clarify scope,
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 69]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Clarified relationship between types of objective,
Clarified that objectives may be simple values or complex data
structures,
Improved description of objective options,
Added loop-avoidance mechanisms (loop count and default timeout,
limitations on discovery relaying and on unsolicited responses),
Allow multiple discovery objectives in one response,
Provided for missing or multiple discovery responses,
Indicated how modes such as "dry run" should be supported,
Minor editorial and technical corrections and clarifications,
Reorganized future work list.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-01, restructured the logical flow
of the document, updated to describe synchronization completely, add
unsolicited responses, numerous corrections and clarifications,
expanded future work list, 2015-01-06.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-00, combination of draft-jiang-
config-negotiation-ps-03 and draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-
02, 2014-10-08.
Appendix D. Example Message Formats
For readers unfamiliar with CBOR, this appendix shows a number of
example GRASP messages conforming to the CDDL syntax given in
Section 5. Each message is shown three times in the following
formats:
1. CBOR diagnostic notation.
2. Similar, but showing the names of the constants. (Details of the
flag bit encoding are omitted.)
3. Hexadecimal version of the CBOR wire format.
Long lines are split for display purposes only.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 70]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
D.1. Discovery Example
The initiator (2001:db8:f000:baaa:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781) multicasts a
discovery message looking for objective EX1:
[1, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', ["EX1", 5, 2, 0]]
[M_DISCOVERY, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781',
["EX1", F_SYNCH_bits, 2, 0]]
h'84011a00d4d7485020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c970367818463455831050200'
A peer (2001:0db8:f000:baaa:f000:baaa:f000:baaa) responds with a
locator:
[2, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 60000,
[103, h'20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa', 6, 49443]]
[M_RESPONSE, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 60000,
[O_IPv6_LOCATOR, h'20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa',
IPPROTO_TCP, 49443]]
h'85021a00d4d7485020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c9703678119ea6084186750
20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa0619c123'
D.2. Flood Example
The initiator multicasts a flood message. The single objective has a
null locator. There is no response:
[9, 3504974, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 10000,
[["EX1", 5, 2, ["Example 1 value=", 100]],[] ] ]
[M_FLOOD, 3504974, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 10000,
[["EX1", F_SYNCH_bits, 2, ["Example 1 value=", 100]],[] ] ]
h'86091a00357b4e5020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781192710
828463455831050282704578616d706c6520312076616c75653d186480'
D.3. Synchronization Example
Following successful discovery of objective EX2, the initiator
unicasts a request:
[4, 4038926, ["EX2", 5, 5, 0]]
[M_REQ_SYN, 4038926, ["EX2", F_SYNCH_bits, 5, 0]]
h'83041a003da10e8463455832050500'
The peer responds with a value:
[8, 4038926, ["EX2", 5, 5, ["Example 2 value=", 200]]]
[M_SYNCH, 4038926, ["EX2", F_SYNCH_bits, 5, ["Example 2 value=", 200]]]
h'83081a003da10e8463455832050582704578616d706c6520322076616c75653d18c8'
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 71]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
D.4. Simple Negotiation Example
Following successful discovery of objective EX3, the initiator
unicasts a request:
[3, 802813, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 47]]]
[M_REQ_NEG, 802813, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 47]]]
h'83031a000c3ffd8463455833030682634e5a44182f'
The peer responds with immediate acceptance. Note that no objective
is needed, because the initiator's request was accepted without
change:
[6, 802813, [101]]
[M_END , 802813, [O_ACCEPT]]
h'83061a000c3ffd811865'
D.5. Complete Negotiation Example
Again the initiator unicasts a request:
[3, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 410]]]
[M_REQ_NEG, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 410]]]
h'83031a00d214628463455833030682634e5a4419019a'
The responder starts to negotiate (making an offer):
[5, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 80]]]
[M_NEGOTIATE, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 80]]]
h'83051a00d214628463455833030682634e5a441850'
The initiator continues to negotiate (reducing its request, and note
that the loop count is decremented):
