| < draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-12.txt | draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-13.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network Working Group F. L. Templin, Ed. | Network Working Group F. L. Templin, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft G. Saccone | Internet-Draft G. Saccone | |||
| Intended status: Informational Boeing Research & Technology | Intended status: Informational Boeing Research & Technology | |||
| Expires: 5 July 2022 G. Dawra | Expires: 11 August 2022 G. Dawra | |||
| A. Lindem | A. Lindem | |||
| V. Moreno | V. Moreno | |||
| Cisco Systems, Inc. | Cisco Systems, Inc. | |||
| 1 January 2022 | 7 February 2022 | |||
| A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical | A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical | |||
| Telecommunications Network | Telecommunications Network | |||
| draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-12 | draft-ietf-rtgwg-atn-bgp-13 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is investigating | The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is investigating | |||
| mobile routing solutions for a worldwide Aeronautical | mobile routing solutions for a worldwide Aeronautical | |||
| Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). | Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). | |||
| The ATN/IPS will eventually replace existing communication services | The ATN/IPS will eventually replace existing communication services | |||
| with an IPv6-based service supporting pervasive Air Traffic | with an IP-based service supporting pervasive Air Traffic Management | |||
| Management (ATM) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline | (ATM) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline Operations | |||
| Operations Controllers (AOC), and all commercial aircraft worldwide. | Controllers (AOC), and all commercial aircraft worldwide. This | |||
| This informational document describes a simple and extensible mobile | informational document describes a simple and extensible mobile | |||
| routing service based on industry-standard BGP to address the ATN/IPS | routing service based on industry-standard BGP to address the ATN/IPS | |||
| requirements. | requirements. | |||
| Status of This Memo | Status of This Memo | |||
| This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the | |||
| provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on 5 July 2022. | This Internet-Draft will expire on 11 August 2022. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ | |||
| license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. | |||
| Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 26 ¶ | |||
| described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are | |||
| provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 | |||
| 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3. ATN/IPS Routing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3. ATN/IPS Routing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 4. ATN/IPS (Radio) Access Network (ANET) Model . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4. ATN/IPS (Radio) Access Network (ANET) Model . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 5. ATN/IPS Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5. ATN/IPS Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 6. BGP Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 6. BGP Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 7. Stub AS Mobile Routing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 7. Stub AS Mobile Routing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 8. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 10.1. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Considerations . . . . . 20 | |||
| 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | |||
| Appendix A. BGP Convergence Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | Appendix A. BGP Convergence Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| The worldwide Air Traffic Management (ATM) system today uses a | The worldwide Air Traffic Management (ATM) system today uses a | |||
| service known as Aeronautical Telecommunications Network based on | service known as Aeronautical Telecommunications Network based on | |||
| Open Systems Interconnection (ATN/OSI). The service is used to | Open Systems Interconnection (ATN/OSI). The service is used to | |||
| augment controller to pilot voice communications with rudimentary | augment controller to pilot voice communications with rudimentary | |||
| short text command and control messages. The service has seen | short text command and control messages. The service has seen | |||
| successful deployment in a limited set of worldwide ATM domains. | successful deployment in a limited set of worldwide ATM domains. | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 30 ¶ | |||
| degradation due to atmospheric conditions, etc. The well-connected | degradation due to atmospheric conditions, etc. The well-connected | |||
| ground domain ATN/IPS network should therefore treat each safety-of- | ground domain ATN/IPS network should therefore treat each safety-of- | |||
| flight critical packet produced by (or destined to) an aircraft as a | flight critical packet produced by (or destined to) an aircraft as a | |||
| precious commodity and strive for an optimized service that provides | precious commodity and strive for an optimized service that provides | |||
| the highest possible degree of reliability. | the highest possible degree of reliability. | |||
| The ATN/IPS is an IPv6-based overlay network configured over one or | The ATN/IPS is an IPv6-based overlay network configured over one or | |||
| more Internetworking underlays ("INETs") maintained by aeronautical | more Internetworking underlays ("INETs") maintained by aeronautical | |||
| network service providers such as ARINC, SITA and Inmarsat. The | network service providers such as ARINC, SITA and Inmarsat. The | |||
| Overlay Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [I-D.templin-6man-omni] | Overlay Multilink Network Interface (OMNI) [I-D.templin-6man-omni] | |||
| provides a Non-Broadcast, Multiple Access (NBMA) virtual link that | uses an adaptation layer encapsulation to create a Non-Broadcast, | |||
| spans the entire ATN/IPS. Each aircraft connects to the OMNI link | Multiple Access (NBMA) virtual link spanning the entire ATN/IPS. | |||
| via an OMNI interface configured over the aircraft's underlying | Each aircraft connects to the OMNI link via an OMNI interface | |||
| physical and/or virtual access network interfaces. | configured over the aircraft's underlying physical and/or virtual | |||
| access network interfaces. | ||||
| Each underlying INET comprises one or more "partitions" where all | Each underlying INET comprises one or more "partitions" where all | |||
| nodes within a partition can exchange packets with all other nodes, | nodes within a partition can exchange packets with all other nodes, | |||
| i.e., the partition is connected internally. There is no requirement | i.e., the partition is connected internally. There is no requirement | |||
| that any two INET partitions use the same IP protocol version nor | that any two INET partitions use the same IP protocol version nor | |||
| have consistent IP addressing plans in comparison with other | have consistent IP addressing plans in comparison with other | |||
| partitions. Instead, the OMNI link sees each partition as a | partitions. Instead, the OMNI link sees each partition as a | |||
