idnits 2.17.1 draft-vg-ngtrans-tsp-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 11 characters in excess of 72. ** There are 4 instances of lines with control characters in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (July 1, 2002) is 7971 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: '2' is defined on line 370, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '5' is defined on line 379, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 3053 (ref. '1') ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2461 (ref. '2') (Obsoleted by RFC 4861) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2222 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 4422, RFC 4752) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2831 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 6331) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '5' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '6' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7' Summary: 8 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 4 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group M. Blanchet 3 Internet-Draft Viagenie 4 Expires: December 30, 2002 July 1, 2002 6 Tunnel Setup Protocol (TSP): A Control Protocol to Setup IPv6 or IPv4 7 Tunnels 8 draft-vg-ngtrans-tsp-01 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 13 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- 18 Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 26 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on December 30, 2002. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 This document proposes a control protocol to setup tunnels between a 40 client and a tunnel server or broker. It provides a framework for 41 the negociation of tunnel parameters between the two entities. It is 42 a generic TCP protocol based on simple XML messaging. This framework 43 protocol enables the negociation of any kind of tunnel, and is 44 extensible to support new parameters or extensions. The first target 45 application is to setup IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels which is one of the 46 transition mechanism identified by the ngtrans and ipv6 working 47 groups. This IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel setup application of the generic 48 TSP protocol is defined by a profile of the TSP protocol, in a 49 companion document. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Rationale for a tunnel setup protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Protocol Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 3.1 Topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 3.2 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 3.3 Authentication phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 3.4 Command phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 4. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 6. Security considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 64 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 66 A. DTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 1. Rationale for a tunnel setup protocol 71 Tunnelling techniques are often used to enable new networking 72 functions while still preserving the underlying network as is. 73 Configuring tunnels means handling many static parameters (IP address 74 of the end-points, address or overlay network info), which is a 75 tedious task for a network manager for a large number of tunnels. 76 Some of those parameters may change over time, like the IPv4 address 77 of a client node, which means changing the configuration on the other 78 end. 80 A tunnel broker model (RFC3053) [1] has been defined in the context 81 of IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels, where the tunnel broker enables the use of 82 tunnels from a client using a web interface to tunnel servers. 83 Attempts have been made to generalize the idea using a MIME-type [7], 84 but still no protocol has been defined to enable the negociation of 85 parameters over time for a given tunnel. This draft generalize the 86 concept of the tunnel broker model by having a control protocol 87 between the broker and the client. It enables negociation between 88 the two parties: prefix assignment information, dns delegation, 89 routing information. As another example, a client might request a 90 feature that the server can not provide. In this context, the client 91 may decide to continue anyway without using that feature or the 92 server could send a list of other servers who might offer the service 93 to the client. The control protocol can optionaly be used to verify 94 the sustainability of the underlying network: similar to the PPP 95 control protocols who verify the link and close the connection when 96 the link is down. It also enables the concept of the degenerated 97 case where the broker and the server are together. 99 This framework protocol enables any kind of current and future tunnel 100 techniques to be defined by a profile of this protocol. 102 2. Terminology 104 Tunnel Broker (TB) In a Tunnel Broker model, the broker is taking 105 charge of all communication between Tunnel Servers (TS) and Tunnel 106 Clients (TC). Tunnel clients query brokers for a tunnel and the 107 broker find a suitable tunnel server, ask the Tunnel server to 108 setup the tunnel and send the tunnel information to the Tunnel 109 Client. 111 Tunnel Server (TS) Tunnel Servers are providing the specific tunnel 112 service to a Tunnel Client. It can reveive the tunnel request 113 from a Tunnel Broker (as in the Tunnel Broker model) or directly 114 from the Tunnel Client as in the Tunnel Setup Protocol option. 