Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp
draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp
Network Working Group F. L. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft G. Saccone
Intended status: Informational Boeing Research & Technology
Expires: 25 April 2024 G. Dawra
LinkedIn
A. Lindem
LabN Consulting LLC
V. Moreno
Cisco Systems, Inc.
23 October 2023
A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical
Telecommunications Network
draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-25
Abstract
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is investigating
mobile routing solutions for a worldwide Aeronautical
Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS).
The ATN/IPS will eventually replace existing communication services
with an IP-based service supporting pervasive Air Traffic Management
(ATM) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline Operations
Controllers (AOC), and all commercial aircraft worldwide. This
informational document describes a simple and extensible mobile
routing service based on industry-standard BGP to address the ATN/IPS
requirements.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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 25 April 2024.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. ATN/IPS Routing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. ATN/IPS (Radio) Access Network (ANET) Model . . . . . . . . . 14
5. ATN/IPS Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. BGP Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Stub AS Mobile Routing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10.1. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Considerations . . . . . 22
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix A. BGP Convergence Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix B. AERO/OMNI Spanning Tree Properties . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Introduction
The worldwide Air Traffic Management (ATM) system today uses a
service known as Aeronautical Telecommunications Network based on
Open Systems Interconnection (ATN/OSI). The service is used to
augment controller to pilot voice communications with rudimentary
short text command and control messages. The service has seen
successful deployment in some worldwide ATM domains.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is now engaged
in the development of a next-generation replacement for ATN/OSI known
as Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Services (ATN/IPS) [ATN][ATN-IPS]. ATN/IPS will eventually provide
an Internetworking service supporting pervasive ATM for Air Traffic
Controllers (ATC), Airline Operations Controllers (AOC), and all
commercial aircraft worldwide. The ATN/IPS will require a new mobile
routing service as a core element of the architecture. This document
presents an approach based on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
[RFC4271].
Aircraft communicate via wireless aviation data links that typically
support much lower data rates than terrestrial wireless and wired-
line communications. For example, some Very High Frequency (VHF)-
based data links only support data rates on the order of 32Kbps and
an emerging L-Band data link that is expected to play a key role in
future aeronautical communications only supports rates on the order
of 1Mbps. Although satellite data links can provide much higher data
rates during optimal conditions, like any other aviation data link
they are subject to errors, delay, disruption, signal intermittence,
degradation due to atmospheric conditions, etc. The well-connected
ground domain ATN/IPS network should therefore treat each safety-of-
flight critical packet produced by (or destined to) an aircraft as a
precious commodity and strive for an optimized service that provides
the highest possible degree of reliability. Furthermore, continuous
performance-intensive control messaging services such as BGP peering
sessions must be carried only over the well-connected ground domain
ATN/IPS network and never over low-end aviation data links.
The ATN/IPS is an IP-based overlay network configured over one or
more Internetworking underlays ("INETs") maintained by aeronautical
network service providers such as ARINC, SITA and Inmarsat. The
Overlay Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]
uses an adaptation layer encapsulation to create a Non-Broadcast,
Multiple Access (NBMA) virtual link spanning the entire ATN/IPS.
Each aircraft connects to the OMNI link via an OMNI interface
configured over the aircraft's underlying physical and/or virtual
access network interfaces.
Each underlying INET comprises one or more "partitions" where all
nodes within a partition can exchange packets with all other nodes,
i.e., the partition is connected internally. There is no requirement
that each INET partition uses the same IP protocol version nor has
consistent IP addressing plans in relation to other partitions.
Instead, the OMNI link sees each partition as a "segment" of a lower
layer topology concatenated by a service known as the OMNI Adaptation
Layer (OAL) [I-D.templin-intarea-omni] based on IPv6 encapsulation
[RFC2473].
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
The IPv6 addressing architecture provides different classes of
addresses, including Global Unicast Addresses (GUAs), Unique Local
Addresses (ULAs) and Link-Local Addresses (LLAs) [RFC4291][RFC4193].
The ATN/IPS receives an IPv6 GUA Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) from
an Internet assigned numbers authority, and each aircraft will
receive a Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) delegation from the MSP that
accompanies the aircraft wherever it travels. ATCs and AOCs will
likewise receive MNPs, but they would typically appear in static (not
mobile) deployments such as air traffic control towers, airline
headquarters, etc. (Note that while IPv6 GUAs are assumed for ATN/
IPS, IPv4 with public/private addresses could also be used.)
The OAL uses ULAs for adaptation layer addressing. Each ULA includes
a prefix beginning with "fd00::/8" followed by a 40-bit Global ID and
a 16-bit Subnet ID as "fd{Global ID}:{Subnet ID}::/64". Each
aircraft ULA includes an MNP in the interface identifier ("ULA-MNP"),
as discussed in [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]. Due to MNP delegation
policies and random node mobility properties, ULA-MNPs are generally
not aggregable in the BGP routing service and are represented as many
more-specific prefixes instead of a smaller number of aggregated
prefixes.
BGP routing service infrastructure nodes additionally configure ULAs
with randomized interface identifiers ("ULA-RND") that are
statically-assigned and derived from a shorter ULA prefix assigned to
their BGP network partitions. Unlike ULA-MNPs, the ULA-RNDs are
persistently present and unchanging in the routing system. The BGP
routing services therefore establish forwarding table entries based
on these adaptation layer ULA-MNPs and ULA-RNDs instead of based on
the network layer GUA MNPs. However, nodes set the 40-bit Global ID
and 16-bit Subnet ID to 0 ("wildcard") when they advertise ULA-MNPs
in BGP routing exchanges and/or install ULA-MNPs in forwarding tables
since the MNP uniquely addresses the aircraft regardless of its
current BGP network partition affiliation(s).