| "segment" of a link-layer topology concatenated by a service known as | "segment" of a link-layer topology concatenated by a service known as | |||
| the OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL) | the OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL) [I-D.templin-6man-omni] based on IPv6 | |||
| [I-D.templin-6man-omni][I-D.templin-6man-aero] based on IPv6 | ||||
| encapsulation [RFC2473]. | encapsulation [RFC2473]. | |||
| The IPv6 addressing architecture provides different classes of | The IPv6 addressing architecture provides different classes of | |||
| addresses, including Global Unicast Addresses (GUAs), Unique Local | addresses, including Global Unicast Addresses (GUAs), Unique Local | |||
| Addresses (ULAs) and Link-Local Addresses (LLAs) [RFC4291][RFC4193]. | Addresses (ULAs) and Link-Local Addresses (LLAs) [RFC4291][RFC4193]. | |||
| The ATN/IPS receives an IPv6 GUA Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) from | The ATN/IPS receives an IPv6 GUA Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) from | |||
| an Internet assigned numbers authority, and each aircraft will | an Internet assigned numbers authority, and each aircraft will | |||
| receive a Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) delegation from the MSP that | receive a Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) delegation from the MSP that | |||
| accompanies the aircraft wherever it travels. ATCs and AOCs will | accompanies the aircraft wherever it travels. ATCs and AOCs will | |||
| likewise receive MNPs, but they would typically appear in static (not | likewise receive MNPs, but they would typically appear in static (not | |||
| mobile) deployments such as air traffic control towers, airline | mobile) deployments such as air traffic control towers, airline | |||
| headquarters, etc. | headquarters, etc. (Note that while IPv6 GUAs are assumed for ATN/ | |||
| IPS, IPv4 with public/private address could also be used.) | ||||
| The OAL uses ULAs in the source and destination addresses of IPv6 | The adaptation layer uses ULAs in the source and destination | |||
| encapsulation headers. Each ULA includes an MNP in the interface | addresses of adaptation layer IPv6 encapsulation headers. Each ULA | |||
| identifier ("MNP-ULA") as discussed in [I-D.templin-6man-omni]. Due | includes an MNP in the interface identifier ("MNP-ULA"), as discussed | |||
| to MNP delegation policies and random MN mobility properties, MNP- | in [I-D.templin-6man-omni]. Due to MNP delegation policies and | |||
| ULAs are generally not aggregatable in the BGP routing service and | random node mobility properties, MNP-ULAs are generally not | |||
| are represented as many more-specific prefixes instead of a smaller | aggregatable in the BGP routing service and are represented as many | |||
| number of aggregated prefixes. In addition, OMNI link service nodes | more-specific prefixes instead of a smaller number of aggregated | |||
| configure administratively-assigned ULAs ("ADM-ULA") that are | prefixes. | |||
| statically-assigned and derived from a shorter ADM-ULA prefix | ||||
| assigned to their OMNI link partition [I-D.templin-6man-omni]. | In addition, BGP routing service infrastructure nodes configure | |||
| Unlike MNP-ULAs, the ADM-ULAs are persistently present and unchanging | administratively-assigned ULAs ("ADM-ULA") that are statically- | |||
| in the routing system. The BGP routing services therefore perform | assigned and derived from a shorter ADM-ULA prefix assigned to their | |||
| forwarding based on these MNP-ULAs and ADM-ULAs instead of based on | BGP network partitions. Unlike MNP-ULAs, the ADM-ULAs are | |||
| the GUA MNPs themselves. | persistently present and unchanging in the routing system. The BGP | |||
| routing services therefore perform forwarding based on these MNP-ULAs | ||||
| and ADM-ULAs instead of based on the GUA MNPs themselves. Both ADM- | ||||
| ULAs and MNP-ULAs are used by the OAL for nested encapsulation where | ||||
| the inner IPv6 packet is encapsulated in an IPv6 adaptation layer | ||||
| header with ULA source and destination addresses, which is then | ||||
| encapsulated in an IP header specific to the underlying Internetwork | ||||
| that will carry the actual packet transmission. | ||||
| Connexion By Boeing [CBB] was an early aviation mobile routing | Connexion By Boeing [CBB] was an early aviation mobile routing | |||
| service based on dynamic updates in the global public Internet BGP | service based on dynamic updates in the global public Internet BGP | |||
| routing system. Practical experience with the approach has shown | routing system. Practical experience with the approach has shown | |||
| that frequent injections and withdrawals of prefixes in the Internet | that frequent injections and withdrawals of prefixes in the Internet | |||
| routing system can result in excessive BGP update messaging, slow | routing system can result in excessive BGP update messaging, slow | |||
| routing table convergence times, and extended outages when no route | routing table convergence times, and extended outages when no route | |||
| is available. This is due to both conservative default BGP protocol | is available. This is due to both conservative default BGP protocol | |||
| timing parameters (see Section 6) and the complex peering | timing parameters (see Section 6) and the complex peering | |||
| interconnections of BGP routers within the global Internet | interconnections of BGP routers within the global Internet | |||
| skipping to change at page 4, line 44 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 5 ¶ | |||
| propagated to all BGP routers in the Internet that carry a full | propagated to all BGP routers in the Internet that carry a full | |||
| routing table. | routing table. | |||
| We therefore consider an approach using a BGP overlay network routing | We therefore consider an approach using a BGP overlay network routing | |||
| system where a private BGP routing protocol instance is maintained | system where a private BGP routing protocol instance is maintained | |||
| between ATN/IPS Autonomous System (AS) Border Routers (ASBRs). The | between ATN/IPS Autonomous System (AS) Border Routers (ASBRs). The | |||
| private BGP instance does not interact with the native BGP routing | private BGP instance does not interact with the native BGP routing | |||
| systems in underlying INETs, and BGP updates are unidirectional from | systems in underlying INETs, and BGP updates are unidirectional from | |||
| "stub" ASBRs (s-ASBRs) to a small set of "core" ASBRs (c-ASBRs) in a | "stub" ASBRs (s-ASBRs) to a small set of "core" ASBRs (c-ASBRs) in a | |||
| hub-and-spokes topology. No extensions to the BGP protocol are | hub-and-spokes topology. No extensions to the BGP protocol are | |||
| necessary. BGP routing is based on the ULAs found in OAL headers, | necessary, and BGP routing is based on (intermediate-layer) ULAs | |||
| i.e., it provides an adaptation layer forwarding service instead of a | instead of upper- or lower-layer public/private IP prefixes. This | |||
| networking layer routing service. | allows ASBRs to perform adaptation layer forwarding based on | |||
| intermediate layer IPv6 header information instead of network layer | ||||
| forwarding based on upper layer IP header information or link layer | ||||
| forwarding based on lower layer IP header information. | ||||
| The s-ASBRs for each stub AS connect to a small number of c-ASBRs via | The s-ASBRs for each stub AS connect to a small number of c-ASBRs via | |||
| dedicated high speed links and/or tunnels across the INET using | dedicated high speed links and/or secured tunnels (e.g., IPsec | |||
