idnits 2.17.1 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-07.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was first submitted on or after 10 November 2008. The disclaimer is usually necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and that take significant amounts of text from those RFCs. If you can contact all authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer. Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date () is 739355 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Experimental ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Missing Reference: 'RFC4984' is mentioned on line 96, but not defined Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Draft RJ Atkinson 3 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-07.txt Consultant 4 Expires: 10 JAN 2013 SN Bhatti 5 Category: Experimental U. St Andrews 6 10 JUL 2012 8 ARP Extension for ILNPv4 9 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arp-07.txt 11 Status of this Memo 13 Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 15 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 16 document authors. All rights reserved. 18 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 19 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 20 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 21 publication of this document. Please review these documents 22 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with 23 respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this 24 document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in 25 Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without 26 warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or 32 IETF Contributions published or made publicly available 33 before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright 34 in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the 35 right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF 36 Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from 37 the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this 38 document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, 39 and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF 40 Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC 41 or to translate it into languages other than English. 43 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 44 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 45 other groups may also distribute working documents as 46 Internet-Drafts. 48 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 49 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 50 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts 51 as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in 52 progress." 54 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 55 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html 57 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 58 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 60 This document is not on the IETF standards-track and does not 61 specify any level of standard. This document merely provides 62 information for the Internet community. 64 This document is part of the ILNP document set, and has had 65 extensive review within the IRTF Routing Research Group. ILNP is 66 one of the recommendations made by the RG Chairs. Separately, 67 various refereed research papers on ILNP have also been published 68 during this decade. So the ideas contained herein have had much 69 broader review than the IRTF Routing RG. The views in this 70 document were considered controversial by the Routing RG, but the 71 RG reached a consensus that the document still should be 72 published. The Routing RG has had remarkably little consensus on 73 anything, so virtually all Routing RG outputs are considered 74 controversial. 76 Abstract 78 This document defines an Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) 79 extension to support ILNP for IPv4 (ILNPv4). ILNP is is an 80 experimental, evolutionary enhancement to IP. This document is a 81 product of the IRTF Routing RG. 83 Table of Contents 85 1. Introduction............................. 86 2. ARP Extension for ILNPv4................. 87 3. Security Considerations.................. 88 4. IANA Considerations...................... 89 5. References............................... 