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
When an OMNI interface forwards an original IP packet, the OAL
performs IPv6 encapsulation using ULA-RNDs and/or ULA-MNPs as source
and destination addresses. The OAL next subjects each resulting "OAL
packet" to IPv6 fragmentation and header compression, then
encapsulates each fragment in INET headers specific to the underlying
Internetwork. These resulting "carrier packets" then traverse a
series of Internetworks connected by OAL intermediate nodes which re-
encapsulate them in new INET headers for traversal of the next
Internetwork in succession. (The carrier packets may themselves be
subject to IP layer fragmentation/reassembly during each successive
Internetwork traversal at a layer below the OAL.) The carrier
packets finally arrive at the OAL destination which performs
adaptation layer decapsulation and reassembly to restore the original
IP packet. A high-level ATN/IPS network diagram is shown in
Figure 1:
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| Aircraft 1 | | Aircraft 2 | .... | Aircraft N |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
(OMNI Interface) (OMNI Interface) (OMNI Interface)
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ Aviation / \ Data Links / \
...........................................................
. .
. (:::)-. .
. .-(::::::::) .
. .-(:::: INET 1 ::)-. .
. (:::: e.g., IPv6 :::) .
. ATN/IPS `-(:::::::::::::)-' IPv6-based .
. `-(:::::::-' .
. OMNI Adaptation BGP Mobile .
. (:::)-. .
. Layer Overlay .-(::::::::) Routing Service .
. .-(:::: INET 2 ::)-. .
. (IP GUAs) (:::: e.g., IPv4 :::) (IPv6 ULAs) .
. `-(:::::::::::::)-' .
. `-(:::::::-' .
. .
. (:: additional INETs ::) .
. .
.............................................................
| Fixed | Data Links |
| | |
(OMNI Interface) (OMNI Interface) (OMNI Interface)
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
| ATC/AOC 1 | | ATC/AOC 2 | .... | ATC/AOC M |
+------------+ +------------+ +------------+
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Figure 1: ATN/IPS Network Diagram
Connexion By Boeing [CBB] was an early aviation mobile routing
service based on dynamic updates in the global public Internet BGP
routing system. Practical experience with the approach has shown
that frequent injections and withdrawals of prefixes in the Internet
routing system can result in excessive BGP update messaging, slow
routing table convergence times, and extended outages when no route
is available. This is due to both conservative default BGP protocol
timing parameters (see Section 6) and the complex peering
interconnections of BGP routers within the global Internet
infrastructure. The situation is further exacerbated by frequent
aircraft mobility events that each result in BGP updates which must
be propagated to all BGP routers in the Internet with full routing
tables.
We therefore consider a routing system using an overlay network that
maintains a private BGP routing protocol instance between ATN/IPS
Autonomous System (AS) Border Routers (ASBRs). The private BGP
instance does not interact with the native BGP routing systems in
underlying INETs, and BGP updates are unidirectional from "stub"
ASBRs (s-ASBRs) to a small set of "core" ASBRs (c-ASBRs) in a hub-
and-spokes topology. No extensions to the BGP protocol are
necessary, and BGP routing is based on (intermediate-layer) ULAs
instead of upper- or lower-layer public/private IP prefixes. This
allows ASBRs to perform adaptation layer forwarding based on
intermediate layer IPv6 header information instead of network layer
forwarding based on upper layer IP header information or link layer
forwarding based on lower layer IP header information.
The s-ASBRs for each stub AS connect to a small number of c-ASBRs via
secured direct point-to-point links and/or secured tunnels (e.g.,
IPsec [RFC4301], etc.) over the underlying INET. Neighboring c-ASBRs
should also use IP layer or lower-layer security services over their
connecting links to ensure INET layer security.
The s-ASBRs engage in external BGP (eBGP) peerings with their
respective c-ASBRs, and only maintain routing table entries for the
ULA-MNPs currently active within the stub AS. The s-ASBRs send BGP
updates for ULA-MNP injections or withdrawals to c-ASBRs but do not
receive any BGP updates from c-ASBRs. Instead, the s-ASBRs maintain
default routes with their c-ASBRs as the next hop, and therefore hold
only partial topology information.
The c-ASBRs connect to other c-ASBRs within the same partition using
internal BGP (iBGP) peerings over which they collaboratively maintain
a full routing table for all active ULA-MNPs currently in service
within the partition. Therefore, only the c-ASBRs maintain a full
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
BGP routing table and never send any BGP updates to s-ASBRs. This
simple routing model therefore greatly reduces the number of BGP
updates that need to be synchronized among peers, and the number is
reduced further still when intradomain routing changes within stub
ASes are processed within the AS instead of being propagated to the
core. BGP Route Reflectors (RRs) [RFC4456] can also be used to
support increased scaling properties.
When there are multiple INET partitions, the c-ASBRs of each
partition use eBGP to peer with the c-ASBRs of other partitions so
that the full set of ULAs for all partitions are known globally among
all of the c-ASBRs. Each c/s-ASBR further configures a ULA-RND taken
from a ULA prefix assigned to each partition, as well as static
forwarding table entries for all other OMNI link partition prefixes.
With these intra- and inter-INET BGP peerings in place, a forwarding
plane spanning tree is established that properly covers the entire
operating domain. All nodes in the network can be visited using
strict spanning tree hops, but in many instances this may result in
longer paths than are necessary. AERO [I-D.templin-intarea-aero]
provides an example service for discovering and utilizing (route-
optimized) shortcuts that do not always follow strict spanning tree
paths.
