Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)
draft-templin-aerolink-71
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 | Fred Templin | ||
| Last updated | 2016-09-07 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-templin-intarea-6706bis, draft-templin-intarea-6706bis | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | |||
| 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-templin-aerolink-71
Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology
Obsoletes: rfc5320, rfc5558, rfc5720, September 07, 2016
rfc6179, rfc6706 (if
approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: March 11, 2017
Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)
draft-templin-aerolink-71.txt
Abstract
This document specifies the operation of IP over tunnel virtual links
using Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO). Nodes attached
to AERO links can exchange packets via trusted intermediate routers
that provide forwarding services to reach off-link destinations and
redirection services for route optimization. AERO provides an IPv6
link-local address format known as the AERO address that supports
operation of the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) protocol and links IPv6
ND to IP forwarding. Admission control, address/prefix provisioning
and mobility are supported by the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6), and route optimization is naturally supported
through dynamic neighbor cache updates. Although DHCPv6 and IPv6 ND
messaging are used in the control plane, both IPv4 and IPv6 are
supported in the data plane. AERO is a widely-applicable tunneling
solution especially well suited to mobile Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs) and other applications as described in this document.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on March 11, 2017.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO) . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. AERO Link Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. AERO Link Node Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. AERO Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. AERO Interface Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. AERO Link Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6. AERO Interface Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6.1. AERO Relay Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6.2. AERO Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6.3. AERO Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.6.4. AERO Forwarding Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7. AERO Routing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.8. AERO Interface Neighbor Cache Maintenace . . . . . . . . 15
3.9. AERO Interface Sending Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.10. AERO Interface Encapsulation and Re-encapsulation . . . . 19
3.11. AERO Interface Decapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.12. AERO Interface Data Origin Authentication . . . . . . . . 20
3.13. AERO Interface Packet Size Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.14. AERO Interface Error Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.15. AERO Router Discovery, Prefix Delegation and Address
Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.15.1. AERO DHCPv6 Service Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.15.2. AERO Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.15.3. AERO Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.16. AERO Forwarding Agent Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.17. AERO Link Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.17.1. Reference Operational Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.17.2. Concept of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.17.3. Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.17.4. Sending Predirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.17.5. Re-encapsulating and Relaying Predirects . . . . . . 37
3.17.6. Processing Predirects and Sending Redirects . . . . 37
3.17.7. Re-encapsulating and Relaying Redirects . . . . . . 39
3.17.8. Processing Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.17.9. Server-Oriented Redirection . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.17.10. Route Optimization Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.17.11. Route Optimization and Multiple ACPs . . . . . . . . 41
3.18. Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) . . . . . . . . . 41
3.19. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.19.1. Announcing Link-Layer Address Changes . . . . . . . 42
3.19.2. Bringing New Links Into Service . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.19.3. Removing Existing Links from Service . . . . . . . . 43
3.19.4. Implicit Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.19.5. Moving to a New Server . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.19.6. Packet Queueing for Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.20. Proxy AERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.21. Extending AERO Links Through Security Gateways . . . . . 47
3.22. Extending IPv6 AERO Links to the Internet . . . . . . . . 49
3.23. Operation on AERO Links Without DHCPv6 Services . . . . . 52
3.24. Operation on Server-less AERO Links . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.25. AERO Operation without DHCPv6 Client/Server Exchanges . . 53
3.26. Manually-Configured AERO Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.27. Encapsulation Avoidance on Relay-Server Dedicated Links . 53
3.28. Encapsulation Protocol Version Considerations . . . . . . 54
3.29. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix A. AERO Alternate Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Appendix B. When to Insert an Encapsulation Fragment Header . . 66
Appendix C. Autoconfiguration for Constrained Platforms . . . . 67
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
1. Introduction
This document specifies the operation of IP over tunnel virtual links
using Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO). The AERO link
can be used for tunneling to neighboring nodes over either IPv6 or
IPv4 networks, i.e., AERO views the IPv6 and IPv4 networks as
equivalent links for tunneling. Nodes attached to AERO links can
exchange packets via trusted intermediate routers that provide
forwarding services to reach off-link destinations and redirection
services for route optimization [RFC5522].
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
AERO provides an IPv6 link-local address format known as the AERO
address that supports operation of the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND)
[RFC4861] protocol and links IPv6 ND to IP forwarding. Admission
control, address/prefix provisioning and mobility are supported by
the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315],
and route optimization is naturally supported through dynamic
neighbor cache updates. Although DHCPv6 and IPv6 ND messaging are
used in the control plane, both IPv4 and IPv6 can be used in the data
plane.
AERO is applicable to a wide variety of use cases. For example, it
can be used to coordinate the Virtual Private Network (VPN) links of
mobile devices (e.g., cellphones, tablets, laptop computers, etc.)
that connect into a home enterprise network via public access
networks. AERO can also be applied to aviation applications for both
manned and unmanned aircraft where the aircraft is treated as a
mobile host or router that can connect an Internet of Things (IoT).
Numerous other use cases are also in scope. The remainder of this
document presents the AERO specification.
2. Terminology
The terminology in the normative references applies; the following
terms are defined within the scope of this document:
AERO link
a Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA) tunnel virtual overlay
configured over a node's attached IPv6 and/or IPv4 networks. All
nodes on the AERO link appear as single-hop neighbors from the
perspective of the virtual overlay even though they may be
separated by many underlying network hops. AERO can also operate
over native multiple access link types (e.g., Ethernet, WiFi etc.)
when a tunnel virtual overlay is not needed.
AERO interface
a node's attachment to an AERO link. Since the addresses assigned
to an AERO interface are obtained from the unique prefix
delegations it receives, AERO interfaces do not require Duplicate
Address Detection (DAD) and therefore set the administrative
variable DupAddrDetectTransmits to zero [RFC4862].
AERO address
an IPv6 link-local address constructed as specified in Section 3.3
and assigned to a Client's AERO interface.
AERO node
a node that is connected to an AERO link and that participates in
IPv6 ND and DHCPv6 messaging over the link.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
AERO Client ("Client")
a node that issues DHCPv6 messages to receive IP Prefix
Delegations (PDs) from one or more AERO Servers. Following PD,
the Client assigns an AERO address to the AERO interface for use
in DHCPv6 and IPv6 ND exchanges with other AERO nodes.
AERO Server ("Server")
a node that configures an AERO interface to provide default
forwarding and DHCPv6 services for AERO Clients. The Server
assigns an administratively provisioned IPv6 link-local unicast
address to support the operation of DHCPv6 and the IPv6 ND
protocol. An AERO Server can also act as an AERO Relay.
AERO Relay ("Relay")
a node that configures an AERO interface to relay IP packets
between nodes on the same AERO link and/or forward IP packets
between the AERO link and the native Internetwork. The Relay
assigns an administratively provisioned IPv6 link-local unicast
address to the AERO interface the same as for a Server. An AERO
Relay can also act as an AERO Server.
AERO Forwarding Agent ("Forwarding Agent")
a node that performs data plane forwarding services as a companion
to an AERO Server.
ingress tunnel endpoint (ITE)
an AERO interface endpoint that injects tunneled packets into an
AERO link.
egress tunnel endpoint (ETE)
an AERO interface endpoint that receives tunneled packets from an
AERO link.
underlying network
a connected IPv6 or IPv4 network routing region over which the
tunnel virtual overlay is configured.
underlying interface
an AERO node's interface point of attachment to an underlying
network.
link-layer address
an IP address assigned to an AERO node's underlying interface.
When UDP encapsulation is used, the UDP port number is also
considered as part of the link-layer address; otherwise, UDP port
number is set to the constant value '0'. Link-layer addresses are
used as the encapsulation header source and destination addresses.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
network layer address
the source or destination address of the encapsulated IP packet.
end user network (EUN)
an internal virtual or external edge IP network that an AERO
Client connects to the rest of the network via the AERO interface.
AERO Service Prefix (ASP)
an IP prefix associated with the AERO link and from which more-
specific AERO Client Prefixes (ACPs) are derived.
AERO Client Prefix (ACP)
an IP prefix derived from an ASP and delegated to a Client, where
the ACP prefix length must be no shorter than the ASP prefix
length and must be no longer than 64 for IPv6 or 32 for IPv4.
Throughout the document, the simple terms "Client", "Server" and
"Relay" refer to "AERO Client", "AERO Server" and "AERO Relay",
respectively. Capitalization is used to distinguish these terms from
DHCPv6 client/server/relay [RFC3315].
The terminology of DHCPv6 [RFC3315] and IPv6 ND [RFC4861] (including
the names of node variables and protocol constants) applies to this
document. Also throughout the document, the term "IP" is used to
generically refer to either Internet Protocol version (i.e., IPv4 or
IPv6).
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. Lower case
uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying RFC2119
significance.
3. Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO)
The following sections specify the operation of IP over Asymmetric
Extended Route Optimization (AERO) links:
3.1. AERO Link Reference Model
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
.-(::::::::)
.-(:::: IP ::::)-.
(:: Internetwork ::)
`-(::::::::::::)-'
`-(::::::)-'
|
+--------------+ +--------+-------+ +--------------+
|AERO Server S1| | AERO Relay R1 | |AERO Server S2|
| Nbr: C1; R1 | | Nbr: S1; S2 | | Nbr: C2; R1 |
| default->R1 | |(P1->S1; P2->S2)| | default->R1 |
| P1->C1 | | ASP A1 | | P2->C2 |
+-------+------+ +--------+-------+ +------+-------+
| | |
X---+---+-------------------+------------------+---+---X
| AERO Link |
+-----+--------+ +--------+-----+
|AERO Client C1| |AERO Client C2|
| Nbr: S1 | | Nbr: S2 |
| default->S1 | | default->S2 |
| ACP P1 | | ACP P2 |
+--------------+ +--------------+
.-. .-.
,-( _)-. ,-( _)-.
.-(_ IP )-. .-(_ IP )-.
(__ EUN ) (__ EUN )
`-(______)-' `-(______)-'
| |
+--------+ +--------+
| Host H1| | Host H2|
+--------+ +--------+
Figure 1: AERO Link Reference Model
Figure 1 presents the AERO link reference model. In this model:
o AERO Relay R1 aggregates AERO Service Prefix (ASP) A1, acts as a
default router for its associated Servers S1 and S2, and connects
the AERO link to the rest of the IP Internetwork.
o AERO Servers S1 and S2 associate with Relay R1 and also act as
default routers for their associated Clients C1 and C2.
o AERO Clients C1 and C2 associate with Servers S1 and S2,
respectively. They receive AERO Client Prefix (ACP) delegations
P1 and P2, and also act as default routers for their associated
physical or internal virtual EUNs. (Alternatively, clients can
act as multi-addressed hosts without serving any EUNs).
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
o Simple hosts H1 and H2 attach to the EUNs served by Clients C1 and
C2, respectively.
Each AERO node maintains an AERO interface neighbor cache and an IP
forwarding table. For example, AERO Relay R1 in the diagram has
neighbor cache entries for Servers S1 and S2 as well as IP forwarding
table entries for the ACPs delegated to Clients C1 and C2. In common
operational practice, there may be many additional Relays, Servers
and Clients. (Although not shown in the figure, AERO Forwarding
Agents may also be provided for data plane forwarding offload
services.)
3.2. AERO Link Node Types
AERO Relays provide default forwarding services to AERO Servers.
Relays forward packets between neighbors connected to the same AERO
link and also forward packets between the AERO link and the native IP
Internetwork. Relays present the AERO link to the native
Internetwork as a set of one or more AERO Service Prefixes (ASPs) and
serve as a gateway between the AERO link and the Internetwork. AERO
Relays maintain an AERO interface neighbor cache entry for each AERO
Server, and maintain an IP forwarding table entry for each AERO
Client Prefix (ACP). AERO Relays can also be configured to act as
AERO Servers.
AERO Servers provide default forwarding services to AERO Clients.
Each Server also peers with each Relay in a dynamic routing protocol
instance to advertise its list of associated ACPs. Servers configure
a DHCPv6 server function to facilitate Prefix Delegation (PD)
exchanges with Clients. Each delegated prefix becomes an ACP taken
from an ASP. Servers forward packets between AERO interface
neighbors, and maintain an AERO interface neighbor cache entry for
each AERO Relay. They also maintain both neighbor cache entries and
IP forwarding table entries for each of their associated Clients.
AERO Servers can also be configured to act as AERO Relays.
AERO Clients act as requesting routers to receive ACPs through DHCPv6
PD exchanges with AERO Servers over the AERO link. Each Client MAY
associate with a single Server or with multiple Servers, e.g., for
fault tolerance, load balancing, etc. Each IPv6 Client receives at
least a /64 IPv6 ACP, and may receive even shorter prefixes.
Similarly, each IPv4 Client receives at least a /32 IPv4 ACP (i.e., a
singleton IPv4 address), and may receive even shorter prefixes. AERO
Clients maintain an AERO interface neighbor cache entry for each of
their associated Servers as well as for each of their correspondent
Clients.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
AERO Forwarding Agents provide data plane forwarding services as
companions to AERO Servers. Note that while Servers are required to
perform both control and data plane operations on their own behalf,
they may optionally enlist the services of special-purpose Forwarding
Agents to offload data plane traffic.
3.3. AERO Addresses
An AERO address is an IPv6 link-local address with an embedded ACP
and assigned to a Client's AERO interface. The AERO address remains
stable as the Client moves between topological locations, i.e., even
if its link-layer addresses change.
For IPv6, the AERO address begins with the prefix fe80::/64 and
includes in its interface identifier (i.e., the lower 64 bits) the
base prefix taken from the Client's IPv6 ACP. The base prefix is
determined by masking the ACP with the prefix length. For example,
if the AERO Client receives the IPv6 ACP:
2001:db8:1000:2000::/56
it constructs its AERO address as:
fe80::2001:db8:1000:2000
For IPv4, the AERO address is based on an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address
[RFC4291] formed from the ACP and with a Prefix Length of 96 plus the
ACP prefix length. For example, for the IPv4 ACP 192.0.2.32/28 the
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address is:
0:0:0:0:0:FFFF:192.0.2.32/124
The Client then constructs its AERO address with the prefix fe80::/64
and with the lower 64 bits of the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address in the
interface identifier as:
fe80::FFFF:192.0.2.32
NOTE: In some cases, prospective neighbors may not have advanced
knowledge of the Client's ACP length and may therefore send initial
IPv6 ND messages with an AERO destination address that matches the
ACP but does not correspond to the base prefix. For example, if the
Client receives the IPv6 ACP 2001:db8:1000:2000::/56 then
subsequently receives an IPv6 ND message with destination address
fe80::2001:db8:1000:2001, it accepts the message as though it were
addressed to fe80::2001:db8:1000:2000.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.4. AERO Interface Characteristics
AERO interfaces use encapsulation (see: Section 3.10) to exchange
packets with neighbors attached to the AERO link.
AERO interfaces maintain a neighbor cache, and AERO nodes use both
DHCPv6 and IPv6 ND control messaging to manage the creation,
modification and deletion of neighbor cache entries.
AERO Clients send DHCPv6 Solicit, Rebind, Renew and Release messages
to AERO Servers, which respond with DHCPv6 Reply messages. AERO
nodes use unicast IPv6 ND Neighbor Solicitation (NS), Neighbor
Advertisement (NA), Router Solicitation (RS) and Router Advertisement
(RA) messages the same as for any IPv6 link.
