idnits 2.17.1 draft-penno-pcp-zones-01.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 date (October 20, 2011) is 4572 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'RFC0959' is defined on line 231, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2766' is defined on line 237, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2960' is defined on line 241, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4787' is defined on line 246, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4966' is defined on line 250, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5382' is defined on line 254, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5508' is defined on line 258, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-behave-address-format' is defined on line 264, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-behave-dns64' is defined on line 270, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64' is defined on line 277, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework' is defined on line 281, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful' is defined on line 287, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-pcp-base' is defined on line 294, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'I-D.wing-behave-dns64-config' is defined on line 299, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC3261' is defined on line 304, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5245' is defined on line 309, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5853' is defined on line 314, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2766 (Obsoleted by RFC 4966) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2960 (Obsoleted by RFC 4960) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 4966 == Outdated reference: A later version (-29) exists of draft-ietf-pcp-base-16 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5245 (Obsoleted by RFC 8445, RFC 8839) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 19 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Port Control Protocol R. Penno 3 Internet-Draft Juniper Networks 4 Intended status: Standards Track October 20, 2011 5 Expires: April 22, 2012 7 PCP Support for Multi-Zone Environments 8 draft-penno-pcp-zones-01 10 Abstract 12 A zone is a notion which denotes a routing instance, a set interfaces 13 or prefixes characterized by having a different address realm and/or 14 security policy. A NAT device can route packets with the same source 15 IP address to different zones depending on configuration policies 16 such as destination IP address. This functionality has been present 17 for many years in NAT devices from multiple vendors. PCP allows a 18 host to interact with a PCP-controlled NAT device and request an 19 external IP and port. Therefore a PCP Server that controls the NAT 20 device and receives a PCP request from a host needs to know from 21 which NAT pool to allocate an external IP address and port. This 22 document specifies an extension to PCP to support the zone concept. 24 Requirements Language 26 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 27 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 28 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 30 Status of this Memo 32 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 33 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 35 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 36 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 37 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 38 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 40 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 41 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 42 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 43 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 45 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 22, 2012. 47 Copyright Notice 48 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 49 document authors. All rights reserved. 51 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 52 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 53 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 54 publication of this document. Please review these documents 55 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 56 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 57 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 58 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 59 described in the Simplified BSD License. 61 Table of Contents 63 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 1.2. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 66 1.3. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 2. PCP Base Support for Multiple Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 2.1. PCP PEER Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 2.2. PCP MAP Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 70 3. PCP Extension for Multiple Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 72 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 73 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 74 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 75 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 76 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 77 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 79 1. Introduction 81 A zone is a routing instance, set interfaces or prefixes 82 characterized by having a different address domain or security 83 policy. A NAT device is present on each zone through NAT pools which 84 are used to translate packet to and from a zone. The PCP protocol 85 allows a host to interact with a NAT device and request a external IP 86 and port. Since a NAT Device can route packets with the same source 87 IP address to different Zones depending on policy or packet match 88 conditions, the PCP Server that interacts with the NAT device and 89 receives a PCP request from a host needs to know from which NAT pool 90 to allocate an IP address and port. 92 1.1. Terminology 94 This document uses PCP terminology defined in [I-D.ietf-pcp-base]]. 95 In addition the following terms are defined in this document: 97 o Zone: A routing instance, set of interfaces or network prefixes 98 that has a separate addressing domain or security policy. 100 o Address Domain: A collection of IP addresses. A NAT device is 101 present on each domain through one or more NAT pools associated 102 with each Zone. 104 1.2. Problem Statement 106 A PCP Server can control a NAT attached to distinct zones; each zone 107 is characterised by one or several address pools. In such 108 environment the NAT must rely on a pre-configured policy to determine 109 which address pool to use when handling an IP packet coming from an 110 internal host. An example of such policy may be to rely on the 111 destination IP address, DSCP value(s), protocol (e.g., SIP, RTP, 112 RTSP), etc. 114 ,-----. 115 ,' `. 116 .( Zone IPTV ) 117 ,-------. .-' `. ,' 118 ,-' Zone `-. .' `-----' 119 Host Access \ CGN .-' ,-------. 120 +----+-----+ +---+------+ .' ,' `. 121 |PCP Client|-------|PCP Server|.'------------(Zone Internet) 122 +----+-----+ +---+------+ `-. `. ,' 123 \ / `. `-------' \ 124 `-. ,-' `-. ,-----. `. 