The remainder of this document discusses the proposed BGP-based ATN/
IPS mobile routing service.
2. Terminology
The terms Autonomous System (AS) and Autonomous System Border Router
(ASBR) are the same as defined in [RFC4271]. The term Internet
Protocol (IP) refers generically to either protocol version unless
specifically qualified as IPv4 [RFC0791] or IPv6 [RFC8200].
The following terms are defined for the purposes of this document:
Air Traffic Management (ATM)
The worldwide service for coordinating safe aviation operations.
Air Traffic Controller (ATC)
A government agent responsible for coordinating with aircraft
within a defined operational region via voice and/or data Command
and Control messaging.
Airline Operations Controller (AOC)
An airline agent responsible for tracking and coordinating with
aircraft within their fleet.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol
Services (ATN/IPS)
A future aviation network for ATCs and AOCs to coordinate with all
aircraft operating worldwide. The ATN/IPS will provide an IP-
based overlay network service that connects access networks via
encapsulation and forwarding over one or more Internetworking
underlays.
Internetworking underlay ("INET")
A wide-area network that supports overlay network encapsulation/
forwarding and connects Radio Access Networks to the rest of the
ATN/IPS. Example INET service providers for civil aviation
include ARINC, SITA and Inmarsat.
(Radio) Access Network ("ANET")
An aviation radio data link service provider's network, including
radio transmitters and receivers as well as supporting ground-
domain infrastructure needed to convey a customer's data packets
to outside INETs. The term ANET is intended in the same spirit as
for radio-based Internet service provider networks (e.g., cellular
operators), but can also refer to ground-domain networks that
connect AOCs and ATCs.
partition (or "segment")
A fully-connected internal subnetwork of an INET in which all
nodes can communicate with all other nodes within the same
partition using the same IP protocol version and addressing plan.
Each INET consists of one or more partitions.
Overlay Multilink Network Interface (OMNI)
A virtual layer 2 bridging service that presents an ATN/IPS
overlay unified link view even though the underlay may consist of
multiple INET partitions. The OMNI virtual link is manifested
through nested encapsulation in which original IP packets from the
ATN/IPS are first encapsulated in ULA-addressed IPv6 headers which
are then forwarded to the next hop using INET encapsulation if
necessary. Forwarding over the OMNI virtual link is therefore
based on ULAs instead of the original IP addresses. In this way,
packets sent from a source can be conveyed over the OMNI virtual
link even though there may be many underlying INET partitions in
the path to the destination.
OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL)
A middle layer below the IP layer but above the INET layer that
forwards original IP packets by applying IPv6 encapsulation,
fragmentation and header compression followed by INET
encapsulation to form "carrier packets". End systems that
configure OMNI interfaces act as the OAL source and destination,
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
while intermediate systems with OMNI interfaces act as OAL
forwarding nodes. Regardless of the number of intermediate
systems in the path, the network layer IP TTL/Hop Limit is not
decremented during (OAL layer) forwarding. Further details on
OMNI and the OAL are found in [I-D.templin-intarea-omni].
OAL Autonomous System (OAL AS)
A "hub-of-hubs" autonomous system maintained through peerings
between the core autonomous systems of different OMNI virtual link
partitions.
Core Autonomous System Border Router (c-ASBR)
A BGP router located in the hub of the INET partition hub-and-
spokes overlay network topology.
Core Autonomous System (Core AS)
The "hub" autonomous system maintained by all c-ASBRs within the
same partition.
Stub Autonomous System Border Router (s-ASBR)
A BGP router configured as a spoke in the INET partition hub-and-
spokes overlay network topology.
Stub Autonomous System (Stub AS)
A logical grouping that includes all Clients currently associated
with a given s-ASBR.
Client
An ATC, AOC or aircraft that connects to the ATN/IPS as a leaf
node. The Client could be a singleton host, or a router that
connects a mobile or fixed network.
Proxy/Server
An ANET/INET border node that acts as a transparent intermediary
between Clients and s-ASBRs. From the Client's perspective, the
Proxy/Server presents the appearance that the Client is
communicating directly with the s-ASBR. From the s-ASBR's
perspective, the Proxy/Server presents the appearance that the
s-ASBR is communicating directly with the Client.
Mobile Network Prefix (MNP)
An IP prefix that is delegated to any ATN/IPS end system,
including ATCs, AOCs, and aircraft.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Mobility Service Prefix (MSP)
An aggregated IP prefix assigned to the ATN/IPS by an Internet
assigned numbers authority, and from which all MNPs are delegated
(e.g., up to 2**32 IPv6 /56 MNPs could be delegated from a /24
MSP).
3. ATN/IPS Routing System
The ATN/IPS routing system comprises a private BGP instance
coordinated in an overlay network via tunnels between neighboring
ASBRs over one or more underlying INETs. The ATN/IPS routing system
interacts with underlying INET BGP routing systems only through the
static advertisement of a small and unchanging set of MSPs instead of
the full dynamically changing set of MNPs.
Within each INET partition, each s-ASBR connects a stub AS to the
INET partition core using a distinct stub AS Number (ASN). Each
s-ASBR further uses eBGP to peer with one or more c-ASBRs. All
c-ASBRs are members of the INET partition core AS, and use a shared
core ASN. Unique ASNs are assigned according to the standard 32-bit
ASN format [RFC4271][RFC6793]. Since the BGP instance does not
connect with any INET BGP routing systems, the ASNs can be assigned
from the [RFC6996] 32-bit ASN space which reserves 94,967,295 numbers
for private use. The ASNs must be allocated and managed by an ATN/
IPS assigned numbers authority established by ICAO, which must ensure
that ASNs are responsibly distributed without duplication and/or
overlap.