AERO interfaces use two IPv6 ND redirection message types -- the
first known as a Predirect message and the second being the standard
Redirect message (see Section 3.17).
AERO interface ND messages include one or more Source/Target Link-
Layer Address Options (S/TLLAOs) formatted as shown in Figure 2:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length = 5 | Reserved1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved2 | Interface ID | UDP Port Number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ IP Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|P00|P01|P02|P03|P04|P05|P06|P07|P08|P09|P10|P11|P12|P13|P14|P15|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|P16|P17|P18|P19|P20|P21|P22|P23|P24|P25|P26|P27|P28|P29|P30|P31|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|P32|P33|P34|P35|P36|P37|P38|P39|P40|P41|P42|P43|P44|P45|P46|P47|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|P48|P49|P50|P51|P52|P53|P54|P55|P56|P57|P58|P59|P60|P61|P62|P63|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: AERO Source/Target Link-Layer Address Option (S/TLLAO)
Format
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
In this format:
o Type is set to '1' for SLLAO or '2' for TLLAO the same as for IPv6
ND.
o Length is set to the constant value '5' (i.e., 5 units of 8
octets).
o Both Reserved fields are set to the value '0' on transmission and
ignored on receipt.
o Interface ID is set to an integer value between 0 and 255
corresponding to an underlying interface of the AERO node.
o UDP Port Number and IP Address are set to the addresses used by
the AERO node when it sends encapsulated packets over the
underlying interface. When UDP is not used as part of the
encapsulation, UDP Port Number is set to the value '0'. When the
encapsulation IP address family is IPv4, IP Address is formed as
an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address as specified in Section 3.3.
o P[i] is a set of 64 Preference values that correspond to the 64
Differentiated Service Code Point (DSCP) values [RFC2474]. Each
P(i) is set to the value '0' ("disabled"), '1' ("low"), '2'
("medium") or '3' ("high") to indicate a preference level for
packet forwarding purposes.
AERO interfaces may be configured over multiple underlying
interfaces. For example, common mobile handheld devices have both
wireless local area network ("WLAN") and cellular wireless links.
These links are typically used "one at a time" with low-cost WLAN
preferred and highly-available cellular wireless as a standby. In a
more complex example, aircraft frequently have many wireless data
link types (e.g. satellite-based, cellular, terrestrial, air-to-air
directional, etc.) with diverse performance and cost properties.
If a Client's multiple underlying interfaces are used "one at a time"
(i.e., all other interfaces are in standby mode while one interface
is active), then IPv6 ND messages include only a single S/TLLAO with
Interface ID set to a constant value.
If the Client has multiple active underlying interfaces, then from
the perspective of IPv6 ND it would appear to have multiple link-
layer addresses. In that case, IPv6 ND messages MAY include multiple
S/TLLAOs -- each with an Interface ID that corresponds to a specific
underlying interface of the AERO node.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.5. AERO Link Registration
When an administrative authority first deploys a set of AERO Relays
and Servers that comprise an AERO link, they also assign a unique
domain name for the link, e.g., "linkupnetworks.example.com". Next,
if administrative policy permits Clients within the domain to serve
as correspondent nodes for Internet mobile nodes, the administrative
authority adds a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) for each of the
AERO link's ASPs to the Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1035]. The FQDN
is based on the suffix "aero.linkupnetworks.net" with a prefix formed
from the wildcard-terminated reverse mapping of the ASP
[RFC3596][RFC4592], and resolves to a DNS PTR resource record. For
example, for the ASP '2001:db8:1::/48' within the domain name
"linkupnetworks.example.com", the DNS database contains:
'*.1.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.aero.linkupnetworks.net. PTR
linkupnetworks.example.com'
This DNS registration advertises the AERO link's ASPs to prospective
correspondent nodes.
3.6. AERO Interface Initialization
3.6.1. AERO Relay Behavior
When a Relay enables an AERO interface, it first assigns an
administratively provisioned link-local address fe80::ID to the
interface. Each fe80::ID address MUST be unique among all AERO nodes
on the link, and MUST NOT collide with any potential AERO addresses
nor the special addresses fe80:: and fe80::ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff. (The
fe80::ID addresses are typically taken from the available range
fe80::/96, e.g., as fe80::1, fe80::2, fe80::3, etc.) The Relay then
engages in a dynamic routing protocol session with all Servers on the
link (see: Section 3.7), and advertises its assigned ASPs into the
native IP Internetwork.
Each Relay subsequently maintains an IP forwarding table entry for
each ACP covered by its ASP(s), and maintains a neighbor cache entry
for each Server on the link. Relays exchange NS/NA messages with
AERO link neighbors the same as for any AERO node, however they
typically do not perform explicit Neighbor Unreachability Detection
(NUD) (see: Section 3.18) since the dynamic routing protocol already
provides reachability confirmation.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.6.2. AERO Server Behavior
When a Server enables an AERO interface, it assigns an
administratively provisioned link-local address fe80::ID the same as
for Relays. The Server further configures a DHCPv6 server function
to facilitate DHCPv6 PD exchanges with AERO Clients. The Server
maintains a neighbor cache entry for each Relay on the link, and
manages per-ACP neighbor cache entries and IP forwarding table
entries based on control message exchanges. Each Server also engages
in a dynamic routing protocol with each Relay on the link (see:
Section 3.7).
When the Server receives an NS/RS message from a Client on the AERO
interface it returns an NA/RA message. The Server further provides a
simple link-layer conduit between AERO interface neighbors. In
particular, when a packet sent by a source Client arrives on the
Server's AERO interface and is destined to another of the Server's
Clients, the Server forwards the packet at the link layer without
ever disturbing the network layer and without ever leaving the AERO
interface.
3.6.3. AERO Client Behavior
When a Client enables an AERO interface, it uses the special address
fe80::ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff to obtain one or more ACPs from an AERO
Server via DHCPv6 PD. Next, it assigns the corresponding AERO
address(es) to the AERO interface and creates a neighbor cache entry
for the Server, i.e., the DHCPv6 PD exchange bootstraps
autoconfiguration of unique link-local address(es). The Client
maintains a neighbor cache entry for each of its Servers and each of
its active correspondent Clients. When the Client receives Redirect/
Predirect messages on the AERO interface it updates or creates
neighbor cache entries, including link-layer address information.
3.6.4. AERO Forwarding Agent Behavior
When a Forwarding Agent enables an AERO interface, it assigns the
same link-local address(es) as the companion AERO Server. The
Forwarding Agent thereafter provides data plane forwarding services
based solely on the forwarding information assigned to it by the
companion AERO Server.
3.7. AERO Routing System
The AERO routing system is based on a private instance of the Border
Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4271] that is coordinated between Relays
and Servers and does not interact with either the public Internet BGP
routing system or the native IP Internetwork interior routing system.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
Relays advertise only a small and unchanging set of ASPs to the
native routing system instead of the full dynamically changing set of
ACPs.
In a reference deployment, each AERO Server is configured as an
Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR) for a stub Autonomous System
(AS) using an AS Number (ASN) that is unique within the BGP instance,
and each Server further peers with each Relay but does not peer with
other Servers. Similarly, Relays do not peer with each other, since
they will reliably receive all updates from all Servers and will
therefore have a consistent view of the AERO link ACP delegations.
Each Server maintains a working set of associated ACPs, and
dynamically announces new ACPs and withdraws departed ACPs in its BGP
updates to Relays. Clients are expected to remain associated with
their current Servers for extended timeframes, however Servers SHOULD
selectively suppress BGP updates for impatient Clients that
repeatedly associate and disassociate with them in order to dampen
routing churn.
Each Relay configures a black-hole route for each of its ASPs. By
black-holing the ASPs, the Relay will maintain forwarding table
entries only for the ACPs that are currently active, and all other
ACPs will correctly result in destination unreachable failures due to
the black hole route. Relays do not send BGP updates for ACPs to
Servers, but instead originate a default route. In this way, Servers
have only partial topology knowledge (i.e., they know only about the
ACPs of their directly associated Cliens) and they forward all other
packets to Relays which have full topology knowledge.
Scaling properties of the AERO routing system are limited by the
number of BGP routes that can be carried by Relays. Assuming O(10^6)
as a reasonable maximum number of BGP routes, this means that O(10^6)
Clients can be serviced by a single set of Relays. A means of
increasing scaling would be to assign a different set of Relays for
each set of ASPs. In that case, each Server still peers with each
Relay, but the Server institutes route filters so that each set of
Relays only receives BGP updates for the ASPs they aggregate. For
example, if the ASP for the AERO link is 2001:db8::/32, a first set
of Relays could service the ASP segment 2001:db8::/40, a second set
of Relays could service 2001:db8:0100::/40, a third set could service
2001:db8:0200::/40, etc.
Assuming up to O(10^3) sets of Relays, the AERO routing system can
then accommodate O(10^9) ACPs with no additional overhead for Servers
and Relays (for example, it should be possible to service 4 billion
/64 ACPs taken from a /32 ASP and even more for shorter ASPs). In
this way, each set of Relays services a specific set of ASPs that
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
they advertise to the native routing system, and each Server
configures ASP-specific routes that list the correct set of Relays as
next hops. This arrangement also allows for natural incremental
deployment, and can support small scale initial deployments followed
by dynamic deployment of additional Clients, Servers and Relays
without disturbing the already-deployed base.
Note that in an alternate routing arrangement each set of Relays
could advertise the aggregated ASP for the link into the native
routing system even though each Relay services only a segment of the
ASP. In that case, a Relay upon receiving a packet with a
destination address covered by the ASP segment of another Relay can
simply tunnel the packet to the correct Relay. The tradeoff then is
the penalty for Relay-to-Relay tunneling compared with reduced
routing information in the native routing system.
Finally, Realys can express preferences for ACPs learned from
multiple Servers by assigning a BGP weight to each Server's peering
configuration. In this way Relays can choose the Serevr with the
highest weight as the preferred path, and then fail over to a Server
with lower weight in case of ACP withdrawl or Server failure.
3.8. AERO Interface Neighbor Cache Maintenace
Each AERO interface maintains a conceptual neighbor cache that
includes an entry for each neighbor it communicates with on the AERO
link, the same as for any IPv6 interface [RFC4861]. AERO interface
neighbor cache entires are said to be one of "permanent", "static" or
"dynamic".
Permanent neighbor cache entries are created through explicit
administrative action; they have no timeout values and remain in
place until explicitly deleted. AERO Relays maintain a permanent
neighbor cache entry for each Server on the link, and AERO Servers
maintain a permanent neighbor cache entry for each Relay. Each entry
maintains the mapping between the neighbor's fe80::ID network-layer
address and corresponding link-layer address.
Static neighbor cache entries are created through DHCPv6 PD exchanges
as specified in Section 3.15 and remain in place for durations
bounded by prefix lifetimes. AERO Servers maintain static neighbor
cache entries for the ACPs of each of their associated Clients, and
AERO Clients maintain a static neighbor cache entry for each of their
associated Servers. When an AERO Server sends a Reply message
response to a Client's Solicit, Rebind or Renew message, it creates
or updates a static neighbor cache entry based on the Client's DHCP
Unique Identifier (DUID) as the Client identifier, the AERO
address(es) corresponding to the Client's ACP(s) as the network-layer
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
address(es), the prefix lifetime as the neighbor cache entry
lifetime, the Client's encapsulation IP address and UDP port number
as the link-layer address and the prefix length(s) as the length to
apply to the AERO address(es). When an AERO Client receives a Reply
message from a Server, it creates or updates a static neighbor cache
entry based on the Reply message link-local source address as the
network-layer address, the prefix lifetime as the neighbor cache
entry lifetime, and the encapsulation IP source address and UDP
source port number as the link-layer address.
Dynamic neighbor cache entries are created or updated based on
receipt of a Predirect/Redirect message as specified in Section 3.17,
and are garbage-collected when keepalive timers expire. AERO Clients
maintain dynamic neighbor cache entries for each of their active
correspondent Client ACPs with lifetimes based on IPv6 ND messaging
constants. When an AERO Client receives a valid Predirect message it
creates or updates a dynamic neighbor cache entry for the Predirect
target network-layer and link-layer addresses plus prefix length.
The node then sets an "AcceptTime" variable in the neighbor cache
entry to ACCEPT_TIME seconds and uses this value to determine whether
packets received from the correspondent can be accepted. When an
AERO Client receives a valid Redirect message it creates or updates a
dynamic neighbor cache entry for the Redirect target network-layer
and link-layer addresses plus prefix length. The Client then sets a
"ForwardTime" variable in the neighbor cache entry to FORWARD_TIME
seconds and uses this value to determine whether packets can be sent
directly to the correspondent. The Client also sets a "MaxRetry"
variable to MAX_RETRY to limit the number of keepalives sent when a
correspondent may have gone unreachable.
It is RECOMMENDED that FORWARD_TIME be set to the default constant
value 30 seconds to match the default REACHABLE_TIME value specified
for IPv6 ND [RFC4861].
It is RECOMMENDED that ACCEPT_TIME be set to the default constant
value 40 seconds to allow a 10 second window so that the AERO
redirection procedure can converge before AcceptTime decrements below
FORWARD_TIME.
It is RECOMMENDED that MAX_RETRY be set to 3 the same as described
for IPv6 ND address resolution in Section 7.3.3 of [RFC4861].
Different values for FORWARD_TIME, ACCEPT_TIME, and MAX_RETRY MAY be
administratively set, if necessary, to better match the AERO link's
performance characteristics; however, if different values are chosen,
all nodes on the link MUST consistently configure the same values.
Most importantly, ACCEPT_TIME SHOULD be set to a value that is
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
sufficiently longer than FORWARD_TIME to allow the AERO redirection
procedure to converge.
When there may be a Network Address Translator (NAT) between the
Client and the Server, or if the path from the Client to the Server
should be tested for reachability, the Client can send periodic RS
messages to the Server to receive RA replies. The RS/RA messaging
will keep NAT state alive and test Server reachability without
disturbing the DHCPv6 server.
3.9. AERO Interface Sending Algorithm
IP packets enter a node's AERO interface either from the network
layer (i.e., from a local application or the IP forwarding system),
or from the link layer (i.e., from the AERO tunnel virtual link).
Packets that enter the AERO interface from the network layer are
encapsulated and admitted into the AERO link, i.e., they are
tunnelled to an AERO interface neighbor. Packets that enter the AERO
interface from the link layer are either re-admitted into the AERO
link or delivered to the network layer where they are subject to
either local delivery or IP forwarding. Since each AERO node may
have only partial information about neighbors on the link, AERO
interfaces may forward packets with link-local destination addresses
at a layer below the network layer. This means that AERO nodes act
as both IP routers/hosts and sub-IP layer forwarding nodes. AERO
interface sending considerations for Clients, Servers and Relays are
given below.
When an IP packet enters a Client's AERO interface from the network
layer, if the destination is covered by an ASP the Client searches
for a dynamic neighbor cache entry with a non-zero ForwardTime and an
AERO address that matches the packet's destination address. (The
destination address may be either an address covered by the
neighbor's ACP or the (link-local) AERO address itself.) If there is
a match, the Client uses a link-layer address in the entry as the
link-layer address for encapsulation then admits the packet into the
AERO link. If there is no match, the Client instead uses the link-
layer address of a neighboring Server as the link-layer address for
encapsulation.
