2.3.19 Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6)
NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 71st IETF Meeting in Philadelphia, PA USA. It may now be out-of-date.
Last Modified: 2007-08-20
Kurt Lindqvist <email@example.com>
Geoff Huston <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Internet Area Director(s):
Jari Arkko <email@example.com>
Mark Townsley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Internet Area Advisor:
Jari Arkko <email@example.com>
Thomas Narten <firstname.lastname@example.org>
General Discussion: email@example.com
To Subscribe: firstname.lastname@example.org
Description of Working Group:
For the purposes of redundancy, load sharing, operational policy or
cost, a site may be multi-homed, with the site's network having
connections to multiple IP service providers. The current Internet
routing infrastructure permits multi-homing using provider independent
addressing, and adapts to changes in the availability of these
connections. However if the site uses multiple provider-assigned
address prefixes for every host within the site, host application
associations cannot use alternate paths, such as for surviving the
changes or for creating new associations, when one or more of the
address prefixes becomes unreachable. This working group will produce
specifications for an IPv6-based site multi-homing solution that
inserts a new sub-layer (shim) into the IP stack of end-system hosts.
It will enable hosts on multi-homed sites to use a set of provider-
assigned IP address prefixes and switch between them without upsetting
transport protocols or applications.
The work will be based on the architecture developed by the IETF multi6
working group. The shim6 working group is to complete the required
protocol developments and the architecture and security analysis of the
Requirements for the solution are:
o The approach must handle re-homing both existing communication and
being able to establish new communication when one or more of the
addresses is unreachable.
o IPv6 NAT devices are assumed not to exist, or not to present an
obstacle about which the shim6 solution needs to be concerned.
o Only IPv6 is considered.
o Changes in the addresses that are used below the shim will be
invisible to the upper layers, which will see a fixed address (termed
Upper Layer Identifier or ULID).
o ULIDs will be actual IP addresses, permitting existing applications
to continue to work unchanged, and permitting application referrals to
work, as long as the IP Addresses are available.
o The solution should assume ingress filtering may be applied at
o The solution must allow the global routing system to scale even if
there is a very large number of multi-homed sites. This implies that
re-homing not be visible to the routing system.
o Compatibility will remain for existing mobility mechanisms. It will
be possible to use Mobile IPv6 on a node that also supports Shim6.
However, any optimizations or advanced configurations are out of
scope for shim6.
o The approach is to provide an optimized way to handle a static set of
addresses, while also providing a way to securely handle dynamic
changes in the set of addresses. The dynamic changes might be useful
for future combinations of multi-homing and IP mobility, but the
working group will not take on such mobility capabilities directly.
o The specifications must specifically refer to all applicable threats
and describe how they are handled, with the requirement being that the
resulting solution not introduce any threats that make the security any
less than in today's Internet.
The background documents to be considered by the WG include:
The input documents that the WG will use as the basis for its design
In addition to the network layer shim solution, the shim6 WG is
specifically chartered to work on:
o Solutions for site exit router selection that work when each ISP
uses ingress filtering, i.e. when the chosen site exit needs to
be related to the source address chosen by the host. This site
exit router selection and the associated address selection
process should work whether or not the peer site supports
the shim6 protocol.
o Solutions to establish new communications after an outage has
occurred that do not require shim support from the
non-multihomed end of the communication. The Working Group will
explore whether such solutions are also useful when both ends
support the shim.
o The possible impact of the use of multiple locators at both ends
on congestion control, traffic engineering, and QoS will be analysed
in conjunction with the Transport Area.
o The relationships between Upper Layer Identifiers (ULIDs)
and unique local addresses.
o ICMP error demuxing for locator failure discovery.
o If necessary, develop and specify formats and structure for:
- Cryptographically protected locators
- Carrying the flow label across the shim layer
defined in the multi6 architecture.
The shim6 WG is to publish, as standards track RFC's, specifications
with enough details to allow fully interoperable implementations.
Goals and Milestones:
|Done|| ||First draft of architectural document |
|Done|| ||First draft of protocol document |
|Done|| ||First draft on cryptographic locators, if required |
|Done|| ||First draft on multi-homing triggers description |
|Done|| ||First draft on applicability statement document |
|Done|| ||WG last-call on protocol document |
|Done|| ||WG last-call on cryptographic locators, if required |
|Done|| ||WG last-call on multihoming triggers description |
|Done|| ||Submit document on cryptographic locators to the IESG, if
|Done|| ||Submit protocol document to the IESG |
|Done|| ||Submit draft on multihoming triggers description to the IESG |
|Oct 2007|| ||WG last-call on architectural document |
|Oct 2007|| ||WG last-call on applicability statement document |
|Dec 2007|| ||Submit completed architectural document to IESG |
|Dec 2007|| ||Submit applicability statement document to IESG |
No Request For Comments
4-Simplifying proxy shim6