[5, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 5, ["NZD", 307]]]
[M_NEGOTIATE, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 5, ["NZD", 307]]]
h'83051a00d214628463455833030582634e5a44190133'
The responder asks for more time:
[7, 13767778, 34965]
[M_WAIT, 13767778, 34965]
h'83071a00d21462198895'
The responder continues to negotiate (increasing its offer):
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 72]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
[5, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 4, ["NZD", 120]]]
[M_NEGOTIATE, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 4, ["NZD", 120]]]
h'83051a00d214628463455833030482634e5a441878'
The initiator continues to negotiate (reducing its request):
[5, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 3, ["NZD", 246]]]
[M_NEGOTIATE, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 3, ["NZD", 246]]]
h'83051a00d214628463455833030382634e5a4418f6'
The responder refuses to negotiate further:
[6, 13767778, [102, "Insufficient funds"]]
[M_END , 13767778, [O_DECLINE, "Insufficient funds"]]
h'83061a00d2146282186672496e73756666696369656e742066756e6473'
This negotiation has failed. If either side had sent [M_END,
13767778, [O_ACCEPT]] it would have succeeded, converging on the
objective value in the preceding M_NEGOTIATE. Note that apart from
the initial M_REQ_NEG, the process is symmetrical.
Appendix E. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization and
Negotiation
This section discusses the requirements for discovery, negotiation
and synchronization capabilities. The primary user of the protocol
is an autonomic service agent (ASA), so the requirements are mainly
expressed as the features needed by an ASA. A single physical device
might contain several ASAs, and a single ASA might manage several
technical objectives. If a technical objective is managed by several
ASAs, any necessary coordination is outside the scope of the GRASP
signaling protocol. Furthermore, requirements for ASAs themselves,
such as the processing of Intent [RFC7575], are out of scope for the
present document.
E.1. Requirements for Discovery
D1. ASAs may be designed to manage any type of configurable device
or software, as required in Appendix E.2. A basic requirement is
therefore that the protocol can represent and discover any kind of
technical objective (as defined in Section 2.1) among arbitrary
subsets of participating nodes.
In an autonomic network we must assume that when a device starts up
it has no information about any peer devices, the network structure,
or what specific role it must play. The ASA(s) inside the device are
in the same situation. In some cases, when a new application session
starts up within a device, the device or ASA may again lack
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 73]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
information about relevant peers. For example, it might be necessary
to set up resources on multiple other devices, coordinated and
matched to each other so that there is no wasted resource. Security
settings might also need updating to allow for the new device or
user. The relevant peers may be different for different technical
objectives. Therefore discovery needs to be repeated as often as
necessary to find peers capable of acting as counterparts for each
objective that a discovery initiator needs to handle. From this
background we derive the next three requirements:
D2. When an ASA first starts up, it may have no knowledge of the
specific network to which it is attached. Therefore the discovery
process must be able to support any network scenario, assuming only
that the device concerned is bootstrapped from factory condition.
D3. When an ASA starts up, it must require no configured location
information about any peers in order to discover them.
D4. If an ASA supports multiple technical objectives, relevant peers
may be different for different discovery objectives, so discovery
needs to be performed separately to find counterparts for each
objective. Thus, there must be a mechanism by which an ASA can
separately discover peer ASAs for each of the technical objectives
that it needs to manage, whenever necessary.
D5. Following discovery, an ASA will normally perform negotiation or
synchronization for the corresponding objectives. The design should
allow for this by conveniently linking discovery to negotiation and
synchronization. It may provide an optional mechanism to combine
discovery and negotiation/synchronization in a single protocol
exchange.
D6. Some objectives may only be significant on the local link, but
others may be significant across the routed network and require off-
link operations. Thus, the relevant peers might be immediate
neighbors on the same layer 2 link, or they might be more distant and
only accessible via layer 3. The mechanism must therefore provide
both on-link and off-link discovery of ASAs supporting specific
technical objectives.
