Communication Protocol Between the AD Control Server and the AD Edge Router of Inter-Domain Source Address Validation Architecture
draft-xu-savax-protocol-05
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ke Xu , Jianping Wu , Xiaoliang Wang , Yangfei Guo | ||
| Last updated | 2023-11-21 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-xu-savax-protocol-05
Network Working Group K. Xu
Internet-Draft J. Wu
Intended status: Standards Track X. Wang
Expires: 25 May 2024 Tsinghua University
Y. Guo
Zhongguancun Laboratory
22 November 2023
Communication Protocol Between the AD Control Server and the AD Edge
Router of Inter-Domain Source Address Validation Architecture
draft-xu-savax-protocol-05
Abstract
Because the Internet forwards packets according to the IP destination
address, packet forwarding typically takes place without inspection
of the source address and malicious attacks have been launched using
spoofed source addresses. The inter-domain source address validation
architecture is an effort to enhance the Internet by using state
machines to generate consistent tags. When communicating between two
end hosts at different ADs of the IPv6 network, tags will be added to
the packets to identify the authenticity of the IPv6 source address.
This memo focuses on the data plane of the SAVA-X mechanism.
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 May 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Terminology and Abbreviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Communication Protocol Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. ACS-ACS Communication Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1. Announcement, Query, and Response of State Machine
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.1.1. State Machine Information Announcement . . . . . . . 9
4.1.2. State Machine Information Request . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2. Request and Response of Diagnose Information . . . . . . 13
5. ACS-AER Communication Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1. Deployment, Request, and Response of AD Registration
information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.1.1. Deployment of AD Registration Information . . . . . . 16
5.1.2. Request for AD Registration Information . . . . . . . 18
5.1.3. Response of AD Registration Information . . . . . . . 19
5.2. Deployment, Request, and Reply of AD Prefix
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.1. Deployment of AD Prefix Information . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2. Request of AD Prefix Information . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2.3. Response of AD Prefix Information . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.3. Deployment, Request, and Response of State Machine
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.3.1. Deployment of State Machine Information . . . . . . . 30
5.3.2. Request of State Machine Information . . . . . . . . 33
5.3.3. Response of State Machine Information . . . . . . . . 35
5.4. Request and Response of Keep-alive Information . . . . . 37
5.4.1. Request of Keep-alive Information . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.4.2. Response of Keep-alive Information . . . . . . . . . 39
6. Deployment of Tag Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
1. Introduction
The Inter-Domain Source Address Validation (SAVA-X) mechanism
establishes a trust alliance among Address Domains (AD), maintains a
one-to-one state machine among ADs, generates a consistent tag, and
deploys the tag to the ADs' border router (AER). The AER of the
source AD adds a tag to identify the identity of the AD to the packet
originating from one AD and sinking in another AD. The AER of the
destination AD verifies the source address by validating the
correctness of the tag to determine whether it is a packet with a
forged source address.
In the process of packet forwarding, if the source address and the
destination address of this packet both belong to the trust alliance,
but the tag is not added or incorrectly added, the AER of the
destination AD determines that the source address is forged and
directly discards this packet. The destination AD forwards the
packet directly for packets whose source address is an address
outside the trust alliance.
This document mainly studies the relevant specifications of the data
plane of the inter-domain source address validation architecture
mechanism between ADs, which will protect IPv6 networks from being
forged source addresses. See [RFC8200] for more details about IPv6.
It stipulates the state machine, tag generation and update, tag
processing in AER, and packet signature Its promotion and application
can realize the standardization of the data plane in the SAVA-X to
facilitate the related equipment developed by different manufacturers
and organizations to cooperate to accomplish the inter-domain source
address validation jointly.
2. Conventions and Definitions
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
BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
2.1. Terminology and Abbreviation
+==============+====================================================+
| Abbreviation | Description |
+==============+====================================================+
| ACS | AD Control Server. The server maintains |
| | the state machine with other ACS and |
| | distributes information to AER. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
| AD | Address Domain. The unit of a trust |
| | alliance. It is an address set |
| | consisting of all IPv6 addresses |
| | corresponding to an IPv6 address prefix. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ADID | The identity of an AD. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ADID_Rec | The record of a number of an AD. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| AER | AD border router, which is placed at the |
| | boundary of an AD of STA. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| API_Rec | The record of the prefix of an AD or |
| | STA. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ARI_Rec | The record with relevant information of |
| | an AD or STA. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| SM | State Machine, which is maintained by a |
| | pair of ACS to generate tags. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| SMI_Rec | The record of the state machine |
| | information. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| TA | Trust Alliance. The IPv6 network that |
| | uses the SAVA-X mechanism. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Tag | The authentic identification of the |
| | source address of a packet. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Table 1
3. Communication Protocol Format
Every AD should be placed at least one ACS, which is mainly
responsible for maintaining the relationship between ADs of the trust
alliance, establishing connections with other ACS, maintaining the
synchronous state machine, and sending the generated tags to the AER.
TCP is used for communicating between ACS-ACS and ACS-AER.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Version | Alliance | I Type| S Type| Operation |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Number of Records |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transaction Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Acknowledgment Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Data ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: General communication packet format.
Version: 8-bit, the current version=0b1 of SAVA-X.
Alliance: 8-bit, the sub-trust alliance number.
I Type: 4-bit, Information type, 0 for G_REF_INFO, 1 for
AD_REG_INFO, 2 for AD_PREFIX_INFO, 3 for STATE_MACHINE_INFO, 4 for
DIAGNOSIS_INFO, 5 for RUNNING_STATE_INFO, 6 for STRATEGY_INFO, 7
for ALIVE_INFO, 8 for TAG_INFO, 9 for ALLI_TAG_INFO, 10 for
AD_V_TAG_INFO and others are unassigned.
S Type: 4-bit, Session type, 1 for ANNOUNCEMENT or DEPLOYMENT, 2 for
REQUEST, 3 for REQUEST_ALL, 4 for ACK, 5 for NAK, 6 for AACK, 7
for ANAK, 8 for RACK, 9 for RNAK and others are unassigned.
Operation: 8-bit, the first 3 bits mean for whether RENEW Type or
not. First bit: 0 for non-RENEW packet, 1 for RENEW packet.
Second bit: 0 for the first non-RENEW packet, 1 for the first
RENEW packet. Third bit: 0 for the last non-RENEW packet, 1 for
the last RENEW packet.
Total Length: 32-bit, the length of this packet: from Version to
Data.
