Individual Submission G. Huston
Internet-Draft Telstra
Expires: December 27, 2004 June 28, 2004
Architectural Approaches to Multi-Homing for IPv6
draft-huston-multi6-architectures-01.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
RFC 3668.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 27, 2004.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This memo provides an analysis of the aspects of multi-homing support
for the IPv6 protocol suite. The purpose of this analysis is to
provide a taxonomy for classification of various proposed approaches
to multi-homing. It is also an objective of this exercise to
identify common aspects of this domain of study, and also to provide
a framework that can allow exploration of some of the further
implications of various architectural extensions that are intended to
support multi-homing.
Document Revision Notes
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
The following changes have been made to the draft:
00 to 01:
Section 2: The Multi-Homing Space
Added text to include consideration of session initiation in
the face of changes to the connectivity topology, and a note
about the potential to consider traffic engineering across
multiple paths.
Section 3: Functional Goals and Considerations
Changed 'requirements' to 'goals'.
Section 5.1 Endpoint Identity Structure
Added consideration of disambiguating locators and identities
when identities are drawn from the same address space as
locators. Added text about identities drawn from PA space and
the problems this raises. Also added text about disambiguating
DNS FQDN pseudo-anycast from DNS-based multi-homing with
equivalent locator sets.
Section 5.2 Persistent, Opportunistic and Ephemeral Identities
New section added to the draft considering the implications of
these three approaches to identity.
Section 5.3.1 Triggering Locator Switches
Added section on ICMP triggers.
Section 5.3.2 Layering Identity
New section added, considering the implications of placing
endpoint identity functionality in the transport or intenetwork
protocol elements, or as a wedge element, conceptually placed
between these two elements.
Section 6. Functional Decomposition of Multi-Homing Approaches
New section added.
The following comments have yet to be integrated into the draft:
Comparison with MIPv6:
Related experiences with MIPv6 and its approach to the identity
/ locator split and the differences between this and the
approaches proposed with multi-homing.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
Is Traffic Engineering within scope?
Is consideration of Traffic Engineering part of this
architectural approach? If so what aspects of Traffic
Engineering are relevant here and why? [The consideration here
appears to be that hosts need much more information at hand if
they are to make locator address selection decisions based on
some form of metric of relative load currently being imposed on
select components of a number of end-to-end network paths, and
it raises the entire issue of Traffic Engineering being a
network function independent of host function or an outcome of
host interaction with the network, and if the host is to
interact with the network how is this interaction to be
signalled?]
Appendix A Notes on various approaches
This needs to be placed into a distinct document (and updated).
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. The Multi-Homing Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Functional Goals and Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Approaches to Multi-Homing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1 Multi-Homing: Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 Multi-homing: Identity Considerations . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.3 Multi-homing: Identity Protocol Element . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4 Multi-homing: Modified Protocol Element . . . . . . . . . 13
4.5 Modified Site-Exit and Host Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Approaches to Endpoint Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1 Endpoint Identity Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
5.2 Persistent, Opportunistic and Ephermeral Identities . . . 18
5.3 Common Issues for Multi-Homing Approaches . . . . . . . . 20
5.3.1 Triggering Locator Switches . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.3.2 Layering Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3.3 Session Startup and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.3.4 Dynamic Capability Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3.5 Identity Uniqueness and Stability . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Functional Decomposition of Multi-Homing Approaches . . . . . 27
6.1 Establishing Session State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2 Rehoming Triggers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3 Rehoming Locator Pair Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4 Locator Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.5 Removal of Session State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A. Notes on Various approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A.1 Host Identity Protocol (HIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A.2 Multihoming without IP Identifiers (NOID) . . . . . . . . 31
A.3 Common Endpoint Locator Pools (CELP) . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.4 Weak Identifier Multihoming Protocol (WIMP) . . . . . . . 32
A.5 Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
A.6 Summaries of Selected ID/LOC Separation Documents . . . . 35
A.6.1 New or Updated Documents Since IETF58 . . . . . . . . 35
A.6.2 Older Documents that Remain Active/Interesting . . . . 38
A.6.3 Related Multi-Homing drafts, Status unknown . . . . . 39
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 42
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
1. Introduction
The objective of this analysis is to allow various technical
proposals relating to the support of multi-homing environment in IPv6
to be placed within an architectural taxonomy. This is intended to
allow these proposals to be classified and compared in a structured
fashion. It is also an objective of this exercise to identify common
aspects across all proposals within this domain of study, and also to
provide a framework that can allow exploration of some of the further
implications of various architectural extensions that are intended to
support multi-homing. The scope of this study is limited to the IPv6
protocol suite architecture, although reference is made to IPv4
approaches as required.
2. The Multi-Homing Space
A simple formulation of the multi-homing environment is indicated in
Figure 1.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
+------+
|remote|
| host |
| R |
+------+
|
+ - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Internet Connectivity |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - +
/ \
+---------+ +---------+
| ISP A | | ISP B |
+---------+ +---------+
| Path A | Path B
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| multi- | | |
homed +------+ +------+
| site | site | | site | |
| exit | | exit |
| |router| |router| |
| A | | B |
| +------+ +------+ |
| |
| local site connectivity |
|
| +-----------+ |
|multi-homed|
| | host | |
+-----------+
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
The Multi-Homed Domain
Figure 1
The environment of multi-homing is one that is intended to provide
sufficient support to local hosts so as to allow local hosts to
exchange IP packets with remote hosts, such that this exchange of
packets is to be seamlessly supported across dynamic changes in
connectivity. Session resilience implies that if a local
multi-homed-aware host establishes an application session with the
remote host using "Path A", and this path fails, the application
session should be mapped across to "Path B" without requiring any
application-visible re-establishment of the session. In other words,
the application session should not be required to be explicitly aware
of underlying path changes at the level of packet forwarding paths
chosen by the network.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
In addition to this objective of session resilience across network
reachability changes, there are also considerations of providing
mechanisms to support site visibility in the face of dynamic changes
in external reachability. Sustained site visibility implies that
external attempts to initiate a communication with hosts within the
site will succeed as long as there is at least one viable path
between the external host and the multi-homed site.
In addition there is the potential consideration of being able to
distribute traffic load across a number of network paths according to
some pre-determined objective, as a form of traffic engineering.
This simple multi-homing scenario also includes "site-exit' routers,
where the local site interfaces to the upstream Internet transit
providers. The nature of the interactions between the external
routing system and the site-exit routers, and interactions between
the site-exit routers and the local multi-homed host, and the
interactions between local connectivity forwarding and the local host
and site exit routers are not defined a priori in this scenario, as
they form part of the framework of interaction between the various
multi-homing components.
The major characteristic of this scenario is that the address space
used by, and advertised as reachable by, ISP A is distinct from the
address space used by ISP B.
This simple scenario is intended to illustrate the basic multi-homing
environment. Variations of this scenario include additional external
providers of transit connectivity to the local site, complex site
requirements and constraints, where the site may not interface
uniformly to all external transit providers, sequential rather than
simultaneous external transit reachability, communication with remote
multi-homed hosts, multi-way communications, use of host addresses in
a referential context (third party referrals) and the imposition of
policy constraints on path selection. However, the basic scenario is
sufficient to illustrate the major architectural aspects of support
for multi-homing, so this scenario will be used as the reference
model for this analysis.
3. Functional Goals and Considerations
RFC 3582 [1] documents some goals that a multi-homing approach should
attempt to address. These goals include:
o redundancy
o load sharing
o traffic engineering
o policy constraints
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
o simplicity of approach
o transport-layer survivability
o DNS compatibility
o packet filtering capability
o scalability
o legacy compatibility
The reader is referred to [1] for a complete description of each of
these goals.
In addition, [2] documents further considerations for IPv6
multi-homing. Again, the reader is referred to this document for the
detailed enumeration of these considerations. The general topic
areas considered in this study include:
o interaction with routing systems,
o aspects of a split between end-point-identifier and forwarding
locator,
o changes to packets on the wire, and
o the interaction between names, endpoints and the DNS.
In evaluating various approaches, further consideration also include:
o the role of helpers and agents in the approach,
o modifications to host behaviors,
o the required trust model to support the interactions, and
o the nature of potential vulnerabilities in the approach.