| industry-standard secured encapsulations (e.g., IPsec [RFC4301], | [RFC4301], WireGuard [WG], etc.) over the underlying INET. | |||
| Wireguard, etc.). In particular, tunneling must be used when | Neighboring ASBRs should use also such IP layer security | |||
| neighboring ASBRs are separated by multiple INET hops. | encapsulations over direct physical links to ensure INET layer | |||
| security. | ||||
| The s-ASBRs engage in external BGP (eBGP) peerings with their | The s-ASBRs engage in external BGP (eBGP) peerings with their | |||
| respective c-ASBRs, and only maintain routing table entries for the | respective c-ASBRs, and only maintain routing table entries for the | |||
| MNP-ULAs currently active within the stub AS. The s-ASBRs send BGP | MNP-ULAs currently active within the stub AS. The s-ASBRs send BGP | |||
| updates for MNP-ULA injections or withdrawals to c-ASBRs but do not | updates for MNP-ULA injections or withdrawals to c-ASBRs but do not | |||
| receive any BGP updates from c-ASBRs. Instead, the s-ASBRs maintain | receive any BGP updates from c-ASBRs. Instead, the s-ASBRs maintain | |||
| default routes with their c-ASBRs as the next hop, and therefore hold | default routes with their c-ASBRs as the next hop, and therefore hold | |||
| only partial topology information. | only partial topology information. | |||
| The c-ASBRs connect to other c-ASBRs within the same partition using | The c-ASBRs connect to other c-ASBRs within the same partition using | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 9 ¶ | |||
| partition prefixes. Both ADM-ULAs and MNP-ULAs are used by the OAL | partition prefixes. Both ADM-ULAs and MNP-ULAs are used by the OAL | |||
| for nested encapsulation where the inner IPv6 packet is encapsulated | for nested encapsulation where the inner IPv6 packet is encapsulated | |||
| in an IPv6 OAL header with ULA source and destination addresses, | in an IPv6 OAL header with ULA source and destination addresses, | |||
| which is then encapsulated in an IP header specific to the INET | which is then encapsulated in an IP header specific to the INET | |||
| partition. | partition. | |||
| With these intra- and inter-INET BGP peerings in place, a forwarding | With these intra- and inter-INET BGP peerings in place, a forwarding | |||
| plane spanning tree is established that properly covers the entire | plane spanning tree is established that properly covers the entire | |||
| operating domain. All nodes in the network can be visited using | operating domain. All nodes in the network can be visited using | |||
| strict spanning tree hops, but in many instances this may result in | strict spanning tree hops, but in many instances this may result in | |||
| longer paths than are necessary. The AERO and OMNI services | longer paths than are necessary. AERO [I-D.templin-6man-aero] | |||
| [I-D.templin-6man-aero][I-D.templin-6man-omni] provide mechanisms for | provides an example service for discovering and utilizing (route- | |||
| discovering and utilizing (route-optimized) shortcuts that do not | optimized) shortcuts that do not always follow strict spanning tree | |||
| always follow strict spanning tree paths. | paths. | |||
| The remainder of this document discusses the proposed BGP-based ATN/ | The remainder of this document discusses the proposed BGP-based ATN/ | |||
| IPS mobile routing service. | IPS mobile routing service. | |||
| 2. Terminology | 2. Terminology | |||
| The terms Autonomous System (AS) and Autonomous System Border Router | The terms Autonomous System (AS) and Autonomous System Border Router | |||
| (ASBR) are the same as defined in [RFC4271]. | (ASBR) are the same as defined in [RFC4271]. | |||
| The following terms are defined for the purposes of this document: | The following terms are defined for the purposes of this document: | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 28 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 32 ¶ | |||
| encapsulation if necessary. Forwarding over the OMNI virtual link | encapsulation if necessary. Forwarding over the OMNI virtual link | |||
| is therefore based on ULAs instead of GUAs. In this way, packets | is therefore based on ULAs instead of GUAs. In this way, packets | |||
| sent from a source can be conveyed over the OMNI virtual link even | sent from a source can be conveyed over the OMNI virtual link even | |||
| though there may be many underlying INET partitions in the path to | though there may be many underlying INET partitions in the path to | |||
| the destination. | the destination. | |||
| OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL) | OMNI Adaptation Layer (OAL) | |||
| A middle layer below the IPv6 layer but above the INET layer that | A middle layer below the IPv6 layer but above the INET layer that | |||
| applies IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation prior to INET encapsulation. | applies IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation prior to INET encapsulation. | |||
| The IPv6 encapsulation header inserted by the OAL uses ULAs | The IPv6 encapsulation header inserted by the OAL uses ULAs | |||
| instead of GUAs. Further details on OMNI and the OAL are found in | instead of GUAs. End systems that configure OMNI interfaces act | |||
| [I-D.templin-6man-omni]. | as OAL ingress and egress points, while intermediate systems with | |||
| OMNI interfaces act as OAL forwarding nodes. There may be zero, | ||||
| one or many intermediate nodes between the OAL ingress and egress, | ||||
| but the upper layer IPv6 Hop Limit is not decremented during (OAL | ||||
| layer) forwarding. Further details on OMNI and the OAL are found | ||||
| in [I-D.templin-6man-omni]. | ||||
| OAL Autonomous System | OAL Autonomous System (OAL AS) | |||
| A "hub-of-hubs" autonomous system maintained through peerings | A "hub-of-hubs" autonomous system maintained through peerings | |||
| between the core autonomous systems of different OMNI virtual link | between the core autonomous systems of different OMNI virtual link | |||
| partitions. | partitions. | |||
| Core Autonomous System Border Router (c-ASBR) | Core Autonomous System Border Router (c-ASBR) | |||
| A BGP router located in the hub of the INET partition hub-and- | A BGP router located in the hub of the INET partition hub-and- | |||
| spokes overlay network topology. | spokes overlay network topology. | |||
| Core Autonomous System | Core Autonomous System (Core AS) | |||
| The "hub" autonomous system maintained by all c-ASBRs within the | The "hub" autonomous system maintained by all c-ASBRs within the | |||
| same partition. | same partition. | |||
| Stub Autonomous System Border Router (s-ASBR) | Stub Autonomous System Border Router (s-ASBR) | |||
| A BGP router configured as a spoke in the INET partition hub-and- | A BGP router configured as a spoke in the INET partition hub-and- | |||
| spokes overlay network topology. | spokes overlay network topology. | |||
| Stub Autonomous System | Stub Autonomous System (Stub AS) | |||
| A logical grouping that includes all Clients currently associated | A logical grouping that includes all Clients currently associated | |||
| with a given s-ASBR. | with a given s-ASBR. | |||
| Client | Client | |||
| An ATC, AOC or aircraft that connects to the ATN/IPS as a leaf | An ATC, AOC or aircraft that connects to the ATN/IPS as a leaf | |||
| node. The Client could be a singleton host, or a router that | node. The Client could be a singleton host, or a router that | |||
| connects a mobile or fixed network. | connects a mobile or fixed network. | |||