91 1. INTRODUCTION 93 At present, the Internet research and development community are 94 exploring various approaches to evolving the Internet 95 Architecture to solve a variety of issues including, but not 96 limited to, scalability of inter-domain routing [RFC4984]. A wide 97 range of other issues (e.g. site multi-homing, node multi-homing, 98 site/subnet mobility, node mobility) are also active concerns at 99 present. Several different classes of evolution are being 100 considered by the Internet research & development community. One 101 class is often called "Map and Encapsulate", where traffic would 102 be mapped and then tunnelled through the inter-domain core of the 103 Internet. Another class being considered is sometimes known as 104 "Identifier/Locator Split". This document relates to a proposal 105 that is in the latter class of evolutionary approaches. 107 The Identifier Locator Network Protocol (ILNP) is a proposal for 108 evolving the Internet Architecture. It differs from the current 109 Internet Architecture primarily by deprecating the concept of an 110 IP Address, and instead defining two new objects, each having 111 crisp syntax and semantics. The first new object is the Locator, a 112 topology-dependent name for a subnetwork. The other new object is 113 the Identifier, which provides a topology-independent name for a 114 node. 116 1.1 ILNP Document Roadmap 118 This document describes describes extensions to ARP for use with 119 ILNPv4. 121 The ILNP architecture can have more than one engineering 122 instantiation. For example, one can imagine a "clean-slate" 123 engineering design based on the ILNP architecture. In separate 124 documents, we describe two specific engineering instances of 125 ILNP. The term ILNPv6 refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that 126 is based upon, and backwards compatible with, IPv6. The term ILNPv4 127 refers precisely to an instance of ILNP that is based upon, and 128 backwards compatible with, IPv4. 130 Many engineering aspects common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6 are 131 described in [ILNP-ENG]. A full engineering specification for 132 either ILNPv6 or ILNPv4 is beyond the scope of this document. 134 Readers are referred to other related ILNP documents for details 135 not described here: 137 a) [ILNP-ARCH] is the main architectural description of ILNP, 138 including the concept of operations. 140 b) [ILNP-ENG] describes engineering and implementation 141 considerations that are common to both ILNPv4 and ILNPv6. 143 c) [ILNP-DNS] defines additional DNS resource records that 144 support ILNP. 146 d) [ILNP-ICMPv6] defines a new ICMPv6 Locator Update message 147 used by an ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes 148 of any changes to its set of valid Locators. 150 e) [ILNP-NONCEv6] defines a new IPv6 Nonce Destination Option 151 used by ILNPv6 nodes (1) to indicate to ILNP correspondent 152 nodes (by inclusion within the initial packets of an ILNP 153 session) that the node is operating in the ILNP mode and 154 (2) to prevent off-path attacks against ILNP ICMP messages. 155 This Nonce is used, for example, with all ILNP ICMPv6 156 Locator Update messages that are exchanged among ILNP 157 correspondent nodes. 159 f) [ILNP-ICMPv4] defines a new ICMPv4 Locator Update message 160 used by an ILNP node to inform its correspondent nodes 161 of any changes to its set of valid Locators. 163 g) [ILNP-v4OPTS] defines a new IPv4 Nonce Option used by ILNPv4 164 nodes to carry a security nonce to prevent off-path attacks 165 against ILNP ICMP messages and also defines a new IPv4 166 Identifier Option used by ILNPv4 nodes. 168 h) [ILNP-ADV] describes optional engineering and deployment 169 functions for ILNP. These are not required for the operation 170 or use of ILNP and are provided as additional options. 172 1.2 Terminology 174 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL 175 NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 176 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described 177 in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 179 2. ARP Extensions for ILNPv4 181 ILNP for IPv4 (ILNPv4) is merely a different instantiation of the 182 ILNP architecture, so it retains the crisp distinction between the 183 Locator and the Identifier. As with ILNPv6, only the Locator 184 values are used for routing and forwarding ILNPv4 packets 185 [ILNP-ARCH]. As with ILNP for IPv6 (ILNPv6), when ILNPv4 is used 186 for a network-layer session, the upper-layer protocols (e.g. 187 TCP/UDP pseudo-header checksum, IPsec Security Association) bind 188 only to the Identifiers, never to the Locators [ILNP-ENG]. 