4. Approaches to Multi-Homing
There appear to be four generic forms of architectural approaches to
this problem, namely:
o Routing
Use the IPv4 multi-homing approach
o New Protocol Element
Insertion of a new element in the protocol stack that manages a
persistent identity for the session
o Modify a Protocol Element
Modify the Transport or IP protocol stack element in the host in
order to support dynamic forwarding locator change
o Modified Site-Exit Router / Local Host interaction
Modify the site-exit router and local forwarding system to allow
various behaviors including source-based forwarding, site-exit
hand-offs, and address rewriting by site-exit routers
These approaches will be described in detail in the following
sections.
4.1 Multi-Homing: Routing
The approach used in IPv4 for multi-homing support is to preserve the
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
semantics of the IPv4 address as both an endpoint identifier and a
forwarding locator. For this to work in a multi-homing context it is
necessary for the transit ISPs to announce the local site's address
prefix as a distinct routing entry in the inter-domain routing
system. This approach could be used in an IPv6 context, and, as with
IPv4, no modifications to the IPv6 architecture are required to
support this approach.
The local site's address prefix may be a more specific address prefix
drawn from the address space advertised by one of the transit
providers, or from some third party provider not current directly
connected to the local site. Alternatively the address space may be
a distinct address block obtained by direct assignment from a
Regional Internet Registry as Provider Independent space. Each host
within the local site is uniquely addressed from the site's address
prefix.
All transit providers for the site accept a prefix advertisement from
the multi-homed site, and advertise this prefix globally in the
inter-domain routing table. When connectivity between the local site
and an individual transit provider is lost, normal operation of the
routing protocol will ensure that the routing advertisement
corresponding to this particular path will be withdrawn from the
routing system, and those remote domain domains who had selected this
path as the best available will select another candidate path as the
best path. Upon restoration of the path, the path is re-advertised
in the inter-domain routing system. Remote domains will undertake a
further selection of the best path based on this re-advertised
reachability information. Neither the local or the remote host need
to have multiple addresses, nor undertake any form of address
selection. The path chosen for forward and reverse direction path
flows is a decision made by the routing system.
This approach generally meets all the goals for multi-homing
approaches with one notable exception: scalability. Each site that
multi-homes in this fashion adds a further entry in the global
inter-domain routing table. Within the constraints of current
routing and forwarding technologies it is not clearly evident that
this approach can scale to encompass a population of multi-homed
sites of the order of 10**7 such sites. The implication here is that
this would add a similar number of unique prefixes into the
inter-domain routing environment, which in turn would add to the
storage and computational load imposed on inter-domain routing
elements within the network. This scale of additional load is not
supportable within the current capabilities of the IPv4 global
Internet, nor is it clear at present that the routing capabilities of
the entire network could be expanded to manage this load in a
cost-effective fashion, within the bounds of the current inter-
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
domain routing protocol architecture.
4.2 Multi-homing: Identity Considerations
The intent of multi-homing in the IPv6 domain is to achieve a
comparable functional outcome for multi-homed sites without an
associated additional load being imposed on the routing system. The
overall intent of IPv6 is to provide a scalable protocol framework to
support the deployment of communications services for an extended
period of time, and this implies that the scaling properties of the
deployment environment remain tractable within projections of size of
deployment and underlying technology capabilities. Within the
inter-domain routing space, the basic approach used in IPv4 and IPv6
is to attempt to align address deployment with network topology, so
that address aggregation can be used to create a structured hierarchy
of the routing space.
Within this constraint of topological-based address deployment and
provider aggregatable addressing architectures, the local site that
is connected to multiple providers is delegated addresses from each
of these providers' address blocks. In the example network in Figure
1, the local multi-homed host will conceivably be addressed in two
ways: one using transit provider A's address prefix and the other
using transit provider B's address prefix.
If remote host R is to initiate a communication with the local
multi-homed host, it would normally query the DNS for an address for
the local host. In this context the DNS would return 2 addresses
(One using the A prefix and the other using the B prefix). The
remote host would select one of these addresses and send a packet to
this destination address. This would direct the packet to the local
host along a path through A or B, depending on the selected address.
If the path between the local site and the transit provider fails,
then the address prefix announced by the transit provider to the
inter-domain routing system will continue to be the provider's
address prefix. The remote host will not see any change in routing,
yet packets sent to the local host will now fail to be delivered.
The question posed by the multi-homing problem is: "If the remote
host is aware of multi-homing, how could it switch over to using the
equivalent address for the local multi-homed host that transits the
other provider?"
If the local multi-homed host wishes to initiate a session with
remote host R, it needs to send a packet to R with a valid source and
destination address. While the destination address is that of R,
what source address should the local host use? There are two
implications for this choice. Firstly the remote host will, by
default use this source address as the destination address in its
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
response, and hence this choice of source address will direct the
reverse path from R to the local host. Secondly, the ISPs A and B
may be using some form of reverse unicast address filtering on source
addresses of packets passed to the ISP, as a means of prevention of
source address spoofing. This implies that if the multi-homed
address selects a source address from address prefix A, and the local
routing to R selects a best path via ISP B, then ISP B's ingress
filters will discard the packet.
Within this addressing structure there is no form of routing-based
repair of certain network failures. If the link between the local
site and ISP A fails, there is no change in the route advertisements
made by ISP A to its external routing peers. Even though the
multi-homed site continues to be reachable via ISP B, packets
directed to the site using ISP A's prefix will be discarded by ISP A
as the destination is unreachable. The implication here is that if
the local host wishes to maintain a session across such events it
needs to communicate to remote host R that it is possible to switch
to using a destination address for the multi-homed host that is based
on ISP B' address prefix.
In an aggregated routing environment multiple transit paths to a host
imply multiple address prefixes for the host, where each possible
transit path is identified by an address for the host. The
implication of this constraint on multi-homing is that paths being
passed to the local multi-homed site via transit provider ISP A must
use a forwarding-level destination IP address drawn from ISP A's
advertised address prefix set that maps to the multi-homed host.
Equally, packets being passed via the transit of ISP B must use a
destination address drawn from ISP B's address prefix set. The
further implication here is that path selection (ISP A vs ISP B
transit for incoming packets) is an outcome of the process of
selecting an address for the destination host.
The architectural consideration here is that in the conventional IP
protocol architecture the assumption is made that the transport-layer
endpoint identity is the same identity used by the internet-layer
forwarding layer, namely the IP address.
If multiple forwarding paths are to be supported for a single
transport session, and path selection is to be decoupled from the
functions of transport session initiation and maintenance, then the
corollary of this requirement in architectural terms appears to be
that some changes are required in the protocol architecture to
decouple the concepts of identification of the endpoint and
identification of the location and associated path selection for the
endpoint. This is a fundamental change in the semantics of an IP
address in the context of the role of the endpoint address within the
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
end-to-end architectural model [3]. This change in the protocol
architecture would permit a transport session to use an invariant
endpoint identity value to initiate and maintain a session, while
allowing the forwarding layer to dynamically change paths and
associated endpoint locator identities without impacting on the
operation of the session, nor would such a decoupled concept of
identities and locators add any incremental load to the inter-domain
routing system.
Some generic approaches to this form of separation of endpoint
identity and locator value are described in the following sections.
4.3 Multi-homing: Identity Protocol Element
One approach to this objective is to add a new element into the model
of the protocol stack.
The presentation to the upper level protocol stack element (ULP)
would use endpoint identifiers to uniquely identify both the local
stack and the remote stack. This will provide the ULP with stable
identifiers for the duration of the ULP session.
The presentation to the lower level protocol stack element (LLP)
would be of the form of a locator. This implies that the protocol
stack element would need to maintain a mapping of endpoint identifier
values to locator values. In a multi-homing context one of the
essential characteristics of this mapping is that it needs to be
dynamic, in that environmental triggers should be able to trigger a
change in mappings, which in turn would correspond to a change in the
paths (forward and/or reverse) used by the endpoints to traverse the
network. In this way the ULP session is defined by a peering of
endpoint identifiers that remain constant throughout the lifetime of
the ULP session, while the locators may change to maintain end-to-end
reachability for the session.
The operation of the new protocol stack element (termed here the
"endpoint identity protocol stack element", or "EIP") is to establish
a synchronized state with its remote counterpart. This would allow
the stack elements to exchange a set of locators that may be used
within the context of the session. A change in the local binding
between the current endpoint identity value and a locator will cause
a change in the source locator value used in the forwarding level
packet header. The actions of the remote EIP upon receipt of this
packet with the new locator is to firstly recognize this locator as
part of an existing session, and, upon some trigger condition, to
change its session view of the mapping of the remote endpoint
identity to the corresponding locator, and use this locator as the
destination locator in subsequent packets passed to the LLP.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
From the perspective of the IP protocol architecture there are two
possible locations to insert the EIP into the protocol stack.