D7. The discovery process should be flexible enough to allow for
special cases, such as the following:
o During initialization, a device must be able to establish mutual
trust with autonomic nodes elsewhere in the network and
participate in an authentication mechanism. Although this will
inevitably start with a discovery action, it is a special case
precisely because trust is not yet established. This topic is the
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 74]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
subject of [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]. We require
that once trust has been established for a device, all ASAs within
the device inherit the device's credentials and are also trusted.
This does not preclude the device having multiple credentials.
o Depending on the type of network involved, discovery of other
central functions might be needed, such as the Network Operations
Center (NOC) [I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity]. The protocol
must be capable of supporting such discovery during
initialization, as well as discovery during ongoing operation.
D8. The discovery process must not generate excessive traffic and
must take account of sleeping nodes.
D9. There must be a mechanism for handling stale discovery results.
E.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability
Autonomic networks need to be able to manage many different types of
parameter and consider many dimensions, such as latency, load, unused
or limited resources, conflicting resource requests, security
settings, power saving, load balancing, etc. Status information and
resource metrics need to be shared between nodes for dynamic
adjustment of resources and for monitoring purposes. While this
might be achieved by existing protocols when they are available, the
new protocol needs to be able to support parameter exchange,
including mutual synchronization, even when no negotiation as such is
required. In general, these parameters do not apply to all
participating nodes, but only to a subset.
SN1. A basic requirement for the protocol is therefore the ability
to represent, discover, synchronize and negotiate almost any kind of
network parameter among selected subsets of participating nodes.
SN2. Negotiation is an iterative request/response process that must
be guaranteed to terminate (with success or failure). While tie-
breaking rules must be defined specifically for each use case, the
protocol should have some general mechanisms in support of loop and
deadlock prevention, such as hop count limits or timeouts.
SN3. Synchronization must be possible for groups of nodes ranging
from small to very large.
SN4. To avoid "reinventing the wheel", the protocol should be able
to encapsulate the data formats used by existing configuration
protocols (such as NETCONF/YANG) in cases where that is convenient.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 75]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
SN5. Human intervention in complex situations is costly and error-
prone. Therefore, synchronization or negotiation of parameters
without human intervention is desirable whenever the coordination of
multiple devices can improve overall network performance. It follows
that the protocol's resource requirements must be small enough to fit
in any device that would otherwise need human intervention. The
issue of running in constrained nodes is discussed in
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model].
SN6. Human intervention in large networks is often replaced by use
of a top-down network management system (NMS). It therefore follows
that the protocol, as part of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure, should be capable of running in any device that would
otherwise be managed by an NMS, and that it can co-exist with an NMS,
and with protocols such as SNMP and NETCONF.
SN7. Specific autonomic features are expected to be implemented by
individual ASAs, but the protocol must be general enough to allow
them. Some examples follow:
o Dependencies and conflicts: In order to decide upon a
configuration for a given device, the device may need information
from neighbors. This can be established through the negotiation
procedure, or through synchronization if that is sufficient.
However, a given item in a neighbor may depend on other
information from its own neighbors, which may need another
negotiation or synchronization procedure to obtain or decide.
Therefore, there are potential dependencies and conflicts among
negotiation or synchronization procedures. Resolving dependencies
and conflicts is a matter for the individual ASAs involved. To
allow this, there need to be clear boundaries and convergence
mechanisms for negotiations. Also some mechanisms are needed to
avoid loop dependencies or uncontrolled growth in a tree of
dependencies. It is the ASA designer's responsibility to avoid or
detect looping dependencies or excessive growth of dependency
trees. The protocol's role is limited to bilateral signaling
between ASAs, and the avoidance of loops during bilateral
signaling.