Number of Records: 32-bit, he records in Data.
Transaction Number: 32-bit, this is the identification of a
publication, query, or response, and the value should increase
monotonically. Different I Types MUST have their own Transaction
Number. Through this field, ACS can locate which information has
been resolved wrongly and correct it.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
Acknowledgment Number: 32-bit, it is only filled when the S Type is
ACK, NAK, AACK, ANAK, RACK, or RNAK. Otherwise, it should be
filled as 0.
Data: Variable-length field. I Type and S Type specifies data
jointly.
When the S Type is ANNOUNCEMENT:
* If I Type = AD_REG_INFO, Data field SHOULD be one or more ARI_Rec.
* If I Type = AD_PREFIX_INFO, Data field SHOULD be one or more
API_Rec.
* If I Type = STATE_MACHINE_INFO, Data field SHOULD be one or more
SMI_Rec.
* If I Type = TAG_INFO, ALLI_TAG_INFO or AD_V_TAG_INFO, Data field
SHOULD be one or more TAG_Rec.
When the S Type is REQUEST or REQUEST_ALL:
* If I Type = REG_INFO, Data field SHOULD be one or more ADID_Rec.
* If I Type = AD_PREFIX_INFO, the Data field SHOULD be none or one
or more ADID_Rec.
* If I Type = STATE_MACHINE_INFO, the Data field SHOULD be none or
one or more ADID_Rec.
* If I Type = DIAGNOSE_INFO, the Data field SHOULD be a 32-bit
diagnose request code.
* If I Type = ALIVE_INFO, Data field SHOULD be none.
When the S Type is ACK, AACK, or RACK:
* If I Type = REG_INFO, Data field SHOULD be one or more ARI_Rec.
* If I Type = AD_PREFIX_INFO, Data field SHOULD be one or more
API_Rec.
* If I Type = STATE_MACHINE_INFO, Data field SHOULD be one or more
SMI_Rec.
* If I Type = DIAGNOSE_INFO, the Data field SHOULD be one 32-bit
diagnose response code.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
* If I Type = ALIVE_INFO, Data field SHOULD be none.
When the S Type is NAK, ANAK, or RNAK, the Data field SHOULD be one
32-bit error code:
* 1 for parameters are wrong which means the packet cannot resolve
correctly.
* 2 for member AD(s) in the request packet does not exist in the
designative sub-trust alliance.
* 3 for algorithm for State Machine set by source ACS cannot support
by the destination ACS.
4. ACS-ACS Communication Protocol
Since the blockchain is adopted in SAVA-X to maintain the information
of the trust alliance, ACS can query the address domain information
of relevant ADes of the trust alliance and the AD prefix information
corresponding to the address domain from the blockchain.
4.1. Announcement, Query, and Response of State Machine Information
State machine information record (SMI_Rec) represents the packet
format used when a state machine is negotiated between different
ordered pairs of ADs. When an ordered pair of ADs is negotiating the
state machine, the ACS of AD with a smaller ADID initiates the
communication, and the ACS of AD with a larger ADID uses SMI_Rec to
determine the information to be used, such as initial state, tag
generation algorithm, state transition interval, etc. Compared to
ARI_Rec and API_Rec, SMI_Rec also needs an Expiring Time in addition
to the Effecting Time. Expiration Time stands when the negotiated
state machine is no longer valid.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source ADID_Rec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination ADID_Rec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| State Mathine ID |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Algorithm | IS Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Initial State ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transition Interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Effecting Time |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Expiring Time |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Format of state machine information record.
Action: 8-bit, 1 for add or update this SMI_Rec.
Source ADID_Rec: Variable-length field. Refer to ADID_Rec
[savax-control].
Destination ADID_Rec: Variable-length field. Refer to ADID_Rec in
[savax-control].
State Machine ID: 32-bit, the ID used to identify the state machine,
which is unique to a specific ordered AD pair and grows
monotonically in use. It is used to distinguish the sequence
before and after the generation of multiple-state machines.
Algorithm: 16-bit, algorithm used in A-Box. 1 for KISS-99 32-bit, 2
for KISS-99 64-bit Joint, 3 for OTP-2289 MD5 and others are
unassigned.
IS Length: 16-bit, the length of the Initial State field.
Initial State: Variable-length field, the length of this field is
determined by IS Length.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
Transition Interval: 32-bit, the milliseconds of the interval of
state transition.
Effecting Time: 64-bit, when this field is 0, it means this State
Machine should be enabled after the last State Machine expires.
Expiring Time: 64-bit, the end of this State Machine.
4.1.1. State Machine Information Announcement
State machine information announcement (SM_INFO-Announce) is sent
from source ACS to destination ACS. Source ACS fills in the
following values for each field:
+=================+==============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+==============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| I Type | SM_INFO |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| S Type | ANNOUNCEMENT |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL: source ACS updates part of the state |
| | machine's information to destination ACS. |
| | RENEW: source ACS updates all the state |
| | machines information to destination ACS. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Number of | The number of SMI_Recs in Data field. |
| Records | |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction Number |
| | for packets sent out where I Type is SM_INFO |
| | and ACS would keep it increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Data | One or more SMI_Recs. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 2
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
All SMI_Recs in the Data field should have a unique SM_ID. When
Action is ADD and SM_ID bigger than the current used SM_ID, ACS
should add the state machine defined in SMI_Rec. When Action is ADD
and SM_ID equals to current used SM_ID, ACS should modify the state
machine defined in SMI_Rec. Only the Transition Interval and
Expiring Time can be modified. Other SMI_Rec should be discarded and
the destination ACS should send a NAK message to the source ACS.
When receiving a non-RENEW packet, if it cannot resolve this message,
the destination ACS should send a NAK message to the source ACS.
When destination ACS can resolve the packet correctly, it SHOULD:
1. Compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. Otherwise,
the destination ACS would discard this packet and send an
SM_INFO-Request to request the latest information of the state
machine. SM_INFO-Request is defined at Section 4.1.2. If
bigger, destination ACS WOULD:
2. Accept every SMI_Rec and process them as follows: - If the SM_ID
in SMI_Rec equals to current used SM_ID, destination ACS would
update the current used SM_ID. - If the SM_ID in SMI_Rec is
bigger than the current used SM_ID, destination ACS would add
this state machine to its following used state machine list.
3. The destination ACS will send an SM_INFO-AACK message to the
source ACS.