| Proxy/Server | Proxy/Server | |||
| An ANET/INET border node that acts as a transparent intermediary | An ANET/INET border node that acts as a transparent intermediary | |||
| skipping to change at page 8, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 8, line 40 ¶ | |||
| Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) | Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) | |||
| An aggregated prefix assigned to the ATN/IPS by an Internet | An aggregated prefix assigned to the ATN/IPS by an Internet | |||
| assigned numbers authority, and from which all MNPs are delegated | assigned numbers authority, and from which all MNPs are delegated | |||
| (e.g., up to 2**32 IPv6 /56 MNPs could be delegated from a /24 | (e.g., up to 2**32 IPv6 /56 MNPs could be delegated from a /24 | |||
| MSP). | MSP). | |||
| 3. ATN/IPS Routing System | 3. ATN/IPS Routing System | |||
| The ATN/IPS routing system comprises a private BGP instance | The ATN/IPS routing system comprises a private BGP instance | |||
| coordinated in an overlay network via tunnels between neighboring | coordinated in an overlay network via tunnels between neighboring | |||
| ASBRs over one or more underlying INETs. The overlay does not | ASBRs over one or more underlying INETs. The ATN/IPS routing system | |||
| interact with the underlying INET BGP routing systems, and only a | interacts with underlying INET BGP routing systems only through the | |||
| small and unchanging set of MSPs are advertised externally instead of | static advertisement of a small and unchanging set of MSPs instead of | |||
| the full dynamically changing set of MNPs. | the full dynamically changing set of MNPs. | |||
| Within each INET partition, each s-ASBRs connects a stub AS to the | Within each INET partition, each s-ASBR connects a stub AS to the | |||
| INET partition core using a distinct stub AS Number (ASN). Each | INET partition core using a distinct stub AS Number (ASN). Each | |||
| s-ASBR further uses eBGP to peer with one or more c-ASBRs. All | s-ASBR further uses eBGP to peer with one or more c-ASBRs. All | |||
| c-ASBRs are members of the INET partition core AS, and use a shared | c-ASBRs are members of the INET partition core AS, and use a shared | |||
| core ASN. Unique ASNs are assigned according to the standard 32-bit | core ASN. Unique ASNs are assigned according to the standard 32-bit | |||
| ASN format [RFC4271][RFC6793]. Since the BGP instance does not | ASN format [RFC4271][RFC6793]. Since the BGP instance does not | |||
| connect with any INET BGP routing systems, the ASNs assigned need not | connect with any INET BGP routing systems, the ASNs can be assigned | |||
| be coordinated with IANA and can in fact coincide with values that | from the [RFC6996] 32-bit ASN space which reserves 94,967,295 numbers | |||
| are assigned in other domains. The only requirement is that ASNs | for private use. The ASNs must be allocated and managed by an ATN/ | |||
| must not be duplicated within the ATN/IPS routing system itself. | IPS assigned numbers authority established by ICAO, which must ensure | |||
| that ASNs are responsibly distributed without duplication and/or | ||||
| overlap. | ||||
| The c-ASBRs use iBGP to maintain a synchronized consistent view of | The c-ASBRs use iBGP to maintain a synchronized consistent view of | |||
| all active MNP-ULAs currently in service within the INET partition. | all active MNP-ULAs currently in service within the INET partition. | |||
| Figure 1 below represents the reference INET partition deployment. | Figure 1 below represents the reference INET partition deployment. | |||
| (Note that the figure shows details for only two s-ASBRs (s-ASBR1 and | (Note that the figure shows details for only two s-ASBRs (s-ASBR1 and | |||
| s-ASBR2) due to space constraints, but the other s-ASBRs should be | s-ASBR2) due to space constraints, but the other s-ASBRs should be | |||
| understood to have similar Stub AS, MNP and eBGP peering | understood to have similar Stub AS, MNP and eBGP peering | |||
| arrangements.) The solution described in this document is flexible | arrangements.) The solution described in this document is flexible | |||
| enough to extend to these topologies. | enough to extend to these topologies. | |||
| skipping to change at page 10, line 7 ¶ | skipping to change at page 10, line 9 ¶ | |||
| . +-------+ +-------+ . | . +-------+ +-------+ . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| . <----------------- INET Partition -------------------> . | . <----------------- INET Partition -------------------> . | |||
| ............................................................ | ............................................................ | |||
| Figure 1: INET Partition Reference Deployment | Figure 1: INET Partition Reference Deployment | |||
| In the reference deployment, each s-ASBR maintains routes for active | In the reference deployment, each s-ASBR maintains routes for active | |||
| MNP-ULAs that currently belong to its stub AS. In response to | MNP-ULAs that currently belong to its stub AS. In response to | |||
| "Inter-domain" mobility events, each s-ASBR will dynamically | "Inter-domain" mobility events, each s-ASBR dynamically announces new | |||
| announces new MNP-ULAs and withdraws departed MNP-ULAs in its eBGP | MNP-ULAs and withdraws departed MNP-ULAs in its eBGP updates to | |||
| updates to c-ASBRs. Since ATN/IPS end systems are expected to remain | c-ASBRs. Since ATN/IPS end systems are expected to remain within the | |||
| within the same stub AS for extended timeframes, however, intra- | same stub AS for extended timeframes, however, intra-domain mobility | |||
| domain mobility events (such as an aircraft handing off between cell | events (such as an aircraft handing off between cell towers) are | |||
| towers) are handled within the stub AS instead of being propagated as | handled within the stub AS instead of being propagated as inter- | |||
| inter-domain eBGP updates. | domain eBGP updates. | |||
| Each c-ASBR configures a black-hole route for each of its MSPs. By | Each c-ASBR configures a black-hole route for each of its MSPs. By | |||
| black-holing the MSPs, the c-ASBR will maintain forwarding table | black-holing the MSPs, the c-ASBR maintains forwarding table entries | |||
| entries only for the MNP-ULAs that are currently active, and packets | only for the MNP-ULAs that are currently active. If an arriving | |||
| destined to all other MNP-ULAs will correctly incur ICMPv6 | packet matches a black-hole route without matching an MNP-ULA, the | |||
| Destination Unreachable messages [RFC4443] due to the black hole | c-ASBR should drop the packet and generate an ICMPv6 Destination | |||
| route. (This is the same behavior as for ordinary BGP routers in the | Unreachable message [RFC4443], i.e., without forwarding the packet | |||
| Internet when they receive packets for which there is no route | outside of the ATN/IPS overlay based on a less-specific route. | |||
| available.) The c-ASBRs do not send eBGP updates for MNP-ULAs to | ||||
| s-ASBRs, but instead originate a default route. In this way, s-ASBRs | The c-ASBRs do not send BGP updates for MNP-ULAs to s-ASBRs, but | |||
| have only partial topology knowledge (i.e., they know only about the | instead originate a default route. In this way, s-ASBRs have only | |||
| active MNP-ULAs currently within their stub ASes) and they forward | partial topology knowledge (i.e., they know only about the active | |||
| all other packets to c-ASBRs which have full topology knowledge. | MNP-ULAs currently within their stub ASes) and they forward all other | |||