One possible location is at the upper level of the transport
protocol. Here the application program interface (API) of the
application level protocols would interface to the EIP element, and
use endpoint identifiers to refer to the remote entity. The EIP
would pass locators to the API of the transport layer.
The second approach is to insert the EIP between the transport and
internet protocol stack elements, so that the transport layer would
function using endpoint identifiers, and maintain a transport session
using these endpoint identifiers. The IP or internetwork layer would
function using locators, and the mapping from endpoint identifier to
locator is undertaken within the EIP stack element.
4.4 Multi-homing: Modified Protocol Element
As an alternative to insertion of a new protocol stack element into
the protocol architecture, an alternative approach is to modify an
existing protocol stack element to include the functionality
performed by the EIP element. This modification could be undertaken
within the transport protocol stack element, or within the
internetworking stack element. The functional outcome from these
modifications would be to create a mechanism to support the use of
multiple locators within the context of a single endpoint-to-endpoint
session.
Within the transport layer, this functionality can be achieved, for
example, by the binding of a set of locators to a single session, and
then communicating this locator set to the remote transport entity.
This would allow the local transport entity to switch the mapping to
a different locator for either the local endpoint or the remote
endpoint while maintaining the integrity of the ULP session.
Within the IP level this functionality could be supported by a form
of dynamic rewriting of the packet header as it is processed by the
protocol element. Incoming packets with the source and destination
locators in the packet header are mapped to packets with the
equivalent endpoint identifiers in both fields, and the reverse
mapping is performed to outgoing packets passed from the transport
layer. Mechanisms that support direct rewriting of the packet header
are potential candidates in this approach, as are various forms of
packet header transformations of encapsulation, where the original
endpoint identifier packet header is preserved in the packet and an
outer level locator packet header is wrapped around the packet as it
is passed through the internetworking protocol stack element.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
In all these scenarios, there are common issues of what state is
kept, by which part of the protocol stack, how state is maintained
with additions, removals of locator bindings, and does only one piece
of code have to be aware of the endpoint / locator split or do
multiple protocol elements have to be modified? For example, if the
functionality is added at the internetworking (IP) layer, there is no
context of an active transport session, so that removal of identity /
locator state information for terminated sessions needs to be
triggered by some additional mechanism from the transport layer to
the internetworking layer.
4.5 Modified Site-Exit and Host Behaviors
The above approaches all assume that the hosts are explicitly aware
of the multi-homed environment and use modified protocol behavior to
support multi-homing functionality. A further approach to this
objective is to split this functionality across a number of network
elements and potentially perform packet header rewriting from a
persistent endpoint identity value to a locator value at a remote
point.
One possible approach proposes the use of site-exit routers to
perform some form of packet header manipulation as packets are passed
out from the local multi-homed site to a particular transit provider.
The local site routing system will select the best path to a
destination host based on the remote hosts's locator value. The
local host will write its endpoint identity as the source address of
the packet. When the packet reaches a site-exit router, the
site-exit router will rewrite the source field of the packet to a
corresponding locator that selects a reverse path through the same
transit ISP when the locator is used as a destination locator by the
remote host. In order to preserve session integrity there is a need
for a corresponding reverse transformation to be undertaken on
incoming packets, where the destination locator has to be mapped back
to the host's endpoint identifier. There are a number of
considerations whether this is best performed at the site exit router
on packet ingress to the site, or by the local host.
Packet header rewriting by remote network elements has a large number
of associated considerations, and documentation relating to the
considerations of the use of Network Address Translators [4] contains
much of this material.
An alternative for packet header rewriting on site exit is for the
host to undertake the endpoint-to-locator mapping, using one of the
approaches outlined above. The consideration here is that there is
some significant deployment of unicast reverse path filtering in
Internet environments as a counter-measure to source address
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
spoofing. Using the example in Figure 1, if a host selects a locator
drawn from the ISP B address prefix, and local routing directs that
packet to site-exit router A, then if the packet is passed to ISP A,
the this would be discarded by such filters. Various approaches have
been proposed to modify the behavior of the site forwarding
environment all with the end effect that packets using a source
locator drawn from the ISP B address prefix are passed to site-exit
router B. These approaches include forms of source address routing
and site-exit router hand-over mechanisms, as well as augmentation of
the routing information between site-exit routers and local
multi-homed hosts, so that the choice of locator by the local host
for the remote host is consistent with the current local routing
state for the local site to reach the remote host.
5. Approaches to Endpoint Identity
Both of the above mechanisms assume some form of exchange of
information that allows both parties to the communication to be aware
of the remote endpoint identity and the associated mapping to
locators. There are a number of choices in terms of the way in which
this information exchange can be implemented.
The first such possible approach is termed here a 'conventional'
approach, where the mode of operation is in terms of encapsulating
the protocol data unit (PDU) passed from the ULP with additional data
elements that specifically refer to the function of the endpoint
identity protocol stack element. The compound data element is passed
to the LLP as its PDU. The corresponding actions on receipt of a PDU
from a LLP is to extract the fields of the data unit that correspond
to the EIP function, and pass the reminder of the PDU to the ULP.
The EIP operates in an "in-band" mode, communicating with its remote
peer entity through additional information wrapped around the ULP
PDU. This is equivalent to generic tunneling approaches where the
outer encapsulation of the transmitted packet contains location
address information, while the next level packet header contains
information that is to be exposed and used at the location endpoints,
being, in this case, identity information.
Another approach is to allow the EIP to communicate using a separate
communications channel, where the EIP generates dedicated messages
that are directed to its peer EIP, and passes these PDUs to the LLP
independently of the PDUs that are passed to the EIP from the ULP.
This allows the EIP to exchange information and synchronize state
with the remote EIP semi-independently of the ULP protocol exchange.
As a part of the EIP function is to transform the ULP PDU to include
locator information there is an associated requirement to ensure that
the EIP peering state remains synchronized to the exchange of ULP
PDUs, so that the remote EIP can correctly recognize the locator to
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
endpoint mapping for each active session.
Another potential approach here is to allow the endpoint to locator
mappings to be held at a third party point. This model is already
used for supporting the name to IP address mappings performed by the
Domain Name system, where the mapping is obtained by reference to a
third party, namely a DNS resolver. A similar form of third party
mapping between endpoints and a locator set could be supported
through the use of the DNS, or a similar third party referential
mechanism. Rather than have each party exchange endpoint to locator
mappings, this approach would see this mapping being obtained as a
result of a lookup for a DNS Endpoint to Locator set map contained as
DNS Resource Records, for example.
5.1 Endpoint Identity Structure
The previous section has used the term "endpoint identity" without
examining what form this identity may take. There are a number of
salient considerations regarding the structure and form of this
identity that should be enumerated within an architectural overview
of this space.
One possible form of an identity is the use of identity tokens lifted
from the underlying protocol's "address space". In other words an
endpoint identity is a special case instance of an IPv6 protocol
address. There are a number of advantages in using this form of
endpoint identity, observing that the suite of IP protocols and
associated applications already manipulate IP addresses. The
essential difference in a domain that distinguishes between endpoint
identity and locator is that the endpoint identity parts of the
protocol would operate on those addresses that assume the role of
endpoint identities, and the endpoint identity / locator mapping
function would undertake a mapping from an endpoint "address" to a
set of potential locator "addresses", and also undertake a reverse
mapping from a locator "address" to the distinguished endpoint
identifier "address". The address space is hierarchically
structured, permitting a suitably efficient mapping to be performed
in both directions, and the underlying semantics of addresses in the
context of public networking includes the necessary considerations of
global uniqueness of endpoint identity token values.
It is possible to take this approach further and allow the endpoint
identifier to also be a valid locator. This would imply the
existence of a 'distinguished' or 'home' locator, and other locators
could be dynamically mapped to this initial locator peering as
required. The drawback of this approach is that the endpoint
identifier is now based on one of the transit provider's address
prefixes, and a change of transit provider would necessarily require
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
a change of endpoint identifier values within the multi-homed site.
An alternative approach for address-formatted identifiers is to use
distinguished identity address values which are not part of the
global unicast locator space, allowing applications and protocol
elements to distinguish between endpoint identity values and locators
based on address prefix value.
It is also possible to allow the endpoint identity and locator space
to overlap, and distinguish between the two identity realms by the
context of usage rather than by a prefix comparison. However, this
reuse of the locator token space as identity tokens has the potential
to create the anomalous situation where a particular locator value is
used as an identity value by a different endpoint. It is not clear
that the identity and locator contexts can be clearly disambiguated
in every case, which is a major drawback to this particular approach.