The c-ASBRs use iBGP to maintain a synchronized consistent view of
all active ULA-MNPs currently in service within the INET partition.
Figure 2 below represents the reference INET partition deployment.
(Note that the figure shows details for only two s-ASBRs (s-ASBR1 and
s-ASBR2) due to space constraints, but the other s-ASBRs should be
understood to have similar Stub AS, MNP and eBGP peering
arrangements.) The solution described in this document is flexible
enough to extend to these topologies.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
...........................................................
. .
. (:::)-. <- Stub ASes -> (:::)-. .
. MNPs-> .-(:::::::::) .-(:::::::::) <-MNPs .
. `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' .
. +-------+ +-------+ .
. |s-ASBR1+-----+ +-----+s-ASBR2| .
. +--+----+ eBGP \ / eBGP +-----+-+ .
. \ \/ / .
. \eBGP / \ /eBGP .
. \ / \ / .
. +-------+ +-------+ .
. eBGP+-----+c-ASBR |...|c-ASBR +-----+eBGP .
. +-------+ / +--+----+ +-----+-+ \ +-------+ .
. |s-ASBR +/ iBGP\ (:::)-. /iBGP \+s-ASBR | .
. +-------+ .-(::::::::) +-------+ .
. . .-(::::::::::::::)-. . .
. . (:::: Core AS :::) . .
. +-------+ `-(:::::::::::::)-' +-------+ .
. |s-ASBR +\ iBGP/`-(:::::::-'\iBGP /+s-ASBR | .
. +-------+ \ +-+-----+ +----+--+ / +-------+ .
. eBGP+-----+c-ASBR |...|c-ASBR +-----+eBGP .
. +-------+ +-------+ .
. / \ .
. /eBGP \eBGP .
. / \ .
. +---+---+ +-----+-+ .
. |s-ASBR | |s-ASBR | .
. +-------+ +-------+ .
. .
. .
. <----------------- INET Partition -------------------> .
............................................................
Figure 2: INET Partition Reference Deployment
In the reference deployment, each s-ASBR maintains routes for active
ULA-MNPs that currently belong to its stub AS. In response to
"Inter-domain" mobility events, each s-ASBR dynamically announces new
ULA-MNPs and withdraws departed ULA-MNPs in its eBGP updates to
c-ASBRs. Since ATN/IPS end systems are expected to remain within the
same stub AS for extended timeframes, however, intra-domain mobility
events (such as an aircraft handing off between cell towers) are
handled within the stub AS instead of being propagated as inter-
domain eBGP updates.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Each c-ASBR configures a black-hole route for each of its MSPs. By
black-holing the MSPs, the c-ASBR maintains forwarding table entries
only for the ULA-MNPs that are currently active. If an arriving
packet matches a black-hole route without matching an ULA-MNP, the
c-ASBR should drop the packet and may also generate an ICMPv6
Destination Unreachable message [RFC4443], i.e., without forwarding
the packet outside of the ATN/IPS overlay based on a less-specific
route.
The c-ASBRs do not send BGP updates for ULA-MNPs to s-ASBRs, but
instead originate a default route. In this way, s-ASBRs have only
partial topology knowledge (i.e., they know only about the active
ULA-MNPs currently within their stub ASes) and they forward all other
packets to c-ASBRs which have full topology knowledge.
Each s-ASBR and c-ASBR configures an ULA-RND that is aggregable
within an INET partition, and each partition configures a unique ULA
prefix that is permanently announced into the routing system. The
core ASes of each INET partition are joined together through external
BGP peerings. The c-ASBRs of each partition establish external
peerings with the c-ASBRs of other partitions to form a "core-of-
cores" OMNI link AS. The OMNI link AS contains the global knowledge
of all ULA-MNPs deployed worldwide, and supports ATN/IPS overlay
communications between nodes located in different INET partitions by
virtue of OAL encapsulation. OMNI link nodes can then navigate to
ASBRs by including an ULA-RND or directly to an end system by
including an ULA-MNP in the destination address of an OAL-
encapsulated packet (see: [I-D.templin-intarea-aero]). Figure 3
shows a reference OAL topology.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. .-(::::::::) .
. .-(::::::::::::)-. +------+ .
. (::: Partition 1 ::)--|c-ASBR|---+ .
. `-(::::::::::::)-' +------+ | .
. `-(::::::)-' | .
. | .
. .-(::::::::) | .
. .-(::::::::::::)-. +------+ | .
. (::: Partition 2 ::)--|c-ASBR|---+ .
. `-(::::::::::::)-' +------+ | .
. `-(::::::)-' | .
. | .
. .-(::::::::) | .
. .-(::::::::::::)-. +------+ | .
. (::: Partition 3 ::)--|c-ASBR|---+ .
. `-(::::::::::::)-' +------+ | .
. `-(::::::)-' | .
. | .
. ..(etc).. x .
. .
. .
. <- ATN/IPS Overlay Bridged by the OAL AS -> .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3: Spanning Partitions with the OAL
Scaling properties of this ATN/IPS routing system are limited by the
number of BGP routes that can be carried by the c-ASBRs. A 2015
study showed that BGP routers in the global public Internet at that
time carried more than 500K routes with linear growth and no signs of
router resource exhaustion [BGP]. A more recent network emulation
study also showed that a single c-ASBR can accommodate at least 1M
dynamically changing BGP routes even on a lightweight virtual
machine. Commercially-available high-performance dedicated router
hardware can support many millions of routes.