| packets to c-ASBRs which have full topology knowledge. | ||||
| Each s-ASBR and c-ASBR configures an ADM-ULA that is aggregatable | Each s-ASBR and c-ASBR configures an ADM-ULA that is aggregatable | |||
| within an INET partition, and each partition configures a unique ADM- | within an INET partition, and each partition configures a unique ADM- | |||
| ULA prefix that is permanently announced into the routing system. | ULA prefix that is permanently announced into the routing system. | |||
| The core ASes of each INET partition are joined together through | The core ASes of each INET partition are joined together through | |||
| external BGP peerings. The c-ASBRs of each partition establish | external BGP peerings. The c-ASBRs of each partition establish | |||
| external peerings with the c-ASBRs of other partitions to form a | external peerings with the c-ASBRs of other partitions to form a | |||
| "core-of-cores" OMNI link AS. The OMNI link AS contains the global | "core-of-cores" OMNI link AS. The OMNI link AS contains the global | |||
| knowledge of all MNP-ULAs deployed worldwide, and supports ATN/IPS | knowledge of all MNP-ULAs deployed worldwide, and supports ATN/IPS | |||
| overlay communications between nodes located in different INET | overlay communications between nodes located in different INET | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 37 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 37 ¶ | |||
| . (::::: BGP Routing ::::) . | . (::::: BGP Routing ::::) . | |||
| . `-(:: System ::::)-' . | . `-(:: System ::::)-' . | |||
| . `-(:::::::-' . | . `-(:::::::-' . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| . . | . . | |||
| . <------- OMNI virtual link bridged by the OAL --------> . | . <------- OMNI virtual link bridged by the OAL --------> . | |||
| ............................................................ | ............................................................ | |||
| Figure 3: ATN/IPS ANET Architecture | Figure 3: ATN/IPS ANET Architecture | |||
| When a Client logs into an ANET it specifies a nearby s-ASBR that it | When a Client connects to an ANET it specifies a nearby s-ASBR that | |||
| has selected to connect to the ATN/IPS. The login process is | it has selected to connect to the ATN/IPS. The login process is | |||
| transparently brokered by a Proxy/Server at the border of the ANET | transparently brokered by a Proxy/Server at the border of the ANET | |||
| which then conveys the connection request to the s-ASBR via tunneling | which then conveys the connection request to the s-ASBR via tunneling | |||
| across the OMNI virtual link. Each ANET border Proxy/Server is also | across the OMNI virtual link. Each ANET border Proxy/Server is also | |||
| equally capable of serving in the s-ASBR role so that a first on-link | equally capable of serving in the s-ASBR role so that a first on-link | |||
| Proxy/Server can be selected as the s-ASBR while all others perform | Proxy/Server can be selected as the s-ASBR while all others perform | |||
| the Proxy/Server role in a hub-and-spokes arrangement. An on-link | the Proxy/Server role in a hub-and-spokes arrangement. An on-link | |||
| Proxy/Server is selected to serve the s-ASBR role when it receives a | Proxy/Server is selected to serve the s-ASBR role when it receives a | |||
| control message from a Client requesting that service. | control message from a Client requesting that service. | |||
| The Client can coordinate with a network-based s-ASBR over additional | The Client can coordinate with a network-based s-ASBR over additional | |||
| ANETs after it has already coordinated with a first-hop Proxy/Server | ANETs after it has already coordinated with a first-hop Proxy/Server | |||
| over a first ANET. Selection of a network-based s-ASBR could be | over a first ANET. If the Client connects to multiple ANETs, the | |||
| through an address discovered through a first ANET Proxy/Server, | s-ASBR will register the individual ANET Proxy/Servers as conduits | |||
| through consulting a geographically-keyed static host file, through a | through which the Client can be reached. The Client then sees the | |||
| DNS lookup, through a network query response, etc. The s-ASBR then | s-ASBR as the "hub" in a "hub-and-spokes" arrangement with the first- | |||
| registers the addresses of the additional ANET Proxy/Server as the | hop Proxy/Servers as spokes. Selection of a network-based s-ASBR is | |||
| address for the Client over each distinct Client interface. If the | through the discovery methods specified in relevant mobility and | |||
| Client connects to multiple ANETs, the s-ASBR will register the | virtual link coordination specifications (e.g., see AERO | |||
| addresses of all Proxy/Servers as addresses through which the Client | [I-D.templin-6man-aero] and OMNI [I-D.templin-6man-omni]). | |||
| can be reached. | ||||
| The s-ASBR represents all of its active Clients as MNP-ULA routes in | The s-ASBR represents all of its active Clients as MNP-ULA routes in | |||
| the ATN/IPS BGP routing system. The s-ASBR's stub AS therefore | the ATN/IPS BGP routing system. The s-ASBR's stub AS is therefore | |||
| consists of the set of all of its active Clients (i.e., the stub AS | used only to advertise the set of MNPs of all its active Clients to | |||
| is a logical construct and not a physical construct). The s-ASBR | its BGP peer c-ASBRs and not to peer with other s-ASBRs (i.e., the | |||
| stub AS is a logical construct and not a physical one). The s-ASBR | ||||
| injects the MNP-ULAs of its active Clients and withdraws the MNP-ULAs | injects the MNP-ULAs of its active Clients and withdraws the MNP-ULAs | |||
| of its departed Clients via BGP updates to c-ASBRs, which further | of its departed Clients via BGP updates to c-ASBRs, which further | |||
| propagate the MNP-ULAs to other c-ASBRs within the OAL AS. Since | propagate the MNP-ULAs to other c-ASBRs within the OAL AS. Since | |||
| Clients are expected to remain associated with their current s-ASBR | Clients are expected to remain associated with their current s-ASBR | |||
| for extended periods, the level of MNP-ULA injections and withdrawals | for extended periods, the level of MNP-ULA injections and withdrawals | |||
| in the BGP routing system will be on the order of the numbers of | in the BGP routing system will be on the order of the numbers of | |||
| network joins, leaves and s-ASBR handovers for aircraft operations | network joins, leaves and s-ASBR handovers for aircraft operations | |||
| (see: Section 6). It is important to observe that fine-grained | (see: Section 6). It is important to observe that fine-grained | |||
| events such as Client mobility and Quality of Service (QoS) signaling | events such as Client mobility and Quality of Service (QoS) signaling | |||
| are coordinated only by Proxies and the Client's current s-ASBRs, and | are coordinated only by Proxies and the Client's current s-ASBRs, and | |||
| do not involve other ASBRs in the routing system. In this way, | do not involve other ASBRs in the routing system. In this way, | |||
| intradomain routing changes within the stub AS are not propagated | intradomain routing changes within the stub AS are not propagated | |||
| into the rest of the ATN/IPS BGP routing system. | into the rest of the ATN/IPS BGP routing system. | |||
| 5. ATN/IPS Route Optimization | 5. ATN/IPS Route Optimization | |||
| ATN/IPS end systems will frequently need to communicate with | ATN/IPS end systems will frequently need to communicate with | |||
| correspondents associated with other s-ASBRs. In the BGP peering | correspondents associated with other s-ASBRs. In the BGP peering | |||
