idnits 2.17.1 draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-v6-01.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5575]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 11, 2011) is 4788 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: 'RFC2119' is defined on line 258, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC4271' is defined on line 264, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5492' is defined on line 267, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC5095' is defined on line 276, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5575 (Obsoleted by RFC 8955) Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IDR Working Group R. Raszuk 3 Internet-Draft B. Pithawala 4 Intended status: Standards Track Cisco Systems 5 Expires: September 12, 2011 D. McPherson 6 Verisign, Inc. 7 March 11, 2011 9 Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules for IPv6 10 draft-raszuk-idr-flow-spec-v6-01 12 Abstract 14 Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules [RFC5575] provides a 15 protocol extension for propagation of traffic flow information for 16 the purpose of rate limiting or filtering. The [RFC5575] specifies 17 those extensions for IPv4 protocol data packets. 19 This specification extends the current [RFC5575] and defines changes 20 to the original document in order to make it also usable and 21 applicable to IPv6 data packets. 23 Status of this Memo 25 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 26 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 28 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 29 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 30 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 31 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 33 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 34 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 35 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 36 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 38 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2011. 40 Copyright Notice 42 Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 43 document authors. All rights reserved. 45 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 46 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 47 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 48 publication of this document. Please review these documents 49 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 50 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 51 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 52 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 53 described in the Simplified BSD License. 55 Table of Contents 57 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 2. IPv6 Flow Specification encoding in BGP . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 3. IPv6 Flow Specification types changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 4. IPv6 Flow Specification Traffic Filtering Action changes . . . 5 61 5. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 62 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 63 7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 65 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 66 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 67 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 69 1. Introduction 71 The growing amount of IPv6 traffic in private and public networks 72 requires the extension of tools used in the IPv4 only networks to be 73 also capable of supporting IPv6 data packets. 75 In this document authors analyze the differences of IPv6 [RFC2460] 76 flows description from those of traditional IPv4 packets and propose 77 subset of new encoding formats to enable Dissemination of Flow 78 Specification Rules [RFC5575] for IPv6. 80 This specification should be treated as an extension of base 81 [RFC5575] specification and not its replacement. It only defines the 82 delta changes required to support IPv6 while all other definitions 83 and operation mechanisms of Dissemination of Flow Specification Rules 84 will remain in the main specification and will not be repeated here. 86 2. IPv6 Flow Specification encoding in BGP 88 The [RFC5575] defines a new SAFIs (133 for IPv4) and (134 for VPNv4) 89 applications in order to carry corresponding to each such application 90 flow specification. 92 This document will redefine the [RFC5575] SAFIs in order to make them 93 AFI specific and applicable to both IPv4 and IPv6 applications. 95 The following changes are defined: 97 "SAFI 133 for IPv4 dissemination of flow specification rules" to 98 now be defined as "SAFI 133 for IP dissemination of flow 99 specification rules" 101 "SAFI 134 for VPNv4 dissemination of flow specification rules" to 102 now be defined as "SAFI 134 for L3VPN dissemination of flow 103 specification rules" 105 For both SAFIs the indication to which address family they are 106 referring to will be recognized by AFI value (AFI=1 for IPv4 or 107 VPNv4, AFI=2 for IPv6 and VPNv6 respectively). Such modification is 108 fully backwards compatible with existing implementation and 109 production deployments. 111 It needs to be observed that such choice of proposed encoding is 112 compatible with filter validation against routing reachability 113 information as described in section 6 of RFC5575. Validation tables 114 will now be performed according to the following rules. 