Neighbor Cache Entries on First-Hop Routers: Operational Considerations
draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init-04
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Jen Linkova | ||
Last updated | 2020-09-04 (Latest revision 2020-08-20) | ||
Replaces | draft-linkova-v6ops-nd-cache-init | ||
Replaced by | draft-ietf-6man-grand, RFC 9131 | ||
RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
Formats | |||
Reviews |
IOTDIR Telechat review
(of
-05)
by Pascal Thubert
Ready w/issues
GENART Last Call review
by Stewart Bryant
Ready w/nits
|
||
Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
Document shepherd | Jordi Palet Martinez | ||
Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2020-07-14 | ||
IESG | IESG state | IESG Evaluation | |
Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
Telechat date |
(None)
Has enough positions to pass. |
||
Responsible AD | Warren "Ace" Kumari | ||
Send notices to | Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@theipv6company.com> | ||
IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init-04
INTERNET-DRAFT L. Fang, Ed. Intended Status: Informational Cisco Expires: June 16, 2013 N. Bitar Verizon R. Zhang Alcatel Lucent M. Daikoku KDDI P. Pan Infinera December 16, 2012 MPLS-TP Applicability; Use Cases and Design draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-03.txt Abstract This document provides applicability, use case studies and network design considerations for the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). The use cases include Metro Ethernet access and aggregation transport, Mobile backhaul, and packet optical transport. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright and License Notice <Author> Expires <Expiry Date> [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT <Document Title> <Issue Date> Copyright (c) 2012 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. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. MPLS-TP Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.1. Metro Access and Aggregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. Packet Optical Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3. Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3.2. 2G and 3G Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.3.2. 4G/LTE Mobile Backhaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. Network Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.1. The role of MPLS-TP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.2 Provisioning mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3. Standards compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.4. End-to-end MPLS OAM consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5.5. PW Design considerations in MPLS-TP networks . . . . . . . 9 5.6. Proactive and on-demand MPLS-TP OAM tools . . . . . . . . . 10 5.7. MPLS-TP and IP/MPLS Interworking considerations . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Contributors' Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 <Author> Expires <Expiry Date> [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT <Document Title> <Issue Date> 1 Introduction This document provides applicability, use case studies and network design considerations for the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). In recent years, the urgency for moving from traditional transport technologies, such as SONET/SDH, TDM, and ATM, to new packet technologies has been rising. This is largely due to the fast growing demand for bandwidth, which has been fueled by the following factors: 1) The growth of new services. This includes: the tremendous success of data services, such as IPTV and IP Video for content downloading, streaming, and sharing; the rapid growth of mobile services, as a consequence of the explosion of smart phone applications; the continued growth of business VPNs and residential broadband services. 2) Network infrastructure evolution. As many legacy transport devices are approaching end of life, Service Providers transition to new packet technologies and evolve their transport network into the next generation packet transport. As part of MPLS family, MPLS-TP complements existing IP/MPLS technologies; it closes the gaps in the traditional access and aggregation transport to enable end-to-end packet technology solutions in a cost efficient, reliable, and interoperable manner. After several years of industry debate on which packet technology to use, MPLS-TP has emerged as the next generation transport technology of choice for many Service Providers worldwide. The unified MPLS strategy - using MPLS from core to aggregation and access (e.g. IP/MPLS in the core, IP/MPLS or MPLS-TP in aggregation and access) appear to be very attractive to many SPs. It streamlines the operation, reduces the overall complexity, and improves end-to- end convergence. It leverages the MPLS experience, and enhances the ability to support revenue generating services. MPLS-TP is a subset of MPLS functions that meet the packet transport requirements defined in [RFC5654]. This subset includes: MPLS data forwarding, pseudo-wire encapsulation for circuit emulation, and dynamic control plane using GMPLS control for LSP and tLDP for pseudo-wire (PW). MPLS-TP also extends previous MPLS OAM functions, such as BFD extension for proactive Connectivity Check and Connectivity Verification (CC-CV) [RFC6428], and Remote Defect Indication (RDI) [RFC6428], LSP Ping Extension for on-demand CC-CV [RFC6426], fault allocation, and remote integrity check. New tools have been defined for alarm suppression with Alarm Indication Signal (AIS) [RFC6427], and switch-over triggering with Link Defect Indication (LDI). Note that since the MPLS OAM feature extensions defined through the process of MPLS-TP development are part of the <Author> Expires <Expiry Date> [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT <Document Title> <Issue Date> MPLS family, the applicability is general to MPLS, and not limited to MPLS-TP. The requirements of MPLS-TP are provided in MPLS-TP Requirements [RFC 5654], and the architectural framework is defined in MPLS-TP Framework [RFC5921]. This document&Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 2. Proposed Solution 2.1. Solution Requirements It would be highly desirable to improve the Neighbor Discovery mechanics so routers have a usable cache entry for a host address by the time the router receives the first packet for that address. In particular: o If the router does not have a Neighbor Cache entry for the address, a STALE entry needs to be created. o The solution needs to work for Optimistic addresses as well. Devices implementing the Optimistic DAD usually attempt to minimize the delay in connecting to the network and therefore are more likely to be affected by the problem described in this document. o In case of duplicate addresses present in the network, the proposed solution MUST NOT override the existing entry. o In topologies with multiple first-hop routers the cache needs to be updated on all of them, as traffic might be asymmetric: outgoing flows leaving the network via one router while the return traffic enters the segment via another one. In addition the solution MUST NOT exacerbate issues described in [RFC6583] and MUST be compatible with the recommendations provided in [RFC6583]. 2.2. Solution Overview The Neighbor Discovery is designed to allow IPv6 nodes to discover neighboring nodes reachability and learn IPv6 to link-layer addresses mapping. Therefore ND seems to be the most appropriate tool to inform the first-hop routers about addresses the host is going to use. Section 4.4 of [RFC4861] says: "A node sends Neighbor Advertisements in response to Neighbor Solicitations and sends unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements in order to (unreliably) propagate new information quickly." Propagating information about new GUA as quickly as possible is exactly what is required to solve the problem outlined in this document. Therefore the host might send an unsolicited NA with the Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 5] Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 target link-layer address option to advertise its GUA as soon as the said address enters Optimistic or Preferred state. The proposed solution is discussed in [I-D.ietf-6man-grand]. In summary, the following changes to [RFC4861] are suggested: o A node SHOULD send up to MAX_NEIGHBOR_ADVERTISEMENT unsolicited NA packet with the Override flag cleared to all-routers multicast address (ff02::2) as soon as one of the following events happens: * (if Optimistic DAD is used): a new Optimistic address is assigned to the node interface. * (if Optimistic DAD is not used): an address changes the state from tentative to preferred. o Routers SHOULD create a new STALE ND cache entry upon receiving unsolicited NAs. It should be noted that some routing and switching platforms have implemented such behaviour already. Administrators could enable the creation of neighbor discovery cache entries based on unsolicited NA packets sent from the previously unknown neighbors on that interface. Network devices implementing FCFS SAVI might drop Neighbor Advertisements received through a Validating Port which is in the TENTATIVE state (see Section 2.3.2 of[RFC6620]). Therefore hosts using Optimistic DAD might not benefit from the proposed solution if FCFS SAVI is implemented on the network infrastructure. [I-D.ietf-6man-grand] discusses in more details how the proposed solution interacts with SAVI. 3. Solutions Considered but Discarded The problem could be addressed from different angles. Possible approaches are: o Just do nothing. o Migrate from the "reactive" Neighbor Discovery ([RFC4861]) to the registration-based mechanisms ([RFC8505]). o The router creates new entries in its Neighbor Cache by gleaning from Neighbor Discovery DAD messages. o The host initiates bidirectional communication to the router using the host GUA. Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 6] Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 o Making the probing logic on hosts more robust. o Increasing the buffer size on routers. o Transit dataplane traffic from an unknown address (an address w/o the corresponding neighbor cache entry) triggers an address resolution process on the router. It should be noted that some of those options are already implemented by some vendors. The following sections discuss those approaches and the reasons they were discarded. 3.1. Do Nothing One of the possible approaches might be to declare that everything is working as intended and let the upper-layer protocols to deal with packet loss. The obvious drawbacks include: o Unhappy users. o Many support tickets. o More resistance to deploy IPv6 and IPv6-Only networks. 3.2. Change to the Registration-Based Neighbor Discovery The most radical approach would be to move away from the reactive ND as defined in [RFC4861] and expand the registration-based ND ([RFC6775], [RFC8505]) used in Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs) to the rest of IPv6 deployments. This option requires some investigation and discussions and seems to be an overkill for the problem described in this document. 3.3. Host Sending NS to the Router Address from Its GUA The host could force creating a STALE entry for its GUA in the router ND cache by sending the following Neighbor Solicitation message: o The NS source address is the host GUA. o The destination address is the default router IPv6 address. o The Source Link-Layer Address option contains the host link-layer address. o The target address is the host default router address (the default router address the host received in the RA). Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 7] Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 The main disadvantages of this approach are: o Would not work for Optimistic addresses as section 2.2 of [RFC4429] explicitly prohibits sending Neighbor Solicitations from an Optimistic Address. o If first-hop redundancy is deployed in the network, the NS would reach the active router only, so all backup routers (or all active routers ex. one) would not get their neighbor cache updated. o Some wireless devices are known to alter ND packets and perform various non-obvious forms of ND proxy actions. In some cases, unsolicited NAs might not even reach the routers. 3.4. Host Sending Router Solicitation from its GUA The host could send a router solicitation message to 'all routers' multicast address, using its GUA as a source. If the host link-layer address is included in the Source Link-Layer Address option, the router would create a STALE entry for the host GUA as per the section 6.2.6 of [RFC4861]. However, this approach can not be used if the GUA is in optimistic state: section 2.2 of [RFC4429] explicitly prohibits using an Optimistic Address as the source address of a Router Solicitation with a SLLAO as it might disrupt the rightful owner of the address in the case of a collision. So for the optimistic addresses the host can send an RS without SLLAO included. In that case the router may respond with either a multicast or a unicast RA (only the latter would create a cache entry). This approach has the following drawbacks: o If the address is in the Optimistic state the RS can not contain SLLAO. As a result the router would only create a cache entry if the solicited RAs is sent as as a unicast. Routers sending solicited RAs as multicast would not create a new cache entry as they do not need to send a unicast packet back to the host. o There might be a random delay between receiving an RS and sending a unicast RA back (and creating a cache entry) which might undermine the idea of creating the cache entry proactively. o Some wireless devices are known to fiddle with ND packets and perform various non-obvious forms of ND proxy actions. In some cases the RS might not even reach the routers. Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 8] Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 3.5. Routers Populating Their Caches by Gleaning From Neighbor Discovery Packets Routers may be able to learn about new addresses by gleaning from the DAD Neighbor Solicitation messages. The router could listen to all solicited node multicast address groups and upon receiving a Neighbor Solicitation from the unspecified address search its Neighbor Cache for the solicitation's Target Address. If no entry exists, the router may create an entry, set its reachability state to 'INCOMPLETE' and start the address resolution for that entry. The same solution was proposed in [I-D.halpern-6man-nd-pre-resolve-addr]. Some routing vendors support such optimization already. However, this approach has a number of drawbacks and therefore should not be used as the only solution: o Routers need to receive all multicast Neighbor Discovery packets which might negatively impact the routers CPU. o If the router starts the address resolution as soon as it receives the DAD Neighbor Solicitation the host might be still performing DAD and the target address might be tentative. In that case, the host SHOULD silently ignore the received Neighbor Solicitation from the router as per the Section 5.4.3 of [RFC4862]. As a result the router might not be able to complete the address resolution before the return traffic arrives. 