Internet DRAFT - draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing
draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing
rtgwg D. Lamparter
Internet-Draft NetDEF
Intended status: Standards Track June 27, 2015
Expires: December 29, 2015
Destination/Source Routing
draft-lamparter-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-01
Abstract
This note specifies using packets' source addresses in route lookups
as additional qualifier to be used in route lookup. This applies to
IPv6 [RFC2460] in general with specific considerations for routing
protocol left for separate documents.
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 December 29, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing June 2015
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Principle of operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Lookup ordering and disambiguation . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Ordering Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Applicability To Specific Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Recursive Route Lookups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Unicast Reverse Path Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Multicast Reverse Path Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
Since connectivity providers generally secure their ingress along the
lines of BCP 38 [RFC2827], small multihomed networks have a need to
ensure their traffic leaves their network with a correct combination
of source address and exit taken. This applies to networks of a
particular pattern where the provider's default (dynamic) address
provisioning methods are used and no fixed IP space is allocated,
e.g. home networks, small business users and mobile ad-hoc setups.
While IPv4 networks would conventionally use NAT or policy routing to
produce correct behaviour, this not desirable to carry over to IPv6.
Instead, assigning addresses from multiple prefixes in parallel
shifts the choice of uplink to the host. However, now for finding
the proper exit the source address of packets must be taken into
account.
For a general introduction and aspects of interfacing routers to
hosts, refer to [I-D.sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview].
1.1. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing June 2015
2. Principle of operation
The mechanism in this document is such that a source prefix is added
to all route entries. This document assumes all entries have a
source prefix, with ::/0 as default value for entries installed
without a specified source prefix. This need not be implemented in
this particular way, however the system MUST behave exactly as if it
were. In particular, a difference in behaviour between routes with a
source prefix of ::/0 and routes without source prefix MUST NOT be
visible.
For uniqueness considerations, the source prefix factors MUST be
taken into account for comparisons. Two routes with identical
information except the source prefix MAY exist and MUST be installed
and matched.
2.1. Lookup ordering and disambiguation
Adding further criteria to be looked up when forwarding packets on a
hop-by-hop basis has the very fundamental requirement that all
routers behave the same way in choosing the most specific route when
there are multiple eligible routes.
For longest-match lookups, the source prefix is matched after the
destination prefix. This is to say, first the longest matching
destination prefix is found, then the table is searched for the route
with the longest source prefix match, while only considering routes
with exactly the destination prefix previously found. If and only if
no such route exists (because none of the source prefixes match), the
lookup moves to the next less specific destination prefix.
A router MUST continue to a less specific destination prefix if no
route matches on the source prefix. It MUST NOT terminate lookup on
such an event.
Using A < B to mean "A is more specific than B", this is represented
as:
A < B := Adst < Bdst
|| (Adst == Bdst && Asrc < Bsrc)
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing June 2015
2.2. Ordering Rationale
The ordering described by this document (destination before source)
could as well be reversed, which would lead to semantically different
behavior.
Choosing destination to be evaluated first caters to the assumption
that local networks should have full, contiguous connectivity to each
other. This implies that those specific local routes always match
first based on destination, and use a zero ("all sources") source
prefix.
If the source prefix were to be matched first, this would result in a
less specific (e.g. default) route with a source prefix to match
before those local routes. In other terms, this would essentially
divide local connectivity into zones based on source prefix, which is
not the intention of this document.
Hence, this document describes destination-first lookup.
3. Applicability To Specific Situations
3.1. Recursive Route Lookups
TBD, multiple possible approaches:
variant 1: ignore dst-src routes, only use routes with src ::/0
variant 2: exact-match src prefixes from resolvee to resolvent
(will not work for a lot of cases)
variant 3: longer-match src prefixes from resolvee to resolvent
(nexthop src may be superset of looked-up route)
variant 4: create multiple instances of the route whose nexthop is
resolved, with different source prefixes
(Variant 4:)
When doing recursive nexthop resolution, the route that is being
resolved is installed in potentially multiple copies, inheriting all
possible more-specific routes that match the nexthop as destination.
The algorithm to do this is:
1. form the set of attributes for lookup by using the (unresolved,
recursive) nexthop as destination (with full host prefix length,
i.e. /128), copy all other attributes from the original route
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing June 2015
2. find all routes that overlap with this set of attributes
(including both more-specific and less-specific routes)
3. order the result from most to less specific
4. for each route, install a route using the original route's
destination and the "logical and" overlap of each extra match
attribute with same attribute from the set. Copy nexthop data
from the route under iteration. Then, reduce the set of extra
attributes by what was covered by the route just installed
("logical AND NOT").