125 `-------' `. / \ ) 126 `-( Zone VPN-------' 127 \ / 128 `-----' 130 The core of the problem is that packets from the same source IP 131 address can be routed to any of the zones depending on match 132 conditions based on the 5-tuple. Moreover, sessions could be 133 initiated from any of these zones toward the host. These zones many 134 times have different addressing domains and therefore different NAT 135 pools. This means that packets from the host will use a different 136 NAT pool depending on the destination zone. 138 It is important to notice that zones (or similar concept) has been 139 present in Enteprise NAT and CGN from multiple vendors for many 140 years. It is the advent and interaction with PCP that has created a 141 need for a standardized approach. 143 1.3. Scope 145 The matching conditions that ultimately decide where to route a 146 packet can be very elaborate including even application layer 147 information. But the scope of this document is to abstract such 148 implementation specific approaches behind the concept of a Zone-ID. 150 2. PCP Base Support for Multiple Zones 152 Before discussing extensions to the PCP protocol in the following 153 sections we discuss how to support multiple zones with the current 154 methods present in the base PCP protocol. 156 2.1. PCP PEER Request 158 A PCP PEER request could contains the destination IP address, port 159 and Transport protocol of the peer the host will be trying to 160 communicate . In that case, if the NAT device maintains a mapping of 161 zones (and associated NAT pools) to network prefixes it can choose 162 the appropriate NAT pool. It is important to understand that this 163 will only work if the policy that decides to which Zone to route 164 packets is only based on the information present on the PCP PEER 165 request. 167 Therefore if the PCP Client knows it is behind a NAT with zone 168 support, it is RECOMMENDED that it includes the remote peer's 5-tuple 169 in the PCP PEER request in the connect-then-lifetime case. If the 170 peer's 5-tuple is not present in the PCP request, the external IP and 171 port returned in the message is non-deterministic. 173 2.2. PCP MAP Request 175 In the case of PCP MAP request the NAT device does not know from 176 which zone to install a mapping and consequently from which NAT pool 177 to choose an external IP address and port. A FILTER Option may be 178 included to allow the PCP Server select the external address pool to 179 use. If other information than the destination IP address is used to 180 drive the selection of the external address pool, additional 181 information is required to be conveyed in the PCP MAP request (e.g., 182 DSCP marking policy (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/ 183 draft-boucadair-pcp-extensions-01#section-3). 185 3. PCP Extension for Multiple Zones 187 The proposed PCP extension is a new PCP Option that would convey the 188 Zone-ID. The Zone-ID is an opaque identifier that is known by the 189 PCP Client and the PCP-controlled NAT device. The procedure to 190 provision the Zone-ID is out of scope. 192 When the NAT device receives a PCP request with a Zone-ID, it will 193 use that or a derivative of it to determine the NAT pool from which 194 to allocate an IP address and port. 196 Option Name: ZONEID 198 Number: TBA (IANA); Mandatory to process 200 Purpose: It allows the client request and server indicate from 201 which Zone-ID the external IP:port were allocated. 203 Valid for Opcodes: MAP, PEER 205 Length: Variable 206 May appear in: both 208 Maximum occurrences: 1 210 4. IANA Considerations 212 TBD 214 5. Security Considerations 216 Subscribers can only request ports for the specific Zone-IDs allowed 217 in their security profile. For example, in a typical Wireless 218 deployment, mobile terminals could request mappings in zones 219 'Internet', 'HTTP Proxy Farm', and 'Video Farm'. A PCP request that 220 contains a zone-id considered a security violation would be silently 221 dropped. 223 6. Acknowledgements 225 Thanks to Mohamed Boucadair for early review comments 227 7. References 229 7.1. Normative References 231 [RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", 232 STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. 234 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 235 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 237 [RFC2766] Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address 238 Translation - Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, 239 February 2000. 241 [RFC2960] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., 242 Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., 243 Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission 244 Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000. 246 [RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation 247 (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127, 248 RFC 4787, January 2007. 250 [RFC4966] Aoun, C. and E. Davies, "Reasons to Move the Network 251 Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to 252 Historic Status", RFC 4966, July 2007. 254 [RFC5382] Guha, S., Biswas, K., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and P. 255 Srisuresh, "NAT Behavioral Requirements for TCP", BCP 142, 256 RFC 5382, October 2008. 258 [RFC5508] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., Sivakumar, S., and S. Guha, "NAT 259 Behavioral Requirements for ICMP", BCP 148, RFC 5508, 260 April 2009. 262 7.2. Informative References 264 [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] 265 Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. 266 Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", 267 draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10 (work in progress), 268 August 2010. 270 [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64] 271 Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, 272 "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation 273 from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", 274 draft-ietf-behave-dns64-11 (work in progress), 275 October 2010. 277 [I-D.ietf-behave-ftp64] 278 Beijnum, I., "An FTP ALG for IPv6-to-IPv4 translation", 279 draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-12 (work in progress), July 2011. 281 [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework] 282 Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for 283 IPv4/IPv6 Translation", 284 draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10 (work in progress), 285 August 2010. 287 [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful] 288 Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful 289 NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 290 Clients to IPv4 Servers", 291 draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 (work in 292 progress), July 2010. 294 [I-D.ietf-pcp-base] 295 Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P. 296 Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", 297 draft-ietf-pcp-base-16 (work in progress), October 2011. 299 [I-D.wing-behave-dns64-config] 300 Wing, D., "IPv6-only and Dual Stack Hosts on the Same 301 Network with DNS64", draft-wing-behave-dns64-config-03 302 (work in progress), February 2011. 304 [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, 305 A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. 306 Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, 307 June 2002. 309 [RFC5245] Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment 310 (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT) 311 Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245, 312 April 2010. 314 [RFC5853] Hautakorpi, J., Camarillo, G., Penfield, R., Hawrylyshen, 315 A., and M. Bhatia, "Requirements from Session Initiation 316 Protocol (SIP) Session Border Control (SBC) Deployments", 317 RFC 5853, April 2010. 319 Author's Address 321 Reinaldo Penno 322 Juniper Networks 323 1194 N Mathilda Avenue 324 Sunnyvale, California 94089 325 USA 327 Email: rpenno@juniper.net