When receiving a RENEW packet, if it cannot resolve this message, the
destination ACS should send an SM_INFO-ANAK message to the source
ACS. When destination ACS can resolve the packet correctly, it
SHOULD:
1. Compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. Otherwise,
the destination ACS would discard this packet and send an
SM_INFO-Request to request the latest information of the state
machine. If bigger, destination ACS WOULD:
2. Accept every SMI_Rec and process them as follows: - If the SM_ID
in SMI_Rec equals to current used SM_ID, destination ACS would
update the current used SM_ID. - If the SM_ID in SMI_Rec is
bigger than the current used SM_ID, destination ACS would add
this state machine to its following used state machine list.
Especially, state machines will be removed right now when they
are not listed in the SMI_Recs but are in use.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
3. The destination ACS will send an SM_INFO-AACK message to the
source ACS.
There are two types of replies to SM_INFO-Announce messages. That is
SM_INFO-AACK representing affirmative acknowledgement and SM_INFO-
ANAK representing negative acknowledgement. These are sent from the
destination ACS to the source ACS. The main part of the packet is
filled by the destination ACS as follows:
+=================+==============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+==============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| I Type | SM_INFO |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| S Type | AACK if it is affirmative acknowledgement or |
| | ANAK if it is negative acknowledgement. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Number of | 0 |
| Records | |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction Number |
| | for packets sent out where I Type is SM_INFO |
| | and ACS would keep it increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | The Transaction Number of the response |
| Number | corresponding request. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Data | S Type = AACK: None. S Type = ANAK: a |
| | 32-bit error code defined in Section 3. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 3
Nothing needs to be done when source ACS receives an SM_INFO-AACK
message while it should regenerate a new state machine and announce
to destination ACS when source ACS receives an SM_INFO-ANAK message.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
4.1.2. State Machine Information Request
State machine information request (SM_INFO-Request) is sent from the
source ACS to the destination ACS. Source ACS fills in the following
values for each field:
+=================+==============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+==============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| I Type | SM_INFO |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| S Type | REQUEST |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL: announce all state machine information |
| | to source ACS. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Number of | 0 |
| Records | |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction Number |
| | for packets sent out where I Type is SM_INFO |
| | and ACS would keep it increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Data | None |
+-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
Table 4
When the source ACS receives an SM_INFO-Request message, it sends an
SM_INFO-RNAK message to the destination ACS if some fields are wrong.
Otherwise, the source ACS would send an SM_INFO-RACK message to the
destination ACS and process this SM_INFO-Request message. Source ACS
should compare the Transaction Number in this message with the
Transaction Number received from the same destination ACS before.
Otherwise, the source ACS would discard this packet. If bigger, the
source ACS would send an SM_INFO-RACK message to the destination ACS.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
There are two types of replies to the SM_INFO-Request message, i.e.
SM_INFO-RACK representing affirmative acknowledgement and SM_INFO-
RNAK representing negative acknowledgement. These are sent from the
source ACS to the destination ACS. The main part of the packet is
filled by source ACS as follows: I Type is SM_INFO. S Type is RACK
if it is affirmative acknowledgement or RNAK if it is negative
acknowledgement. Operation is NULL. When the S Type is RACK, the
Data field is a few of SMI_Recs. When the S Type is RNAK, the Data
field is a 32-bit error code.
When receiving an SM_INFO-RACK message, if it cannot resolve this
message, the destination ACS should send an SM_INFO-Request message
to the source ACS to acquire another state machine. When destination
ACS can resolve the message correctly, it SHOULD:
1. Compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same source ACS before.
Otherwise, the destination ACS would discard this packet and send
an SM_INFO-Request to request the latest information of the state
machine. If bigger, destination ACS WOULD:
2. Accept every SMI_Rec and process them as follows: - If the SM_ID
in SMI_Rec equals to current used SM_ID, destination ACS would
update the current used SM_ID. - If the SM_ID in SMI_Rec is
bigger than the current used SM_ID, destination ACS would add
this state machine to its following used state machine list.
3. The destination ACS will send an SM_INFO-AACK message to the
source ACS.
When receiving an SM_INFO-RNAK message, if it cannot resolve this
message, the destination ACS should send an SM_INFO-Request message
to the source ACS to acquire a new state machine. When destination
ACS can resolve the message correctly, it SHOULD compare the
Transaction Number in this packet with the Transaction Number
received from the same source ACS before. Otherwise, the destination
ACS would discard this packet and send an SM_INFO-Request to request
the latest information of the state machine. If bigger, destination
ACS WOULD send a new correct SM_INFO-Request message to source ACS.
4.2. Request and Response of Diagnose Information
Sent by destination ACS, a request for diagnosis information
(DIAG_INFO-Request) is used to require the source ACS to check its
configuration and source AERs' settings. Source ACS will respond
with its result. Destination ACS fills in the following values for
each field:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+================================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+================================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| I Type | DIAG_INFO |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| S Type | REQUEST |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Number of | 0 |
| Records | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS would |
| Number | maintain a global Transaction Number for |
| | packets sent out where I Type is DIAG_INFO and |
| | ACS would keep it increasing monotonically. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Data | A 32-bit error code is defined below. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 5
Response of diagnose information (DIAG_INFO-Response) replies from
source ACS to destination ACS.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+================================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+================================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| I Type | DIAG_INFO |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| S Type | ACK |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Number of | 0 |
| Records | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS would |
| Number | maintain a global Transaction Number for |
| | packets sent out where I Type is DIAG_INFO and |
| | ACS would keep it increasing monotonically. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | The Transaction Number of the response |
| Number | corresponding request. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Data | A 32-bit error code is defined below. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 6
Before it sends the DIAG_INFO-Request message, the destination ACS
should check its own configuration and guarantee they are correct.
If it receives a DIAG_INFO-Request message, the source ACS would
check whether the communication with its own AER whether correct or
not.
1. If it's wrong, source ACS would reply with a DIAG_INFO-Response
message in which its Data filed is filled with 2 for fault cannot
be repaired and alarm to the administrator to deal with this
problem.
2. If it's right, source ACS would RENEW all the registration
information, prefix information and state machine information to
all AERs. After that, source ACS will reply to a DIAG_INFO-
Response message in which its Data filed is filled with 1 for all
runs correctly after repair.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
5. ACS-AER Communication Protocol
ACS would periodically deploy AD registration information, AD prefix
information, and state machine information of relevant ADes to all
AERs to guarantee all information is latest. ACS also would deploy
the tag information to all AERs periodically.