When an IP packet enters a Server's AERO interface from the link
layer, if the destination is covered by an ASP the Server searches
for a neighbor cache entry with an AERO address that matches the
packet's destination address. (The destination address may be either
an address covered by the neighbor's ACP or the AERO address itself.)
If there is a match, the Server uses a link-layer address in the
entry as the link-layer address for encapsulation and re-admits the
packet into the AERO link. If there is no match, the Server instead
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
uses the link-layer address in a permanent neighbor cache entry for a
Relay selected through longest-prefix-match as the link-layer address
for encapsulation.
When an IP packet enters a Relay's AERO interface from the network
layer, the Relay searches its IP forwarding table for an entry that
is covered by an ASP and also matches the destination. If there is a
match, the Relay uses the link-layer address in the corresponding
neighbor cache entry as the link-layer address for encapsulation and
admits the packet into the AERO link. When an IP packet enters a
Relay's AERO interface from the link-layer, if the destination is not
a link-local address and does not match an ASP the Relay removes the
packet from the AERO interface and uses IP forwarding to forward the
packet to the Internetwork. If the destination address is a link-
local address or a non-link-local address that matches an ASP, and
there is a more-specific ACP entry in the IP forwarding table, the
Relay uses the link-layer address in the corresponding neighbor cache
entry as the link-layer address for encapsulation and re-admits the
packet into the AERO link. When an IP packet enters a Relay's AERO
interface from either the network layer or link-layer, and the
packet's destination address matches an ASP but there is no more-
specific ACP entry, the Relay drops the packet and returns an ICMP
Destination Unreachable message (see: Section 3.14).
When an AERO Server receives a packet from a Relay via the AERO
interface, the Server MUST NOT forward the packet back to the same or
a different Relay.
When an AERO Relay receives a packet from a Server via the AERO
interface, the Relay MUST NOT forward the packet back to the same
Server.
When an AERO node re-admits a packet into the AERO link without
involving the network layer, the node MUST NOT decrement the network
layer TTL/Hop-count.
When an AERO node forwards a data packet to the primary link-layer
address of a Server, it may receive Redirect messages with an SLLAO
that include the link-layer address of an AERO Forwarding Agent. The
AERO node SHOULD record the link-layer address in the neighbor cache
entry for the neighbor and send subsequent data packets via this
address instead of the Server's primary address (see: Section 3.16).
AERO nodes may have multiple underlying interfaces and/or neighbor
cache entries for Clients with multiple Interface ID registrations
(see Section 3.4). The AERO node uses the packet's DSCP value to
select the outgoing underlying interface based on its own Interface
ID preference values and to select the destination link-layer address
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
based on the neighbor's Interface ID with the highest preference
value. If multiple Interface IDs have a preference of "high", the
AERO node sends one copy of the packet to each of the link-layer
addresses (i.e., it replicates the packet); otherwise, the node sends
a single copy of the packet.
3.10. AERO Interface Encapsulation and Re-encapsulation
AERO interfaces encapsulate IP packets according to whether they are
entering the AERO interface from the network layer or if they are
being re-admitted into the same AERO link they arrived on. This
latter form of encapsulation is known as "re-encapsulation".
The AERO interface encapsulates packets per the Generic UDP
Encapsulation (GUE) encapsulation procedures in
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue][I-D.herbert-gue-fragmentation], or through an
alternate encapsulation format (see: Appendix A). For packets
entering the AERO link from the IP layer, the AERO interface copies
the "TTL/Hop Limit", "Type of Service/Traffic Class" [RFC2983], "Flow
Label"[RFC6438].(for IPv6) and "Congestion Experienced" [RFC3168]
values in the packet's IP header into the corresponding fields in the
encapsulation IP header. For packets undergoing re-encapsulation
within the AERO link, the AERO interface instead copies the "TTL/Hop
Limit", "Type of Service/Traffic Class", "Flow Label" and "Congestion
Experienced" values in the original encapsulation IP header into the
corresponding fields in the new encapsulation IP header, i.e., the
values are transferred between encapsulation headers and *not* copied
from the encapsulated packet's network-layer header.
When GUE encapsulation is used, the AERO interface next sets the UDP
source port to a constant value that it will use in each successive
packet it sends, and sets the UDP length field to the length of the
encapsulated packet plus 8 bytes for the UDP header itself plus the
length of the GUE header (or 0 if GUE direct IP encapsulation is
used). For packets sent to a Server, the AERO interface sets the UDP
destination port to 8060, i.e., the IANA-registered port number for
AERO. For packets sent to a correspondent Client, the AERO interface
sets the UDP destination port to the port value stored in the
neighbor cache entry for this correspondent. The AERO interface then
either includes or omits the UDP checksum according to the GUE
specification.
For IPv4 encapsulation, the AERO interface sets the DF bit as
discussed in Section 3.13.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.11. AERO Interface Decapsulation
AERO interfaces decapsulate packets destined either to the AERO node
itself or to a destination reached via an interface other than the
AERO interface the packet was received on. Decapsulation is per the
procedures specified for the appropriate encapsulation format.
3.12. AERO Interface Data Origin Authentication
AERO nodes employ simple data origin authentication procedures for
encapsulated packets they receive from other nodes on the AERO link.
In particular:
o AERO Servers and Relays accept encapsulated packets with a link-
layer source address that matches a permanent neighbor cache
entry.
o AERO Servers accept authentic encapsulated DHCPv6 messages from
Clients, and create or update a static neighbor cache entry for
the Client based on the specific DHCPv6 message type.
o AERO Clients and Servers accept encapsulated packets if there is a
static neighbor cache entry with a link-layer address that matches
the packet's link-layer source address.
o AERO Clients, Servers and Relays accept encapsulated packets if
there is a dynamic neighbor cache entry with an AERO address that
matches the packet's network-layer source address, with a link-
layer address that matches the packet's link-layer source address,
and with a non-zero AcceptTime.
Note that this simple data origin authentication is effective in
environments in which link-layer addresses cannot be spoofed. In
other environments, each AERO message must include a signature that
the recipient can use to authenticate the message origin.
3.13. AERO Interface Packet Size Issues
The AERO interface is the node's attachment to the AERO link. The
AERO interface acts as a tunnel ingress when it sends a packet to an
AERO link neighbor and as a tunnel egress when it receives a packet
from an AERO link neighbor. AERO interfaces observe the packet
sizing considerations for tunnels discussed in
[I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels] and as specified below.
IPv6 specifies a minimum link Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of 1280
bytes [RFC2460]. Although IPv4 specifies a smaller minimum link MTU
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
of 68 bytes [RFC0791], AERO interfaces also observe the IPv6 minimum
for IPv4 even if the packet may incur fragmentation in the network.
IPv6 specifies a minimum Maximum Reassembly Unit (MRU) of 1500 bytes
[RFC2460], while the minimum MRU for IPv4 is only 576 bytes [RFC1122]
(note that IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels assume a larger MRU than the IPv4
minimum).
Original sources expect that IP packets will either be delivered to
the final destination or a suitable Packet Too Big (PTB) message
returned. However, PTB messages may be crafted for malicious
purposes such as denial of service, or lost in the network [RFC2923]
resulting in failure of the IP Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) mechanisms
[RFC1191][RFC1981]. For these reasons, AERO links employ operational
procedures that avoid all interactions with PMTUD.
AERO Servers advertise an MTU that MUST be no smaller than 1280
bytes, MUST be no larger than the minimum MRU among all nodes on the
AERO link minus the encapsulation overhead ("ENCAPS"), and SHOULD be
no smaller than 1500 bytes. AERO Servers advertise a Maximum
Fragment Unit (MFU) as the maximum size for the fragments of an
encapsulated packet that require fragmentation. The MFU value MUST
NOT be larger than (MTU+ENCAPS) and MUST NOT be larger than 1280
bytes unless there is operational assurance that a larger size can
traverse the link along all paths without fragmentation.
AERO Clients set the AERO interface MTU/MFU based on the values
advertised by their Server, and configure an MRU large enough to
reassemble packets up to (MTU+ENCAPS) bytes.
All AERO nodes on the link MUST configure the same MTU/MFU values for
reasons cited in [RFC3819][RFC4861] (in particular, multicast support
requires a common MTU value among all nodes on the link).
All AERO nodes on the link MUST configure a minimum MRU of
(1500+ENCAPS) bytes, and SHOULD be capable of setting a larger MRU
accoding to the Server's advertised MTU.
In accordnace with these requirements, the ingress accommodates
packets of various sizes as follows:
o First, for each original IPv4 packet that is larger than the AERO
interface MTU and with the DF bit set to 0, the ingress uses IPv4
fragmentation to break the packet into a minimum number of non-
overlapping fragments where the first fragment is no larger than
(MFU-ENCAPS) bytes and the remaining fragments are no larger than
the first.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
o Next, for each original IP packet or fragment that is no larger
than (MFU-ENCAPS) bytes, the ingress encapsulates the packet and
admits it into the tunnel. For IPv4 AERO links, the ingress sets
the Don't Fragment (DF) bit to 0 so that these packets will be
delivered to the egress even if some fragmentation occurs in the
network.
o For all other original IP packets or fragments, if the packet is
larger than the AERO interface MTU, the ingress drops the packet
and returns a PTB message to the original source. Otherwise, the
ingress encapsulates the packet and fragments the encapsulated
packet into a minimum number of non-overlapping fragments where
the first fragment is no larger than MFU bytes and the remaining
fragments are no larger than the first. The ingress then admits
the fragments into the tunnel, and for IPv4 sets the DF bit to 0
in the IP encapsulation header. These fragmented encapsulated
packets will be delivered to the egress, which reassembles them
into a whole packet.
Several factors must be considered when fragmentation of the
encapsulated packet is needed. For AERO links over IPv4, the IP ID
field is only 16 bits in length, meaning that fragmentation at high
data rates could result in data corruption due to reassembly
misassociations [RFC6864][RFC4963]. For AERO links over both IPv4
and IPv6, studies have also shown that IP fragments are dropped
unconditionally over some network paths [I-D.taylor-v6ops-fragdrop].
In environments where IP fragmentation issues could result in
operational problems, the ingress SHOULD employ intermediate-layer
fragmentation (see: [RFC2764] and [I-D.herbert-gue-fragmentation])
before appending the outer encapsulation headers to each fragment.
Since the encapsulation fragment header reduces the room available
for packet data, but the original source has no way to control its
insertion, the ingress MUST include the fragment header length in the
ENCAPS length even for packets in which the header is absent.
3.14. AERO Interface Error Handling
When an AERO node admits encapsulated packets into the AERO
interface, it may receive link-layer (L2) or network-layer (L3) error
indications.
An L2 error indication is an ICMP error message generated by a router
on the path to the neighbor or by the neighbor itself. The message
includes an IP header with the address of the node that generated the
error as the source address and with the link-layer address of the
AERO node as the destination address.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
The IP header is followed by an ICMP header that includes an error
Type, Code and Checksum. Valid type values include "Destination
Unreachable", "Time Exceeded" and "Parameter Problem"
[RFC0792][RFC4443]. (AERO interfaces ignore all L2 IPv4
"Fragmentation Needed" and IPv6 "Packet Too Big" messages since they
only emit packets that are guaranteed to be no larger than the IP
minimum link MTU.)
The ICMP header is followed by the leading portion of the packet that
generated the error, also known as the "packet-in-error". For
ICMPv6, [RFC4443] specifies that the packet-in-error includes: "As
much of invoking packet as possible without the ICMPv6 packet
exceeding the minimum IPv6 MTU" (i.e., no more than 1280 bytes). For
ICMPv4, [RFC0792] specifies that the packet-in-error includes:
"Internet Header + 64 bits of Original Data Datagram", however
[RFC1812] Section 4.3.2.3 updates this specification by stating: "the
ICMP datagram SHOULD contain as much of the original datagram as
possible without the length of the ICMP datagram exceeding 576
bytes".
The L2 error message format is shown in Figure 3:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
| L2 IP Header of |
| error message |
~ ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| L2 ICMP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
~ ~ P
| IP and other encapsulation | a
| headers of original L3 packet | c
~ ~ k
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ e
~ ~ t
| IP header of |
| original L3 packet | i
~ ~ n
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~ e
| Upper layer headers and | r
| leading portion of body | r
| of the original L3 packet | o
~ ~ r
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---
Figure 3: AERO Interface L2 Error Message Format
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
The AERO node rules for processing these L2 error messages is as
follows:
o When an AERO node receives an L2 Parameter Problem message, it
processes the message the same as described as for ordinary ICMP
errors in the normative references [RFC0792][RFC4443].
o When an AERO node receives persistent L2 IPv4 Time Exceeded
messages, the IP ID field may be wrapping before earlier fragments
have been processed. In that case, the node SHOULD begin
including integrity checks and/or institute rate limits for
subseqent packets.
o When an AERO Client receives persistent L2 Destination Unreachable
messages in response to tunneled packets that it sends to one of
its dynamic neighbor correspondents, the Client SHOULD test the
path to the correspondent using Neighbor Unreachability Detection
(NUD) (see Section 3.18). If NUD fails, the Client SHOULD set
ForwardTime for the corresponding dynamic neighbor cache entry to
0 and allow future packets destined to the correspondent to flow
through a Server.
o When an AERO Client receives persistent L2 Destination Unreachable
messages in response to tunneled packets that it sends to one of
its static neighbor Servers, the Client SHOULD test the path to
the Server using NUD. If NUD fails, the Client SHOULD delete the
neighbor cache entry and attempt to associate with a new Server.
o When an AERO Server receives persistent L2 Destination Unreachable
messages in response to tunneled packets that it sends to one of
its static neighbor Clients, the Server SHOULD test the path to
the Client using NUD. If NUD fails, the Server SHOULD cancel the
DHCPv6 PD for the Client's ACP, withdraw its route for the ACP
from the AERO routing system and delete the neighbor cache entry
(see Section 3.18 and Section 3.19).
o When an AERO Relay or Server receives an L2 Destination
Unreachable message in response to a tunneled packet that it sends
to one of its permanent neighbors, it discards the message since
the AERO routing system is likely in a temporary transitional
state that will soon re-converge. In case of a prolonged outage,
however, the AERO routing system will compensate for Relays or
Servers that have fallen silent.
When an AERO Relay receives an L3 packet for which the destination
address is covered by an ASP, if there is no more-specific routing
information for the destination the Relay drops the packet and
returns an L3 Destination Unreachable message. The Relay first
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
writes the IP source address of the original L3 packet as the
destination address of the L3 Destination Unreachable message and
determines the next hop to the destination. If the next hop is
reached via the AERO interface, the Relay uses the IPv6 address "::"
or the IPv4 address "0.0.0.0" as the IP source address of the L3
Destination Unreachable message and forwards the message to the next
hop within the AERO interface. Otherwise, the Relay uses one of its
non link-local addresses as the source address of the L3 Destination
Unreachable message and forwards the message via a link outside the
AERO interface.