190 However, just as the packet format for IPv4 is different to IPv6, 191 so the engineering details for ILNPv4 are different also. While 192 ILNPv6 is carefully engineered to be fully backwards-compatible 193 with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, ILNPv4 relies upon an extended 194 version of the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC826] which 195 is defined here. While ILNPv4 could have been engineered to avoid 196 changes in ARP, that would have required that the ILNPv4 Locator 197 (i.e. L32) have slightly different semantics, which was 198 architecturally undesirable. 200 The packet formats used are direct extensions of the existing 201 widely deployed ARP Request (OP code 1) and ARP Reply (OP code 2) 202 packet formats. This design was chosen for practical engineering 203 reasons (i.e. to maximise code reuse), rather than for maximum 204 protocol design purity. 206 We anticipate that ILNPv6 is much more likely to be widely 207 implemented and deployed than ILNPv4. However, having a clear 208 definition of ILNPv4 helps demonstrate the difference between 209 architecture and engineering, and also demonstrates that the 210 common ILNP architecture can be instantiated in different ways 211 with different existing network-layer protocols. 213 2.1 ILNPv4 ARP Request Packet Format 215 The ILNPv4 ARP Request is an extended version of the widely 216 deployed ARP Request (OP code 1). For experimentation purposes, 217 the ILNPv4 ARP Request OP code uses decimal value 24. It is 218 important to note that decimal value 24 is a pre-defined, 219 shared-use experimental OP code for ARP [RFC5494], and is not 220 uniquely assigned to ILNPv4 ARP Requests. The ILNPv4 ARP Request 221 extension permits the Node's Identifier (NID) values to be carried 222 in the ARP message, in addition to the node's 32-bit Locator 223 (L32) values [ILNP-DNS]. 225 0 7 15 23 31 226 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 227 | HT | PT | 228 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 229 | HAL | PAL | OP | 230 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 231 | S_HA (bytes 0-3) | 232 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 233 | S_HA (bytes 4-5)|S_L32 (bytes 0-1)| 234 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 235 |S_L32 (bytes 2-3)|S_NID (bytes 0-1)| 236 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 237 | S_NID (bytes 2-5) | 238 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 239 |S_ID (bytes 6-7) | T_HA (bytes 0-1)| 240 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 241 | T_HA (bytes 3-5) | 242 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 243 | T_L32 (bytes 0-3) | 244 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 245 | T_NID (bytes 0-3) | 246 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 247 | T_NID (bytes 4-7) | 248 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 250 Figure 2.1: ILNPv4 ARP Request packet format 252 In the diagram of Fig 2.1, the fields are as follows: 254 HT Hardware Type (*) 255 PT Protocol Type (*) 256 HAL Hardware Address Length (*) 257 PAL Protocol Address Length (uses new value 12) 258 OP Operation Code (uses experimental value OP_EXP1=24) 259 S_HA Sender Hardware Address (*) 260 S_L32 Sender L32 (* same as Sender IPv4 address for ARP) 261 S_NID Sender Node Identifier (8 bytes) 262 T_HA Target Hardware Address (*) 263 T_L32 Target L32 (* same as Target IPv4 address for ARP) 264 T_NID Target Node Identifier (8 bytes) 266 The changed OP code indicates that this is ILNPv4 and not IPv4. 267 The semantics and usage of the ILNPv4 ARP Request are identical 268 to the existing ARP Request (OP code 2), except that the ILNPv4 269 ARP Request is sent only by nodes that support ILNPv4. 271 The field descriptions marked with "*" should have the same 272 values as for ARP as used for IPv4. 274 2.2 ILNPv4 ARP Reply Packet Format 276 The ILNPv4 ARP Reply is an extended version of the widely 277 deployed ARP Reply (OP code 2). For experimentation purposes, 278 the ILNPv4 ARP Request OP code uses decimal value 25. It is 279 important to note that decimal value 25 is a pre-defined, 280 shared-use experimental OP code for ARP [RFC5494], and is not 281 uniquely assigned to ILNPv4 ARP Requests. Th ILNPv4 ARP Reply 282 extension permits the Node's Identifier (NID) values to be carried 283 in the ARP message, in addition to the node's 32-bit Locator 284 (L32) values [ILNP-DNS]. 