5.1. Deployment, Request, and Response of AD Registration information
5.1.1. Deployment of AD Registration Information
After connecting with AER, ACS deploys the AD Registration
Information (REG_INFO-Deploy) to AER periodically. I Type is
REG_INFO. S Type is Announcement. Operation is NULL when some ADes'
information is joined, left or updated and Operation is RENEW when
all ADes' information is deployed. Acknowledgment is 0. The Data
field is one or more ARI_Rec.
It should be noted that when there are two ARI_Recs in Data fields
responding to the same AD, one may effect right now, and the other
effects after passing Effecting Time. When AER receives this
message, all of them should be restored to the trust alliance list
and AER MUST process them orderly. Since the protocol processes the
records in sequence, it is required that the ARI_Rec effecting at the
current time for the same member AD should appear in front of another
updating ARI_Rec.
When receiving a non-RENEW packet, if it cannot resolve this message,
AER could send a REG_INFO-Request message to acquire the latest AD
registration information.
When AER can resolve this message correctly, it SHOULD:
1. Compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. If bigger,
AER WOULD accept every ARI_Rec and process them as follows.
Otherwise, AER would discard this packet and send a REG_INFO-
RequestAll message to acquire the latest information on AD
registration information.
2. Process every ARI_Rec: - If Action is ADD and the record does not
exist in its maintained trust alliance list, AER would add this
record to its trust alliance list. - If Action is ADD and the
record exists in its maintained trust alliance list but ACS
Address is changed, AER would add this record to its trust
alliance list and delete the original record after passing
Effecting Time in this ARI_Rec. - If Action is ADD the record
exists in its maintained trust alliance list and the ACS Address
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
is not changed, AER would do nothing. - If Action is DEL and the
record exists in its maintained trust alliance list, AER would
remove this record from its trust alliance list after passing
Effecting Time in this ARI_Rec.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update should take effect
after passing the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
AER acts as follows when receiving a RENEW packet. When ACS
initiates RENEW, it sends a RENEW message with which the first bit of
the Operation field is 1. The second bit of the Operation field
identifies the beginning of a procedure of RENEW and the third bit of
the Operation field identifies the end of a procedure of RENEW. ACS
MUST NOT send a RENEW packet with which the first bit of the
Operation field is 0 in RENEWing. AER MUST process this procedure of
RENEW after received all RENEW packets.
When AER can resolve this packet correctly, it SHOULD:
1. Compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. If bigger,
AER would accept every ARI_Rec and process them as follows.
Otherwise, AER would discard this packet and send a REG_INFO-
RequestAll message to acquire the latest information of AD
registration information.
2. Process every ARI_Rec: - If the record does not exist in its
maintained trust alliance list, AER will add this record to its
trust alliance list. - If the record exists in its maintained
trust alliance list but the ACS Address is changed, AER would add
this record to its trust alliance list and delete the original
record after passing Effecting Time in this ARI_Rec. - If the
record exists in its maintained trust alliance list and the ACS
Address is not changed, AER would do nothing. - If there are some
records in the original trust alliance list that do not appear in
the Data field during this RENEW process, they will be deleted
immediately.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update should take effect
after passing the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
5.1.2. Request for AD Registration Information
The request is sent by AER to ACS. There are two types of requests
for AD Registration Information messages. When querying the
information of all member ADs of the trust alliance, the type is
REG_INFO-RequestAll and REG_INFO-Request is used when querying the
information of partial member ADs of the trust alliance.
+=================+=========================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+=========================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| I Type | REG_INFO |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| S Type | REQUEST: for querying partial member |
| | ADs and S Type is REQUEST_ALL: for |
| | querying all member ADs. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Number of | S Type = REQUEST: the number of |
| Records | ADID_Recs in Data field. S Type = |
| | REQUEST_ALL: 0. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. AER |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction |
| | Number for packets sent out to ACS |
| | where I Type is REG_INFO and AER would |
| | keep it increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Data | S Type = REQUEST: one or more |
| | ADID_Recs. S Type = REQUEST_ALL: None. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 7
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
When processing the REG_INFO-Request(ALL) message, ACS would reply
REG_INFO-NAK to AER if it holds some fields that are wrong. For
example, AER requests one ARI_Rec that does not exist. Otherwise,
the REG_INFO-ACK message will be answered. ACS WOULD process as
follows:
1. ACS SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same AER before. If bigger,
ACS would process as step 2. Otherwise, AER WOULD discard this
packet and send a REG_INFO-NAK message to AER.
2. ACS processes every ADID_Rec. If the AD exists in its maintained
trust alliance list, ACS would mark this record as "Reply".
Otherwise, ACS would mark this record as "Negative Reply".
Especially, all records would be marked with "Reply" when the
Operation field is REQUEST_ALL.
3. If any case in step 2 is marked with "Negative Reply", ACS would
construct a REG_INFO-NAK message to reply to the AER. Otherwise,
a REG_INFO-ACK message is constructed to reply to the AD
registration information of all members marked with "Reply" to
the AER.
5.1.3. Response of AD Registration Information
AD registration information response includes two types. That is
REG_INFO-ACK and REG_INFO-NAK. ACS will reply to AER according to
the request for registration information sent by AER to ACS.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+=============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+=============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| I Type | REG_INFO |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| S Type | ACK: representing affirmative |
| | acknowledgement. NAK: representing |
| | negative acknowledgement. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL: REG_INFO-Request message. RENEW: |
| | REG_INFO-RequestAll. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Number of | S Type = ACK: the number of ARI_Recs in |
| Records | Data field. S Type = REQUEST_ALL: 0. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction Number |
| | for packets sent out to AER where I Type is |
| | REG_INFO and ACS would keep it increasing |
| | monotonic. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | The Transaction Number of the response |
| Number | corresponding request. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Data | S Type = ACK: one or more ARI_Recs. S Type |
| | = NAK: a 32-bit error code defined at |
| | Section 3. There is no boundary |
| | identification between these ARI_Recs, |
| | which requires that the implementation of |
| | the protocol can process each record |
| | sequentially until the end of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 8
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
It should be noted that when there are two ARI_Recs in Data fields
responding to the same AD, one may effect right now and the other
effects after passing Effecting Time. When AER receives this
message, all of them should be restored to the trust alliance list
and AER MUST process them orderly. Since the protocol processes the
records in sequence, it is required that the ARI_Rec effecting at the
current time for the same member AD should appear in front of another
updating ARI_Rec.