If identity values are to be drawn from the protocol's address space
it would appear that the basic choice is to either draw these
identity values from a different part of the address space, or use a
distinguished or home address as both a locator and an identity.
This latter option, that of using a locator as the basis of an
endpoint identity on a locator, when coupled with a
provider-aggregated address distribution architecture leads to the
outcome of a multi-homed site using a provider-based address prefix
as a common identity prefix. As with locator addresses in the
context of a single-homed network, a change of provider connectivity
implies a consequent renumbering of identity across the multi-homed
site. If avoiding such forced renumbering is a goal here, there
would be a preference in drawing identity tokens from a pool that is
not aligned with network topology. This may point to a preference
from this sector to use of identity token values that are not drawn
from the locator address space.
It is also feasible to use the fully qualified domain name (FQDN) as
an endpoint identity, undertaking a similar mapping as described
above, using the FQDN as the lookup "key". The implication here is
that there is no default 'address' that is to be associated with the
endpoint identifier, as the FQDN can be used in the context of
session establishment, and a DNS query used to establish a set of
initial locators. Of course it is also the case that there may not
necessarily be a unique endpoint associated with a FQDN, and in such
cases if there were multiple locator addresses associated with the
FQDN via DNS RRs, shifting between locators may imply directing the
packet to a different endpoint where there is no knowledge of the
active session on the original endpoint.
The syntactic properties of these two different identity realms have
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
obvious considerations in terms of the manner in which these
identities may be used within PDUs.
It is also an option to consider a new structured identity space
which is not generated through the reuse of IPv6 address values nor
drawn from the FQDN. Given that the address space would need to be
structured in such a fashion that permits it to be used as a lookup
key to obtain the corresponding locator set, the obvious question in
such an option is what additional or altered characteristics would be
used in such an endpoint identity space that would distinguish it
from either of the above approaches?
Instead of structured tokens that double as lookup keys to obtain
mappings from endpoint identities to locator sets, the alternative is
to use an unstructured token space, where individual token values are
drawn opportunistically for use within a multi-homed session context.
Here the semantics of the endpoint identity are subtly changed. The
endpoint identity is not a persistent alias or reference to the
identity of the endpoint, but a means to allow the identity protocol
element to confirm that two locators are part of the same mapped
locator set for a remote endpoint. In this context the unstructured
opportunistic endpoint identifier values are used in determining
locator equivalence rather than in some form of lookup function.
5.2 Persistent, Opportunistic and Ephermeral Identities
The consideration in the previous section highlights one of the major
aspects of variance in the method of supporting a split between
identity and location information.
One form uses a persistent identity field, by which it is inferred
that the same identity value is used in all contexts where this form
of identity is required, in support of concurrent sessions, and in
support of sequential sessions. This form of identity is intended to
remain constant over time and over changes in the underlying
connectivity. It may also be the case that this identity is
completely distinct from network topology, so that the same identity
is used irrespective of the current connectivity and locator
addressing used by the site and the host. In this case the identity
is persistent, and the identity value can be used as a reference to
the endpoint stack. This supports multi-party referrals, where if
parties A and B establish a communication, B can pass A's identity to
a third party C, who can then use this identity value to be the
active party in establishing communication to A.
If persistent identifiers are to be used to initiate a session, then
it follows that the identity is used as a lookup key to establish a
set of locators that are associated with the identified endpoint. It
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
is desirable that this lookup function be deterministic, reliable,
robust, efficient and trustable. The implication of this is that
such identities must be uniquely assigned, and experience in identity
systems points to a string preference for a structured identity token
space that has an internal hierarchy of token components. These
identity properties have significant commonality with those of
unicast addresses and domain names. The further implication here is
that persistent structured identities also rely on the adoption of
well-ordered distribution and management mechanisms to preserve their
integrity and utility.
As noted in the previous section, an alternative form of identity is
an unstructured identity space, where specific values are drawn from
the space opportunistically. In this case the uniqueness of any
particular identity value is not assured in all cases. The use of
such identities as a lookup key to establish locators is also
altered, as the unstructured nature of the space has implications
relating to the efficiency of the lookup, and the authenticity of the
lookup is weakened due to the inability to assure uniqueness of the
identity key value. A conservative approach to unstructured
identities limits their scope of utility, such as per-session
identity keys. In this scenario the scope of the selected identity
is limited to the parties who are communicating, and limited to the
duration of the communication session. The implication of this
limitation is that the identity is a session-level binding point to
allow multiple locators to be bound to the session, and the identity
cannot be used as a reference to an endpoint beyond the context of
the session. Such opportunistic identities with explicitly limited
scope do not require the adoption of any well-ordered mechanisms of
token distribution and management.
Another form of identity is an ephemeral form, where a session
identity is a shared state between the endpoints, established without
the exchange of particular token values that take the role of
identity keys. This could take the form of a defined locator set, or
the form of a session key derived from some set of shared attributes
of the session, as two examples here. In this situation there is no
form of reference or use of an identifier as a means of initiating a
session. The ephemeral identity value has a very limited role in
terms of allowing each end to reliably determine the semantic
equivalence of a set of locators within the context of membership of
a particular session.
The latter two forms of identity represents a approach to identity
that minimizes management overhead, and provides mechanisms that are
limited in scope to supporting session integrity. This implies that
support for identity functions in other contexts and at other levels
of the protocol stack, such as within referrals, in the use of
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
identities within an application's data payload, or as a key used to
initiate a communication session with a remote endpoint would need to
be supported by some other identity function. Such per-session
limited scope identities imply that the associated multi-homing
approaches use existing mechanisms for session startup, and the
adoption of a session-based identity and associated locator switch
agility is a negotiated session capability. The use of a persistent
identity as a session initiation key implies that identity is part of
the established session state, and locator agility can be an
associated attribute of the session, rather than a subsequent
negotiated capability. In a heterogeneous environment where such
identity capability is not uniformly deployed this would imply that
if a session cannot be established with a split identity locator
binding, the application should be able to back off to a conventional
session startup by mapping the identity to a specific locator value
and initiating a session using such a value. The reason why the
application may want to be aware of this distinction is that if the
application wishes to use self-referential mechanisms within the
application payload, it would appear to be appropriate to use an
identity-based self-reference only in the context of a session where
the remote party was aware of the semantic properties of this
referential tag.
In terms of functionality and semantics opportunistic identities form
a superset of ephemeral identities, although their implementation is
significantly different. Persistent identities support a superset of
the functionality of opportunistic identities, and again the
implementations will differ.
5.3 Common Issues for Multi-Homing Approaches
The above overview encompasses a very wide range of potential
approaches to multi-homing, and each particular approach necessarily
has an associated set of considerations regarding its applicability.
There are, however, a set of considerations that appear to be common
across all approaches, and they are examined in further detail in
this section.
5.3.1 Triggering Locator Switches
Ultimately, regardless of the method of generation, a packet
generated from a local multi-homed host to a remote host must have a
source locator in the IP packet that is passed into the transit
network. In a multi-homed situation the local multi-homed host has a
number of self-referential locators that are equivalent aliases in
almost every respect. The difference between locators is the
inference that at the remote end the choice of locator may determine
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
the path used to send a packet back to the local multi-homed host.
The issue here is how does the local host make a selection of the
"best" source locator to use? Obviously the parameters of this
selection include the objective to select a locator that represents a
currently viable path from the remote host to the local multi-homed
host. Local routing information for the multi-homed host does not
include this reverse path information. Equally, the local host does
not necessarily know of any additional policy constraints that apply
to the remote host that may result in a remote host's preference to
use one locator over another for the local host. Considerations of
unicast reverse path forwarding filters also indicate that the
selection of a source locator should result in the packet being
passed to a site-exit router that is connected to the associated ISP
transit provider, and that the site-exit router passes the packet to
the associated ISP.
If the local multi-homed host is communicating with a remote
multi-homed host, the local host may have some discretion in the
choice of a destination locator. The considerations relating to the
selection of a destination locator include considerations of local
routing state (to ensure that the chosen destination locator reflects
a viable path to the remote endpoint), policy constraints that may
determine a "best" path to the remote endpoint. In such situations
it may also be the case that the source address selection should also
be considered in relation to the destination locator selection.