286 0 7 15 23 31 287 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 288 | HT | PT | 289 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 290 | HAL | PAL | OP | 291 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 292 | S_HA (bytes 0-3) | 293 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 294 | S_HA (bytes 4-5)|S_L32 (bytes 0-1)| 295 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 296 |S_L32 (bytes 2-3)|S_NID (bytes 0-1)| 297 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 298 | S_NID (bytes 2-5) | 299 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 300 |S_ID (bytes 6-7) | T_HA (bytes 0-1)| 301 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 302 | T_HA (bytes 3-5) | 303 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 304 | T_L32 (bytes 0-3) | 305 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 306 | T_NID (bytes 0-3) | 307 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 308 | T_NID (bytes 4-7) | 309 +--------+--------+--------+--------+ 311 Figure 2.2: ILNPv4 ARP Reply packet format 313 In the diagram of Fig 2.2, the fields are as follows: 315 HT Hardware Type (*) 316 PT Protocol Type (*) 317 HAL Hardware Address Length (*) 318 PAL Protocol Address Length (uses new value 12) 319 OP Operation Code (uses experimental value OP_EXP2=25) 320 S_HA Sender Hardware Address (*) 321 S_L32 Sender L32 (* same as Sender IPv4 address for ARP) 322 S_NID Sender Node Identifier (8 bytes) 323 T_HA Target Hardware Address (*) 324 T_L32 Target L32 (* same as Target IPv4 address for ARP) 325 T_NID Target Node Identifier (8 bytes) 327 The changed OP code indicates that this is ILNPv4 and not IPv4. 328 The semantics and usage of the ILNPv4 ARP Reply are identical to 329 the existing ARP Reply (OP code 2), except that the ILNPv4 ARP 330 Reply is sent only by nodes that support ILNPv4. 332 The field descriptions marked with "*" should have the same 333 values as for ARP as used for IPv4. 335 2.3 Operation and Implementation of ARP for ILNPv4 337 The operation of ARP for ILNPv4 is almost identical to that for 338 IPv4. Essentially, the key difference is: 340 a) where an IPv4 ARP Request would use IPv4 addresses, an 341 ILNPv4 ARP Request MUST use: 342 1. a 32-bit L32 value (_L32 suffixes in Figs 2.1 & 2.2) 343 2. a 64-bit NID value (_NID suffixes in Figs 2.1 & Fig 2.2) 345 b) where an IPv4 ARP Reply would use IPv4 addresses, an 346 ILNPv4 ARP Reply MUST use: 347 1. a 32-bit L32 value (_L32 suffixes in Figs 2.1 & 2.2) 348 2. a 64-bit NID value (_NID suffixes in Figs 2.1 & Fig 2.2) 350 As the OP codes 24 and 25 are distinct from ARP for IPv4, but 351 the packet formats are Figs 2.1 and 2.2 are, effectively, extended 352 versions of the corresponding ARP packets, it should be possible 353 to implement this extension of ARP by extending existing ARP 354 implementations rather than having to write an entirely new 355 implementation for ILNPv4. It should be emphasised, however, that 356 OP codes 24 and 25 are for experimental use as defined in [RFC5494], 357 and so it is possible that other experimental protocols could be 358 using these OP codes concurrently. 360 3. SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS 362 Security considerations for the overall ILNP Architecture are 363 described in [ILNP-ARCH]. Additional common security 364 considerations applicable to ILNP are described in [ILNP-ENG]. 365 This section describes security considerations specific to the 366 specific ILNPv4 topics discussed in this document. 368 The existing widely deployed Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) 369 for IP version 4 (IPv4) is a link-layer protocol, so it is not 370 vulnerable to off-link attackers. In this way, it is a bit 371 different than IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND); IPv6 ND is a subset 372 of the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), which runs over 373 the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). 375 However, ARP does not include any form of authentication, so 376 current ARP deployments are vulnerable to a range of attacks from 377 on-link nodes. For example, it is possible for one node on a link 378 to forge an ARP packet claiming to be from another node, thereby 379 "stealing" the other node's IPv4 address. [RFC5227] both 380 describes several of these risks and also describes some measures 381 that an ARP implementation can use to reduce the chance of 382 accidental IPv4 address misconfiguration and also to detect such 383 misconfiguration if it should occur. 385 This extension does not change the security risks that are 386 inherent in using ARP. 388 In situations where additional protection against on-link 389 attackers is needed, for example within high-risk operational 390 environments, the IEEE standards for link-layer security 391 [IEEE-802.1-AE] SHOULD be implemented and deployed. 