When an AERO node receives an encapsulated packet for which the
reassembly buffer it too small, it drops the packet and returns an L3
Packet To Big (PTB) message. The node first writes the IP source
address of the original L3 packet as the destination address of the
L3 PTB message and determines the next hop to the destination. If
the next hop is reached via the AERO interface, the node uses the
IPv6 address "::" or the IPv4 address "0.0.0.0" as the IP source
address of the L3 PTB message and forwards the message to the next
hop within the AERO interface. Otherwise, the node uses one of its
non link-local addresses as the source address of the L3 PTB message
and forwards the message via a link outside the AERO interface.
When an AERO node receives any L3 error message via the AERO
interface, it examines the destination address in the L3 IP header of
the message. If the next hop toward the destination address of the
error message is via the AERO interface, the node re-encapsulates and
forwards the message to the next hop within the AERO interface.
Otherwise, if the source address in the L3 IP header of the message
is the IPv6 address "::" or the IPv4 address "0.0.0.0", the node
writes one of its non link-local addresses as the source address of
the L3 message and recalculates the IP and/or ICMP checksums. The
node finally forwards the message via a link outside of the AERO
interface.
3.15. AERO Router Discovery, Prefix Delegation and Address
Configuration
AERO Router Discovery, Prefix Delegation and Address Configuration
are coordinated by the DHCPv6 control messaging protocol as discussed
in the following Sections.
3.15.1. AERO DHCPv6 Service Model
Each AERO Server configures a DHCPv6 server function to facilitate PD
requests from Clients. Each Server is provisioned with a database of
ACP-to-Client ID mappings for all Clients enrolled in the AERO
system, as well as any information necessary to authenticate each
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
Client. The Client database is maintained by a central
administrative authority for the AERO link and securely distributed
to all Servers, e.g., via the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol
(LDAP) [RFC4511] or a similar distributed database service.
Therefore, no Server-to-Server DHCPv6 PD state synchronization is
necessary, and Clients can optionally hold separate PDs for the same
ACPs from multiple Servers. In this way, Clients can associate with
multiple Servers, and can receive new PDs from new Servers before
deprecating PDs received from existing Servers. This provides the
Client with a natural fault-tolerance and/or load balancing profile.
AERO Clients and Servers exchange configuration information using an
AERO Vendor-Specific Information Option (AVSIO) formatted 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| enterprise-number = 45282 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. option-data .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 4: AERO Vendor-Specific Information Option (AVSIO)
In this format, "enterprise-number" is set to 45282 (i.e., the IANA-
reserved enterprise number for AERO) and "option-length" is set to
the total length of the option. A single AVSIO may include one or
more AERO-specific (sub)options as defined in the following sections.
AERO Clients MUST include an AVSIO in DHCPv6 Solicit and Rebind
messages to manage the Server's cached link-layer addresses and
preferences. AERO Servers MUST include an AVSIO in DHCPv6 Reply
messages that correspond to a Client's DHCPv6 message that also
included an AVSIO option.
The following sections specify the Client and Server behavior in more
detail.
3.15.2. AERO Client Behavior
AERO Clients discover the link-layer addresses of AERO Servers via
static configuration (e.g., from a flat-file map of Server addresses
and locations), or through an automated means such as DNS name
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
resolution. In the absence of other information, the Client resolves
the FQDN "linkupnetworks.[domainname]" where "linkupnetworks" is a
constant text string and "[domainname]" is a DNS suffix for the
Client's underlying network (e.g., "example.com"). After discovering
the link-layer addresses, the Client associates with one or more of
the corresponding Servers.
To associate with a Server, the Client acts as a requesting router to
request ACPs through a two-message (i.e., Solicit/Reply) DHCPv6 PD
exchange [RFC3315][RFC3633]. The Client's includes
fe80::ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff as the IPv6 source address of the Solicit
message, 'All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers' as the IPv6 destination
address, an underlying interface address of the Client (i.e., the
link-layer address) as the link-layer source address and the link-
layer address of the Server as the link-layer destination address.
The Client also includes a Rapid Commit option, a Client Identifier
option with the Client's DUID, and an Identity Association for Prefix
Delegation (IA_PD) option. If the Client is pre-provisioned with
ACPs associated with the AERO service, it MAY also include the ACPs
in the IA_PD to indicate its preferences to the DHCPv6 server.
The Client also includes an AVSIO option with one or more AERO Client
Link-Layer Address Options (ACLLAOs) to register its link-layer
address(es) with the Server. The first ACLLAO MUST be specific to
the underlying interface over which the Client will send the Solicit.
The Client MAY include additonal ACLLAOs specific to other underlying
interfaces, but if so it MUST have assurance that there will be no
NATs on the paths to the Server via those interfaces. (Otherwise,
the Client MAY issue subsequent Rebind messages after the initial
Solicit/Reply exchange to register additional link-layer addresses).
The Server will echo the ACLLAOs in the corresponding Reply message
as specified in Section 3.15.3.
The format for the ACLLAO is shown in Figure 5:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| opt-code = OPTION_ACLLAO (0) | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. AERO Client Link-Layer Address .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 5: AERO Client Link-Layer Address Option (ACLLAO)
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
In the above format, the Client sets 'opt-code' to 0
("OPTION_ACLLAO") and sets 'option-len' to 36 (i.e., the length of
the option following this field). The Client then includes an "AERO
Client Link-Layer Address" in the same format as for S/TLLAOs in
Figure 2 beginning with the 'Reserved2' field and extending to the
end of the S/TLLAO. The Client then sets 'Reserved2', 'Interface
ID', 'UDP Port Number', 'IP address' and 'P(i)' values for the
specific underlying interface the same as for S/TLLAO options (see
Section 3.4). The Client finally includes any additional DHCPv6
options (including any necessary authentication options to identify
itself to the DHCPv6 server), and sends the encapsulated Solicit
message via the underlying interface corresponding to the Interface
ID of the first ACLLAO.
When the Client attempts to perform a DHCPv6 PD exchange with a
Server that is too busy to service the request, the Client may
receive an error status code such as "NoPrefixAvail" in the Server's
Reply [RFC3633] or no Reply at all. In that case, the Client SHOULD
discontinue DHCPv6 PD attempts through this Server and try another
Server.
When the Client receives a Reply from the AERO Server with an AVSIO
option and no error status codes, it can compare the UDP Port Number
and IP Address values in the first ACLLAO with the values the Client
provided in its request. If the values are different, the Client can
infer that there is a NAT on the path to the Server via that
underlying interface. If the AVSIO option also includes an ALINFO
sub-option, the Client also assigns the MTU/MFU values in the ALINFO
option to its AERO interface, then caches any ASPs included in the
ALINFO option as ASPs to associate with the AERO link (see
Section 3.15.3). This configuration information applies to the AERO
link as a whole, and all Clients will receive the same information.
The Client next creates a static neighbor cache entry with the
Server's link-local address as the network-layer address and the
Server's encapsulation address as the link-layer address. Next, the
Client autoconfigures an AERO address for each of the delegated ACPs,
assigns the address(es) to the AERO interface and sub-delegates the
ACPs to its attached EUNs and/or the Client's own internal virtual
interfaces. The Client can then configure as many addresses as it
wants from /64 prefixes taken from the ACPs and assign them to either
an internal virtual interface ("weak end-system") or to the AERO
interface itself ("strong end-system") [RFC1122] while black-holing
the remaining portions of the /64s. Finally, the Client assigns a
default IP route to the AERO interface with the link-local address of
the Server as the next hop and with the PD lifetime as the default
router lifetime.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
After the initial Solicit/Reply exchange, the Client SHOULD begin
using the AERO address as the source address for further DHCPv6
messaging. The Client subsequently renews its ACP delegations
through each of its Servers by sending Renew messages with the link-
layer address of a Server as the link-layer destination address. The
Client MAY subsequently issue Rebind messages with additional ACLLAOs
if it wishes to register additional Interface IDs and/or update the
link-layer address information for existing Interface IDs. In that
case, the Rebind message MUST be sent over the underlying interface
corresponding to the first ACLLAO in the message, i.e., the same as
for Solicits.
After an AERO Client registers its Interface IDs and their associated
'P(i)' values with the AERO Server, the Client may wish to change one
or more Interface ID registrations, e.g., if an underlying interface
becomes unavailable, if cost profiles change, etc. To do so, the
Client prepares a Rebind message to send over any available
underlying interface. The Rebind MUST include the ACLLAO specific to
the selected avaialble underlying interface as the first ACLLAO and
MAY include any additional ACLLAOs specific to other underlying
interfaces. The Client includes fresh 'P(i)' values in each ACLLAO
to update the Server's neighbor cache entry. If the Client wishes to
disable some or all DSCPs for an underlying interface, it includes an
ACLLAO with 'P(i)' values set to 0 ("disabled").
If the Client wishes to discontinue use of a Server it issues a
Release to delete the Server's neighbor cache entry.
3.15.3. AERO Server Behavior
AERO Servers configure a DHCPv6 server function on their AERO links.
AERO Servers arrange to add their encapsulation layer IP addresses
(i.e., their link-layer addresses) to a static map of Server
addresses for the link and/or the DNS resource records for the FQDN
"linkupnetworks.[domainname]" before entering service.
When an AERO Server receives a prospective Client's Solicit on its
AERO interface, and the Server is too busy to service the message, it
SHOULD return a Reply with status code "NoPrefixAvail" per [RFC3633].
Otherwise, the Server authenticates the message. If authentication
succeeds, the Server determines the correct ACPs to delegate to the
Client by searching the Client database.
When the Server delegates the ACPs, it also creates IP forwarding
table entries so that the AERO BGP-based routing system will
propagate the ACPs to all Relays that aggregate the corresponding ASP
(see: Section 3.7). Next, the Server prepares a Reply message to
send to the Client while using fe80::ID as the IPv6 source address,
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
the link-local address taken from the Client's Solicit as the IPv6
destination address, the Server's link-layer address as the source
link-layer address, and the Client's link-layer address as the
destination link-layer address. The Server also includes IA_PD
options with the delegated ACPs. For IPv4 ACPs, the prefix included
in the IA_PD option is in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format and with
prefix length set as specified in Section 3.3. For AERO links where
a Client may experience a fault that prevents it from issuing a
Release before departing from the network, Servers should set a short
prefix lifetime (e.g., 40 seconds) so that stale PD state can be
flushed out of the network.
For Replies to Client DHCPv6 messages that include an AVSIO, the
Server prepares a new AVSIO to include in the Reply. The Server
first copies the ACLLAOs in the body of the Client's AVSIO into the
AVSIO that the Server will supply in the Reply message. For the
initial ACLLAO, the Server sets 'UDP Port Number' and 'IP address' to
the values observed in the outer encapsulating headers of the
Client's DHCPv6 message, i.e., even if these values are different
than the ones included by the Client.
The Server next copies an ALINFO option into the body of the AVSIO
(i.e., following the ACLLAO options) formatted as shown in Figure 6:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| opt-code = OPTION_ALINFO (1) | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU)| Maximum Fragment Unit (MFU) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len #1 | AERO Service Prefix (ASP) #1 (1 to 8 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len #2 | AERO Service Prefix (ASP) #2 (1 to 8 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix Len #3 | AERO Service Prefix (ASP) #3 (1 to 8 bytes) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ ~
~ ~
Figure 6: AERO Link Information (ALINFO) Option
In the ALINFO option, the Server sets sets 'opt-code' to 1
("OPTION_ALINFO") and sets 'option-len' to the length of the
remainder of the option. The Server next sets MTU and MFU according
to the considerations specified in Section 3.13. The Server finally
includes one or more ASPs with 'Prefix Len' set to the ASP prefix
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
length (between 0 and 64), and 'AERO Service Prefix' set to the ASP
(between 1 and 8 bytes).
When the Server sends the Reply message, it creates or updates a
static neighbor cache entry for the Client based on the DUID and AERO
addresses with lifetime set to no more than the PD lifetimes and
updates the Client's link-layer addresses according to the ACLLAOs.
The Server then uses the Client link-layer addresses as the link-
layer addresses for encapsulation and uses the 'P(i)' values included
in ACLLAOs as preference levels for each DSCP value.
After the initial DHCPv6 PD Solicit/Reply exchange, the AERO Server
maintains the neighbor cache entry for the Client until the PD
lifetimes expire. If the Client issues a Rebind, the Server uses any
included ACLLAOs to update the link-layer information in the Client's
neighbor cache entry. If the Client issues a Renew, the Server
extends the PD lifetimes. If the Client issues a Release, or if the
Client does not issue a Renew before the lifetime expires, the Server
deletes the neighbor cache entry for the Client and withdraws the IP
routes from the AERO routing system.
3.15.3.1. Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent (LDRA)
AERO Clients and Servers are always on the same link (i.e., the AERO
link) from the perspective of DHCPv6. However, in some
implementations the DHCPv6 server and AERO interface driver may be
located in separate modules. In that case, the Server's AERO
interface driver module can act as a Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent
(LDRA)[RFC6221] to relay DHCPv6 messages to and from the DHCPv6
server module.
When the LDRA receives a DHCPv6 message from a client, it prepares an
AVSIO (including any ACLLAO and ALINFO options as described above)
and copies the option into a DHCPv6 Relay-Supplied Option Option
(RSOO) [RFC6422]. The LDRA then incorporates the RSOO into the
Relay-Forward message and forwards the message to the DHCPv6 server.
When the DHCPv6 server receives the Relay-Forward message, it caches
the AVSIO included in the RSOO and discards the AVSIO included within
the Client's message itself. Next, the server authenticates the
Client's message and prepares a Reply message if authentication
succeeds.
When the DHCPv6 server prepares a Reply message, it then includes the
relay-supplied AVSIO in the body of the message along with any other
options, then wraps the message in a Relay-Reply message. The DHCPv6
server then delivers the Relay-Reply message to the LDRA, which
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
discards the Relay-Reply wrapper and delivers the DHCPv6 message to
the Client.
3.16. AERO Forwarding Agent Behavior
AERO Servers MAY associate with one or more companion AERO Forwarding
Agents as platforms for offloading high-speed data plane traffic.
When an AERO Server receives a Client's Solicit/Renew/Rebind/Release
message, it services the message then forwards the corresponding
Reply message to the Forwarding Agent. When the Forwarding Agent
receives the Reply message, it creates, updates or deletes a neighbor
cache entry with the Client's AERO address and link-layer information
included in the Reply message. The Forwarding Agent then forwards
the Reply message back to the AERO Server, which forwards the message
to the Client. In this way, Forwarding Agent state is managed in
conjunction with Server state, with the Client responsible for
reliability.
When an AERO Server receives a data packet on an AERO interface with
a network layer destination address for which it has distributed
forwarding information to a Forwarding Agent, the Server returns a
Redirect message to the source neighbor (subject to rate limiting)
then forwards the data packet as usual. The Redirect message
includes a TLLAO with the link-layer address of the Forwarding
Engine.
When the source neighbor receives the Redirect message, it SHOULD
record the link-layer address in the TLLAO as the encapsulation
addresses to use for sending subsequent data packets. However, the
source MUST continue to use the primary link-layer address of the
Server as the encapsulation address for sending control messages.