Another common issue is the consideration of the point when a locator
is not considered to be viable, and the consequences to the transport
session state.
o Transport Layer Triggers
A change in state for a currently used path to another path could
be triggered by indications of packet loss along the current path
transport-level signaling, or by transport session timeouts,
assuming an internal signaling mechanism between the transport
stack element and the locator pool management stack element.
o ICMP Triggers
Path failure within the network may generate an ICMP Destination
Unreachable ICMP packet being directed back to the sender. Rather
than sending this signal to the transport level as an indicator of
session failure, the IP layer should redirect the notification
identity module as a trigger for a locator switch.
o Routing Triggers
Alternatively, in the absence of local transport triggers, the
site exit router could communicate failure of the outbound
forwarding path in the case where the remote host is multi-homed
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
with an associated locator set. Conventional routing would be
incapable of detecting a failure in the inbound forwarding path,
so there are some limitations in the approach of using routing
triggers to change locator bindings.
o Heartbeat Triggers
An alternative to these approaches is the use of a session
heartbeat protocol, where failure of the heartbeat would cause the
session to seek a new locator binding that would re-establish the
heartbeat.
The sensitivity of the locator-switch trigger is a consideration
here. A very fine-grained sensitivity of the locator switch trigger
may generate false triggers arising from short-term transient path
congestion, while coarse-grained triggers may impose an undue
performance penalty on the session due to an extended time to detect
a path failure.
5.3.2 Layering Identity
The consideration of triggering locator switch highlights the
observation that differing information and context is present in each
layer of the protocol stack. This impacts on how identity / locator
bindings are established, maintained and expired.
These impacts include questions of what amount of state is kept, by
which element of the protocol stack, at what level of context
(dynamic or fixed, and per session or per host). It also includes
considerations of state maintenance, such as how stale or superfluous
state information is detected and removed. Does only one piece of
code have to be aware of this identity/locator binding or do multiple
transport protocols have to be altered to support this functionality?
If so, are such changes common across all transport protocols, or do
different protocols require different considerations in their
treatment of this functionality?
It is noted that the set of approaches considered here include
proposals to place this functionality within the IP layer, with the
end-to-end transport protocol layer and as a shim between the IP and
transport protocol layer.
Placing this identity functionality at the transport protocol layer
implies that the identity function can be tightly associated with a
transport session. In this approach session startup can trigger the
identity / locator initial binding actions and transport protocol
timeouts can be used as triggers for locator switch actions. Session
termination can trigger expiration of local identity / locator
binding state. Where per-session opportunistic identity token values
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
are being used, the identity information can be held within the
overall session state. In the case of persistent identity token
values the implementation of the identity can also choose to use
per-session state, or may choose to pool this information across
multiple sessions in order to reduce overheads of dynamic discovery
of identity / locator bindings for remote identities in the case of
multiple sessions to the same remote endpoint.
One of the potential drawbacks of placing this functionality within
the transport protocol layer is that it is possible that each
transport protocol will require a distinct implementation of identity
functionality.
An alternative approach is to use a distinct protocol element placed
between the transport and internet layers of the protocol stack. The
advantage of this approach is that it would offer a consistent form
of mapping between identities and locators for all forms of transport
protocols. However this protocol element would not be explicitly
aware of sessions and would either have to discover the appropriate
identity / locator mapping for all identity-addressed packets passed
from the transport protocol later, irrespective of whether such a
mapping exists and whether this is part of a session context, or have
an additional mechanism of signaling to determine when such a mapping
is to be discovered and applied. At this level there is also no
explicit knowledge of when identity / locator mapping state is no
longer required, as there is no explicit signaling of when all flows
to and from a particular destination has stopped and resources
consumed in supporting state can be released. Also, such a protocol
element would not be aware of transport level timeouts, so that
additional functionality would need to be added to the transport
protocol to trigger a locator switch at the identity protocol level.
Support of per-session opportunistic identity structure is more
challenging in this environment, as the transport protocol layer is
used to store and manipulate per-session state.
It is also possible to embed this identity function within the
internet protocol layer of the protocol stack. As noted in the
previous section, per session information is not readily available to
the identity module, so that opportunistic per-session identity
values would be challenging to support in this approach, as well as
determining when identity / locator state information should be set
up and released. It would also appear necessary to signal transport
level timeouts to the identity module as a locator switch trigger.
Some attention needs to be given in this case to synchronizing
locator switches and IP packet fragmentation, and consideration of
IPSEC is necessary in this case, in order to avoid making changes to
the address field in the IP packet header that trigger a condition at
the remote end where the packet is not recognizable in the correct
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
context.
5.3.3 Session Startup and Maintenance
The next issue is that of the difference between the initial session
startup mode of operation and the maintenance of the session state.
In a split endpoint identifier / locator environment there needs to
be at least one initial locator associated with an endpoint
identifier in order to establish an initial connection between the
two hosts. This locator could be loaded into the DNS in a
conventional fashion, or, if the endpoint identifier is a
distinguished address value, the initial communication could be
established using the endpoint identifier in the role of a locator
(i.e. using this as a conventional address).
The initial actions in establishing a session would be similar. If
the session is based on specification of a FQDN, the FQDN is first
mapped to an endpoint identity value, and this endpoint identity
value could then be mapped to a locator set. The locators in this
set are then candidate locators for use in establishing an initial
synchronized state between the two hosts. Once the state is
established it is then possible to update the initial locator set
with the current set of useable locators. This update could be part
of the initial synchronization actions, or deferred until required.
This leads to the concept of the use of a 'distinguished' locator
that acts as the endpoint identifier, and a pool of alternative
locators that are associated with this 'home' locator. This
association may be statically defined, using referential pointers in
a third party referral structure (such as the DNS), or dynamically
added to the session through the actions of the endpoint identity
protocol stack element, or both.
If opportunistic identities are used, where the identity is not a
fixed discoverable value but one that is generated in the context of
a session then additional actions must be performed at session
startup. In this case there is still the need for defined locators
that are used to establish a session, but then an additional step is
required to generate session keys and exchange these values in order
to support the identity equivalence of multiple locators within the
ensuing session. This may take the form of a capability exchange and
an additional handshake and associated token value exchange within
the transport protocol if an in-band approach is being used, or it
may take the form of a distinct protocol exchange at the level of the
identity protocol element, performed out-of-band from the transport
session.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
Some approaches are capable of a further distinction, namely that of
initial session establishment and that of establishment of additional
shared state within the session to allow multiple locators to be
treated as being bound to a common endpoint identity. It is not
strictly necessary that such additional actions be performed at
session startup, but it appears that such actions need to be
performed prior to any loss of end-to-end connectivity on the
selected initial locator, so that any delay in this additional state
exchange does increase the risk of session disruption due to
connectivity changes.
This raises a further question of whether the identity / locator
split is a capability negotiation performed per session or per remote
end, or whether the use of a distinguished identity value by the
upper level application to identify the remote end triggers the
identity / locator mapping functionality further down in the protocol
stack at the transport level, and that this is performed without any
further capability negotiation within the session.
Within the steps related to session startup there is also the
consideration that the passive end of the connection follows a
process where it may need to verify the proposed new address
contained in the source address of incoming packets before using it
as a destination address for outgoing packets. It is not necessarily
the case that the sender's choice of source address reflects a valid
path from the receiver back to the source. While using this offered
address appears to offer a low overhead response to connection
attempts, if this response fails the receiver may need to discover
the full locator set of the remote end through some locator discovery
mechanism in order to establish whether there is a viable locator
that can use a forwarding path that reaches the remote end.
Alternatively, the passive end would use the initially offered
locator and if this is successful leave it to the identity modules in
each stack to exchange information to establish the current complete
locator set for each end. This approach implies that the active end
of a communication needs to cycle through all of its associated
locators as source addresses until it receives a response or exhausts
its locator set. While this may extend the time to confirm that no
path exists to the remote end, it has the potential to improve the
characteristics of the initial exchange against denial of service
attacks that could force the remote end to engage in a high volume of
spurious locator lookups.
5.3.4 Dynamic Capability Negotiation
The common aspect of these approaches is that they all involve
changes to the end-to-end interaction, as both endS of the
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
communication need to be aware of this separation. The implication
is that this form of support for multi-homing is relatively sweeping
in its scope, as the necessary changes to support multi-homing extend
beyond changes to the hosts and/or routers within the multi-homed
site and encompass changes to the IPv6 protocol itself. It would be
prudent when considering these changes to evaluate associated
mechanisms that allow the communicating endpoints to discover each
other's capabilities and only enable this form of split identity /
locator functionality when it is established that both ends can
support it.