When receiving a non-RENEW REG_INFO-ACK message, if it holds that
some fields are wrong, AER could send a REG_INFO-RequestAll message
to acquire the latest AD registration information. Otherwise, AER
would act as follows.
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. If bigger,
AER would process them as follows. Otherwise, AER would discard
this packet and send a REG_INFO-RequestAll message to acquire the
latest information on AD registration information.
2. AER WOULD process every ARI_Rec: - If Action is ADD and the
record does not exist in its maintained trust alliance list, AER
would add this record to its trust alliance list. - If Action is
ADD and the record exists in its maintained trust alliance list
but ACS Address is changed, AER would add this record to its
trust alliance list and delete the original record after passing
Effecting Time in this ARI_Rec. - If Action is ADD the record
exists in its maintained trust alliance list and the ACS Address
is not changed, AER would do nothing. - If Action is DEL and the
record exists in its maintained trust alliance list, AER would
remove this record from its trust alliance list after passing
Effecting Time in this ARI_Rec.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update should take effect
after passing the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
AER acts as follows when receiving a RENEW REG_INFO-ACK message.
When ACS initiates RENEW, it sends a RENEW message with which the
first bit of the Operation field is 1. The second bit of the
Operation field identifies the beginning of a procedure of RENEW and
the third bit of the Operation field identifies the end of a
procedure of RENEW. ACS MUST NOT send a RENEW packet with which the
first bit of the Operation field is 0 in RENEWing. AER MUST process
this procedure of RENEW after receiving all RENEW packets.
When AER can resolve this packet correctly, it SHOULD:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
1. Compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. If bigger,
AER would accept every ARI_Rec and process them as step 2.
Otherwise, AER would discard this packet and send a REG_INFO-
RequestAll message to acquire the latest information of AD
registration information.
2. Process every ARI_Rec: - If the record does not exist in its
maintained trust alliance list, AER will add this record to its
trust alliance list. - If the record exists in its maintained
trust alliance list but the ACS Address is changed, AER would add
this record to its trust alliance list and delete the original
record after passing Effecting Time in this ARI_Rec. - If the
record exists in its maintained trust alliance list and the ACS
Address is not changed, AER would do nothing. -If there are some
records in the original trust alliance list that do not appear in
the Data field during this RENEW process, they will be deleted
immediately.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update should take effect
after passing the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
When AER receives a REG_INFO-NAK message, it could send a REG_INFO-
RequestAll message to ACS to acquire the latest AD registration
information.
5.2. Deployment, Request, and Reply of AD Prefix Information
5.2.1. Deployment of AD Prefix Information
AD prefix information deployment (PFX_INFO-Deploy) is sent from ACS
to AER. ACS fills in the following values for each field:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+=============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+=============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| I Type | AD_PREFIX_INFO |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| S Type | DEPLOYMENT |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL: to publish partial update information |
| | of member ADs' prefixes. RENEW: to publish |
| | all member ADs' prefixes. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Number of | The number of API_Recs in Data field. |
| Records | |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction Number |
| | for packets sent out to AER where I Type is |
| | AD_PREFIX_INFO and ACS would keep it |
| | increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Data | One or more API_Recs. There is no boundary |
| | identification between these API_Recs, |
| | which requires that the implementation of |
| | the protocol can process each record |
| | sequentially until the end of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 9
It should be noted that when there are two ARI_Recs in Data fields
responding to the same AD, one may affect right now and the other is
an update message for ADD or DEL effecting after the Effecting Time.
For example, if the current time is 5 and there are two records
corresponding to the prefix P, in which the Effecting Time of record
R1 is 1, the action is ADD, the Effecting Time of record R2 is 7 and
the action is DEL, then it indicates that the prefix P is currently
valid effective from time 1 and becomes invalid at time 7. When ACS
or AER receives this message, all of them should be restored in the
database and ACS should send them all when deploying. Since the
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
protocol processes the records in sequence, it is required that the
API_Rec effecting at the current time for the same member AD should
appear in front of another updating API_Rec.
When receiving a non-RENEW PFX_INFO-Deploy message, if it holds that
some fields are wrong, for example, it requires deleting an API_Rec
that does not exist or adding some prefix that conflicts with other
member ADs, AER could send a request message to acquire the latest AD
prefix information. Otherwise, AER would act as follows.
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. If bigger,
AER WOULD process them as step 2. Otherwise, AER would discard
this packet and send a PFX_INFO-RequestAll message to acquire the
latest information on AD prefix information.
2. AER processes every API_Rec: - If Action is ADD and the record
does not exist in its maintained prefix list, AER would add this
record to its prefix list. - If Action is ADD and the record
exists in its maintained prefix list, AER would do nothing. - If
Action is DEL and the record exists in its maintained prefix
list, AER would remove this record from its prefix list after
Effecting Time.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update should take effect
after the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane. If the
Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all 0, it
will take effect immediately.
AER acts as follows when receiving a RENEW PFX_INFO-Deploy message.
When ACS initiates RENEW, it sends a RENEW message with which the
first bit of the Operation field is 1. The second bit of the
Operation field identifies the beginning of a procedure of RENEW and
the third bit of the Operation field identifies the end of a
procedure of RENEW. ACS MUST NOT send a RENEW packet with which the
first bit of the Operation field is 0 in RENEWing. AER SHOULD
uniformly process all packets in this RENEW process after receiving
all RENEW packets.
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number received from the same ACS before. If bigger,
AER WOULD process as step 2. Otherwise, AER would discard this
message and send a PFX_INFO-RequestAll message to acquire the
latest information on AD prefix information.
2. AER processes every API_Rec: - If the record does not exist in
its maintained prefix list, AER would add this record to its
trust alliance list. - If the record exists in its maintained
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
prefix list, AER would do nothing. - If there are some records
in the original prefix list that do not appear in the Data field
during this RENEW process, these records will be deleted
immediately.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update should take effect
after passing the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
5.2.2. Request of AD Prefix Information
AD prefix information request (PFX_INFO-RequestAll) is sent from AER
to ACS to query some member ADs' latest AD prefix information.
AER fills in the following values for each field:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+=========================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+=========================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| I Type | AD_PREFIX_INFO |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| S Type | REQUEST_ALL: querying from ACS the |
| | latest AD prefix information of all |
| | member ADs. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Number of | 0 |
| Records | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. AER |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction |
| | Number for packets sent out to ACS |
| | where I Type is AD_PREFIX_INFO and AER |
| | would keep it increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Data | None |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------+
Table 10
When receiving a PFX_INFO-RequestAll message, if it holds that some
fields are wrong, ACS could send a PFX_INFO-NAK. Otherwise, ACS
would act as follows. The specific construction methods of PFX_INFO-
ACK and PFX_INFO-NAK are described in Section 5.2.3.