116 Flow specification received over AFI/SAFI=1/133 will be validated 117 against routing reachability received over AFI/SAFI=1/1 119 Flow specification received over AFI/SAFI=1/134 will be validated 120 against routing reachability received over AFI/SAFI=1/128 122 Flow specification received over AFI/SAFI=2/133 will be validated 123 against routing reachability received over AFI/SAFI=2/1 125 Flow specification received over AFI/SAFI=2/134 will be validated 126 against routing reachability received over AFI/SAFI=2/128 128 3. IPv6 Flow Specification types changes 130 The following component types are redefined or added for the purpose 131 of accommodating new IPv6 header encoding. Unless otherwise stated 132 all other types as defined in RFC5575 apply to IPv6 packets as is. 134 Type 1 - Destination IPv6 Prefix 136 Encoding: 139 Defines the destination prefix to match. Prefix offset has been 140 defined to allow for flexible match on the part of the IPv6 141 address where we want to skip (don't care) of N first bits of the 142 address. This can be especially useful where part of the IPv6 143 address consists of embedded IPv4 address and match needs to 144 happen only on the part of embedded IPv4 address. The default 145 value for prefix offset is 0x00 (match on all bits as indicated by 146 prefix length). Otherwise prefixes are encoded as in BGP UPDATE 147 messages, a length in bits is followed by enough octets to contain 148 the prefix information. 150 Type 2 - Source IPv6 Prefix 152 Encoding: 155 Defines the source prefix to match. Prefix offset has been 156 defined to allow for flexible match on the part of the IPv6 157 address where we want to skip (don't care) of N first bits of the 158 address. This can be especially useful where part of the IPv6 159 address consists of embedded IPv4 address and match needs to 160 happen only on the part of embedded IPv4 address. The default 161 value for prefix offset is 0x00 (match on all bits as indicated by 162 prefix length). Otherwise prefixes are encoded as in BGP UPDATE 163 messages, a length in bits is followed by enough octets to contain 164 the prefix information. 166 Type 3 - Next Header 168 Encoding: 170 Contains a set of {operator, value} pairs that are used to match 171 the last Next Header value octet in IPv6 packets. The operator 172 byte is encoded as specified in component type 3 of [RFC5575]. 174 While IPv6 allows for more then one Next Header field in the 175 packet the main goal of Type 3 flow specification component is to 176 match on the subsequent IP protocol value. Therefor the 177 definition is limited to match only on last Next Header field in 178 the packet. 180 Type 11 - Traffic Class 182 Encoding: 184 Contains a set of {operator, value} pairs that are used to match 185 the Traffic Class 8-bit field [RFC2460] encoded in a single 186 octet.The operator byte is encoded as specified in component type 187 3 of [RFC5575]. 189 Type 12 - Fragment - Removed 191 This type is removed for IPv6 flow specification as in IPv6 192 fragmentation does not happen in the network. 194 Type 13 - Flow Label - New type 196 Encoding: 198 Contains a set of {operator, value} pairs that are used to match 199 the 20-bit Flow Label field [RFC2460].The operator byte is encoded 200 as specified in the component type 3 of [RFC5575]. 202 4. IPv6 Flow Specification Traffic Filtering Action changes 204 One of the traffic filtering actions which can be expressed by BGP 205 extended community is defined in [RFC5575] as traffic-marking. This 206 extended community type is of value: 0x8009. 208 For the purpose of making it compatible with IPv6 header action 209 expressed by presence of this extended community has been modified to 210 read: 212 Traffic Marking: The traffic marking extended community instructs a 213 system to modify the Traffic Class bits of a transiting IPv6 packet 214 to the corresponding value. This extended community is encoded as a 215 sequence of 5 zero bytes followed by the 8 bit Traffic Class value 216 encoded in the 6th byte. 218 5. Security considerations 220 No new security issues are introduced to the BGP protocol by this 221 specification. 223 6. IANA Considerations 225 IANA is requested to rename currently defined SAFI 133 and SAFI 134 226 per [RFC5575] to read: 228 133 Dissemination of flow specification rules 229 134 L3VPN dissemination of flow specification rules 231 IANA is requested to create and maintain a new registry entitled: 232 "Flow Spec IPv6 Component Types". The following component types have 233 been registered: 235 Type 1 - Destination IPv6 Prefix 236 Type 2 - Source IPv6 Prefix 237 Type 3 - Next Header 238 Type 4 - Port 239 Type 5 - Destination port 240 Type 6 - Source port 241 Type 7 - ICMP type 242 Type 8 - ICMP code 243 Type 9 - TCP flags 244 Type 10 - Packet length 245 Type 11 - Traffic Class 246 Type 12 - Reserved 247 Type 13 - Flow Label 249 7. Acknowledgments 251 Authors would like to thank Pedro Marques and Hannes Gredler for 252 their valuable input. 254 8. References 256 8.1. Normative References 258 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 259 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 261 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 262 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 264 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway 265 Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. 267 [RFC5492] Scudder, J. and R. Chandra, "Capabilities Advertisement 268 with BGP-4", RFC 5492, February 2009. 270 [RFC5575] Marques, P., Sheth, N., Raszuk, R., Greene, B., Mauch, J., 271 and D. McPherson, "Dissemination of Flow Specification 272 Rules", RFC 5575, August 2009. 274 8.2. Informative References 276 [RFC5095] Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation 277 of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095, 278 December 2007. 280 Authors' Addresses 282 Robert Raszuk 283 Cisco Systems 284 170 West Tasman Drive 285 San Jose, CA 95134 286 US 288 Email: raszuk@cisco.com 290 Burjiz Pithawala 291 Cisco Systems 292 170 West Tasman Drive 293 San Jose, CA 95134 294 US 296 Email: bpithaw@cisco.com 297 Danny McPherson 298 Verisign, Inc. 300 Email: dmcpherson@verisign.com