393 Implementers of this specification need to understand that the 2 394 OP code values used for these 2 extensions are not uniquely 395 assigned to ILNPv4. Other experimenters might be using the same 396 2 OP code values at the same time for different ARP-related 397 experiments. Absent prior coordination among all users of a 398 particular IP subnetwork, different experiments might be 399 occurring on the same IP subnetwork. So implementations of these 400 2 ARP extensions ought to be especially defensively coded. 402 4. IANA CONSIDERATIONS 404 This document makes no request of IANA. 406 If in future the IETF decided to standardise ILNPv4, then 407 allocation of unique ARP OP codes for the two extensions above 408 as part of the IETF standardisation process would be sensible. 410 5. REFERENCES 412 This document has both Normative and Informational References. 414 5.1 Normative References 416 [RFC826] D. Plummer, "An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol", 417 RFC-826, Nov 1982. 419 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to 420 Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC-2119, 421 March 1997. 423 [RFC5227] S. Cheshire, "IPv4 Address Conflict Detection", 424 RFC-5227, July 2008. 426 [RFC5494] J. Arkko & C. Pignataro, "IANA Allocation Guidelines 427 for the Address Resolution Protocol", RFC-5494, 428 April 2009. 430 [IEEE-802.1-AE] IEEE, "Media Access Control (MAC) Security", 431 IEEE Standard 802.1 AE, 18 August 2006, IEEE, 432 New York, NY, 10016, USA. 434 [ILNP-ARCH] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, 435 "ILNP Architectural Description", 436 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-arch, 10 July 2012. 438 [ILNP-DNS] R.J. Atkinson, S.N. Bhatti, & S Rose, 439 "DNS Resource Records for ILNP", 440 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-dns, 10 July 2012. 442 [ILNP-ENG] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, 443 "ILNP Engineering and Implementation Considerations", 444 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-eng, 10 July 2012. 446 [ILNP-ICMPv4] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, 447 "ICMPv4 Locator Update message" 448 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv4, 10 July 2012. 450 [ILNP-v4OPTS] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, 451 "IPv4 Options for ILNP", 452 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-v4opts, 10 July 2012. 454 5.2 Informative References 456 [ILNP-ICMPv6] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, 457 "ICMPv6 Locator Update message" 458 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-icmpv6, 10 July 2012. 460 [ILNP-NONCEv6] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, 461 "IPv6 Nonce Destination Option for ILNPv6", 462 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-noncev6, 10 July 2012. 464 [ILNP-ADV] R.J. Atkinson & S.N. Bhatti, 465 "Optional Advanced Deployment Scenarios for ILNP", 466 draft-irtf-rrg-ilnp-adv, 10 July 2012. 468 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 470 Steve Blake, Stephane Bortzmeyer, Mohamed Boucadair, Noel 471 Chiappa, Wes George, Steve Hailes, Joel Halpern, Mark Handley, 472 Volker Hilt, Paul Jakma, Dae-Young Kim, Tony Li, Yakov Rehkter, 473 Bruce Simpson, Robin Whittle and John Wroclawski (in alphabetical 474 order) provided review and feedback on earlier versions of this 475 document. Steve Blake provided an especially thorough review of 476 an early version of the entire ILNP document set, which was 477 extremely helpful. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers 478 of the various ILNP papers for their feedback. 480 Roy Arends provided expert guidance on technical and procedural 481 aspects of DNS issues. 483 RFC EDITOR NOTE 485 This section is to be removed prior to publication. 487 Please note that this document is written in British English, so 488 British English spelling is used throughout. This is consistent 489 with existing practice in several other RFCs, for example 490 RFC-5887. 492 This document tries to be very careful with history, in the 493 interest of correctly crediting ideas to their earliest 494 identifiable author(s). So in several places the first published 495 RFC about a topic is cited rather than the most recent published 496 RFC about that topic. 498 AUTHOR'S ADDRESS 500 RJ Atkinson 501 Consultant 502 San Jose, CA, 503 95125 USA 505 Email: rja.lists@gmail.com 507 SN Bhatti 508 School of Computer Science 509 University of St Andrews 510 North Haugh, St Andrews 511 Fife, Scotland 512 KY16 9SX, UK 514 Email: saleem@cs.st-andrews.ac.uk 516 Expires: 10 JAN 2013