1. ACS SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number whose I Type is PFX_INFO received from the
same AER before. If bigger, ACS WOULD process them as step 2.
Otherwise, ACS would discard this packet and send a PFX_INFO-NAK
message.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
2. ACS processes every ADID_Rec. If AD exists in the maintained
trust alliance list, ACS would mark this record as "Reply".
Otherwise, ACS would mark this record as "Negative Reply".
Particularly, all records are marked with "Reply" when the S Type
is REQUEST_ALL.
3. If any case in step 2 is marked with "Negative Reply", ACS would
construct a PFX_INFO-NAK message to reply to the AER. Otherwise,
a PFX_INFO-ACK message is constructed to reply to the AD prefix
information of all members marked with "Reply" to the AER.
5.2.3. Response of AD Prefix Information
AD prefix information response includes two types. That is PFX_INFO-
ACK and PFX_INFO-NAK. According to the request sent by AER, if some
fields are wrong, ACS will reply with NAK, in which the error code is
"parameter error". If a non-existent member AD is queried, the error
code is "the requested member AD does not exist", which is defined as
before and will not be repeated. The following mainly introduces the
PFX_INFO-ACK response. ACS fills in the following values for each
field:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+=============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+=============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| I Type | AD_PREFIX_INFO |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| S Type | ACK: representing affirmative |
| | acknowledgement. NAK: representing |
| | negative acknowledgement. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Operation | RENEW: replying to the latest AD prefix |
| | information to AER. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Number of | S Type = ACK: the number of API_Rec in Data |
| Records | field. S Type = NAK: 0 |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction Number |
| | for packets sent out to AER where I Type is |
| | AD_PREFIX_INFO and ACS would keep it |
| | increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | The Transaction Number of the response |
| Number | corresponding request. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Data | S Type = ACK: One or more latest requested |
| | API_Rec. S Type = NAK: a 32-bit error code |
| | defined in Section 3. There is no boundary |
| | identification between these API_Recs, |
| | which requires that the implementation of |
| | the protocol can process each record |
| | sequentially until the end of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 11
When receiving a non-RENEW PFX_INFO-ACK message which is the positive
reply to the request for AD prefix sent from ACS to AER, if it holds
that some fields are wrong, AER could send a request message to
acquire the latest AD prefix information. Otherwise, AER would act
as follows.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number whose I Type is PFX_INFO received from the
same ACS before. If bigger, AER would process them as follows.
Otherwise, AER would discard this packet and send REG_INFO-
RequestAll and PFX_INFO-RequestAll messages to acquire the latest
information.
2. AER processes every API_Rec: - If Action is ADD and the record
does not exist in its maintained prefix list, AER would add this
record to its prefix list. - If Action is ADD and the record
exists in its maintained prefix list, AER would do nothing. - If
Action is DEL and the record exists in its maintained prefix
list, AER would remove this record from its prefix list after
Effecting Time.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update should take effect
after the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane. If the
Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all 0, it
will take effect immediately.
AER acts as follows when receiving a RENEW PFX_INFO-ACK message.
When ACS initiates the RENEW process, it sends a RENEW message with
which the first bit of the Operation field is 1. The second bit of
the Operation field identifies the beginning of a procedure of RENEW
and the third bit of the Operation field identifies the end of a
procedure of RENEW. ACS MUST NOT send a RENEW packet with which the
first bit of the Operation field is 0 in the RENEW process. AER
SHOULD uniformly process all packets in this RENEW process after
receiving all RENEW packets.
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number whose I Type is PFX_INFO received from the
same ACS before. If bigger, AER WOULD process as step 2.
Otherwise, AER would discard this message and send REG_INFO-
RequestAll and PFX_INFO-RequestAll messages to acquire the latest
information.
2. AER processes every API_Rec. All Action in API_Recs is ADD
during RENEW process. - If the record does not exist in its
maintained prefix list, AER would add this record to its trust
alliance list. - If the record exists in its maintained prefix
list, AER would do nothing. - If there are some records in the
original prefix list that do not appear in the Data field during
this RENEW process, these records will be deleted immediately.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update message should take
effect after the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
When AER receives a PFX_INFO-NAK message, it could send REG_INFO-
RequestAll and PFX_INFO-RequestAll messages to ACS to acquire the
latest AD registration information and AD prefix information.
5.3. Deployment, Request, and Response of State Machine Information
5.3.1. Deployment of State Machine Information
State machine information deployment (SM_INFO-Deploy) is sent from
ACS to AER. ACS fills in the following values for each field:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+==========================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+==========================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| I Type | SM_INFO |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| S Type | DEPLOYMENT |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL: to publish the partial update of |
| | the state machine maintained by the pair |
| | of this AD and another AD and Operation |
| | is RENEW: to publish a wholesome update |
| | of the state machine maintained by the |
| | pair of this AD and another AD. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| Number of | The number of SMI_Recs in Data field |
| Records | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction |
| | Number for packets sent out to AER where |
| | I Type is SM_INFO and ACS would keep it |
| | increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
| Data | One or more SMI_Recs. There is no |
| | boundary identification between these |
| | ARI_Recs, which requires that the |
| | implementation of the protocol can |
| | process each record sequentially until |
| | the end of this message. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------+
Table 12
It should be noted that the state machine is responding to an ordered
AD pair. The state machine information mastered by ACS includes the
state machine information from this AD to another member AD, and the
state machine information from another member AD to this AD. When
ACS deployment is partially updated, only some changed or newly added
state machines are deployed. When ACS deploys the update of the
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
RENEW message, it is necessary to deploy all existing and updated
information. For the same ordered AD pair, there cannot be two or
more SMI_Recs using the same SM_ID in the Data field. In addition,
there are two actions for SMI_Rec: one is to add an SM whose SM_ID is
bigger than the current state machine. The second is to modify an
existing state machine whose SM_ID equals to current using a state
machine. Both of them are using Action ADD. Here we require only
Transition Interval and Expiring Time can be updated.
When receiving a non-RENEW SM_INFO-Deploy message sent from ACS to
AER, if it holds that some fields are wrong, for example, Action is
DEL or SM_ID is smaller than the current state machine in using, AER
could send a request message to acquire the latest information.