3.17. AERO Link Route Optimization
When a source Client forwards packets to a prospective correspondent
Client within the same AERO link domain (i.e., one for which the
packet's destination address is covered by an ASP), the source Client
MAY initiate an AERO link route optimization procedure. It is
important to note that this procedure is initiated by the Client; if
the procedure were initiated by the Server, the Server would have no
way of knowing whether the Client was actually able to contact the
correspondent over the route-optimized path.
The procedure is based on an exchange of IPv6 ND messages using a
chain of AERO Servers and Relays as a trust basis. This procedure is
in contrast to the Return Routability procedure required for route
optimization to a correspondent Client located in the Internet as
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
described in Section 3.22. The following sections specify the AERO
link route optimization procedure.
3.17.1. Reference Operational Scenario
Figure 7 depicts the AERO link route optimization reference
operational scenario, using IPv6 addressing as the example (while not
shown, a corresponding example for IPv4 addressing can be easily
constructed). The figure shows an AERO Relay ('R1'), two AERO
Servers ('S1', 'S2'), two AERO Clients ('C1', 'C2') and two ordinary
IPv6 hosts ('H1', 'H2'):
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
| Server S1 | | Relay R1 | | Server S2 |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
fe80::2 fe80::1 fe80::3
L2(S1) L2(R1) L2(S2)
| | |
X-----+-----+------------------+-----------------+----+----X
| AERO Link |
L2(A) L2(B)
fe80::2001:db8:0:0 fe80::2001:db8:1:0
+--------------+ +--------------+
|AERO Client C1| |AERO Client C2|
+--------------+ +--------------+
2001:DB8:0::/48 2001:DB8:1::/48
| |
.-. .-.
,-( _)-. 2001:db8:0::1 2001:db8:1::1 ,-( _)-.
.-(_ IP )-. +---------+ +---------+ .-(_ IP )-.
(__ EUN )--| Host H1 | | Host H2 |--(__ EUN )
`-(______)-' +---------+ +---------+ `-(______)-'
Figure 7: AERO Reference Operational Scenario
In Figure 7, Relay ('R1') assigns the address fe80::1 to its AERO
interface with link-layer address L2(R1), Server ('S1') assigns the
address fe80::2 with link-layer address L2(S1),and Server ('S2')
assigns the address fe80::3 with link-layer address L2(S2). Servers
('S1') and ('S2') next arrange to add their link-layer addresses to a
published list of valid Servers for the AERO link.
AERO Client ('C1') receives the ACP 2001:db8:0::/48 in a DHCPv6 PD
exchange via AERO Server ('S1') then assigns the address
fe80::2001:db8:0:0 to its AERO interface with link-layer address
L2(C1). Client ('C1') configures a default route and neighbor cache
entry via the AERO interface with next-hop address fe80::2 and link-
layer address L2(S1), then sub-delegates the ACP to its attached
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
EUNs. IPv6 host ('H1') connects to the EUN, and configures the
address 2001:db8:0::1.
AERO Client ('C2') receives the ACP 2001:db8:1::/48 in a DHCPv6 PD
exchange via AERO Server ('S2') then assigns the address
fe80::2001:db8:1:0 to its AERO interface with link-layer address
L2(C2). Client ('C2') configures a default route and neighbor cache
entry via the AERO interface with next-hop address fe80::3 and link-
layer address L2(S2), then sub-delegates the ACP to its attached
EUNs. IPv6 host ('H2') connects to the EUN, and configures the
address 2001:db8:1::1.
3.17.2. Concept of Operations
Again, with reference to Figure 7, when source host ('H1') sends a
packet to destination host ('H2'), the packet is first forwarded over
the source host's attached EUN to Client ('C1'). Client ('C1') then
forwards the packet via its AERO interface to Server ('S1') and also
sends a Predirect message toward Client ('C2') via Server ('S1').
Server ('S1') then re-encapsulates and forwards both the packet and
the Predirect message out the same AERO interface toward Client
('C2') via Relay ('R1').
When Relay ('R1') receives the packet and Predirect message, it
consults its forwarding table to discover Server ('S2') as the next
hop toward Client ('C2'). Relay ('R1') then forwards both the packet
and the Predirect message to Server ('S2'), which then forwards them
to Client ('C2').
After Client ('C2') receives the Predirect message, it process the
message and returns a Redirect message toward Client ('C1') via
Server ('S2'). During the process, Client ('C2') also creates or
updates a dynamic neighbor cache entry for Client ('C1').
When Server ('S2') receives the Redirect message, it re-encapsulates
the message and forwards it on to Relay ('R1'), which forwards the
message on to Server ('S1') which forwards the message on to Client
('C1'). After Client ('C1') receives the Redirect message, it
processes the message and creates or updates a dynamic neighbor cache
entry for Client ('C2').
Following the above Predirect/Redirect message exchange, forwarding
of packets from Client ('C1') to Client ('C2') without involving any
intermediate nodes is enabled. The mechanisms that support this
exchange are specified in the following sections.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.17.3. Message Format
AERO Redirect/Predirect messages use the same format as for IPv6 ND
Redirect messages depicted in Section 4.5 of [RFC4861], but also
include a new "Prefix Length" field taken from the low-order 8 bits
of the Redirect message Reserved field. For IPv6, valid values for
the Prefix Length field are 0 through 64; for IPv4, valid values are
0 through 32. The Redirect/Predirect messages are formatted as shown
in Figure 8:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type (=137) | Code (=0/1) | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Prefix Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Target Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Options ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Figure 8: AERO Redirect/Predirect Message Format
3.17.4. Sending Predirects
When a Client forwards a packet with a source address from one of its
ACPs toward a destination address covered by an ASP (i.e., toward
another AERO Client connected to the same AERO link), the source
Client MAY send a Predirect message forward toward the destination
Client via the Server.
In the reference operational scenario, when Client ('C1') forwards a
packet toward Client ('C2'), it MAY also send a Predirect message
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
forward toward Client ('C2'), subject to rate limiting (see
Section 8.2 of [RFC4861]). Client ('C1') prepares the Predirect
message as follows:
o the link-layer source address is set to 'L2(C1)' (i.e., the link-
layer address of Client ('C1')).
o the link-layer destination address is set to 'L2(S1)' (i.e., the
link-layer address of Server ('S1')).
o the network-layer source address is set to fe80::2001:db8:0:0
(i.e., the AERO address of Client ('C1')).
o the network-layer destination address is set to fe80::2001:db8:1:0
(i.e., the AERO address of Client ('C2')).
o the Type is set to 137.
o the Code is set to 1 to indicate "Predirect".
o the Prefix Length is set to the length of the prefix to be
assigned to the Target Address.
o the Target Address is set to fe80::2001:db8:0:0 (i.e., the AERO
address of Client ('C1')).
o the Destination Address is set to the source address of the
originating packet that triggered the Predirection event. (If the
originating packet is an IPv4 packet, the address is constructed
in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format).
o the message includes one or more TLLAOs set to appropriate values
for Client ('C1')'s underlying interfaces, and with UDP Port
Number and IP Address set to 0'.
o the message SHOULD include a Timestamp option and a Nonce option.
o the message includes a Redirected Header Option (RHO) that
contains the originating packet truncated if necessary to ensure
that at least the network-layer header is included but the size of
the message does not exceed 1280 bytes.
Note that the act of sending Predirect messages is cited as "MAY",
since Client ('C1') may have advanced knowledge that the direct path
to Client ('C2') would be unusable or otherwise undesirable. If the
direct path later becomes unusable after the initial route
optimization, Client ('C1') simply allows packets to again flow
through Server ('S1').
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.17.5. Re-encapsulating and Relaying Predirects
When Server ('S1') receives a Predirect message from Client ('C1'),
it first verifies that the TLLAOs in the Predirect are a proper
subset of the Interface IDs in Client ('C1')'s neighbor cache entry.
If the Client's TLLAOs are not acceptable, Server ('S1') discards the
message. Otherwise, Server ('S1') validates the message according to
the Redirect message validation rules in Section 8.1 of [RFC4861],
except that the Predirect has Code=1. Server ('S1') also verifies
that Client ('C1') is authorized to use the Prefix Length in the
Predirect when applied to the AERO address in the network-layer
source address by searching for the AERO address in the neighbor
cache. If validation fails, Server ('S1') discards the Predirect;
otherwise, it copies the correct UDP Port numbers and IP Addresses
for Client ('C1')'s links into the (previously empty) TLLAOs.
Server ('S1') then examines the network-layer destination address of
the Predirect to determine the next hop toward Client ('C2') by
searching for the AERO address in the neighbor cache. Since Client
('C2') is not one of its neighbors, Server ('S1') re-encapsulates the
Predirect and relays it via Relay ('R1') by changing the link-layer
source address of the message to 'L2(S1)' and changing the link-layer
destination address to 'L2(R1)'. Server ('S1') finally forwards the
re-encapsulated message to Relay ('R1') without decrementing the
network-layer TTL/Hop Limit field.
When Relay ('R1') receives the Predirect message from Server ('S1')
it determines that Server ('S2') is the next hop toward Client ('C2')
by consulting its forwarding table. Relay ('R1') then re-
encapsulates the Predirect while changing the link-layer source
address to 'L2(R1)' and changing the link-layer destination address
to 'L2(S2)'. Relay ('R1') then relays the Predirect via Server
('S2').
When Server ('S2') receives the Predirect message from Relay ('R1')
it determines that Client ('C2') is a neighbor by consulting its
neighbor cache. Server ('S2') then re-encapsulates the Predirect
while changing the link-layer source address to 'L2(S2)' and changing
the link-layer destination address to 'L2(C2)'. Server ('S2') then
forwards the message to Client ('C2').
3.17.6. Processing Predirects and Sending Redirects
When Client ('C2') receives the Predirect message, it accepts the
Predirect only if the message has a link-layer source address of one
of its Servers (e.g., L2(S2)). Client ('C2') further accepts the
message only if it is willing to serve as a redirection target.
Next, Client ('C2') validates the message according to the Redirect
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
message validation rules in Section 8.1 of [RFC4861], except that it
accepts the message even though Code=1 and even though the network-
layer source address is not that of it's current first-hop router.
In the reference operational scenario, when Client ('C2') receives a
valid Predirect message, it either creates or updates a dynamic
neighbor cache entry that stores the Target Address of the message as
the network-layer address of Client ('C1') , stores the link-layer
addresses found in the TLLAOs as the link-layer addresses of Client
('C1') and stores the Prefix Length as the length to be applied to
the network-layer address for forwarding purposes. Client ('C2')
then sets AcceptTime for the neighbor cache entry to ACCEPT_TIME.
After processing the message, Client ('C2') prepares a Redirect
message response as follows:
o the link-layer source address is set to 'L2(C2)' (i.e., the link-
layer address of Client ('C2')).
o the link-layer destination address is set to 'L2(S2)' (i.e., the
link-layer address of Server ('S2')).
o the network-layer source address is set to fe80::2001:db8:1:0
(i.e., the AERO address of Client ('C2')).
o the network-layer destination address is set to fe80::2001:db8:0:0
(i.e., the AERO address of Client ('C1')).
o the Type is set to 137.
o the Code is set to 0 to indicate "Redirect".
o the Prefix Length is set to the length of the prefix to be applied
to the Target Address.
o the Target Address is set to fe80::2001:db8:1:0 (i.e., the AERO
address of Client ('C2')).
o the Destination Address is set to the destination address of the
originating packet that triggered the Redirection event. (If the
originating packet is an IPv4 packet, the address is constructed
in IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format).
o the message includes one or more TLLAOs set to appropriate values
for Client ('C2')'s underlying interfaces, and with UDP Port
Number and IP Address set to '0'.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
o the message SHOULD include a Timestamp option and MUST echo the
Nonce option received in the Predirect (i.e., if a Nonce option is
included).
o the message includes as much of the RHO copied from the
corresponding Predirect message as possible such that at least the
network-layer header is included but the size of the message does
not exceed 1280 bytes.
After Client ('C2') prepares the Redirect message, it sends the
message to Server ('S2').
3.17.7. Re-encapsulating and Relaying Redirects
When Server ('S2') receives a Redirect message from Client ('C2'), it
first verifies that the TLLAOs in the Redirect are a proper subset of
the Interface IDs in Client ('C2')'s neighbor cache entry. If the
Client's TLLAOs are not acceptable, Server ('S2') discards the
message. Otherwise, Server ('S2') validates the message according to
the Redirect message validation rules in Section 8.1 of [RFC4861].
Server ('S2') also verifies that Client ('C2') is authorized to use
the Prefix Length in the Redirect when applied to the AERO address in
the network-layer source address by searching for the AERO address in
the neighbor cache. If validation fails, Server ('S2') discards the
Redirect; otherwise, it copies the correct UDP Port numbers and IP
Addresses for Client ('C2')'s links into the (previously empty)
TLLAOs.
Server ('S2') then examines the network-layer destination address of
the Redirect to determine the next hop toward Client ('C1') by
searching for the AERO address in the neighbor cache. Since Client
('C1') is not a neighbor, Server ('S2') re-encapsulates the Redirect
and relays it via Relay ('R1') by changing the link-layer source
address of the message to 'L2(S2)' and changing the link-layer
destination address to 'L2(R1)'. Server ('S2') finally forwards the
re-encapsulated message to Relay ('R1') without decrementing the
network-layer TTL/Hop Limit field.
When Relay ('R1') receives the Redirect message from Server ('S2') it
determines that Server ('S1') is the next hop toward Client ('C1') by
consulting its forwarding table. Relay ('R1') then re-encapsulates
the Redirect while changing the link-layer source address to 'L2(R1)'
and changing the link-layer destination address to 'L2(S1)'. Relay
('R1') then relays the Redirect via Server ('S1').
When Server ('S1') receives the Redirect message from Relay ('R1') it
determines that Client ('C1') is a neighbor by consulting its
neighbor cache. Server ('S1') then re-encapsulates the Redirect
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
while changing the link-layer source address to 'L2(S1)' and changing
the link-layer destination address to 'L2(C1)'. Server ('S1') then
forwards the message to Client ('C1').
3.17.8. Processing Redirects
When Client ('C1') receives the Redirect message, it accepts the
message only if it has a link-layer source address of one of its
Servers (e.g., ''L2(S1)'). Next, Client ('C1') validates the message
according to the Redirect message validation rules in Section 8.1 of
[RFC4861], except that it accepts the message even though the
network-layer source address is not that of it's current first-hop
router. Following validation, Client ('C1') then processes the
message as follows.
In the reference operational scenario, when Client ('C1') receives
the Redirect message, it either creates or updates a dynamic neighbor
cache entry that stores the Target Address of the message as the
network-layer address of Client ('C2'), stores the link-layer
addresses found in the TLLAOs as the link-layer addresses of Client
('C2') and stores the Prefix Length as the length to be applied to
the network-layer address for forwarding purposes. Client ('C1')
then sets ForwardTime for the neighbor cache entry to FORWARD_TIME.
Now, Client ('C1') has a neighbor cache entry with a valid
ForwardTime value, while Client ('C2') has a neighbor cache entry
with a valid AcceptTime value. Thereafter, Client ('C1') may forward
ordinary network-layer data packets directly to Client ('C2') without
involving any intermediate nodes, and Client ('C2') can verify that
the packets came from an acceptable source. (In order for Client
('C2') to forward packets to Client ('C1'), a corresponding
Predirect/Redirect message exchange is required in the reverse
direction; hence, the mechanism is asymmetric.)
