Internet Draft E. Stephan France Telecom R&D J. Palet Consulintel draft-stephan-ipv6-protocol-identifier-00.txt June, 2003 Informational Protocol identifiers for IPv6 Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026 [1]. 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. Abstract Despite IPv6 is operational there are no protocol identifiers to extend the use of RMON MIBs and of the IPPM REPORTING MIB to IPv6. This memo defines basis protocol identifiers for IP Version 6 and sub IP. Table of Contents 1. The SNMP Network Management Framework.......................2 2. Overview....................................................2 3. Relationship to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB...........3 4. Relationship to the IPPM REPORTING MIB......................3 5. Relationship to passive measurement.........................3 6. MPLS layer protocol identifiers.............................4 7. IPv6 Protocols..............................................5 8. Potential protocol identifiers to define....................6 8.1. mplsvpn.....................................................6 8.2. Stacked vlan................................................6 Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 1] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 8.3. l2tp........................................................6 9. Security Considerations.....................................6 9.1. Privacy.....................................................7 9.2. Active Measurement aspects..................................7 9.3. Passive Measurement aspects.................................7 9.4. Management aspects..........................................7 10. References..................................................7 11. Acknowledgments.............................................9 12. Authors Addresses...........................................9 13. Full Copyright Statement....................................9 1. The SNMP Network Management Framework The SNMP Management Framework consists of five major components. An overall architecture, described in RFC 2571 [2]. Mechanisms for describing and naming objects and events for the purpose of management. The first version of this Structure of Management Information (SMI) is called SMIv1 and described in STD 16, RFC 1155 [3], STD 16, RFC 1212 [4] and RFC 1215 [5]. The second version, called SMIv2, is described in STD 58, RFC 2578 [6], STD 58, RFC 2579 [7] and STD 58, RFC 2580 [8]. Message protocols for transferring management information. The first version of the SNMP message protocol is called SNMPv1 and described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [9]. A second version of the SNMP message protocol, which is not an Internet standards track protocol, is called SNMPv2c and described in RFC 1901 [10] and RFC 1906 [11]. The third version of the message protocol is called SNMPv3 and described in RFC 1906 [11], RFC 2572 [12] and RFC 2574 [13]. Protocol operations for accessing management information. The first set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in STD 15, RFC 1157 [9]. A second set of protocol operations and associated PDU formats is described in RFC 1905 [14]. A set of fundamental applications described in RFC 2573 [15] and the view-based access control mechanism described in RFC 2575 [16]. A more detailed introduction to the current SNMP Management Framework can be found in RFC 2570 [17]. Managed objects are accessed via a virtual information store, termed the Management Information Base or MIB. Objects in the MIB are defined using the mechanisms defined in the SMI. This memo does not specify a MIB module. 2. Overview Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 2] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 Despite IPv6 is operational there are no protocol identifiers to extend the use of RMON MIBs and of the IPPM REPORTING MIB to IPv6. This memo defines basis protocol identifiers for IP Version 6 and sub IP. The "Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Macros" [RFC2896], defines various protocol identifiers. The syntax of the protocol identifier descriptor is defined in the RMON Protocol Identifier Reference [rfc2895]. The reader should be familiar with these documents. The intend of this document is not to adapt to IP Version 6 the protocol identifiers defined in the RFC 2896 and the RFC 2895, but to define protocol identifiers for IP Version 6 protocols and for sub IP protocols. 3. Relationship to the Remote Network Monitoring MIB RMON MIB implementations use protocol identifiers to describe unambiguous capabilities in protocolDirTable entries. 