Otherwise, AER would act as follows.
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number whose I Type is SM_INFO received from the same
ACS before. If bigger, AER WOULD process them as step 2.
Otherwise, AER would discard this packet and send REG_INFO-
RequestAll and request messages to acquire the latest
information.
2. AER processes every SMI_Rec: - If SM_ID equals the current using
the state machine, AER should update the state machine in use. -
If SM_ID is bigger than the current state machine, AER should add
this state machine to its list.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update message should take
effect after the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
AER acts as follows when receiving a RENEW SM_INFO-Deploy message.
When ACS initiates the RENEW process, it sends a RENEW message with
which the first bit of the Operation field is 1. The second bit of
the Operation field identifies the beginning of a procedure of RENEW
and the third bit of the Operation field identifies the end of a
procedure of RENEW. ACS MUST NOT send a RENEW packet with which the
first bit of the Operation field is 0 in the RENEW process. AER
SHOULD uniformly process all packets in this RENEW process after
receiving all RENEW packets.
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number whose I Type is SM_INFO received from the same
ACS before. If bigger, AER WOULD process as step 2. Otherwise,
AER would discard this message and send a request message to
acquire the latest information.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
2. AER processes every SMI_Rec. - If SM_ID equals the current using
the state machine, AER should update the state machine in use. -
If SM_ID is bigger than the current state machine, AER should add
this state machine to its list. - If there are some records of
state machines in use that do not appear in the Data field during
this RENEW process, these state machines will be deleted
immediately.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update message should take
effect after the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
5.3.2. Request of State Machine Information
State machine information request (SM_INFO-Request) is sent from AER
to ACS. AER fills in the following values for each field:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+=================================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+=================================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| I Type | SM_INFO |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| S Type | REQUEST: querying the state machines |
| | maintained by the pair of this AD to |
| | another member AD and vice versa. These |
| | member ADs are specified by ADID_Rec |
| | defined in the Data field. REQUEST_ALL: |
| | querying all state machines maintained |
| | by this AD with other member ADs. |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Number of | S Type = REQUEST: the number of ADID_Rec |
| Records | in Data field. S Type = REQUEST_ALL: 0. |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. AER |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction |
| | Number for packets sent out to ACS where |
| | I Type is SM_INFO and AER would keep it |
| | increasing monotonic. |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Data | S Type = REQUEST: One or more ADID_Recs. |
| | S Type = REQUEST_ALL: none. There is no |
| | boundary identification between these |
| | ADID_Recs, which requires that the |
| | implementation of the protocol can |
| | process each record sequentially until |
| | the end of this message. |
+-----------------+-------------------------------------------------+
Table 13
For example, let this AD is AD1. When any ADID_Rec is included in
the Data field, defined as AD2, it means that AER will request the
SM(AD1, AD2) and SM(AD2, AD1). When ACS replies, it will reply to
these two state machines.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
When receiving an SM_INFO-Request(All) message, if it holds that some
fields are wrong, ACS could send a PFX_INFO-NAK. Otherwise, ACS
would act as follows. The specific construction methods of SM_INFO-
ACK and SM_INFO-NAK are described in Section 5.3.3.
1. ACS SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number whose I Type is SM_INFO received from the same
AER before. If bigger, ACS WOULD process them as step 2.
Otherwise, ACS would discard this packet and send an SM_INFO-NAK
message.
2. ACS processes every ADID_Rec. If AD exists in the maintained
trust alliance list, ACS would mark this record as "Reply".
Otherwise, ACS would mark this record as "Negative Reply".
Particularly, all records are marked with "Reply" when the S Type
is REQUEST_ALL.
3. If any case in step 2 is marked with "Negative Reply", ACS would
construct an SM_INFO-NAK message to reply to the AER. Otherwise,
an SM_INFO-ACK message is constructed to reply to the state
machine information of all members marked with "Reply" to the
AER.
5.3.3. Response of State Machine Information
State machine information response includes two types. That is
SM_INFO-ACK and SM_INFO-NAK. Both of them are sent from ACS to AER.
ACS fills in the following values for each field:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
+=================+=============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+=============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| I Type | SM_INFO |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| S Type | ACK: representing affirmative |
| | acknowledgement. NAK: representing |
| | negative acknowledgement. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Operation | RENEW: replying to the latest state machine |
| | information to AER. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Number of | S Type = ACK: the number of SMI_Recs in |
| Records | Data field. S Type = NAK: 0. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS |
| Number | would maintain a global Transaction Number |
| | for packets sent to AER where I Type is |
| | SM_INFO and would keep it increasing |
| | monotonically. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | The Transaction Number of the response |
| Number | corresponding request. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Data | S Type = ACK: one or more latest requested |
| | SMI_Rec. S Type = NAK: a 32-bit error code |
| | defined in Section 3. There is no boundary |
| | identification between these ADID_Recs, |
| | which requires that the implementation of |
| | the protocol can process each record |
| | sequentially until the end of this message. |
+-----------------+---------------------------------------------+
Table 14
When receiving a non-RENEW SM_INFO-ACK message which is the positive
reply to the request of AD prefix sent from ACS to AER, if it holds
that some fields are wrong, AER could send a request message to
acquire the latest state machine information. Otherwise, AER would
act as follows. 1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this
packet with the Transaction Number whose I Type is PFX_INFO received
from the same ACS before. If bigger, AER WOULD process them as step
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
2. Otherwise, AER would discard this packet and send an SM_INFO-
RequestAll message to acquire the latest information. 2. AER
processes every SMI_Rec: - If SM_ID equals the current using the
state machine, AER should update the state machine in use. - If
SM_ID is bigger than the current state machine, AER should add this
state machine to its list. 3. If a change is made in step 2, the
update should take effect after the Effecting Time, which acts on the
data plane. If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time
or is all 0, it will take effect immediately.
AER acts as follows when receiving a RENEW SM_INFO-ACK message. When
ACS initiates the RENEW process, it sends a RENEW message with which
the first bit of the Operation field is 1. The second bit of the
Operation field identifies the beginning of a procedure of RENEW and
the third bit of the Operation field identifies the end of a
procedure of RENEW. ACS MUST NOT send a RENEW packet with which the
first bit of the Operation field is 0 in the RENEW process. AER
SHOULD uniformly process all packets in this RENEW process after
receiving all RENEW packets.