| topology discussed in Section 3, this can initially only be | topology discussed in Section 3, this can initially only be | |||
| accommodated by including multiple spanning tree segments in the | accommodated by including multiple extraneous hops and/or spanning | |||
| forwarding path. In many cases, it would be desirable to eliminate | tree segments in the forwarding path. In many cases, it would be | |||
| extraneous spanning tree segments from this "dogleg" route so that | desirable to establish a "short cut" around this "dogleg" route so | |||
| packets can traverse a minimum number of tunneling hops across the | that packets can traverse a minimum number of tunneling hops across | |||
| OMNI virtual link. ATN/IPS end systems could therefore employ a | the OMNI virtual link. ATN/IPS end systems could therefore employ a | |||
| route optimization service according to the mobility service employed | route optimization service according to the mobility service employed | |||
| (see: Section 7). | (see: Section 7). | |||
| Each s-ASBR provides designated routing services for only a subset of | ||||
| all active Clients, and instead acts as a simple Proxy/Server for | ||||
| other Clients. As a designated router, the s-ASBR advertises the | ||||
| MNPs of each of its active Clients into the ATN/IPS routing system | ||||
| and provides basic (unoptimized) forwarding services when necessary. | ||||
| An s-ASBR could be the first-hop ATN/IPS service access point for | ||||
| some, all or none of a Client's underlying interfaces, while the | ||||
| Client's other underlying interfaces employ the Proxy/Server function | ||||
| of other s-ASBRs. Route optimization allows Client-to-Client | ||||
| communications while bypassing s-ASBR designated routing services | ||||
| whenever possible. | ||||
| A route optimization example is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 below. | A route optimization example is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5 below. | |||
| In the first figure, multiple spanning tree segments between Proxys | In the first figure, multiple spanning tree segments between Proxy/ | |||
| and ASBRs are necessary to convey packets between Clients associated | Servers and ASBRs are necessary to convey packets between Clients | |||
| with different s-ASBRs. In the second figure, the optimized route | associated with different s-ASBRs. In the second figure, the | |||
| tunnels packets directly between Proxys without involving the ASBRs. | optimized route tunnels packets directly between Proxy/Servers | |||
| without involving the ASBRs. | ||||
| These route optimized paths are established through secured control | ||||
| plane messaging (i.e., over secured tunnels and/or using higher-layer | ||||
| control message authentications) but do not provide lower-layer | ||||
| security for the data plane. Data communications over these route | ||||
| optimized paths should therefore employ higher-layer security. | ||||
| +---------+ +---------+ | +---------+ +---------+ | |||
| | Client1 | | Client2 | | | Client1 | | Client2 | | |||
| +---v-----+ +-----^---+ | +---v-----+ +-----^---+ | |||
| * * | * * | |||
| * * | * * | |||
| (:::)-. (:::)-. | (:::)-. (:::)-. | |||
| .-(:::::::::)<- (Radio) Access Networks ->.-(:::::::::) | .-(:::::::::)<- (Radio) Access Networks ->.-(:::::::::) | |||
| `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' | `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' | |||
| +--------+ +--------+ | +--------+ +--------+ | |||
| skipping to change at page 17, line 41 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 41 ¶ | |||
| changes, BGP peer failures, and administrative state changes. BFD is | changes, BGP peer failures, and administrative state changes. BFD is | |||
| important in environments where rapid response to failures is | important in environments where rapid response to failures is | |||
| required for routing reconvergence and, hence, communications | required for routing reconvergence and, hence, communications | |||
| continuity. | continuity. | |||
| Each c-ASBR will be using eBGP both in the ATN/IPS and the INET with | Each c-ASBR will be using eBGP both in the ATN/IPS and the INET with | |||
| the ATN/IPS unicast IPv6 routes resolving over INET routes. | the ATN/IPS unicast IPv6 routes resolving over INET routes. | |||
| Consequently, c-ASBRs and potentially s-ASBRs will need to support | Consequently, c-ASBRs and potentially s-ASBRs will need to support | |||
| separate local ASes for the two BGP routing domains and routing | separate local ASes for the two BGP routing domains and routing | |||
| policy or assure routes are not propagated between the two BGP | policy or assure routes are not propagated between the two BGP | |||
| routing domains. From a conceptual and operational standpoint, the | routing domains. From a conceptual, operational and correctness | |||
| implementation should provide isolation between the two BGP routing | standpoint, the implementation should provide isolation between the | |||
| domains (e.g., separate BGP instances). | two BGP routing domains (e.g., separate BGP instances). | |||
| ADM-ULAs and MNP-ULAs begin with fd00::/8 followed by a pseudo-random | ADM-ULAs and MNP-ULAs begin with fd00::/8 followed by a pseudo-random | |||
| 40-bit global ID to form the prefix [ULA]::/48, along with a 16-bit | 40-bit global ID to form the prefix [ULA]::/48, along with a 16-bit | |||
| OMNI link identifier '*' to form the prefix [ULA*]::/64. Each | OMNI link identifier '*' to form the prefix [ULA*]::/64. Each | |||
| individual address taken from [ULA*]::/64 includes additional routing | individual address taken from [ULA*]::/64 includes additional routing | |||
| information in the interface identifier. For example, for the MNP | information in the interface identifier. For example, for the MNP | |||
| 2001:db8:1:0::/56, the resulting MNP-ULA is [ULA*]:2001:db8:1:0/120, | 2001:db8:1:0::/56, the resulting MNP-ULA is [ULA*]:2001:db8:1:0/120, | |||
| and for the administrative address 1001:2002/16 the ADM-ULA is | and for the administrative address 1001:2002/16 the ADM-ULA is | |||
| [ULA*]::1001:2002/112 (see: [I-D.templin-6man-omni] for further | [ULA*]::1001:2002/112 (see: [I-D.templin-6man-omni] for further | |||
| details). This gives rise to a BGP routing system that must | details). This gives rise to a BGP routing system that must | |||
| skipping to change at page 18, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 19, line 17 ¶ | |||
| ADM-ULA prefixes. The system is kept stable and scalable through the | ADM-ULA prefixes. The system is kept stable and scalable through the | |||
| s-ASBR / c-ASBR hub-and-spokes topology which ensures that mobility- | s-ASBR / c-ASBR hub-and-spokes topology which ensures that mobility- | |||
| related churn is not exposed to the core. | related churn is not exposed to the core. | |||
| 7. Stub AS Mobile Routing Services | 7. Stub AS Mobile Routing Services | |||
| Stub ASes maintain intradomain routing information for mobile node | Stub ASes maintain intradomain routing information for mobile node | |||
| clients, and are responsible for all localized mobility signaling | clients, and are responsible for all localized mobility signaling | |||
| without disturbing the BGP routing system. Clients can enlist the | without disturbing the BGP routing system. Clients can enlist the | |||
| services of a candidate mobility service such as Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) | services of a candidate mobility service such as Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) | |||