4. Relationship to the IPPM REPORTING MIB The typeP defined in the IPPM framework [RFC2330] is a generic type of packet. Consequently it corresponds to any valid protocol encapsulation. The IPPM REPORTING MIB implements the Type-P using protocol identifiers' names defined in [RFC2895] and [RFC2896]. An instance of the TypeP is the description of a pair made of any valid protocols encapsulation (TypeP) and of corresponding protocol parameters (TypePaddress): + TypeP is a human readable string made of the list of protocol identifiers' names of the encapsulation; + TypePaddress is a human readable string made of the list of protocol parameters values. Each value is represented using its protocol convention ('.' For IPv4, ':' for IPv6 ...). Example: A valid pair of is <"ip udp", "192.168.0.1 3485">. As this memo defines a protocol identifier for IP version 6 named 'ip6'. A valid pair is <"ip6 udp", "2001:688:1f9b:7654:3210:b3ff:feab:3456 3485">. 5. Relationship to passive measurement Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 3] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 IPFIX and PSAMP filtering may use protocol identifiers as unambiguous keywords to describe the protocol suites to filter on, the flow to meter. 6. MPLS layer protocol identifiers There is need to define protocol identifiers for MPLS to provide unambiguous names to distinguish a trunk from a LSP, an IPv4 LSP from an IPv6 one. -- MPLS unicast mplsu PROTOCOL-IDENTIFIER PARAMETERS { } ATTRIBUTES { } DESCRIPTION "MPLS Label Stack Encoding." CHILDREN "Children of MPLS are not systematically identifiable. " REFERENCE "RFC 3032, MPLS Label Stack Encoding [RFC3032]." ::= { ether2 0x8847, -- RFC 3032 section 5 snap 0x8847, 802-1Q 0x8847, ppp 0x0281, atm ??? } -- MPLS multicast mplsm PROTOCOL-IDENTIFIER PARAMETERS { } ATTRIBUTES { } DESCRIPTION "MPLS Label Stack Encoding." CHILDREN "Children of MPLS are not systematically identifiable." REFERENCE "RFC 3032, MPLS Label Stack Encoding [RFC3032]." ::= { ether2 0x8848, -- RFC 3032 section 5 snap 0x8848, 802-1Q 0x8848, ppp 0x0283, atm ??? } Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 4] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 7. IPv6 Protocols ip6 PROTOCOL-IDENTIFIER PARAMETERS {} ATTRIBUTES {} DESCRIPTION "The protocol identifiers for the Internet Protocol, Version 6 [RFC1883]." CHILDREN "Children of 'ip6' are selected by the value in the Protocol field (one octet), as defined in the PROTOCOL NUMBERS table within the Assigned Numbers Document. The value of the Protocol field is encoded in an octet string as [ 0.0.0.a ], where 'a' is the protocol field. Children of 'ip6' are encoded as [ 0.0.0.a ], and named as 'ip6 a' where 'a' is the protocol field value. For example, a protocolDirID-fragment value of: 0.0.0.1.0.0.0.41.0.0.0.58 defines an encapsulation of IPv6-ICMP (ether2.ip6.icmp6)" ADDRESS-FORMAT "16 octets of the IPv6 address, in network byte order. Each ip packet contains two addresses, the source address and the destination address." DECODING "Note: ether2.ip.ipip6.udp is a different protocolDirID than ether2.ip6.udp, as identified in the protocolDirTable. As such, two different local protocol index values will be assigned by the agent. E.g. (full INDEX values shown): ether2.ip.ipip6.udp = 16.0.0.0.1.0.0.8.0.0.0.0.41.0.0.0.17.4.0.0.0.0 ether2.ip6.udp = 12.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.41.0.0.0.17.3.0.0.0 " REFERENCE "RFC 1883 [RFC1883] defines the Internet Protocol Version 6; The following URL defines the authoritative repository for the PROTOCOL NUMBERS Table: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/protocol-numbers" ::= { ether2 0x86DD, 802-1Q 0x86DD, mplsu 41, mplsm 41 } ipip6 PROTOCOL-IDENTIFIER PARAMETERS { } Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 5] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 ATTRIBUTES { } DESCRIPTION "IPv6 in IPv4 Tunneling" CHILDREN "Children of 'ipip6' are selected and encoded in the same manner as children of ip6." ADDRESS-FORMAT "The 'ipip6' address format is the same as the IPv6 address format." DECODING "Note: ether2.ip.ipip6.udp is a different protocolDirID than ether2.ip6.udp, as identified in the protocolDirTable. As such, two different local protocol index values will be assigned by the agent. E.g. (full INDEX values shown): ether2.ip.ipip6.udp = 16.0.0.0.1.0.0.8.0.0.0.0.41.0.0.0.17.4.0.0.0.0 ether2.ip6.udp = 12.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.41.0.0.0.17.3.0.0.0 " REFERENCE "RFC 2473 [RFC2473] defines Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 Specification." ::= { ip 41 } icmp6 PROTOCOL-IDENTIFIER PARAMETERS { } ATTRIBUTES { } DESCRIPTION "Internet Message Control Protocol for IP Version 6" REFERENCE "RFC 1885 [RFC1885] Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification " ::= { ip6 58, ipip6 58 } 8. Potential protocol identifiers to define 8.1. mplsvpn 8.2. Stacked vlan 8.3. l2tp 9. Security Considerations Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 6] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 This memo does not specify metrics implementation nor measurements implementation, so it does not directly affect the security of the Internet nor of applications that run on the Internet. However, usage of protocol identifiers to describe measurement configurations must be mindful of security and privacy concerns. 