o Recovery from faults and identification of faulty devices should
be as automatic as possible. The protocol's role is limited to
discovery, synchronization and negotiation. These processes can
occur at any time, and an ASA may need to repeat any of these
steps when the ASA detects an event such as a negotiation
counterpart failing.
o Since a major goal is to minimize human intervention, it is
necessary that the network can in effect "think ahead" before
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 76]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
changing its parameters. One aspect of this is an ASA that relies
on a knowledge base to predict network behavior. This is out of
scope for the signaling protocol. However, another aspect is
forecasting the effect of a change by a "dry run" negotiation
before actually installing the change. Signaling a dry run is
therefore a desirable feature of the protocol.
Note that management logging, monitoring, alerts and tools for
intervention are required. However, these can only be features of
individual ASAs, not of the protocol itself. Another document
[I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity] discusses how such agents may be
linked into conventional OAM systems via an Autonomic Control Plane
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane].
SN8. The protocol will be able to deal with a wide variety of
technical objectives, covering any type of network parameter.
Therefore the protocol will need a flexible and easily extensible
format for describing objectives. At a later stage it may be
desirable to adopt an explicit information model. One consideration
is whether to adopt an existing information model or to design a new
one.
E.3. Specific Technical Requirements
T1. It should be convenient for ASA designers to define new
technical objectives and for programmers to express them, without
excessive impact on run-time efficiency and footprint. In
particular, it should be convenient for ASAs to be implemented
independently of each other as user space programs rather than as
kernel code, where such a programming model is possible. The classes
of device in which the protocol might run is discussed in
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model].
T2. The protocol should be easily extensible in case the initially
defined discovery, synchronization and negotiation mechanisms prove
to be insufficient.
T3. To be a generic platform, the protocol payload format should be
independent of the transport protocol or IP version. In particular,
it should be able to run over IPv6 or IPv4. However, some functions,
such as multicasting on a link, might need to be IP version
dependent. By default, IPv6 should be preferred.
T4. The protocol must be able to access off-link counterparts via
routable addresses, i.e., must not be restricted to link-local
operation.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 77]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
T5. It must also be possible for an external discovery mechanism to
be used, if appropriate for a given technical objective. In other
words, GRASP discovery must not be a prerequisite for GRASP
negotiation or synchronization.
T6. The protocol must be capable of distinguishing multiple
simultaneous operations with one or more peers, especially when wait
states occur.
T7. Intent: Although the distribution of Intent is out of scope for
this document, the protocol must not by design exclude its use for
Intent distribution.
T8. Management monitoring, alerts and intervention: Devices should
be able to report to a monitoring system. Some events must be able
to generate operator alerts and some provision for emergency
intervention must be possible (e.g. to freeze synchronization or
negotiation in a mis-behaving device). These features might not use
the signaling protocol itself, but its design should not exclude such
use.
T9. Because this protocol may directly cause changes to device
configurations and have significant impacts on a running network, all
protocol exchanges need to be fully secured against forged messages
and man-in-the middle attacks, and secured as much as reasonably
possible against denial of service attacks. There must also be an
encryption mechanism to resist unwanted monitoring. However, it is
not required that the protocol itself provides these security
features; it may depend on an existing secure environment.
Appendix F. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols
This appendix discusses various existing protocols with properties
related to the requirements described in Appendix E. The purpose is
to evaluate whether any existing protocol, or a simple combination of
existing protocols, can meet those requirements.
Numerous protocols include some form of discovery, but these all
appear to be very specific in their applicability. Service Location
Protocol (SLP) [RFC2608] provides service discovery for managed
networks, but requires configuration of its own servers. DNS-SD
[RFC6763] combined with mDNS [RFC6762] provides service discovery for
small networks with a single link layer. [RFC7558] aims to extend
this to larger autonomous networks but this is not yet standardized.