Therefore, assuming each c-ASBR can carry 1M or more routes, this
means that at least 1M ATN/IPS end system ULA-MNPs can be serviced by
a single set of c-ASBRs and that number could be further increased by
using RRs and/or more powerful routers. Another means of increasing
scale would be to assign a different set of c-ASBRs for each set of
MSPs. In that case, each s-ASBR still peers with one or more c-ASBRs
from each set of c-ASBRs, but the s-ASBR institutes route filters so
that it only sends BGP updates to the specific set of c-ASBRs that
aggregate the MSP. In this way, each set of c-ASBRs maintains
separate routing and forwarding tables so that scaling is distributed
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
across multiple c-ASBR sets instead of concentrated in a single
c-ASBR set. For example, a first c-ASBR set could aggregate an MSP
segment A::/32, a second set could aggregate B::/32, a third could
aggregate C::/32, etc. The union of all MSP segments would then
constitute the collective MSP(s) for the entire ATN/IPS, with
potential for supporting many millions of mobile networks or more.
In this design, each set of c-ASBRs services a specific set of MSPs,
and each s-ASBR configures MSP-specific routes that list the correct
set of c-ASBRs as next hops. This also allows for natural
incremental deployment, and can support initial medium-scale
deployments followed by dynamic deployment of additional ATN/IPS
infrastructure elements without disturbing the already-deployed base.
For example, additional c-ASBRs can be added later if the MNP service
demand ever outgrows the initial deployment. For larger-scale
applications (such as unmanned air vehicles and terrestrial vehicles)
even larger scales can be accommodated by adding more c-ASBRs.
Consider now that the c-ASBRs provide adaptation layer gateways
between independent Internetworks to form a true network-of-networks
supporting the ATN/IPS overlay. This same arrangement was first
envisioned by the "Catenet Model for Internetworking"
[IEN48][IEN48-2] circa 1978.
4. ATN/IPS (Radio) Access Network (ANET) Model
(Radio) Access Networks (ANETs) connect end system Clients such as
aircraft, ATCs, AOCs etc. to the ATN/IPS routing system. Clients may
connect to multiple ANETs at once, for example, when they have
satellite, cellular, WiFi and/or other data links activated
simultaneously. Each Client configures an OMNI interface
[I-D.templin-intarea-omni] over its underlying ANET interfaces as a
connection to an NBMA virtual link (manifested by the OAL) that spans
the entire ATN/IPS. Clients may further move between ANETs in a
manner that is perceived as a network layer mobility event. Clients
should therefore employ a multilink/mobility routing service such as
those discussed in Section 7.
Clients register their active data link connections with their
serving s-ASBRs as discussed in Section 3. Clients may connect to
s-ASBRs either directly, or via a Proxy/Server at the ANET/INET
boundary.
Figure 4 shows the ATN/IPS ANET model where Clients connect to ANETs
via aviation data links. Clients register their ANET addresses with
a nearby s-ASBR, where the registration process may be brokered by a
Proxy/Server at the edge of the ANET.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
+-----------------+
| Client |
Data Link "A" +-----------------+ Data Link "B"
+----- | OMNI Interface |--------+
/ +-----------------+ \
/ \
/ \
(:::)-. (:::)-.
.-(:::::::::)<- (Radio) Access Networks ->.-(:::::::::)
`-(::::)-' `-(::::)-'
+-------+ +-------+
... | P/S | ............................ | P/S | ...
. +-------+ +-------+ .
. ^^ ^^ .
. || || .
. || +--------+ || .
. ++============> | s-ASBR | <============++ .
. +--------+ .
. | eBGP .
. (:::)-. .
. .-(::::::::) .
. .-(::: ATN/IPS :::)-. .
. (::::: BGP Routing ::::) .
. `-(:: System ::::)-' .
. `-(:::::::-' .
. .
. .
. <------- OMNI virtual link bridged by the OAL --------> .
............................................................
Figure 4: ATN/IPS ANET Architecture
When a Client connects to an ANET it specifies a nearby s-ASBR that
it has selected to connect to the ATN/IPS. The login process is
transparently brokered by a Proxy/Server at the border of the ANET
which then conveys the connection request to the s-ASBR via
adaptation layer encapsulation and forwarding across the OMNI virtual
link. Each ANET border Proxy/Server is also equally capable of
serving in the s-ASBR role so that a first on-link Proxy/Server can
be selected as the s-ASBR while all others perform the Proxy/Server
role in a hub-and-spokes arrangement. An on-link Proxy/Server is
selected to serve the s-ASBR role when it receives a control message
from a Client specifically requesting that service.
The Client can coordinate with a network-based s-ASBR over additional
ANETs after it has already coordinated with a first-hop Proxy/Server
over a first ANET. If the Client connects to multiple ANETs, the
s-ASBR will register the individual ANET Proxy/Servers as conduits
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
through which the Client can be reached. The Client then sees the
s-ASBR as the "hub" in a "hub-and-spokes" arrangement with the first-
hop Proxy/Servers as spokes. Selection of a network-based s-ASBR is
through the discovery methods specified in relevant mobility and
virtual link coordination specifications (e.g., see AERO
[I-D.templin-intarea-aero] and OMNI [I-D.templin-intarea-omni]).