| [RFC6275], LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] and AERO | [RFC6275], LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] or AERO | |||
| [I-D.templin-6man-aero] according to the service offered by the stub | [I-D.templin-6man-aero] according to the service offered by the stub | |||
| AS. Further details of mobile routing services are out of scope for | AS. Further details of mobile routing services are out of scope for | |||
| this document. | this document. | |||
| 8. Implementation Status | 8. Implementation Status | |||
| The BGP routing topology described in this document has been modeled | The BGP routing topology described in this document has been modeled | |||
| in realistic network emulations showing that at least 1 million MNP- | in realistic network emulations showing that at least 1 million MNP- | |||
| ULAs can be propagated to each c-ASBR even on lightweight virtual | ULAs can be propagated to each c-ASBR even on lightweight virtual | |||
| machines. No BGP routing protocol extensions need to be adopted. | machines. No BGP routing protocol extensions need to be adopted. | |||
| 9. IANA Considerations | 9. IANA Considerations | |||
| This document does not introduce any IANA considerations. | This document does not introduce any IANA considerations. | |||
| 10. Security Considerations | 10. Security Considerations | |||
| ATN/IPS ASBRs on the open Internet are susceptible to the same attack | ATN/IPS ASBRs on the open Internet are susceptible to the same attack | |||
| profiles as for any Internet nodes. For this reason, ASBRs should | profiles as for any Internet nodes. For this reason, ASBRs should | |||
| employ physical security and/or IP securing mechanisms such as IPsec | employ physical security and/or IP securing mechanisms such as IPsec | |||
| [RFC4301], TLS [RFC5246], WireGuard, etc. | [RFC4301], WireGuard [WG], etc. | |||
| ATN/IPS ASBRs present targets for Distributed Denial of Service | ATN/IPS ASBRs present targets for Distributed Denial of Service | |||
| (DDoS) attacks. This concern is no different than for any node on | (DDoS) attacks. This concern is no different than for any node on | |||
| the open Internet, where attackers could send spoofed packets to the | the open Internet, where attackers could send spoofed packets to the | |||
| node at high data rates. This can be mitigated by connecting ATN/IPS | node at high data rates. This can be mitigated by connecting ATN/IPS | |||
| ASBRs over dedicated links with no connections to the Internet and/or | ASBRs over dedicated links with no connections to the Internet and/or | |||
| when ASBR connections to the Internet are only permitted through | when ASBR connections to the Internet are only permitted through | |||
| well-managed firewalls. | well-managed firewalls. | |||
| ATN/IPS s-ASBRs should institute rate limits to protect low data rate | ATN/IPS s-ASBRs should institute rate limits to protect low data rate | |||
| aviation data links from receiving DDoS packet floods. | aviation data links from receiving DDoS packet floods. | |||
| BGP protocol message exchanges and control message exchanges used for | BGP protocol message exchanges and control message exchanges used for | |||
| route optimization must be secured to ensure the integrity of the | route optimization must be secured to ensure the integrity of the | |||
| system-wide routing information base. | system-wide routing information base. Security is based on IP layer | |||
| security associations between peers which ensure confidentiality, | ||||
| integrity and authentication over secured tunnels (see above). | ||||
| Higher layer security protection such as TCP-AO [RFC5926] is | ||||
| therefore optional, since it would be redundant with the security | ||||
| provided at lower layers. | ||||
| Data communications over route optimized paths should employ end-to- | ||||
| end higher-layer security since only the control plane and | ||||
| unoptimized paths are protected by lower-layer security. End-to-end | ||||
| higher-layer security mechanisms include QUIC-TLS [RFC9001], TLS | ||||
| [RFC8446], DTLS [RFC6347], SSH [RFC4251], etc. applied in a manner | ||||
| outside the scope of this document. | ||||
| This document does not include any new specific requirements for | This document does not include any new specific requirements for | |||
| mitigation of DDoS. | mitigation of DDoS. | |||
| 10.1. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Considerations | ||||
| In development of the overall ATN/IPS operational concept, ICAO | ||||
| addressed the security concerns in multiple ways to ensure | ||||
| coordination and consistency across the various groups. This also | ||||
| avoided potential duplicative work. Technical provisions related | ||||
| specifically to the operation of ATN/IPS are specified in supporting | ||||
| ATN/IPS standards. However, other considerations such as the | ||||
| establishment of a PKI, were determined to have an impact beyond ATN/ | ||||
| IPS. ICAO created a Trust Framework Study Group (TFSG) to define | ||||
| various governance, policy, procedures and overall technical | ||||
| performance requirements for system connectivity and | ||||
| interoperability. | ||||
| As part of their charter, the TSFG is specifically developing a | ||||
| concept of operations for a common aviation digital trust framework | ||||
| and principles to facilitate an interoperable secure, cyber resilient | ||||
| and seamless exchange of information in a digitally connected | ||||
| environment. They are also developing governance principles, policy, | ||||
| procedures and requirements for establishing digital identity for a | ||||
| global trust framework that will consider any exchange of information | ||||
| among users of the aviation ecosystem, and to promote these concepts | ||||
| with all relevant stakeholders. | ||||
| ATN/IPS will take advantage of the developments of TFSG within the | ||||
| overall ATN/IPS operational concept. As such, this will include the | ||||
| usage of the PKI specification resulting from the TFSG. | ||||
| 11. Acknowledgements | 11. Acknowledgements | |||
| This work is aligned with the FAA as per the SE2025 contract number | This work is aligned with the FAA as per the SE2025 contract number | |||
| DTFAWA-15-D-00030. | DTFAWA-15-D-00030. | |||
| This work is aligned with the NASA Safe Autonomous Systems Operation | This work is aligned with the NASA Safe Autonomous Systems Operation | |||
| (SASO) program under NASA contract number NNA16BD84C. | (SASO) program under NASA contract number NNA16BD84C. | |||
| This work is aligned with the Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) | This work is aligned with the Boeing Commercial Airplanes (BCA) | |||
| Internet of Things (IoT) and autonomy programs. | Internet of Things (IoT) and autonomy programs. | |||
| This work is aligned with the Boeing Information Technology (BIT) | This work is aligned with the Boeing Information Technology (BIT) | |||
| MobileNet program. | MobileNet program. | |||
| The following individuals contributed insights that have improved the | The following individuals contributed insights that have improved the | |||
| document: Ahmad Amin, Erik Kline, Hubert Kuenig, Tony Li, Alexandre | document: Ahmad Amin, Mach Chen, Russ Housley, Erik Kline, Hubert | |||
| Petrescu, Pascal Thubert, Tony Whyman. | Kuenig, Tony Li, Gyan Mishra, Alexandre Petrescu, Dave Thaler, Pascal | |||
| Thubert, Tony Whyman. | ||||
| 12. References | 12. References | |||