It is a corollary of this form of negotiated capability that it is
not strictly necessary that only one form of functionality can be
negotiated in this way. If the adoption of a particular endpoint
identity / locator mapping scheme is the outcome of a negotiation
between the endpoints then it would be possible to negotiate to use
one of a number of possible approaches. There is some interaction
between the approach used and the form of endpoint identity, and some
care needs to be taken that any form of acceptable outcome of the
endpoint identity capability negotiation is one that allows the upper
level application to continue to operate.
5.3.5 Identity Uniqueness and Stability
When considering the properties of long-lived identities, it is
reasonable to assume that the identity assignation is not necessarily
one that is permanent and unchangeable. In the case of structured
identity spaces the identity value reflects a distribution hierarchy.
There are a number of circumstances where a change of identity value
is appropriate. For example, if an endpoint device is moved across
administrative realms of this distribution hierarchy it is likely
that the endpoint's identity value will be re-assigned to reflect the
new realm. It is also reasonable to assume that an endpoint may have
more than one identity at any point in time. RFC 3014 [5] provides a
rationale for such a use of multiple identities.
If an endpoint's identity can change over time, and if an endpoint
can be identified by more than one identity at any single point in
time, then some further characteristics of endpoint identifiers
should be defined. These relate to the constancy of an endpoint
identity within an application, and the question of whether a
transport session relies on a single endpoint identity value, and, if
so, whether an endpoint identity can be changed within a transport
session, and under what conditions the old identity can continue to
be used following any such change. If the endpoint identity is a
long-lived reference to a remote endpoint, and if multiple identities
can exist for a single unique endpoint, then the question arises as
to whether applications can compare identities for equivalence, and
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
whether it is necessary for applications to recognize the condition
where different identities refer to the same endpoint. These
identities may be used within applications within a single host, or
may be identifies being used on applications on different hosts.
6. Functional Decomposition of Multi-Homing Approaches
The following sections provide a framework for the characterization
of multi-homing approaches through a decomposition of the functions
associated with session establishment, maintenance and completion in
the context of a multi-homed environment.
6.1 Establishing Session State
What form of token is passed to the transport layer from the upper
level protocol element as an identification of the local protocol
stack?
What form of token is passed to the transport layer from the upper
level protocol element as an identification of the remote session
target?
What form of token is used by the upper level protocol element as
a self-identification mechanism for use within the application
payload?
Does the transport need to translate the upper level interface
token into an identity token that identifies the session? Is this
translation performed before or after the initial session packet
exchange handshake?
How does the session initiator establish that the remote end of
the session can support the multi-homing version of the transport
protocol? If not, does the transport session report a session
establishment failure to the upper level protocol, or silently
fall back to a non-multi-homed version of the transport protocol?
What form of mechanism is used to ensure that the selected site
exit path matches the selected packet source locator?
6.2 Rehoming Triggers
What triggers are used to identify that a switch of locators is
desirable?
Are the triggers based on the end-to-end transport session and/or
on notification of state changes within the network path from the
network?
What triggers can be used to indicate the direction of the failed
path in order to trigger the appropriate locator repair function?
6.3 Rehoming Locator Pair Selection
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
What parameters are used to determine the selection of a locator
to use to reference the local endpoint?
If the remote endpoint is multi-homed, what parameters are used to
determine the selection of a locator to use to reference the
remote endpoint?
Must a change of an egress site exit router be accompanied by a
change in source and / or destination locators?
How can new locators be added to the locator pool of an existing
session?
6.4 Locator Change
What are the preconditions that are necessary for a locator
change?
How can the locator change be confirmed by both ends?
What interactions are necessary for synchronization of locator
change and transport session behavior?
6.5 Removal of Session State
How is identity / locator binding state removal synchronized with
session closure?
What binding information is cached for possible future use?
7. Security Considerations
There are a significant number of security considerations that result
from the action of distinguishing within the protocol suite endpoint
identity and locator identity.
It is not proposed to enumerate these considerations in detail within
this document, but to reference a distinct document that describes
the security considerations of this domain [6].
8. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the exensive contribution of Margaret
Wasserman in preparing the original draft of the summary of current
approaches to multi-homing.
The author acknowledges the assistance from the following reviewers:
Brian Carpenter, Kurtis Lundqvist, Erik Nordmark, Iljitsch van
Beijnum, Marcelo Bagnulo and Joe Touch.
9. References
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
9.1 Normative References
9.2 Informative References
[1] Abley, J., Black, B. and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6
Site-Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003.
[2] Lear, E., "Things MULTI6 Developers should think about", Work in
progress: Internet Drafts
draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-03.txt, May 2004,
<http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about/>
.
[3] Saltzer, J., Reed, D. and D. Clark, "End-to-End Arguments in
System Design", ACM TOCS Vol 2, Number 4, pp 277-288, November
1984,
<http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt>
.
[4] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator
(NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, August 1999.
[5] Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001.
[6] Nordmark, E. and T. Li, "Threats relating to IPv6 multi-homing
solutions", Work in progress: Internet Drafts
draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-02.txt, June 2004,
<http://bgp.potaroo.net/ietf/idref/draft-nordmark-multi6-threats/>
.
Author's Address
Geoff Huston
Telstra
Appendix A. Notes on Various approaches
These notes were orginally drafted by Margaret Wasserman. The notes
on various approaches are non-exclusive, i.e. solutions not reviewed
or mentioned here are not ruled out of discussion. Also the review
comments are not comprehensive, and the selection reflects the time
constraints of the contributors to this section than any qualititive
judgement on any of the approaches. The author is desirous, in
future revisions of this draft, in augmenting this selection of
reviewed approaches.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
A.1 Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
HIP is an ID/Locator separation mechanism intended to solve a much
wider problem space than site multi-homing. HIP uses cryptographic
identifiers termed Host Identity Tags (HITs) at the application
layer, which are mapped to locators (IP Addresses) by a HIP protocol
stack layer that interfaces between the transport layer and IP
internetwork layer.
The essential characteristic of HIP is it use of opportunistic
identity generation, as it uses a cyptographic host identifier as the
basis of the persistent identity. The transport session cab be agile
across locators, or even across IP protocol versions, as the HIT is
used to determine session integrity. allowing the hosts to determine
what packets legitimately form part of the session.
HIP is proposed as a new protocol element, located at layer 3.5 (i.e.
above the internetwork IP layer and below the transport layer). The
presentation to the transport layer uses 128 bit hash values (the
HIT) in place of IP addresses, while the presentation to the internet
layer uses conventional IP addresses.
Being opportunistic and unstructured, the HIT space is not an
efficient search space, nor can a HIT be used as a unique search key.
HITs are part of an an equivalence function, to allow each host to
determine that an incoming packet is part of an established session.
HITs cannot be used as an identity value in a conventional referral
sense (HostA wants to tell HostB to talk to HostC). While an
application could pass a HIT to a third-party (and legacy
applications would unknowingly do so), the third party would have no
way to map that HIT to a locator (an IP address) as HIP does not
include any global HIT->Locator mapping mechanism.
Summary:
o New Protocol Stack Element
o Layer 3.5 (Above IP, below Transport
o Unstructured, opportunistic identity values (non-referential)
o DNS rendezvous
o No Locator exchange protocol
Current IETF Documents:
o draft-moskowitz-hip-arch
o draft-moskowitz-hip
o draft-nikander-hip-mm
o draft-nikander-esp-beet-mode
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
A.2 Multihoming without IP Identifiers (NOID)
NOID proposes an approach for endpoint identifier and locator
separation where the endpoint identifier space is drawn from the
locator space. Instead of creating a new namespace for endpoint
identifiers, the endpoint identifier may be chosen from the set of
locators that can be used to reach a given endpoint. Until an event
occurs that modifies the list of usable locators, the initial
endpoint identifier value can serve as a locator.
NOID uses next-header values in the IPv6 header to indicate whether a
given packet should be processed by the NOID layer. At a conceptual
level, NOID adds a layer to the middle of IP above most IP
processing, but below IPSec, fragmentation and reassembly functions.
NOID makes use of the global DNS as a mapping system between IDs and
Locators. A node who wishes to communicate with another node can use
the FQDN to get a list of possible locators (IP Addresses). That
node will then choose one of the locators to use as an
Application-level ID (AID).
NOID offers some support for application referrals. If Host A passes
an AID to Host B that is supposed to point to Host C, Host B should
be able to do a reverse DNS lookup to map the AID to an FQDN and then
use the FQDN to get the complete set of locators. However, for this
to be effective, nodes would need to have both forward and reverse
DNS entries. There might also be a need to dynamically update the
DNS as a node becomes reachable or unreachable at certain locators.