The s-ASBR represents all of its active Clients as ULA-MNP routes in
the ATN/IPS BGP routing system. The s-ASBR's stub AS is therefore
used only to advertise the set of MNPs of all its active Clients to
its BGP peer c-ASBRs and not to peer with other s-ASBRs (i.e., the
stub AS is a logical construct and not a physical one). The s-ASBR
injects the ULA-MNPs of its active Clients and withdraws the ULA-MNPs
of its departed Clients via BGP updates to c-ASBRs, which further
propagate the ULA-MNPs to other c-ASBRs within the OAL AS. Since
Clients are expected to remain associated with their current s-ASBR
for extended periods, the level of ULA-MNP injections and withdrawals
in the BGP routing system will be on the order of the numbers of
network joins, leaves and s-ASBR handovers for aircraft operations
(see: Section 6). It is important to observe that fine-grained
events such as Client mobility and Quality of Service (QoS) signaling
are coordinated only by the Client's current s-ASBRs, and do not
involve other ASBRs in the routing system. In this way, intradomain
routing changes within the stub AS are not propagated into the rest
of the ATN/IPS BGP routing system.
5. ATN/IPS Route Optimization
ATN/IPS end systems will frequently need to communicate with
correspondents associated with other s-ASBRs. In the BGP peering
topology discussed in Section 3, this can initially only be
accommodated by including multiple extraneous hops and/or spanning
tree segments in the forwarding path. In many cases, it would be
desirable to establish a "short cut" around this "dogleg" route so
that packets can traverse a minimum number of forwarding hops across
the OMNI virtual link. ATN/IPS end systems could therefore employ a
route optimization service according to the mobility service employed
(see: Section 7).
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Each s-ASBR provides designated routing services for only a subset of
all active Clients, and instead acts as a simple Proxy/Server for
other Clients. As a designated router, the s-ASBR advertises the
MNPs of each of its active Clients into the ATN/IPS routing system
and provides basic (unoptimized) forwarding services when necessary.
An s-ASBR could be the first-hop ATN/IPS service access point for
some, all or none of a Client's underlying interfaces, while the
Client's other underlying interfaces employ the Proxy/Server function
of other s-ASBRs. Route optimization allows Client-to-Client
communications while bypassing s-ASBR designated routing services
whenever possible.
A route optimization example is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 below.
In the first figure, multiple spanning tree segments between Proxy/
Servers and ASBRs are necessary to convey packets between Clients
associated with different s-ASBRs. In the second figure, the
optimized route forwards encapsulated packets directly between Proxy/
Servers without involving the ASBRs.
These route optimized paths are established through secured control
plane messaging (i.e., over secured tunnels and/or using higher-layer
control message authentications) but do not provide lower-layer
security for the data plane. Data communications over these route
optimized paths should therefore employ higher-layer security.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
+---------+ +---------+
| Client1 | | Client2 |
+---v-----+ +-----^---+
* *
* *
(:::)-. (:::)-.
.-(:::::::::)<- (Radio) Access Networks ->.-(:::::::::)
`-(::::)-' `-(::::)-'
+--------+ +--------+
... | P/S-1 | .......................... | P/S-2 | ...
. +--------+ +--------+ .
. ** ** .
. ** ** .
. ** ** .
. +---------+ +---------+ .
. | s-ASBR1 | | s-ASBR2 | .
. +--+------+ +-----+---+ .
. \ ** Dogleg ** / .
. eBGP\ ** Route ** /eBGP .
. \ **==============** / .
. +---------+ +---------+ .
. | c-ASBR1 | | c-ASBR2 | .
. +---+-----+ +----+----+ .
. +--------------+ .
. iBGP .
. .
. <------- OMNI virtual link bridged by the OAL --------> .
............................................................
Figure 5: Dogleg Route Before Optimization
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
+---------+ +---------+
| Client1 | | Client2 |
+---v-----+ +-----^---+
* *
* *
(:::)-. (:::)-.
.-(:::::::::) <- (Radio) Access Networks ->.-(:::::::::)
`-(::::)-' `-(::::)-'
+--------+ +--------+
... | P/S-1 | .......................... | P/S-2 | ...
. +------v-+ +--^-----+ .
. * * .
. *================================* .
. .
. +---------+ +---------+ .
. | s-ASBR1 | | s-ASBR2 | .
. +--+------+ +-----+---+ .
. \ / .
. eBGP\ /eBGP .
. \ / .
. +---------+ +---------+ .
. | c-ASBR1 | | c-ASBR2 | .
. +---+-----+ +----+----+ .
. +--------------+ .
. iBGP .
. .
. <------- OMNI virtual link bridged by the OAL --------> .
............................................................
Figure 6: Optimized Route
6. BGP Protocol Considerations
The number of eBGP peering sessions that each c-ASBR must service is
proportional to the number of s-ASBRs in its local partition.
Network emulations with lightweight virtual machines have shown that
a single c-ASBR can service at least 100 eBGP peerings from s-ASBRs
that each advertise 10K ULA-MNP routes (i.e., 1M total). It is
expected that robust c-ASBRs can service many more peerings than this
- possibly by multiple orders of magnitude. But even assuming a
conservative limit, the number of s-ASBRs could be increased by also
increasing the number of c-ASBRs. Since c-ASBRs also peer with each
other using iBGP, however, larger-scale c-ASBR deployments may need
to employ an adjunct facility such as BGP Route Reflectors
(RRs)[RFC4456].
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
The number of aircraft in operation at a given time worldwide is
likely to be significantly less than 1M, but we will assume this
number for a worst-case analysis. Assuming a worst-case average 1
hour flight profile from gate-to-gate with 10 service region
transitions per flight, the entire system will need to service at
most 10M BGP updates per hour (2778 updates per second). This number
is within the realm of the peak BGP update messaging seen in the
global public Internet today [BGP2]. Assuming a BGP update message
size of 100 octets (800bits), the total amount of BGP control message
traffic to a single c-ASBR will be less than 2.5Mbps which is a
nominal rate for modern data links.