1. AER SHOULD compare the Transaction Number in this packet with the
Transaction Number whose I Type is SM_INFO received from the same
ACS before. If bigger, AER WOULD process as step 2. Otherwise,
AER would discard this message and send an SM_INFO-RequestAll
message to acquire the latest information.
2. AER processes every API_Rec. All Action in API_Recs is ADD
during the RENEW process. - If SM_ID equals the current using
the state machine, AER should update the state machine in use. -
If SM_ID is bigger than the current state machine, AER should add
this state machine to its list. - If there are some records of
state machines in use that do not appear in the Data field during
this RENEW process, these state machines will be deleted
immediately.
3. If a change is made in step 2, the update message should take
effect after the Effecting Time, which acts on the data plane.
If the Effecting Time is earlier than the current time or is all
0, it will take effect immediately.
When AER receives an SM_INFO-NAK message, it could send an SM_INFO-
RequestAll message to ACS to acquire the latest state machine
information.
5.4. Request and Response of Keep-alive Information
In SAVA-X, ACS will periodically send a Keep-alive request to query
the availability of AER in the SAVA-X mechanism.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
5.4.1. Request of Keep-alive Information
Keep-alive information request (ALIVE_INFO-Request) is sent by ACS to
test the viability of AER. AER would reply to ACS when receiving an
ALIVE_INFO-Request message. ACS considers that AER has gone wrong if
it does not receive a response from AER within 60 seconds and ACS
notifies the AD administrator of the failure information by email.
ACS would keep sending ALIVE_INFO-Request to the fault AER at the
same time. The filling values of each field in the ACS request are
as follows:
+=================+================================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+================================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| I Type | ALIVE_INFO |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| S Type | REQUEST |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Number of | 0 |
| Records | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. ACS would |
| Number | maintain a global Transaction Number for |
| | packets sent to AER where I Type is ALIVE_INFO |
| | and would keep it increasing monotonically. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Data | None |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 15
ACS considers that AER has gone wrong if it does not receive a
response from AER within 60 seconds and ACS notifies the AD
administrator of the failure information by email. ACS would
consider that AER has recovered from failure when AER replies to the
request correctly. ACS performs the following steps to update AER:
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
1. Keep time synchronization between AER and ACS.
2. Deploy AD registration information, AD prefix information, and
state machine information to AER by way of a RENEW message.
5.4.2. Response of Keep-alive Information
Keep-alive information response (ALIVE_INFO-Response) is sent by AER
to reply to the ALIVE_INFO-Request message.
In response to ALIVE_INFO-Request, AER fills in the following values
for each field in the response:
+=================+================================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+================================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| I Type | ALIVE_INFO |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| S Type | ACK |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Number of | 0 |
| Records | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | The last Transaction Number add 1. AER would |
| Number | maintain a global Transaction Number for |
| | packets sent to ACS where I Type is ALIVE_INFO |
| | and would keep it increasing monotonically. |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Data | None |
+-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
Table 16
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
6. Deployment of Tag Information
Tag information deployment (TAG_INFO-Deploy) is sent from ACS to AER
and AER adds, verifies, and removes the tag to/from the packet. When
using sub-trust alliance level tags and AD_V tags, the primary
address domain ACS needs to distribute these two tags to the ACS of
the boundary address domain first, and then the boundary address
domain ACS will distribute these tags to their respective address
domains' AERs. The sub-trust alliance tag is used in the data plane
to cross different address domain levels. The AD_V tag is used in
the data plane when it is sent from the current address domain to the
boundary address domain. Standard TAG_INFO is used in the data plane
at the same level and under the same direct parent address field.
The three types of tags use the same message format as follows.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Action |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source ADID_Rec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination ADID_Rec |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Tag Len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TAG ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Transition Interval |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Format of tag information record.
Action: 8-bit filed. 1 for add (ADD=1) and 2 for delete (DEL=2).
Source ADID_Rec: Variable-length field. Refer to ADID_Rec in
[savax-control].
Destination ADID_Rec: Variable-length field. Refer to ADID_Rec.
Tag Len: The length of TAG. The equation for calculation is (Tag
Len + 1) * 8 bits. The length of TAG MUST be multiple times of 8
bits. The maximum length is 128 bits and the minimum length is 32
bits. So the minimum of Tag Len is 0011.
TAG: Variable-length field. The actual Tag or packet signature.
Transition Interval: 32-bit, the milliseconds of the interval of
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
state transition.
When ACS announces a tag to ACS or AER, it fills in the following
values for each field:
+=================+===============================================+
| Field | Value |
+=================+===============================================+
| Version | 1 |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Alliance | The sub-trust alliance number. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| I Type | TAG_INFO, ALLI_TAG_INFO or AD_V_TAG_INFO |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| S Type | ANNOUNCEMENT |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Operation | NULL |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Total Length | The length of this message. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Number of | The number of TAG_Rec in Data field. |
| Records | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Transaction | ACS would maintain a global Transaction |
| Number | Number for packets sent to ACS or AER where I |
| | Type is TAG_INFO and would keep it increasing |
| | monotonically. Acknowledgment Number is 0. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Acknowledgement | 0 |
| Number | |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
| Data | One or more TAG_Recs. There is no boundary |
| | identification between these records, which |
| | requires that the implementation of the |
| | protocol can process each record sequentially |
| | until the end of this message. |
+-----------------+-----------------------------------------------+
Table 17
7. Security Considerations
TBD.
8. IANA Considerations
TBD.
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1760] Haller, N., "The S/KEY One-Time Password System",
RFC 1760, DOI 10.17487/RFC1760, February 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1760>.
[RFC5210] Wu, J., Bi, J., Li, X., Ren, G., Xu, K., and M. Williams,
"A Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) Testbed
and Deployment Experience", RFC 5210,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5210, June 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5210>.
[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/rfc/rfc8200>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.
9.2. Informative References
[savax-control]
Computer Science, Wu, J., Computer Science, and Institute
for Network Sciences and Cyberspace, "Control Plane of
Inter-Domain Source Address Validation Architecture",
2023.
Acknowledgments
TODO acknowledge.
Authors' Addresses
Ke Xu
Tsinghua University
China
Email: xuke@tsinghua.edu.cn
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft savax-protocol November 2023
Jianping Wu
Tsinghua University
China
Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn
Xiaoliang Wang
Tsinghua University
China
Email: wangxiaoliang0623@foxmail.com
Yangfei Guo
Zhongguancun Laboratory
China
Email: guoyangfei@zgclab.edu.cn
Xu, et al. Expires 25 May 2024 [Page 43]