Summary:
o New Protocol Stack Element
o Layer 3 (Inserted in the upper part of IP, below IPSEC and
fragementation / reassembly
o Identity values based on locator set
o DNS rendezvous
o Identity peering protocol
Current IETF Documents:
o draft-nordmark-multi6-noid
o draft-templin-isnoid
A.3 Common Endpoint Locator Pools (CELP)
CELP explores the concept of sharing information about locator
reachability between transport-layer "multi-addressing" mechanisms
(such as SCTP and DCCP) and Internet-layer multiaddressing
mechanisms, referred to in the draft as "wedge-layer approaches"
(such as NOID). (This concept was originally discussed on the MULTI6
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
mailing list under the name 'SLAP'.)
The motivation behind CELP is that muliple multiaddressing mechanisms
may be used (by different applications or for different connections)
on a single endpoint, and that it would beneficial for those
mechanisms to share information about the reachability of the IP
addresses in a given locator pool. If a transport-layer mechansim,
such as SCTP, could share its knowledge regarding the reachability of
a certain locator, it might be possible to minimize or elimate
Internet-layer control packets that are used to maintain that
information at the Internet layer. In some ways, this is similar to
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery's use of upper layer advice regarding
neighbor reachability to avoid sending unncecessary ND packets.
This document offers a definition of the term "endpoint" that refers
to a locator pool that may have a smaller scope than an entire IP
node (i.e. a given locator pool may only contain a subset of the
locators available on an IP node).
The CELP document is more of a consideration of approach than an
actual proposal for a solution. It doesn't specify in detail how it
would work with any particular transport-layer or Internet-layer
multiaddressing mechanisms. However, it is an approach that could be
applied to many combinations of solutions.
Summary:
o Considerations relating to sharing locator reachability
information across session instances.
Current IETF Documents:
o draft-crocker-celp
A.4 Weak Identifier Multihoming Protocol (WIMP)
WIMP is an endpoint identifier / locator separation protocol that is
heavily focused on mitigating the threats outlined in work in
progress on security threats in multi-homing scenarios
[draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-00.txt]. The WIMP approach uses
divided secrets and hash chaining to ensure that new locators are
supplied by the same node that supplied the original locator.
WIMP uses a separate name space for 128-bit non-routable IDs that are
never used in packets on the network. These IDs are locally
generated for both local and remote nodes by hashing a nonce (for the
initiator's endpoint identity) or the FQDN (for the responder's
endpoint identity). (The approach assumes a requirement that all
responders will have a FQDN.)
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
The WIMP protocol introduces a WIMP layer that maps between IDs and
locators based on internal state. The WIMP layer is conceptually
located within the network layer, above most IP processing and below
IPsec, fragmentation/reassembly and destination options, similar to
NOID.
Communication between two end-points requires establishment of a WIMP
session. Once the session is established, it can be used for
multiple simultaneous or sequential connections to the same
end-point. During WIMP session establishment, WIMP introduces a
separate header into the data packets, between the IP and TCP/UDP
headers that contains information about the WIMP session. The WIMP
session establishment packets can optionally be piggy-backed on data
packets. WIMP does not introduce a separate header into all IPv6
packets. Instead, once a WIMP session is established, the IPv6
FlowID is used to hold an identifier for the WIMP host-pair context
associated with a given packet.
WIMP is intended to provide a solution to some of the security
concerns, particularly regarding connection hijacking, that have been
raised for some other endpoint identity / locator separation
mechanisms.
Reviewers of WIMP have raised some questions of this approach,
particularly concerning the use of an optional header while operating
below IP fragmentation. The piggy-backing mechanism requires that
the packets not be fragmented, but it doesn't explain how upper
layers will become aware of the MTU limitations on those packets and/
or how this mechanism would interact with Path MTU discovery. Like
HIP, WIMP makes no provision to handle application-level referrals
and does not contain a mechanism for global endpoint identifier to
locator mapping. It has also been pointed out that it is interesting
to consider whether the WIMP approach to security, hash chaining,
could be applied to other endpoint identity / locator separations
mechanisms, such as NOID.
Summary:
o New Protocol Stack Element
o Layer 3 (Inserted in the upper part of IP, below IPSEC and
fragementation / reassembly
o Identity values based on hash of FQDN
o Identity peering protocol
Current IETF Documents:
o draft-ylitalo-multi6-wimp
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
A.5 Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming
Host-Centric Multihoming is, in some ways, the simplest way to
address the IPv6 site multihoming problem. The concept is that every
host in the multihomed site is configured with multiple prefixes that
correspond to different service providers. Each host configures
addresses within those prefixes and selects among those addresses
when connecting to a remote host. This configuration is automated
using Router Renumbering and IPv6 Address Autoconfiguration.
However, this simple solution Layer 3 (inserted in the upper part of
IP, below IPSEC and fragementation / reassembly has several practical
limitations and drawbacks, and this draft attempt to address them.
In particular, the Host-Centric Multihoming proposal attempts to
address the "site exit issue". Hosts cannot control the exit path
that their packets will take from the local site, so hosts with
multiple addresses may use a source IP address from one ISP on
packets that end-up being routed through a different ISP. In many
cases, the ISPs will run ingress filtering and will discard those
packets.
One solution to the site exit problem is to changes the ISP ingress
filters to accept all of the source address prefixes that are used
within the site. Other approaches are to perform source-based
routing within the site, to deploy a single site-exit router or to
structure the network so that all exit routers are connected to a
single DMZ network that employs source-based routing. A virtual DMZ
can be constructed by configuring a mesh of tunnels between all exit
routers, tunneling packets to the correct exit router based on source
address. Each of these solutions has operational drawbacks and/or
introduces inefficiencies.
This proposal suggests another solution to the site exit problem
called "source address discovery". Based on Path MTU discovery, this
mechanism involves adding extra information to the ICMP Destination
Unreachable message that the packet was discarded due to an ingress
filter. This extra information indicates what address prefix should
be used to pass the ingress filter. Rather than adding a field to
the ICMP message, this extra information is communicated via the
source address that the route Layer 3 (Inserted in the upper part of
IP, below IPSEC and fragementation / reassembly).
It also proposes a "superior" alternative called "exit router
discovery", which allows hosts to specify which exit router will be
used for each packet. Instead of sending ICMP error messages when
ingress filtering causes packets to be discarded, the exit router
will send the equivalent of a redirect message and future packets
with the same source/destination address pair will be tunneled to the
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
indicated exit router. This mechanism involves tunneling to a
site-exit anycast address that is derived from the sites' prefixes.
The draft primary focuses on the specification of this "superior"
approach, largely ignoring some pertinent questions such as: Will
residential and enterprise-level IPv6 routers reall support anycast
routing?
One important thing to note about the host-centric multihoming
solution is that it doesn't appear to provide any ability for
transport connections to survive a change in the topology that causes
a host to become unreachable at an address that is currently used as
a connection end-point. It also does not offer any support for
legacy applications that do application-level referrals, requiring
that a full set of locators be exchanged as part of the referral.
A.6 Summaries of Selected ID/LOC Separation Documents
This section summarizes a set of selected ID/Loc separation
documents. The selection includes documents that appear to be
active, and this section provides a very short summary of each one.
The first sub-section lists documents that are new or updated since
IETF 58 and the second sub-section lists older documents that remain
active. The documents in each sub-section are listed alphabetically
by draft filename.
A.6.1 New or Updated Documents Since IETF58
o TLC-FM: Transport Layer Common Framework for Multihoming
draft-arifumi-multi6-tlc-fm
This draft proposes a transport-layer mechanism for ID /Locator
mapping. There is a conceptual layer within the transport
layer that provides support for common multihoming functions.
It is compatible with the use of Mobile IPv6 (MIP6) to provide
mobility support.
In TLC-FM, like SCTP, the ID consists of a collection of
locators that may be used to reach a given host. It employs
transport-level clues (such as TCP retransmissions) to decide
when to switch locators. For UDP connections, ICMP error
messages or application-level hints are necessary.