Industry standard BGP routers provide configurable parameters with
conservative default values. For example, the default hold time is
90 seconds, the default keepalive time is 1/3 of the hold time, and
the default MinRouteAdvertisementinterval is 30 seconds for eBGP
peers and 5 seconds for iBGP peers (see Section 10 of [RFC4271]).
For the simple mobile routing system described herein, these
parameters can be set to more aggressive values to support faster
neighbor/link failure detection and faster routing protocol
convergence times. For example, a hold time of 3 seconds and a
MinRouteAdvertisementinterval of 0 seconds for both iBGP and eBGP.
Instead of adjusting BGP default time values, BGP routers can use the
Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD) protocol [RFC5880] to
quickly detect link failures that do not result in interface state
changes, BGP peer failures, and administrative state changes. BFD is
important in environments where rapid response to failures is
required for routing reconvergence and, hence, communications
continuity.
Each c-ASBR will be using eBGP both in the ATN/IPS and the INET with
the ATN/IPS unicast IP routes resolving over INET routes.
Consequently, c-ASBRs and potentially s-ASBRs will need to support
separate local ASes for the two BGP routing domains and routing
policy or assure routes are not propagated between the two BGP
routing domains. From a conceptual, operational and correctness
standpoint, the implementation should provide isolation between the
two BGP routing domains (e.g., separate BGP instances).
This gives rise to a BGP routing system that must accommodate large
numbers of long and non-aggregable ULA-MNP prefixes as well as
moderate numbers of long and semi-aggregable ULA-RND prefixes. The
system is kept stable and scalable through the s-ASBR / c-ASBR hub-
and-spokes topology which ensures that mobility-related churn is not
exposed to the core.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
7. Stub AS Mobile Routing Services
Stub ASes maintain intradomain routing information for mobile node
clients, and are responsible for all localized mobility signaling
without disturbing the BGP routing system. Clients can enlist the
services of a candidate mobility service such as Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6)
[RFC6275], LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] or AERO
[I-D.templin-intarea-aero] according to the service offered by the
stub AS. Further details of mobile routing services are out of scope
for this document.
8. Implementation Status
The BGP routing topology described in this document has been modeled
in realistic network emulations showing that at least 1 million ULA-
MNPs can be propagated to each c-ASBR even on lightweight virtual
machines. No BGP routing protocol extensions need to be adopted.
9. IANA Considerations
This document does not introduce any IANA considerations.
10. Security Considerations
ATN/IPS ASBRs on the open Internet are susceptible to the same attack
profiles as for any Internet nodes. For this reason, ASBRs should
employ physical security and/or IP securing mechanisms such as IPsec
[RFC4301], etc.
ATN/IPS ASBRs present targets for Distributed Denial of Service
(DDoS) attacks. This concern is no different than for any node on
the open Internet, where attackers could send spoofed packets to the
node at high data rates. This can be mitigated by connecting ATN/IPS
ASBRs over dedicated links with no connections to the Internet and/or
when ASBR connections to the Internet are only permitted through
well-managed firewalls.
ATN/IPS s-ASBRs should institute rate limits to protect low data rate
aviation data links from receiving DDoS packet floods.
BGP protocol message exchanges and control message exchanges used for
route optimization must be secured to ensure the integrity of the
system-wide routing information base. Security is based on IP layer
security associations between peers which ensure confidentiality,
integrity and authentication over secured tunnels (see above).
Higher layer security protection such as TCP-AO [RFC5926] is
therefore optional, since it would be redundant with the security
provided at lower layers.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Data communications over route optimized paths should employ end-to-
end higher-layer security since only the control plane and
unoptimized paths are protected by lower-layer security. End-to-end
higher-layer security mechanisms include QUIC-TLS [RFC9001], TLS
[RFC8446], DTLS [RFC6347], SSH [RFC4251], etc. applied in a manner
outside the scope of this document.
This document does not include any new specific requirements for
mitigation of DDoS.
10.1. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Considerations
In development of the overall ATN/IPS operational concept, ICAO
addressed the security concerns in multiple ways to ensure
coordination and consistency across the various groups. This also
avoided potential duplicative work. Technical provisions related
specifically to the operation of ATN/IPS are specified in supporting
ATN/IPS standards. However, other considerations such as the
establishment of a PKI, were determined to have an impact beyond ATN/
IPS. ICAO created a Trust Framework Study Group (TFSG) to define
various governance, policy, procedures and overall technical
performance requirements for system connectivity and
interoperability.
As part of their charter, the TSFG is specifically developing a
concept of operations for a common aviation digital trust framework
and principles to facilitate an interoperable secure, cyber resilient
and seamless exchange of information in a digitally connected
environment. They are also developing governance principles, policy,
procedures and requirements for establishing digital identity for a
global trust framework that will consider any exchange of information
among users of the aviation ecosystem, and to promote these concepts
with all relevant stakeholders.
ATN/IPS will take advantage of the developments of TFSG within the
overall ATN/IPS operational concept. As such, this will include the
usage of the PKI specification resulting from the TFSG.
11. Acknowledgements
This work is aligned with the FAA as per the SE2025 contract number
DTFAWA-15-D-00030.
This work is aligned with the NASA Safe Autonomous Systems Operation
(SASO) program under NASA contract number NNA16BD84C.
This work is aligned with the Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA)
Internet of Things (IoT) and autonomy programs.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
This work is aligned with the Boeing Information Technology (BIT)
MobileNet program.