However, both SLP and DNS-SD appear to target primarily application
layer services, not the layer 2 and 3 objectives relevant to basic
network configuration. Both SLP and DNS-SD are text-based protocols.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 78]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3416] uses a command/
response model not well suited for peer negotiation. Network
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] uses an RPC model that
does allow positive or negative responses from the target system, but
this is still not adequate for negotiation.
There are various existing protocols that have elementary negotiation
abilities, such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) [RFC3315], Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861], Port Control
Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887], Remote Authentication Dial In User Service
(RADIUS) [RFC2865], Diameter [RFC6733], etc. Most of them are
configuration or management protocols. However, they either provide
only a simple request/response model in a master/slave context or
very limited negotiation abilities.
There are some signaling protocols with an element of negotiation.
For example Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] was
designed for negotiating quality of service parameters along the path
of a unicast or multicast flow. RSVP is a very specialised protocol
aimed at end-to-end flows. A more generic design is General Internet
Signalling Transport (GIST) [RFC5971], but it is complex, tries to
solve many problems, and is also aimed at per-flow signaling across
many hops rather than at device-to-device signaling. However, we
cannot completely exclude extended RSVP or GIST as a synchronization
and negotiation protocol. They do not appear to be directly useable
for peer discovery.
RESTCONF [RFC8040] is a protocol intended to convey NETCONF
information expressed in the YANG language via HTTP, including the
ability to transit HTML intermediaries. While this is a powerful
approach in the context of centralised configuration of a complex
network, it is not well adapted to efficient interactive negotiation
between peer devices, especially simple ones that might not include
YANG processing already.
The Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP) [RFC7787] is defined
as a generic form of state synchronization protocol, with a proposed
usage profile being the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP)
[RFC7788] for configuring Homenet routers. A specific application of
DNCP for autonomic networking was proposed in
[I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp].
DNCP "is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples, and to provide a
shared and common view about the data published... DNCP is most
suitable for data that changes only infrequently... If constant rapid
state changes are needed, the preferable choice is to use an
additional point-to-point channel..."
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 79]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Specific features of DNCP include:
o Every participating node has a unique node identifier.
o DNCP messages are encoded as a sequence of TLV objects, sent over
unicast UDP or TCP, with or without (D)TLS security.
o Multicast is used only for discovery of DNCP neighbors when lower
security is acceptable.
o Synchronization of state is maintained by a flooding process using
the Trickle algorithm. There is no bilateral synchronization or
negotiation capability.
o The HNCP profile of DNCP is designed to operate between directly
connected neighbors on a shared link using UDP and link-local IPv6
addresses.
DNCP does not meet the needs of a general negotiation protocol,
because it is designed specifically for flooding synchronization.
Also, in its HNCP profile it is limited to link-local messages and to
IPv6. However, at the minimum it is a very interesting test case for
this style of interaction between devices without needing a central
authority, and it is a proven method of network-wide state
synchronization by flooding.
The Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP) [RFC2334] also
describes a method for cache synchronization and cache replication
among a group of nodes.
A proposal was made some years ago for an IP based Generic Control
Protocol (IGCP) [I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp]. This was aimed at
information exchange and negotiation but not directly at peer
discovery. However, it has many points in common with the present
work.
None of the above solutions appears to completely meet the needs of
generic discovery, state synchronization and negotiation in a single
solution. Many of the protocols assume that they are working in a
traditional top-down or north-south scenario, rather than a fluid
peer-to-peer scenario. Most of them are specialized in one way or
another. As a result, we have not identified a combination of
existing protocols that meets the requirements in Appendix E. Also,
we have not identified a path by which one of the existing protocols
could be extended to meet the requirements.
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 80]
Internet-Draft GRASP July 2017
Authors' Addresses
Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen
Germany
Email: cabo@tzi.org
Brian Carpenter (editor)
Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland
PB 92019
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Bing Liu (editor)
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Q14, Huawei Campus
No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095
P.R. China
Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com
Bormann, et al. Expires January 8, 2018 [Page 81]