3.17.9. Server-Oriented Redirection
In some environments, the Server nearest the target Client may need
to serve as the redirection target, e.g., if direct Client-to-Client
communications are not possible. In that case, the Server prepares
the Redirect message the same as if it were the destination Client
(see: Section 3.17.6), except that it writes its own link-layer
address in the TLLAO option. The Server must then maintain a dynamic
neighbor cache entry for the redirected source Client.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.17.10. Route Optimization Policy
Although the Client is responsible for initiating route optimization
through the transmission of Predirect messages, the Server is the
policy enforcement point that determines whether route optimization
is permitted. For example, on some AERO links route optimization
would allow traffic to circumvent critical network-based traffic
interception points. In those cases, the Server can deny route
optimization requests by simply discarding any Predirect messages
instead of forwarding them.
3.17.11. Route Optimization and Multiple ACPs
Clients that receive multiple non-contiguous ACP delegations must
perform route optimization for each of the individual ACPs based on
demand of traffic with source addresses taken from those prefixes.
For example, if Client C1 has already performed route optimization
for destination ACP X on behalf of its source ACP Y, it must also
perform route optimization for X on behalf of its source ACP Z. As a
result, source route optimization state cannot be shared between non-
contiguous ACPs and must be managed separately.
3.18. Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD)
AERO nodes perform Neighbor Unreachability Detection (NUD) by sending
unicast NS messages to elicit solicited NA messages from neighbors
the same as described in [RFC4861]. NUD is performed either
reactively in response to persistent L2 errors (see Section 3.14) or
proactively to test existing neighbor cache entries.
When an AERO node sends an NS/NA message, it MUST use its link-local
address as the IPv6 source address and the link-local address of the
neighbor as the IPv6 destination address. When an AERO node receives
an NS message or a solicited NA message, it accepts the message if it
has a neighbor cache entry for the neighbor; otherwise, it ignores
the message.
When a source Client is redirected to a target Client it SHOULD
proactively test the direct path by sending an initial NS message to
elicit a solicited NA response. While testing the path, the source
Client can optionally continue sending packets via the Server,
maintain a small queue of packets until target reachability is
confirmed, or (optimistically) allow packets to flow directly to the
target. The source Client SHOULD thereafter continue to test the
direct path to the target Client (see Section 7.3 of [RFC4861])
periodically in order to keep dynamic neighbor cache entries alive.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
In particular, while the source Client is actively sending packets to
the target Client it SHOULD also send NS messages separated by
RETRANS_TIMER milliseconds in order to receive solicited NA messages.
If the source Client is unable to elicit a solicited NA response from
the target Client after MAX_RETRY attempts, it SHOULD set ForwardTime
to 0 and resume sending packets via one of its Servers. Otherwise,
the source Client considers the path usable and SHOULD thereafter
process any link-layer errors as a hint that the direct path to the
target Client has either failed or has become intermittent.
When ForwardTime for a dynamic neighbor cache entry expires, the
source Client resumes sending any subsequent packets via a Server and
may (eventually) attempt to re-initiate the AERO redirection process.
When AcceptTime for a dynamic neighbor cache entry expires, the
target Client discards any subsequent packets received directly from
the source Client. When both ForwardTime and AcceptTime for a
dynamic neighbor cache entry expire, the Client deletes the neighbor
cache entry.
3.19. Mobility Management
3.19.1. Announcing Link-Layer Address Changes
When a Client needs to change its link-layer address, e.g., due to a
mobility event, it issues an immediate Rebind to each of its Servers
using the new link-layer address as the source address and with an
ACLLAO that includes the updated client link-layer information. If
authentication succeeds, the Server then updates its neighbor cache
and sends a Reply. Note that if the Client does not issue a Rebind
before the PD lifetime expires (e.g., if the Client has been out of
touch with the Server for a considerable amount of time), the
Server's Reply will report NoBinding and the Client must re-initiate
the DHCPv6 PD procedure.
Next, the Client sends Predirect messages to each of its
correspondent Client neighbors using the same procedures as specified
in Section 3.17.4. The Client sends the Predirect messages via a
Server the same as if it was performing the initial route
optimization procedure with the correspondent. The Predirect message
will update the correspondent's link layer address mapping for the
Client.
3.19.2. Bringing New Links Into Service
When a Client needs to bring a new underlying interface into service
(e.g., when it activates a new data link), it issues an immediate
Rebind to each of its Servers using the new link-layer address as the
source address and with an ACLLAO that includes the new client link-
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
layer information. If authentication succeeds, the Server then
updates its neighbor cache and sends a Reply. The Client MAY then
send Predirect messages to each of its correspondent Clients to
inform them of the new link-layer address as described in
Section 3.19.1.
3.19.3. Removing Existing Links from Service
When a Client needs to remove an existing underlying interface from
service (e.g., when it de-activates an existing data link), it issues
an immediate Rebind to each of its Servers over any available link
with an ACLLAO that includes P(i) values set to "disabled". If
authentication succeeds, the Server then updates its neighbor cache
and sends a Reply. The Client SHOULD then send Predirect messages to
each of its correspondent Clients to inform them of the deprecated
link-layer address as described in Section 3.19.1.
3.19.4. Implicit Mobility Management
AERO Clients and Servers MAY include a configuration knob that allows
them to perform implicit mobility management in which no DHCPv6
messaging is used. In that case, the Client only transmits packets
over a single interface at a time, and the Server always observes
packets arriving from the Client from the same link-layer source
address.
If the Client's underlying interface address changes (either due to a
readdressing of the original interface or switching to a new
interface) the Server immediately updates the neighbor cache entry
for the Client and begins accepting and sending packets to the
Client's new link-layer address. This implicit mobility method
applies to use cases such as cellphones with both WiFi and Cellular
interfaces where only one of the interfaces is active at a given
time, and the Client automatically switches over to the backup
interface if the primary interface fails.
3.19.5. Moving to a New Server
When a Client associates with a new Server, it performs the Client
procedures specified in Section 3.15.2.
When a Client disassociates with an existing Server, it sends a
Release message via a new Server to the unicast link-local network
layer address of the old Server. The new Server then writes its own
link-layer address in the Release message IP source address and
forwards the message to the old Server.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
When the old Server receives the Release, it first authenticates the
message. Next, it resets the Client's neighbor cache entry lifetime
to 3 seconds, rewrites the link-layer address in the neighbor cache
entry to the address of the new Server, then returns a Reply message
to the Client via the old Server. When the lifetime expires, the old
Server withdraws the IP route from the AERO routing system and
deletes the neighbor cache entry for the Client. The Client can then
use the Reply message to verify that the termination signal has been
processed, and can delete both the default route and the neighbor
cache entry for the old Server. (Note that since Release/Reply
messages may be lost in the network the Client SHOULD retry until it
gets a Reply indicating that the Release was successful. If the
Client does not receive a Reply after MAX_RETRY attempts, the old
Server may have failed and the Client should discontinue its Release
attempts.)
Clients SHOULD NOT move rapidly between Servers in order to avoid
causing excessive oscillations in the AERO routing system. Such
oscillations could result in intermittent reachability for the Client
itself, while causing little harm to the network. Examples of when a
Client might wish to change to a different Server include a Server
that has gone unreachable, topological movements of significant
distance, etc.
3.19.6. Packet Queueing for Mobility
AERO Clients and Servers should maintain a samll queue of packets
they have recently sent to an AERO neighbor, e.g., a 1 second window.
If the AERO neighbor moves, the AERO node MAY retransmit the queued
packets to ensure that they are delviered to the AERO neighbor's new
location.
Note that this may have performance implications for asymmetric
paths. For example, if the AERO neighbor moves from a 50mbps link to
a 128kbps link, retransmitting a 1 second window could cause
significant congestion. However, any retransmission bursts will
subside after the 1 second window.
3.20. Proxy AERO
Proxy Mobile IPv6 (PMIPv6) [RFC5213][RFC5844][RFC5949] presents a
network-based localized mobility management scheme for use within an
access network domain. It is typically used in WiFi and cellular
wireless access networks, and allows Mobile Nodes (MNs) to receive
and retain an IP address that remains stable within the access
network domain without needing to implement any special mobility
protocols. In the PMIPv6 architecture, access network devices known
as Mobility Access Gateways (MAGs) provide MNs with an access link
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
abstraction and receive prefixes for the MNs from a Local Mobility
Anchor (LMA).
In a proxy AERO domain, a proxy AERO Client (acting as a MAG) can
similarly provide proxy services for MNs that do not participate in
AERO messaging. The proxy Client presents an access link abstraction
to MNs, and performs DHCPv6 PD exchanges over the AERO interface with
an AERO Server (acting as an LMA) to receive ACPs for address
provisioning of new MNs that come onto an access link. This scheme
assumes that proxy Clients act as fixed (non-mobile) infrastructure
elements under the same administrative trust basis as for Relays and
Servers.
When an MN comes onto an access link within a proxy AERO domain for
the first time, the proxy Client authenticates the MN and obtains a
unique identifier that it can use as a DHCPv6 DUID then sends a
Solicit message to its Server. When the Server delegates an ACP and
returns a Reply, the proxy Client creates an AERO address for the MN
and assigns the ACP to the MN's access link. The proxy Client then
configures itself as a default router for the MN and provides address
autoconfiguration services (e.g., SLAAC, DHCPv6, DHCPv4, etc.) for
provisioning MN addresses from the ACP over the access link. Since
the proxy Client may serve many such MNs simultaneously, it may
receive multiple ACP delegations and configure multiple AERO
addresses, i.e., one for each MN.
When two MNs are associated with the same proxy Client, the Client
can forward traffic between the MNs without involving a Server since
it configures the AERO addresses of both MNs and therefore also has
the necessary routing information. When two MNs are associated with
different proxy Clients, the source MN's Client can initiate standard
AERO link route optimization to discover a direct path to the target
MN's Client through the exchange of Predirect/Redirect messages.
When an MN in a proxy AERO domain leaves an access link provided by
an old proxy Client, the MN issues an access link-specific "leave"
message that informs the old Client of the link-layer address of a
new Client on the planned new access link. This is known as a
"predictive handover". When an MN comes onto an access link provided
by a new proxy Client, the MN issues an access link-specific "join"
message that informs the new Client of the link-layer address of the
old Client on the actual old access link. This is known as a
"reactive handover".
Upon receiving a predictive handover indication, the old proxy Client
sends a Solicit message directly to the new Client and queues any
arriving data packets addressed to the departed MN. The Solicit
message includes the MN's ID as the DUID, the ACP in an IA_PD option,
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
the old Client's address as the link-layer source address and the new
Client's address as the link-layer destination address. When the new
Client receives the Solicit message, it changes the link-layer source
address to its own address, changes the link-layer destination
address to the address of its Server, and forwards the message to the
Server. At the same time, the new Client creates access link state
for the ACP in anticipation of the MN's arrival (while queuing any
data packets until the MN arrives), creates a neighbor cache entry
for the old Client with AcceptTime set to ACCEPT_TIME, then sends a
Redirect message back to the old Client. When the old Client
receives the Redirect message, it creates a neighbor cache entry for
the new Client with ForwardTime set to FORWARD_TIME, then forwards
any queued data packets to the new Client. At the same time, the old
Client sends a Release message to its Server. Finally, the old
Client sends unsolicited Redirect messages to any of the ACP's
correspondents with a TLLAO containing the link-layer address of the
new Client.
Upon receiving a reactive handover indication, the new proxy Client
creates access link state for the MN's ACP, sends a Solicit message
to its Server, and sends a Release message directly to the old
Client. The Release message includes the MN's ID as the DUID, the
ACP in an IA_PD option, the new Client's address as the link-layer
source address and the old Client's address as the link-layer
destination address. When the old Client receives the Release
message, it changes the link-layer source address to its own address,
changes the link-layer destination address to the address of its
Server, and forwards the message to the Server. At the same time,
the old Client sends a Predirect message back to the new Client and
queues any arriving data packets addressed to the departed MN. When
the new Client receives the Predirect, it creates a neighbor cache
entry for the old Client with AcceptTime set to ACCEPT_TIME, then
sends a Redirect message back to the old Client. When the old Client
receives the Redirect message, it creates a neighbor cache entry for
the new Client with ForwardTime set to FORWARD_TIME, then forwards
any queued data packets to the new Client. Finally, the old Client
sends unsolicited Redirect messages to correspondents the same as for
the predictive case.
When a Server processes a Solicit message, it creates a neighbor
cache entry for this ACP if none currently exists. If a neighbor
cache entry already exists, however, the Server changes the link-
layer address to the address of the new proxy Client (this satisfies
the case of both the old Client and new Client using the same
Server).
When a Server processes a Release message, it resets the neighbor
cache entry lifetime for this ACP to 3 seconds if the cached link-
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
layer address matches the old proxy Client's address. Otherwise, the
Server ignores the Release message (this satisfies the case of both
the old Client and new Client using the same Server).
When a correspondent Client receives an unsolicited Redirect message,
it changes the link-layer address for the ACP's neighbor cache entry
to the address of the new proxy Client.
From an architectural perspective, in addition to the use of DHCPv6
PD and IPv6 ND signaling the AERO approach differs from PMIPv6 in its
use of the NBMA virtual link model instead of point-to-point tunnels.
This provides a more agile interface for Client/Server and Client/
Client coordinations, and also facilitates simple route optimization.
The AERO routing system is also arranged in such a fashion that
Clients get the same service from any Server they happen to associate
with. This provides a natural fault tolerance and load balancing
capability such as desired for distributed mobility management.
3.21. Extending AERO Links Through Security Gateways
When an enterprise mobile device moves from a campus LAN connection
to a public Internet link, it must re-enter the enterprise via a
security gateway that has both a physical interface connection to the
Internet and a physical interface connection to the enterprise
internetwork. This most often entails the establishment of a Virtual
Private Network (VPN) link over the public Internet from the mobile
device to the security gateway. During this process, the mobile
device supplies the security gateway with its public Internet address
as the link-layer address for the VPN. The mobile device then acts
as an AERO Client to negotiate with the security gateway to obtain
its ACP.
In order to satisfy this need, the security gateway also operates as
an AERO Server with support for AERO Client proxying. In particular,
when a mobile device (i.e., the Client) connects via the security
gateway (i.e., the Server), the Server provides the Client with an
ACP in a DHCPv6 PD exchange the same as if it were attached to an
enterprise campus access link. The Server then replaces the Client's
link-layer source address with the Server's enterprise-facing link-
layer address in all AERO messages the Client sends toward neighbors
on the AERO link. The AERO messages are then delivered to other
devices on the AERO link as if they were originated by the security
gateway instead of by the AERO Client. In the reverse direction, the
AERO messages sourced by devices within the enterprise network can be
forwarded to the security gateway, which then replaces the link-layer
destination address with the Client's link-layer address and replaces
the link-layer source address with its own (Internet-facing) link-
layer address.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
After receiving the ACP, the Client can send IP packets that use an
address taken from the ACP as the network layer source address, the
Client's link-layer address as the link-layer source address, and the
Server's Internet-facing link-layer address as the link-layer
destination address. The Server will then rewrite the link-layer
source address with the Server's own enterprise-facing link-layer
address and rewrite the link-layer destination address with the
target AERO node's link-layer address, and the packets will enter the
enterprise network as though they were sourced from a device located
within the enterprise. In the reverse direction, when a packet
sourced by a node within the enterprise network uses a destination
address from the Client's ACP, the packet will be delivered to the
security gateway which then rewrites the link-layer destination
address to the Client's link-layer address and rewrites the link-
layer source address to the Server's Internet-facing link-layer
address. The Server then delivers the packet across the VPN to the
AERO Client. In this way, the AERO virtual link is essentially
extended *through* the security gateway to the point at which the VPN
link and AERO link are effectively grafted together by the link-layer
address rewriting performed by the security gateway. All AERO
messaging services (including route optimization and mobility
signaling) are therefore extended to the Client.