This mechanism is not well enough specified to fully evaluate
it, but it doesn't appear to offer any support for
application-level referrals.
o Multi-Homing Tunnel Broker (MHTB)
draft-bagnulo-multi6-mhtb
This document defines an enhancement to RFC 3178, IPv6
Multihoming Support at Site Exit Routers, to reduce the
administrative overhead of maintaining a configured tunnel for
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
each multihoming association. However, this draft does not
address another major drawback of the RFC 3178 approach, that
it does not protect against the complete failure of one or more
connected ISPs.
o Framework for Common Endpoint Locator Pools (CELP)
draft-crocker-celp
Dave Crocker and Avri Doria's CELP draft, reviewed in the
previous section.
o Multi-Homing: the SCTP Solution
draft-coene-multi6-sctp
One confusing question about the direction of this work is why
SCTP is being discussed as a "solution" to site multihoming,
when a clear requirement for a site multihoming solutions is
the ability to support existing TCP-based and UDP-based
applications. This document isn't really a proposal, though --
it consists of answers to the questions posted in Eliot Lear's
"Things MULTI6 Developers Should Think About" draft, and does
not discuss how SCTP does (or doesn't) address the requirements
outlined in the Multi6 requirements RFC.
An interesting thing about this proposal is that it claims that
SCTP is not an ID/Loc separation mechanism, however in some
academic sense it actually is. The ID is the group of
available IP addresses, and the locator is whichever address is
currently being used for communication. SCTP also experiences
the same complexities as other proposals (AKA NOID, CELP) that
use a pool of locators as the ID -- How do you choose which
locator to use? And how do you detect when a member of the pool
becomes invalid for use as a locator? So, while it isn't
actually a solution for site multihoming, SCTP may provide some
useful experiences and mechanisms that may apply to a class of
possible solutions.
o Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Mechanisms
draft-eggert-hip-rendezvous-00.txt
This is an overview draft that discusses the concept of HIP
rendezvous mechanisms to improve the applicability of HIP for
mobility and multihoming. This is a survey document that
outlines the problem and discusses different type of solutions
to the problem.
o Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming
draft-huitema-multi6-hosts
Draft by Christian Huitema and others, described above.
o Things MULTI6 Developers Should Think About
draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
Eliot Lear's efforts to collect a set of practical questions
that should be considered for all MULTI6 protocols.
o Host Identity Protocol (HIP)
draft-moskowitz-hip
This is the base protocol specification for HIP. Along with
the HIP architecture, these documents form the basis of the HIP
work.
o Consideration on HIP Based IPv6 Multi-Homing
draft-nikander-multi6-hip
Pekka Nikander's document that submits HIP as a solution for
the MULTI6 problem space.
o 8+8 Addressing for IPv6 End to End Multihoming
draft-ohta-multi6-8plus8
o Threats Relating to Transport Layer Protocols Handling Multiple
Addresses
draft-ohta-multi6-threats
o Multihoming Using IPv6 Addressing Derived from AS Numbers
draft-savola-multi6-asn-pi
This draft provides a mechanism for organizations that have
been assigned a 16-bit AS number to use that number to
auto-generate a globally routable, provider-independent address
prefix.
o Problem Statement: HIP Operation over Network Address Translators
draft-stiemerling-hip-nat
Summarizes the problems with running HIP and IPsec-based data
transmission across NATs.
o Operational Approach to Achieve IPv6 Multihomed Network
draft-toyama-multi6-operational-site-multihoming
This document proposes to support site multihoming in IPv6 by
assigning additional /32 prefixes and AS numbers to "groups" of
providers who will provide multihomed /48 prefixes to their
mutual customers.
It is currently unclear to the reviewer how/if this proposal
would work and/or scale since it seems to involve two different
providers advertising the same /32 and the same AS number into
the default free zone. It requires some type of peering "to
share prefix assignments" between ISPs, and the diagram shows
some type of connection between the ISPs, but I don't know what
the details of that connection are.
It also has the potential to more quickly exhaust the AS number
space and to result in a substantially larger number of routes
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
in default free routers, since the number of "groups" could
scale exponentially with the number of providers.
o Crypto Based Host Identifiers (CBHI)
draft-van-beijnum-multi6-cbhi
This draft defines a crytographic mechanism for generating host
identifiers. It is intended for use with other protocols that
require host identifiers, such as ODT (see below).
o On Demand Tunneling for Multihoming (ODT)
draft-van-beijnum-multi6-odt
This draft discusses an automatic tunnelling-based solution for
multihoming.
o Weak Identifier Multihoming Protocol (WIMP)
draft-ylitalo-multi6-wimp
WIMP proposal, described above.
A.6.2 Older Documents that Remain Active/Interesting
o RFC 3582: Goals for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures
o Choices for Multiaddressing
draft-crocker-mast-analysis
o What's In a Name: Thoughts from the NSRG
draft-irtf-nsrg-report
o A Roadmap for Multihoming in IPv6
draft-kurtis-multi6-roadmap
o Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Architecture
draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-05.txt
o End-Host Mobility and Multi-Homing with Host Identity Protocol
(HIP)
draft-nikander-hip-mm
o Threats Relating to IPv6 Multihoming Solutions
draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-00.txt
o Multihoming without IP Identifiers (NOID)
draft-nordmark-noid
Erik Nordmark's NOID specification, described above.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
A.6.3 Related Multi-Homing drafts, Status unknown
This is a list of ID/Loc separation and/or MULTI6 documents, listed
alphabetically by draft name.
o Extension Header for Site-Multi-homing Support
draft-bagnulo-multi6-mhexthdr
o Application of the MIPv6 Protocol to the Multi-Homing Problem
draft-bagnulo-multi6-mnm
o Multiple Address Service for Transport (MAST): An Extended
Proposal
draft-crocker-mast-proposal
o NAROS : Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming with Traffic Engineering
draft-de-launois-multi6-naros
o Application and Use of the IPv6 Provider Independent Global
Unicast Format
draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use
o Simple Dual Homing Experiment
draft-huitema-multi6-experiment-00.txt
o Host-Centric IPv6 Multihoming
draft-huitema-multi6-hosts
o IPv4 Multihoming
draft-ietf-multi6-v4-multihoming
This documents how multi-homing is supported at present in the
IPv4 protocol domain.
o Multihoming in IPv6 by Multiple Announcement of Longer Prefixes
draft-kurtis-multihoming-longprefix
o Multihoming using 64-bit Crypto-based IDs
draft-nordmark-multi6-cb64
o Strong Identity Multihoming using 128-bit Identifiers (SIM/
CBID128)
draft-nordmark-multi6-sim
o IPv6 Address Assignment and Route Selection for End-to-End
Multihoming
draft-ohira-assign-select-e2e-multihome
o Hierarchical IPv6 Subnet ID Autoconfiguration for Multi-Address
Model Multi-Link Multihoming Site
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
draft-ohira-multi6-multilink-auto-prefix-assign
o Hierarchical IPv6 Subnet ID Autoconfiguration for Multi-Address
Model Multi-Link Multihoming Site
draft-ohira-multi6-multilink-auto-prefix-assign
o The Architecture of End to End Multihoming
draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming-05.txt
o 8+8 Addressing for IPv6 End to End Multihoming
draft-ohta-multi6-8plus8-00.txt
o Threats Relating to Transport Layer Protocols Handling Multiple
Addresses
draft-ohta-multi6-threats-00.txt
o Multihomed ISPs and Policy Control
draft-ohta-multihomed-isps-00.txt
o GAPI: A Geographically Aggregatable Provider Independent Address
Space to Support Multihoming in IPv6
draft-py-multi6-gapi
o Multi Homing Translation Protocol (MHTP
draft-py-multi6-mhtp-01.txt
o Multihoming Using IPv6 Addressing Derived from AS Numbers
draft-savola-multi6-asn-pi-01.txt
o IPv6 Site Multihoming: Now What?
draft-savola-multi6-nowwhat
o Operation of NOID Multihoming Protocol on ISATAP Nodes
draft-templin-isnoid
o LIN6: A Solution to Multihoming and Mobility in IPv6
draft-teraoka-multi6-lin6
o Operational Approach to achieve IPv6 multihomed network
draft-toyama-multi6-operational-site-multihoming-00.txt
o Two Prefixes in One Address
draft-van-beijnum-multi6-2pi1a-00.txt
o Crypto Based Host Identifiers
draft-van-beijnum-multi6-cbhi-00.txt
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
o Provider-Internal Aggregation based on Geography to Support
Multihoming in IPv6
draft-van-beijnum-multi6-isp-int-aggr-01.txt
o On Demand Tunneling For Multihoming
draft-van-beijnum-multi6-odt-00.txt
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Multi6 Architectures June 2004
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Huston Expires December 27, 2004 [Page 42]