3.6. Initiating Hosts-to-Routers Communication The host may force the router to start address resolution by sending a data packet such as ping or traceroute to its default router link- local address, using the GUA as a source address. As the RTT to the default router is lower than RTT to any off-link destinations it's quite likely that the router would start the neighbor discovery process for the host GUA before the first packet of the returning traffic arrives. The downside of this approach includes: o Data packets to the router LLA could be blocked by security policy or control plane protection mechanism. o Additional overhead for routers control plane (in addition to processing ND packets, the data packet needs to be processed as well). Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 9] Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 o Unless the data packet is sent to 'all routers' ff02::2 multicast address, if the network provides a first-hop redundancy then only the active router would create a new cache entry. 3.7. Transit Dataplane Traffic From a New Address Triggering Address Resolution When a router receives a transit packet, it might check the presence of the neighbor cache entry for the packet source address and if the entry does not exist start address resolution process. This approach does ensure that a Neighbor Cache entry is proactively created every time a new, previously unseen GUA is used for sending offlink traffic. However this approach has a number of limitations, in particular: o If traffic flows are asymmetrical the return traffic might not transit the same router as the original traffic which triggered the address resolution. So the neighbor cache entry is created on the "wrong" router, not the one which actually needs the neighbor cache entry for the host address. o The functionality needs to be limited to explicitly configured networks/interfaces, as the router needs to distinguish between onlink addresses (ones the router needs to have Neighbor Cache entries for) and the rest of the address space. o Implementing such functionality is much more complicated than all other solutions as it would involve complex data-control planes interaction. 4. IANA Considerations This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters. 5. Security Considerations This memo documents the operational issue and does not introduce any new security considerations. Security considerations of the proposed solution are discussed in the corresponding section of [I-D.ietf-6man-grand]. 6. Acknowledgements Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their review and feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Lorenzo Colitti, Owen DeLong, Igor Gashinsky, Fernando Gont, Tatuya Jinmei, Erik Kline, Warren Kumari, Jordi Palet Martinez, Michael Richardson, Dave Thaler, Pascal Thubert, Loganaden Velvindron, Eric Vyncke. Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 10] Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 7. References 7.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-6man-grand] Linkova, J., "Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries on First-Hop Routers", draft-ietf- 6man-grand-01 (work in progress), July 2020. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>. [RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>. [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>. [RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583, DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>. [RFC6620] Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "FCFS SAVI: First-Come, First-Served Source Address Validation Improvement for Locally Assigned IPv6 Addresses", RFC 6620, DOI 10.17487/RFC6620, May 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6620>. [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6775>. Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 11] Internet-Draft NC Entries Creation August 2020 [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/info/rfc8174>. [RFC8305] Schinazi, D. and T. Pauly, "Happy Eyeballs Version 2: Better Connectivity Using Concurrency", RFC 8305, DOI 10.17487/RFC8305, December 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8305>. [RFC8505] Thubert, P., Ed., Nordmark, E., Chakrabarti, S., and C. Perkins, "Registration Extensions for IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Neighbor Discovery", RFC 8505, DOI 10.17487/RFC8505, November 2018, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8505>. 7.2. Informative References [I-D.halpern-6man-nd-pre-resolve-addr] Chen, I. and J. Halpern, "Triggering ND Address Resolution on Receiving DAD-NS", draft-halpern-6man-nd-pre-resolve- addr-00 (work in progress), January 2014. [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>. Author's Address Jen Linkova Google 1 Darling Island Rd Pyrmont, NSW 2009 AU Email: furry@google.com Linkova Expires February 21, 2021 [Page 12]