In order to support this virtual link grafting, the security gateway
(acting as an AERO Server) must keep static neighbor cache entries
for all of its associated Clients located on the public Internet.
The neighbor cache entry is keyed by the AERO Client's AERO address
the same as if the Client were located within the enterprise
internetwork. The neighbor cache is then managed in all ways as
though the Client were an ordinary AERO Client. This includes the
AERO IPv6 ND messaging signaling for Route Optimization and Neighbor
Unreachability Detection.
Note that the main difference between a security gateway acting as an
AERO Server and an enterprise-internal AERO Server is that the
security gateway has at least one enterprise-internal physical
interface and at least one public Internet physical interface.
Conversely, the enterprise-internal AERO Server has only enterprise-
internal physical interfaces. For this reason security gateway
proxying is needed to ensure that the public Internet link-layer
addressing space is kept separate from the enterprise-internal link-
layer addressing space. This is afforded through a natural extension
of the security association caching already performed for each VPN
client by the security gateway.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.22. Extending IPv6 AERO Links to the Internet
When an IPv6 host ('H1') with an address from an ACP owned by AERO
Client ('C1') sends packets to a correspondent IPv6 host ('H2'), the
packets eventually arrive at the IPv6 router that owns ('H2')s
prefix. This IPv6 router may or may not be an AERO Client ('C2')
either within the same home network as ('C1') or in a different home
network.
If Client ('C1') is currently located outside the boundaries of its
home network, it will connect back into the home network via a
security gateway acting as an AERO Server. The packets sent by
('H1') via ('C1') will then be forwarded through the security gateway
then through the home network and finally to ('C2') where they will
be delivered to ('H2'). This could lead to sub-optimal performance
when ('C2') could instead be reached via a more direct route without
involving the security gateway.
Consider the case when host ('H1') has the IPv6 address
2001:db8:1::1, and Client ('C1') has the ACP 2001:db8:1::/64 with
underlying IPv6 Internet address of 2001:db8:1000::1. Also, host
('H2') has the IPv6 address 2001:db8:2::1, and Client ('C2') has the
ACP 2001:db8:2::/64 with underlying IPv6 address of 2001:db8:2000::1.
Client ('C1') can determine whether 'C2' is indeed also an AERO
Client willing to serve as a route optimization correspondent by
resolving the AAAA records for the DNS FQDN that matches ('H2')s
prefix, i.e.:
'0.0.0.0.2.0.0.0.8.b.d.0.1.0.0.2.aero.linkupnetworks.net'
If ('C2') is indeed a candidate correspondent, the FQDN lookup will
return a PTR resource record that contains the domain name for the
AERO link that manages ('C2')s ASP. Client ('C1') can then attempt
route optimization using an approach similar to the Return
Routability procedure specified for Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275].
In order to support this process, both Clients MUST intercept and
decapsulate packets that have a subnet router anycast address
corresponding to any of the /64 prefixes covered by their respective
ACPs.
To initiate the process, Client ('C1') creates a specially-crafted
encapsulated Predirect message that will be routed through its home
network then through ('C2')s home network and finally to ('C2')
itself. Client ('C1') prepares the initial message in the exchange
as follows:
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
o The encapsulating IPv6 header source address is set to
2001:db8:1:: (i.e., the IPv6 subnet router anycast address for
('C1')s ACP)
o The encapsulating IPv6 header destination address is set to
2001:db8:2:: (i.e., the IPv6 subnet router anycast address for
('C2')s ACP)
o The encapsulating IPv6 header is followed by any additional
encapsulation headers
o The encapsulated IPv6 header source address is set to
fe80::2001:db8:1:0 (i.e., the AERO address for ('C1'))
o The encapsulated IPv6 header destination address is set to
fe80::2001:db8:2:0 (i.e., the AERO address for ('C2'))
o The encapsulated Predirect message includes all of the securing
information that would occur in a MIPv6 "Home Test Init" message
(format TBD)
Client ('C1') then further encapsulates the message in the
encapsulating headers necessary to convey the packet to the security
gateway (e.g., through IPsec encapsulation) so that the message now
appears "double-encapsulated". ('C1') then sends the message to the
security gateway, which re-encapsulates and forwards it over the home
network from where it will eventually reach ('C2').
At the same time, ('C1') creates and sends a second encapsulated
Predirect message that will be routed through the IPv6 Internet
without involving the security gateway. Client ('C1') prepares the
message as follows:
o The encapsulating IPv6 header source address is set to
2001:db8:1000:1 (i.e., the Internet IPv6 address of ('C1'))
o The encapsulating IPv6 header destination address is set to
2001:db8:2:: (i.e., the IPv6 subnet router anycast address for
('C2')s ACP)
o The encapsulating IPv6 header is followed by any additional
encapsulation headers
o The encapsulated IPv6 header source address is set to
fe80::2001:db8:1:0 (i.e., the AERO address for ('C1'))
o The encapsulated IPv6 header destination address is set to
fe80::2001:db8:2:0 (i.e., the AERO address for ('C2'))
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
o The encapsulated Predirect message includes all of the securing
information that would occur in a MIPv6 "Care-of Test Init"
message (format TBD)
('C2') will receive both Predirect messages through its home network
then return a corresponding Redirect for each of the Predirect
messages with the source and destination addresses in the inner and
outer headers reversed. The first message includes all of the
securing information that would occur in a MIPv6 "Home Test" message,
while the second message includes all of the securing information
that would occur in a MIPv6 "Care-of Test" message (formats TBD).
When ('C1') receives the Redirect messages, it performs the necessary
security procedures per the MIPv6 specification. It then prepares an
encapsulated NS message that includes the same source and destination
addresses as for the "Care-of Test Init" Predirect message, and
includes all of the securing information that would occur in a MIPv6
"Binding Update" message (format TBD) and sends the message to
('C2').
When ('C2') receives the NS message, if the securing information is
correct it creates or updates a neighbor cache entry for ('C1') with
fe80::2001:db8:1:0 as the network-layer address, 2001:db8:1000::1 as
the link-layer address and with AcceptTime set to ACCEPT_TIME.
('C2') then sends an encapsulated NA message back to ('C1') that
includes the same source and destination addresses as for the "Care-
of Test" Redirect message, and includes all of the securing
information that would occur in a MIPv6 "Binding Acknowledgement"
message (format TBD) and sends the message to ('C1').
When ('C1') receives the NA message, it creates or updates a neighbor
cache entry for ('C2') with fe80::2001:db8:2:0 as the network-layer
address and 2001:db8:2:: as the link-layer address and with
ForwardTime set to FORWARD_TIME, thus completing the route
optimization in the forward direction.
('C1') subsequently forwards encapsulated packets with outer source
address 2001:db8:1000::1, with outer destination address
2001:db8:2::, with inner source address taken from the 2001:db8:1::,
and with inner destination address taken from 2001:db8:2:: due to the
fact that it has a securely-established neighbor cache entry with
non-zero ForwardTime. ('C2') subsequently accepts any such
encapsulated packets due to the fact that it has a securely-
established neighbor cache entry with non-zero AcceptTime.
In order to keep neighbor cache entries alive, ('C1') periodically
sends additional NS messages to ('C2') and receives any NA responses.
If ('C1') moves to a different point of attachment after the initial
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
route optimization, it sends a new secured NS message to ('C2') as
above to update ('C2')s neighbor cache.
If ('C2') has packets to send to ('C1'), it performs a corresponding
route optimization in the opposite direction following the same
procedures described above. In the process, the already-established
unidirectional neighbor cache entries within ('C1') and ('C2') are
updated to include the now-bidirectional information. In particular,
the AcceptTime and ForwardTime variables for both neighbor cache
entries are updated to non-zero values, and the link-layer address
for ('C1')s neighbor cache entry for ('C2') is reset to
2001:db8:2000::1.
Note that two AERO Clients can use full security protocol messaging
instead of Return Routability, e.g., if strong authentication and/or
confidentiality are desired. In that case, security protocol key
exchanges such as specified for MOBIKE [RFC4555] would be used to
establish security associations and neighbor cache entries between
the AERO clients. Thereafter, NS/NA messaging can be used to
maintain neighbor cache entries, test reachability, and to announce
mobility events. If reachability testing fails, e.g., if both
Clients move at roughly the same time, the Clients can tear down the
security association and neighbor cache entries and again allow
packets to flow through their home network.
3.23. Operation on AERO Links Without DHCPv6 Services
When Servers on the AERO link do not provide DHCPv6 services,
operation can still be accommodated through administrative
configuration of ACPs on AERO Clients. In that case, administrative
configurations of AERO interface neighbor cache entries on both the
Server and Client are also necessary. However, this may interfere
with the ability for Clients to dynamically change to new Servers,
and can expose the AERO link to misconfigurations unless the
administrative configurations are carefully coordinated.
3.24. Operation on Server-less AERO Links
In some AERO link scenarios, there may be no Servers on the link and/
or no need for Clients to use a Server as an intermediary trust
anchor. In that case, each Client acts as a Server unto itself to
establish neighbor cache entries by performing direct Client-to-
Client IPv6 ND message exchanges, and some other form of trust basis
must be applied so that each Client can verify that the prospective
neighbor is authorized to use its claimed ACP.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
When there is no Server on the link, Clients must arrange to receive
ACPs and publish them via a secure alternate PD authority through
some means outside the scope of this document.
3.25. AERO Operation without DHCPv6 Client/Server Exchanges
In some environments, the AERO service may be useful for mobile nodes
that do not implement the AERO Client function and do not perform
encapsulation. For example, if the mobile node has a way of
injecting its ACP into the access network routing system an AERO
Server connected to the same access network can accept the ACP prefix
injection as an indication that a new mobile node has come onto the
link. The Server can then inject the ACP into the BGP routing system
the same as if an AERO Client/Server DHCPv6 exchange had occurred.
If the mobile node subsequently withdraws the ACP from the access
network routing system, the Server can then withrdaw the ACP from the
BGP routing system.
In this arrangement, AERO Servers and Relays are used in exactly the
same ways as for environments where DHCPv6 Client/Server exchanges
are supported. However, the access network routing systems must be
capable of accommodating rapid ACP injections and withrawls from
mobile nodes with the understanding that the information must be
propagated to all routers in the system. Operational expereince has
shown that this kind of routing system "churn" can lead to overall
instability and inconsistency in the routing system.
3.26. Manually-Configured AERO Tunnels
In addition to the dynamic neighbor discovery procedures for AERO
link neighbors described above, AERO encapsulation can be applied to
manually-configured tunnels. In that case, the tunnel endpoints use
an administratively-assigned link-local address and exchange NS/NA
messages the same as for dynamically-established tunnels.
3.27. Encapsulation Avoidance on Relay-Server Dedicated Links
In some environments, AERO Servers and Relays may be connected by
dedicated point-to-point links, e.g., high speed fiberoptic leased
lines. In that case, the Servers and Relays can participate in the
AERO link the same as specified above but can avoid encapsulation
over the dedicated links. In that case, however, the links would be
dedicated for AERO and could not be multiplexed for both AERO and
non-AERO communications.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
3.28. Encapsulation Protocol Version Considerations
A source Client may connect only to an IPvX underlying network, while
the target Client connects only to an IPvY underlying network. In
that case, the target and source Clients have no means for reaching
each other directly (since they connect to underlying networks of
different IP protocol versions) and so must ignore any redirection
messages and continue to send packets via their Servers.
3.29. Multicast Considerations
When the underlying network does not support multicast, AERO Clients
map link-scoped multicast addresses to the link-layer address of a
Server, which acts as a multicast forwarding agent. The AERO Client
also serves as an IGMP/MLD Proxy for its EUNs and/or hosted
applications per [RFC4605] while using the link-layer address of the
Server as the link-layer address for all multicast packets.
When the underlying network supports multicast, AERO nodes use the
multicast address mapping specification found in [RFC2529] for IPv4
underlying networks and use a TBD site-scoped multicast mapping for
IPv6 underlying networks. In that case, border routers must ensure
that the encapsulated site-scoped multicast packets do not leak
outside of the site spanned by the AERO link.
4. Implementation Status
User-level and kernel-level AERO implementations have been developed
and are undergoing internal testing within Boeing.
An initial public release of the AERO source code was announced on
the intarea mailing list on August 21, 2015, and a pointer to the
code is available in the list archives.
5. IANA Considerations
The IANA has assigned a 4-octet Private Enterprise Number "45282" for
AERO in the "enterprise-numbers" registry.
The IANA has assigned the UDP port number "8060" for an earlier
experimental version of AERO [RFC6706]. This document obsoletes
[RFC6706] and claims the UDP port number "8060" for all future use.
No further IANA actions are required.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
6. Security Considerations
AERO link security considerations are the same as for standard IPv6
Neighbor Discovery [RFC4861] except that AERO improves on some
aspects. In particular, AERO uses a trust basis between Clients and
Servers, where the Clients only engage in the AERO mechanism when it
is facilitated by a trust anchor.
Redirect, Predirect and unsolicited NA messages SHOULD include a
Timestamp option (see Section 5.3 of [RFC3971]) that other AERO nodes
can use to verify the message time of origin. Predirect, NS and RS
messages SHOULD include a Nonce option (see Section 5.3 of [RFC3971])
that recipients echo back in corresponding responses.
AERO links must be protected against link-layer address spoofing
attacks in which an attacker on the link pretends to be a trusted
neighbor. Links that provide link-layer securing mechanisms (e.g.,
IEEE 802.1X WLANs) and links that provide physical security (e.g.,
enterprise network wired LANs) provide a first line of defense,
however AERO nodes SHOULD also use DHCPv6 securing services (e.g.,
Secure DHCPv6 [I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6], etc.) for Client
authentication and network admission control.
AERO Clients MUST ensure that their connectivity is not used by
unauthorized nodes on their EUNs to gain access to a protected
network, i.e., AERO Clients that act as routers MUST NOT provide
routing services for unauthorized nodes. (This concern is no
different than for ordinary hosts that receive an IP address
delegation but then "share" the address with unauthorized nodes via
some form of Internet connection sharing.)
AERO Clients, Servers and Relays on the open Internet are suceptible
to the same attack profiles as for any Internet nodes. For this
reason, IP security MUST be used when AERO is employed over
unmanaged/unsecured links using securing mechanisms such as IPsec
[RFC4301], IKE [RFC5996] and/or TLS [RFC5246].
AERO Servers and Relays present targets for traffic amplification
Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. This concern is no different than
for widely-deployed VPN security gateways in the Internet, where
attackers could send spoofed packets to the gateways at high data
rates. This becomes less of a problem when Relays and Servers are
connected by dedicated links with no connections to the Internet and/
or when connections to the Internet asre only permitted through well-
managed firewalls.