The following individuals contributed insights that have improved the
document: Ahmad Amin, Mach Chen, Russ Housley, Erik Kline, Hubert
Kuenig, Tony Li, Gyan Mishra, Alexandre Petrescu, Dave Thaler, Pascal
Thubert, Michael Tuxen, Eric Vyncke, Tony Whyman. Vaughn Maiolla is
further remembered for his support and guidance.
Honoring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
12. References
12.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route
Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP
(IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4456>.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
[RFC5880] Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection
(BFD)", RFC 5880, DOI 10.17487/RFC5880, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5880>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
12.2. Informative References
[ATN] Maiolla, V., "The OMNI Interface - An IPv6 Air/Ground
Interface for Civil Aviation, IETF Liaison Statement
#1676, https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1676/", 3
March 2020.
[ATN-IPS] WG-I, ICAO., "ICAO Document 9896 (Manual on the
Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) using
Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) Standards and Protocol),
Draft Edition 3 (work-in-progress)", 10 December 2020.
[BGP] Huston, G., "BGP in 2015, http://potaroo.net", January
2016.
[BGP2] Huston, G., "BGP Instability Report,
http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net/instability/bgpupd.html",
May 2017.
[CBB] Dul, A., "Global IP Network Mobility using Border Gateway
Protocol (BGP), http://www.quark.net/docs/
Global_IP_Network_Mobility_using_BGP.pdf", March 2006.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-
lisp-rfc6830bis-38, 7 May 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-lisp-
rfc6830bis-38>.
[I-D.templin-intarea-aero]
Templin, F., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization
(AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-
intarea-aero-49, 18 October 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-
intarea-aero-49>.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
[I-D.templin-intarea-omni]
Templin, F., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay
Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-templin-intarea-omni-49, 18 October
2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
templin-intarea-omni-49>.
[IEN48] Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model For Internetworking,
https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien48.txt", July 1978.
[IEN48-2] Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model For Internetworking (with
figures), http://www.postel.org/ien/pdf/ien048.pdf", July
1978.
[RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH)
Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, DOI 10.17487/RFC4251,
January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4251>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC5926] Lebovitz, G. and E. Rescorla, "Cryptographic Algorithms
for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)", RFC 5926,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5926, June 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5926>.
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet
Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>.
[RFC6996] Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for
Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, DOI 10.17487/RFC6996, July
2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6996>.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
[RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>.
Appendix A. BGP Convergence Considerations
Experimental evidence has shown that BGP convergence time required
after an ULA-MNP is asserted at a new location or withdrawn from an
old location can be several hundred milliseconds even under optimal
AS peering arrangements. This means that packets in flight destined
to an ULA-MNP route that has recently been changed can be
(mis)delivered to an old s-ASBR after a Client has moved to a new
s-ASBR.
To address this issue, the old s-ASBR can maintain temporary state
for a "departed" Client that includes an OAL address for the new
s-ASBR. The OAL address never changes since ASBRs are fixed
infrastructure elements that never move. Hence, packets arriving at
the old s-ASBR can be forwarded to the new s-ASBR while the BGP
routing system is still undergoing reconvergence. Therefore, as long
as the Client associates with the new s-ASBR before it departs from
the old s-ASBR (while informing the old s-ASBR of its new location)
packets in flight during the BGP reconvergence window are
accommodated without loss.
Appendix B. AERO/OMNI Spanning Tree Properties
The AERO/OMNI services establish an adaptation layer for the OSI
reference model appearing as "the layer below the network layer but
above the data link layer". The adaptation layer presents a virtual
bridging service from the network layer's perspective and a BGP-based
IPv6 routing service from the data link layer's perspective.
AERO/OMNI overlay networks include s-ASBRs (aka Proxy/Servers) and
c-ASBRs (aka Gateways) as the vertices in a graph with a typically
sparse collection of edges between pairwise vertices. The graph
minimally comprises a true spanning tree connecting all vertices but
may also include additional edges in the spirit of IEEE 802.1aq
Shortest Path Bridging. BGP routing then ensures loop freedom even
if this "augmented" spanning tree includes cycles.
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Each edge in the spanning tree corresponds to one or more connecting
links which may be physical (e.g., fiber/free-space optics, etc.) or
virtual (an IP tunnel over an underlying Internetwork). The OMNI
interface provides a nexus for link selection, where control messages
between vertices must be forwarded over edge links that are secured
at the network layer or below while data messages may be forwarded
over unsecured links. AERO/OMNI refer to these distinct forwarding
contexts as the "secured spanning tree" and "unsecured spanning
tree", respectively.
AERO route optimization provides an essential service to establish
shortcut paths in the data plane that do not necessarily follow
strict spanning tree paths. The shortcuts are formed through secured
spanning tree control message exchanges which establish shortest path
forwarding state in Clients, Proxy/Servers and intermediate Gateways.
Route optimization therefore reduces spanning tree traffic
concentration and instead distributes traffic over a diversity of
underlying Internetwork paths.
Appendix C. Change Log
<< RFC Editor - remove prior to publication >>
Differences from earlier versions:
* Submit for Rtgwg Informational Track RFC publication.
Authors' Addresses
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
United States of America
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Greg Saccone
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
United States of America
Email: gregory.t.saccone@boeing.com
Gaurav Dawra
LinkedIn
United States of America
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft BGP for ATN/IPS October 2023
Email: gdawra.ietf@gmail.com
Acee Lindem
LabN Consulting LLC
United States of America
Email: acee.ietf@gmail.com
Victor Moreno
Cisco Systems, Inc.
United States of America
Email: vimoreno@cisco.com
Templin, et al. Expires 25 April 2024 [Page 28]