9.1. Privacy As passive measurement make use of customer data, care should be taken to respect local privacy laws regarding privacy. 9.2. Active Measurement aspects As detailed in the security section of the RFC2681 [18], active measurement may introduce dysfunction due to the packets injected and moreover theses packets may alter the results. Consequently a security policy should be applied to avoid measurement systems to be used to injected traffic attacks. 9.3. Passive Measurement aspects The management plane of passive measurements system could be harmed by attackers injecting artificial traffic that overflowed either the management network or collectors' databases and memories. The measurement plane of passive measurements system could be harmed by attackers injecting artificial traffic that overflowed buffers inside measurement points. 9.4. Management aspects As protocol identifiers may be used to describe passive or active measurement it is RECOMMENDED that implementers consider the security features as provided by the SNMPv3 framework (see [RFC3410], section 8), including full support for the SNMPv3 cryptographic mechanisms (for authentication and privacy). Further, deployment of SNMP versions prior to SNMPv3 is NOT RECOMMENDED. Instead, it is RECOMMENDED to deploy SNMPv3 and to enable cryptographic security. It is then a customer/operator responsibility to ensure that the SNMP entity giving access to an instance of this MIB module is properly configured to give access to the objects only to those principals (users) that have legitimate rights to indeed GET or SET (change/create/delete) them. 10. References Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 7] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 [1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996. [2] Harrington, D., Presuhn, R., and B. Wijnen, "An Architecture for Describing SNMP Management Frameworks", RFC 2571, April 1999. [3] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Structure and Identification of Management Information for TCP/IP-based Internets", STD 16, RFC 1155, May 1990. [4] Rose, M., and K. McCloghrie, "Concise MIB Definitions", STD 16, RFC 1212, March 1991. [5] M. Rose, "A Convention for Defining Traps for use with the SNMP", RFC 1215, March 1991. [6] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)", STD 58, RFC 2578, April 1999. [7] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Textual Conventions for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2579, April 1999. [8] McCloghrie, K., Perkins, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Case, J., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Conformance Statements for SMIv2", STD 58, RFC 2580, April 1999. [9] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple Network Management Protocol", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. [10] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Introduction to Community-based SNMPv2", RFC 1901, January 1996. [11] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Transport Mappings for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1906, January 1996. [12]Case, J., Harrington D., Presuhn R., and B. Wijnen, "Message Processing and Dispatching for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2572, April 1999. [13] Blumenthal, U., and B. Wijnen, "User-based Security Model (USM) for version 3 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv3)", RFC 2574, April 1999. [14] Case, J., McCloghrie, K., Rose, M., and S. Waldbusser, "Protocol Operations for Version 2 of the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMPv2)", RFC 1905, January 1996. Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 8] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 [15] Levi, D., Meyer, P., and B. Stewart, "SNMPv3 Applications", RFC 2573, April 1999. [16] Wijnen, B., Presuhn, R., and K. McCloghrie, "View-basedAccess Control Model (VACM) for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", RFC 2575, April 1999. [17] Case, J., Mundy, R., Partain, D., and B. Stewart, "Introduction to Version 3 of the Internet-standard Network Management Framework", RFC 2570, April 1999. [rfc2895] Bierman, A., Bucci, C. and R. Iddon, "Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifiers", RFC 2895, August 2000. [18] Almes, G., Kalidindi, S. and M. Zekauskas, "A Round-trip Delay Metric for IPPM.", RFC 2681, September 1999. 11. Acknowledgments Many thanks to Andy for its fast feedback on the preliminary doc. 12. Authors Addresses Emile STEPHAN France Telecom R & D 2 avenue Pierre Marzin F-22307 Lannion cedex Phone: (+ 33) 2 96 05 11 11 Email: emile.stephan@francetelecom.com 13. Full Copyright Statement "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved. This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 9] Internet Draft Protocol identifiers for IPv6 June 2003 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS 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. Stephan, et al. Informational - Expires December 2003 [Page 10]