Traffic amplfication DoS attacks can also target an AERO Client's low
data rate links. This is a concern not only for Clients located on
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
the open Internet but also for Clients in protected enclaves. AERO
Servers can institute rate limits that protect Clients from receiving
packet floods that could DoS low data rate links.
7. Acknowledgements
Discussions both on IETF lists and in private exchanges helped shape
some of the concepts in this work. Individuals who contributed
insights include Mikael Abrahamsson, Mark Andrews, Fred Baker,
Stewart Bryant, Brian Carpenter, Wojciech Dec, Ralph Droms, Adrian
Farrel, Sri Gundavelli, Brian Haberman, Joel Halpern, Tom Herbert,
Sascha Hlusiak, Lee Howard, Andre Kostur, Ted Lemon, Andy Malis,
Satoru Matsushima, Tomek Mrugalski, Alexandru Petrescu, Behcet
Saikaya, Joe Touch, Bernie Volz, Ryuji Wakikawa and Lloyd Wood.
Members of the IESG also provided valuable input during their review
process that greatly improved the document. Discussions on the v6ops
list in the December 2015 through January 2016 timeframe further
helped clarify AERO multi-addressing capabilities. Special thanks go
to Stewart Bryant, Joel Halpern and Brian Haberman for their
shepherding guidance during the publication of the AERO first
edition.
This work has further been encouraged and supported by Boeing
colleagues including M. Wayne Benson, Dave Bernhardt, Cam Brodie,
Balaguruna Chidambaram, Irene Chin, Bruce Cornish, Claudiu Danilov,
Wen Fang, Anthony Gregory, Jeff Holland, Ed King, Gen MacLean, Rob
Muszkiewicz, Sean O'Sullivan, Kent Shuey, Brian Skeen, Mike Slane,
Brendan Williams, Julie Wulff, Yueli Yang, and other members of the
BR&T and BIT mobile networking teams. Wayne Benson is especially
acknowledged for his outstanding work in converting the AERO proof-
of-concept implementation into production-ready code.
Earlier works on NBMA tunneling approaches are found in
[RFC2529][RFC5214][RFC5569].
Many of the constructs presented in this second edition of AERO are
based on the author's earlier works, including:
o The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
[RFC6179][I-D.templin-ironbis]
o Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)
[RFC5558][I-D.templin-intarea-vet]
o The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)
[RFC5320][I-D.templin-intarea-seal]
o AERO, First Edition [RFC6706]
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
Note that these works cite numerous earlier efforts that are not also
cited here due to space limitations. The authors of those earlier
works are acknowledged for their insights.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[RFC3633] Troan, O. and R. Droms, "IPv6 Prefix Options for Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) version 6", RFC 3633,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3633, December 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3633>.
[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
[RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4213, October 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4213>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.herbert-gue-fragmentation]
Herbert, T. and F. Templin, "Fragmentation option for
Generic UDP Encapsulation", draft-herbert-gue-
fragmentation-02 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6]
Jiang, S., Li, L., Cui, Y., Jinmei, T., Lemon, T., and D.
Zhang, "Secure DHCPv6", draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-13 (work
in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.ietf-intarea-tunnels]
Touch, D. and W. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet
Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-03 (work in
progress), July 2016.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[I-D.ietf-nvo3-gue]
Herbert, T., Yong, L., and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-04 (work in progress),
July 2016.
[I-D.templin-intarea-grefrag]
Templin, F., "GRE Tunnel Level Fragmentation", draft-
templin-intarea-grefrag-04 (work in progress), July 2016.
[I-D.templin-intarea-seal]
Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
Layer (SEAL)", draft-templin-intarea-seal-68 (work in
progress), January 2014.
[I-D.templin-intarea-vet]
Templin, F., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)", draft-
templin-intarea-vet-40 (work in progress), May 2013.
[I-D.templin-ironbis]
Templin, F., "The Interior Routing Overlay Network
(IRON)", draft-templin-ironbis-16 (work in progress),
March 2014.
[RFC0879] Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related
Topics", RFC 879, DOI 10.17487/RFC0879, November 1983,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc879>.
[RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
November 1987, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., Ed., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
RFC 1812, DOI 10.17487/RFC1812, June 1995,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1812>.
[RFC1930] Hawkinson, J. and T. Bates, "Guidelines for creation,
selection, and registration of an Autonomous System (AS)",
BCP 6, RFC 1930, DOI 10.17487/RFC1930, March 1996,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1930>.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August
1996, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1981>.
[RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol",
RFC 2131, DOI 10.17487/RFC2131, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2131>.
[RFC2529] Carpenter, B. and C. Jung, "Transmission of IPv6 over IPv4
Domains without Explicit Tunnels", RFC 2529,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2529, March 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2529>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[RFC2764] Gleeson, B., Lin, A., Heinanen, J., Armitage, G., and A.
Malis, "A Framework for IP Based Virtual Private
Networks", RFC 2764, DOI 10.17487/RFC2764, February 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2764>.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.
[RFC2890] Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE",
RFC 2890, DOI 10.17487/RFC2890, September 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2890>.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery",
RFC 2923, DOI 10.17487/RFC2923, September 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2923>.
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels",
RFC 2983, DOI 10.17487/RFC2983, October 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2983>.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3168>.
[RFC3596] Thomson, S., Huitema, C., Ksinant, V., and M. Souissi,
"DNS Extensions to Support IP Version 6", RFC 3596,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3596, October 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3596>.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Ed., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
RFC 3819, DOI 10.17487/RFC3819, July 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3819>.
[RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A
Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
December 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI 10.17487/RFC4459, April
2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4459>.
[RFC4511] Sermersheim, J., Ed., "Lightweight Directory Access
Protocol (LDAP): The Protocol", RFC 4511,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4511, June 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4511>.
[RFC4555] Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
(MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, DOI 10.17487/RFC4555, June 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4555>.
[RFC4592] Lewis, E., "The Role of Wildcards in the Domain Name
System", RFC 4592, DOI 10.17487/RFC4592, July 2006,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4592>.
[RFC4605] Fenner, B., He, H., Haberman, B., and H. Sandick,
"Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) / Multicast
Listener Discovery (MLD)-Based Multicast Forwarding
("IGMP/MLD Proxying")", RFC 4605, DOI 10.17487/RFC4605,
August 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4605>.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 61]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4963, July 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4963>.
[RFC4994] Zeng, S., Volz, B., Kinnear, K., and J. Brzozowski,
"DHCPv6 Relay Agent Echo Request Option", RFC 4994,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4994, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4994>.
[RFC5213] Gundavelli, S., Ed., Leung, K., Devarapalli, V.,
Chowdhury, K., and B. Patil, "Proxy Mobile IPv6",
RFC 5213, DOI 10.17487/RFC5213, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5213>.
[RFC5214] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5214, March 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5214>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5320] Templin, F., Ed., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and
Adaptation Layer (SEAL)", RFC 5320, DOI 10.17487/RFC5320,
February 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5320>.
[RFC5494] Arkko, J. and C. Pignataro, "IANA Allocation Guidelines
for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)", RFC 5494,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5494, April 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5494>.
[RFC5522] Eddy, W., Ivancic, W., and T. Davis, "Network Mobility
Route Optimization Requirements for Operational Use in
Aeronautics and Space Exploration Mobile Networks",
RFC 5522, DOI 10.17487/RFC5522, October 2009,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5522>.
[RFC5558] Templin, F., Ed., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)",
RFC 5558, DOI 10.17487/RFC5558, February 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5558>.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 62]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4
Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, DOI 10.17487/RFC5569,
January 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5569>.
[RFC5720] Templin, F., "Routing and Addressing in Networks with
Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER)", RFC 5720,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5720, February 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5720>.
[RFC5844] Wakikawa, R. and S. Gundavelli, "IPv4 Support for Proxy
Mobile IPv6", RFC 5844, DOI 10.17487/RFC5844, May 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5844>.
[RFC5949] Yokota, H., Chowdhury, K., Koodli, R., Patil, B., and F.
Xia, "Fast Handovers for Proxy Mobile IPv6", RFC 5949,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5949, September 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5949>.
[RFC5996] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
"Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
RFC 5996, DOI 10.17487/RFC5996, September 2010,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5996>.
[RFC6146] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. van Beijnum, "Stateful
NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6
Clients to IPv4 Servers", RFC 6146, DOI 10.17487/RFC6146,
April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6146>.
[RFC6179] Templin, F., Ed., "The Internet Routing Overlay Network
(IRON)", RFC 6179, DOI 10.17487/RFC6179, March 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6179>.
[RFC6204] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., Stark, B., and O.
Troan, Ed., "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge
Routers", RFC 6204, DOI 10.17487/RFC6204, April 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6204>.
[RFC6221] Miles, D., Ed., Ooghe, S., Dec, W., Krishnan, S., and A.
Kavanagh, "Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agent", RFC 6221,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6221, May 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6221>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 63]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility
Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July
2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>.
[RFC6355] Narten, T. and J. Johnson, "Definition of the UUID-Based
DHCPv6 Unique Identifier (DUID-UUID)", RFC 6355,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6355, August 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6355>.
[RFC6422] Lemon, T. and Q. Wu, "Relay-Supplied DHCP Options",
RFC 6422, DOI 10.17487/RFC6422, December 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6422>.
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.
[RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
RFC 6691, DOI 10.17487/RFC6691, July 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6691>.
[RFC6706] Templin, F., Ed., "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization
(AERO)", RFC 6706, DOI 10.17487/RFC6706, August 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6706>.
[RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864>.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6935, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6935>.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6936>.
[RFC6939] Halwasia, G., Bhandari, S., and W. Dec, "Client Link-Layer
Address Option in DHCPv6", RFC 6939, DOI 10.17487/RFC6939,
May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6939>.
[RFC6980] Gont, F., "Security Implications of IPv6 Fragmentation
with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery", RFC 6980,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6980, August 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6980>.
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 64]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
[RFC7078] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and T. Chown, "Distributing
Address Selection Policy Using DHCPv6", RFC 7078,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7078, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7078>.
[TUNTAP] Wikipedia, W., "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUN/TAP",
October 2014.
Appendix A. AERO Alternate Encapsulations
When GUE encapsulation is not needed, AERO can use common
encapsulations such as IP-in-IP [RFC2003][RFC2473][RFC4213], Generic
Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784][RFC2890] and others. The
encapsulation is therefore only differentiated from non-AERO tunnels
through the application of AERO control messaging and not through,
e.g., a well-known UDP port number.
As for GUE encapsulation, alternate AERO encapsulation formats may
require encapsulation layer fragmentation. For simple IP-in-IP
encapsulation, an IPv6 fragment header is inserted directly between
the inner and outer IP headers when needed, i.e., even if the outer
header is IPv4. The IPv6 Fragment Header is identified to the outer
IP layer by its IP protocol number, and the Next Header field in the
IPv6 Fragment Header identifies the inner IP header version. For GRE
encapsulation, a GRE fragment header is inserted within the GRE
header [I-D.templin-intarea-grefrag].
Figure 9 shows the AERO IP-in-IP encapsulation format before any
fragmentation is applied:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer IPv4 Header | | Outer IPv6 Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|IPv6 Frag Header (optional)| |IPv6 Frag Header (optional)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Inner IP Header | | Inner IP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | | |
~ ~ ~ ~
~ Inner Packet Body ~ ~ Inner Packet Body ~
~ ~ ~ ~
| | | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Minimal Encapsulation in IPv4 Minimal Encapsulation in IPv6
Figure 9: Minimal Encapsulation Format using IP-in-IP
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 65]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
Figure 10 shows the AERO GRE encapsulation format before any
fragmentation is applied:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Outer IP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GRE Header |
| (with checksum, key, etc..) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| GRE Fragment Header (optional)|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Inner IP Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
~ ~
~ Inner Packet Body ~
~ ~
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 10: Minimal Encapsulation Using GRE
Alternate encapsulation may be preferred in environments where GUE
encapsulation would add unnecessary overhead. For example, certain
low-bandwidth wireless data links may benefit from a reduced
encapsulation overhead.
GUE encapsulation can traverse network paths that are inaccessible to
non-UDP encapsulations, e.g., for crossing Network Address
Translators (NATs). More and more, network middleboxes are also
being configured to discard packets that include anything other than
a well-known IP protocol such as UDP and TCP. It may therefore be
necessary to determine the potential for middlebox filtering before
enabling alternate encapsulation in a given environment.
In addition to IP-in-IP, GRE and GUE, AERO can also use security
encapsulations such as IPsec and SSL/TLS. In that case, AERO control
messaging and route determination occur before security encapsulation
is applied for outgoing packets and after security decapsulation is
applied for incoming packets.
Appendix B. When to Insert an Encapsulation Fragment Header
An encapsulation fragment header is inserted when the AERO tunnel
ingress needs to apply fragmentation to accommodate packets that must
be delivered without loss due to a size restriction. Fragmentation
is performed on the inner packet while encapsulating each inner
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 66]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
packet fragment in outer IP and encapsulation layer headers that
differ only in the fragment header fields.
The fragment header can also be inserted in order to include a
coherent Identification value with each packet, e.g., to aid in
Duplicate Packet Detection (DPD). In this way, network nodes can
cache the Identification values of recently-seen packets and use the
cached values to determine whether a newly-arrived packet is in fact
a duplicate. The Identification value within each packet could
further provide a rough indicator of packet reordering, e.g., in
cases when the tunnel egress wishes to discard packets that are
grossly out of order.
In some use cases, there may be operational assurance that no
fragmentation of any kind will be necessary, or that only occasional
large control messages will require fragmentation. In that case, the
encapsulation fragment header can be omitted and ordinary
fragmentation of the outer IP protocol version can be applied when
necessary.
Appendix C. Autoconfiguration for Constrained Platforms
On some platforms (e.g., popular cell phone operating systems), the
act of assigning a default IPv6 route and/or assigning an address to
an interface may not be permitted from a user application due to
security policy. Typically, those platforms include a TUN/TAP
interface [TUNTAP] that acts as a point-to-point conduit between user
applications and the AERO interface. In that case, the Client can
instead generate a "synthesized RA" message. The message conforms to
[RFC4861] and is prepared as follows:
o the IPv6 source address is the Client's AERO address
o the IPv6 destination address is all-nodes multicast
o the Router Lifetime is set to a time that is no longer than the
ACP DHCPv6 lifetime
o the message does not include a Source Link Layer Address Option
(SLLAO)
o the message includes a Prefix Information Option (PIO) with a /64
prefix taken from the ACP as the prefix for autoconfiguration
The Client then sends the synthesized RA message via the TUN/TAP
interface, where the operating system kernel will interpret it as
though it were generated by an actual router. The operating system
will then install a default route and use StateLess Address
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 67]
Internet-Draft AERO September 2016
AutoConfiguration (SLAAC) to configure an IPv6 address on the TUN/TAP
interface. Methods for similarly installing an IPv4 default route
and IPv4 address on the TUN/TAP interface are based on synthesized
DHCPv4 messages [RFC2131].
Author's Address
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
USA
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin Expires March 11, 2017 [Page 68]