Example recursive route resolution
route to be resolved:
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456::/48,
recursive nexthop via 2001:db8:abcd::1
routes considered for recursive nexthop:
::/0, via fe80::1
2001:db8:abcd::/48, via fe80::2
2001:db8:abcd::/48, source 2001:db8:3456:3::/64, via fe80::3
2001:db8:abcd::1/128, source 2001:db8:3456:4::/64, via fe80::4
recursive resolution result:
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456::/48, via fe80::2
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456:3::/64, via fe80::3
2001:db8:1234::/48, source 2001:db8:3456:4::/64, via fe80::4
3.2. Unicast Reverse Path Filtering
Unicast reverse path filtering MUST use dst-src routes analog to its
usage of destination-only routes. However, the system MAY match
either only incoming source against routes' destinations, or it MAY
match source and destination against routes' destination and source.
It MUST NOT ignore dst-src routes on uRPF checks.
3.3. Multicast Reverse Path Forwarding
Multicast Reverse Path Lookups are used to find paths towards the
(known) sender of multicast packets. Since the destination of these
packets is the multicast group, it cannot be matched against the
source part of a dst-src route. Therefore, dst-src routes MUST be
ignored for Multicast RPF lookups.
4. Interoperability
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing June 2015
Since a router implementing source/destination routing can have
additional, more specific routes than one that doesn't implement
source/destination routing, persistent loops can form between these
systems. To prevent this from happening, a simple rule must be
followed:
The set of qualifiers used to route a particular packet MUST be a
subset of the qualifiers supported by the next hop.
This means in particular that a router using the source address as
extra qualifier MUST NOT route packets based on a source/destination
route to a system that doesn't support source/destination routes (and
hence doesn't understand the route).
There are 3 possible approaches to avoid such a condition:
1. discard the packet (treat as destination unreachable)
2. calculate an alternate topology including only routers that
support qualifier A
3. if the lookup returns the same nexthop without using qualifier A,
use that result (i.e., the nexthop is known to correctly route
the packet)
Above considerations require under all circumstances a knowledge of
the next router's capabilities. For routing protocols based on hop-
by-hop flooding (RIP [RFC2080], BGP [RFC4271]), knowing the peer's
capabilities - or simply relying on systems to only flood what they
understand - is sufficient. Protocols building a link-state database
(OSPF [RFC5340], IS-IS [RFC5308]) have the additional opportunity to
calculate alternate paths based on knowledge of the entire domain,
but cannot rely on routers flooding only link state they support
themselves.
5. IANA Considerations
This document makes no requests to IANA.
6. Security Considerations
Systems operating under the principles of this document can have
routes that are more specific than the previously most specific, i.e.
host routes. This can be a security concern if an operator was
relying on the impossibility of hijacking such a route.
While source/destination routing could be used as part of a security
solution, it is not really intended for the purpose. The approach
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing June 2015
limits routing, in the sense that it routes traffic to an appropriate
egress, or gives a way to prevent communication between systems not
included in a source/destination route, and in that sense could be
considered similar to an access list that is managed by and scales
with routing.
7. Privacy Considerations
If a host's addresses are known, injecting a dst-src route allows
isolation of traffic from that host, which may compromise privacy.
However, this requires access to the routing system. As with similar
problems with the destination only, defending against it is left to
general mechanisms protecting the routing infrastructure.
8. Acknowledgements
The base underlying this document was first outlaid by Ole Troan and
Lorenzo Colitti in [I-D.troan-homenet-sadr] for application in the
homenet area.
This document is largely the result of discussions with Fred Baker
and derives from [I-D.baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing].
9. Change Log
Initial Version: April 2015: merged routing-extra-qualifiers draft,
new ordering rationale section
Initial Version: October 2014
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2460] Deering, S.E. and R.M. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version
6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing]
Baker, F., "IPv6 Source/Destination Routing using IS-IS",
draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-src-routing-01 (work in
progress), August 2013.
[I-D.sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview]
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Destination/Source Routing June 2015
Sarikaya, B., "Overview of Source Address Dependent
Routing", draft-sarikaya-6man-sadr-overview-01 (work in
progress), September 2014.
[I-D.troan-homenet-sadr]
Troan, O. and L. Colitti, "IPv6 Multihoming with Source
Address Dependent Routing (SADR)", draft-troan-homenet-
sadr-01 (work in progress), September 2013.
[RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080,
January 1997.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.
[RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, October
2008.
[RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008.
Author's Address
David Lamparter
NetDEF
Leipzig 04103
Germany
Email: david@opensourcerouting.org
Lamparter Expires December 29, 2015 [Page 8]