| 12.1. Normative References | 12.1. Normative References | |||
| [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in | [RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in | |||
| IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, | IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473, | |||
| December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>. | December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>. | |||
| [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast | [RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast | |||
| skipping to change at page 21, line 16 ¶ | skipping to change at page 23, line 4 ¶ | |||
| Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. | Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A. | |||
| Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", | Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", | |||
| Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- | Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp- | |||
| rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020, | rfc6830bis-36, 18 November 2020, | |||
| <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp- | <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp- | |||
| rfc6830bis-36.txt>. | rfc6830bis-36.txt>. | |||
| [I-D.templin-6man-aero] | [I-D.templin-6man-aero] | |||
| Templin, F. L., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization | Templin, F. L., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization | |||
| (AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin- | (AERO)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin- | |||
| 6man-aero-37, 15 November 2021, | 6man-aero-38, 31 December 2021, | |||
| <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-aero- | <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-templin-6man-aero- | |||
| 37.txt>. | 38.txt>. | |||
| [I-D.templin-6man-omni] | [I-D.templin-6man-omni] | |||
| Templin, F. L. and T. Whyman, "Transmission of IP Packets | Templin, F. L. and T. Whyman, "Transmission of IP Packets | |||
| over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in | over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in | |||
| Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni-51, 15 | Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni-52, 31 | |||
| November 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft- | December 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft- | |||
| templin-6man-omni-51.txt>. | templin-6man-omni-52.txt>. | |||
| [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. | [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. | |||
| Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, | Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>. | |||
| [RFC4251] Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, Ed., "The Secure Shell (SSH) | ||||
| Protocol Architecture", RFC 4251, DOI 10.17487/RFC4251, | ||||
| January 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4251>. | ||||
| [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the | [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the | |||
| Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, | Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, | |||
| December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>. | December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>. | |||
| [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security | [RFC5926] Lebovitz, G. and E. Rescorla, "Cryptographic Algorithms | |||
| (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, | for the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)", RFC 5926, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, | DOI 10.17487/RFC5926, June 2010, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5926>. | |||
| [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility | [RFC6275] Perkins, C., Ed., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility | |||
| Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July | Support in IPv6", RFC 6275, DOI 10.17487/RFC6275, July | |||
| 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. | 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6275>. | |||
| [RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer | ||||
| Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347, | ||||
| January 2012, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>. | ||||
| [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet | [RFC6793] Vohra, Q. and E. Chen, "BGP Support for Four-Octet | |||
| Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, | Autonomous System (AS) Number Space", RFC 6793, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, | DOI 10.17487/RFC6793, December 2012, | |||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>. | <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6793>. | |||
| [RFC6996] Mitchell, J., "Autonomous System (AS) Reservation for | ||||
| Private Use", BCP 6, RFC 6996, DOI 10.17487/RFC6996, July | ||||
| 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6996>. | ||||
| [RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol | ||||
| Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>. | ||||
| [RFC9001] Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure | ||||
| QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021, | ||||
| <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9001>. | ||||
| [WG] Donenfeld, J., "WireGuard: Fast, Modern, Secure VPN | ||||
| Tunnel, https://www.wireguard.com/", February 2022. | ||||
| Appendix A. BGP Convergence Considerations | Appendix A. BGP Convergence Considerations | |||
| Experimental evidence has shown that BGP convergence time required | Experimental evidence has shown that BGP convergence time required | |||
| for when an MNP-ULA is asserted at a new location or withdrawn from | after an MNP-ULA is asserted at a new location or withdrawn from an | |||
| an old location can be several hundred milliseconds even under | old location can be several hundred milliseconds even under optimal | |||
| optimal AS peering arrangements. This means that packets in flight | AS peering arrangements. This means that packets in flight destined | |||
| destined to an MNP-ULA route that has recently been changed can be | to an MNP-ULA route that has recently been changed can be | |||
| (mis)delivered to an old s-ASBR after a Client has moved to a new | (mis)delivered to an old s-ASBR after a Client has moved to a new | |||
| s-ASBR. | s-ASBR. | |||
| To address this issue, the old s-ASBR can maintain temporary state | To address this issue, the old s-ASBR can maintain temporary state | |||
| for a "departed" Client that includes an OAL address for the new | for a "departed" Client that includes an OAL address for the new | |||
| s-ASBR. The OAL address never changes since ASBRs are fixed | s-ASBR. The OAL address never changes since ASBRs are fixed | |||
| infrastructure elements that never move. Hence, packets arriving at | infrastructure elements that never move. Hence, packets arriving at | |||
| the old s-ASBR can be forwarded to the new s-ASBR while the BGP | the old s-ASBR can be forwarded to the new s-ASBR while the BGP | |||
| routing system is still undergoing reconvergence. Therefore, as long | routing system is still undergoing reconvergence. Therefore, as long | |||
| as the Client associates with the new s-ASBR before it departs from | as the Client associates with the new s-ASBR before it departs from | |||
| End of changes. 42 change blocks. | ||||
| 127 lines changed or deleted | 231 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||