115 The Tunnel Server is the tunnel end-point. 117 Tunnel Client (TC) The Tunnel Client is the entity that need a tunnel 118 for a particular service or connectivity. A Tunnel Client can be 119 either a host or a router. The tunnel client is the other tunnel 120 end-point. 122 3. Protocol Description 124 3.1 Topology 126 The following diagrams describe typical TSP scenarios. The goal is 127 to establish a tunnel between Tunnel client and Tunnel server. 129 Tunnel Setup Protocol used on Tunnel Broker model 131 _______________ 132 | TUNNEL BROKER |--> Databases (dns, whois) 133 | | 134 | TSP TSP | 135 | SERVER CLIENT | 136 |_______________| 137 | | 138 __________ | | ________ 139 | | | | | TSP | 140 | TSP |--[TSP]-- +--[TSP]--| SERVER | 141 | CLIENT | | |--[NETWORK]-- 142 [HOST]--| |<==[CONFIGURED TUNNEL]==>| TUNNEL | 143 |___________| | SERVER | 144 |________| 146 Tunnel Setup Protocol used on Tunnel Server model 148 ___________ ________ 149 | | | TSP | 150 | TSP |-----------[TSP]---------| SERVER | 151 | CLIENT | | |--[NETWORK]-- 152 [HOST]--| |<==[CONFIGURED TUNNEL]==>| TUNNEL | 153 |___________| | SERVER | 154 |________| 156 3.2 Overview 158 The Tunnel Setup Protocol has three phases: 160 Authentication phase: The Authentication phase is when the Tunnel 161 Brokers/Servers advertises their capability to Tunnel Clients and 162 when Tunnel clients authenticate to the server. 164 Command phase: The command phase is where the client requests or 165 updates a tunnel. 167 Response phase: The response phase is where the respond to the client 169 For each command sent by a Tunnel Client their is an expected 170 response by the server. 172 3.3 Authentication phase 174 The authentication phase has 3 steps : 176 o Client's protocol version identification 178 o Server's capability advertisement 180 o Client authentication 182 When a TCP session is established to a Tunnel Server, the Tunnel 183 Client sends the current protocol version it is supporting. The 184 version number syntax is: 186 VERSION=1.0 CR LF 188 Version 1.0 is the version number of this specification. 190 If the server doesn't support the protocol version it sends an error 191 message and closes the session. The server can optionally send a 192 server list that may support the protocol version of the client. 194 Example of a Version not supported (without a server list) 196 -- Successful TCP Connection -- 197 C:VERSION=0.1 CR LF 198 S:302 Unsupported client version CR LF 199 -- Connection closed -- 201 Example of a Version not supported (with a server list) 203 -- Successful TCP Connection -- 204 C:VERSION=1.1 CR LF 205 S:1302 Unsupported client version CR LF 206 207 208
1.2.3.4
209 210 211
ts1.isp1.com
212 213 214 -- Connection closed -- 216 If the server supports the version sent by the client, then the 217 server sends a list of the capabilities supported for authentication 218 and tunnels. 220 CAPABILITY TUNNEL=V6V4 AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=ANONYMOUS CR LF 222 Tunnel types must be registered with IANA and their profiles are 223 defined in other documents. Authentication is done using SASL 224 (RFC2222) [3]. Each authentication mechanism must be a registered 225 SASL mechanism. Description of such mechanism is not in the scope of 226 this document. 228 The Tunnel Client can then choose to close the session if none of the 229 capabilities fits its needs. If the Tunnel Client chooses to 230 continue, it must authenticate itself to the server using one of the 231 adevertised mechanism. If the authentication fails the server sends 232 an error message and closes the session. 234 Example of failed authentication 236 -- Successful TCP Connection -- 237 C:VERSION=0.1 CR LF 238 S:CAPABILITY TUNNEL=V6V4 AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 CR LF 239 C:AUTHENTICATE ANONYMOUS CR LF 240 S:300 Authentication failed CR LF 242 If the authentication succeed, the server sends a success return code 243 and the protocol enter the Command phase. 245 Successful authentication 247 -- Successful TCP Connection -- 248 C:VERSION=0.1 CR LF 249 S:CAPABILITY TUNNEL=V6V4 AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=ANONYMOUS CR LF 250 C:AUTHENTICATE ANONYMOUS CR LF 251 S:200 Authentication successful CR LF 253 Upon successful authentication the protocol enters the command phase 254 as described in the next section. 256 3.4 Command phase 258 The Command phase is where the Tunnel Client send a tunnel request or 259 a tunnel update to the server. In this phase, commands are sent as 260 XML messages. The first line is a "Content-length" directive that 261 tells the size of the following XML message. This makes it easier 262 for protocol implementation to tell when they got the whole XML 263 message. When the server sends a response, the first line is the 264 "Content-length" directive, the second is the return code and third 265 one is the XML message if any. The size of the response for the 266 "Content-length" directive is the first character of the return code 267 line to the last character of the XML message. 269 Spaces can be inserted freely. 271 Example of a command/response sequence 273 -- Successful TCP Connection -- 274 C:VERSION=0.1 CR LF 275 S:CAPABILITY TUNNEL=V6V4 AUTH=DIGEST-MD5 AUTH=ANONYMOUS CR LF 276 C:AUTHENTICATE ANONYMOUS CR LF 277 S:200 Authentication successful CR LF 278 C: Content-length: 123 CR LF 279 280 281
1.1.1.1
282 283 CR LF 285 S: Content-length: 234 CR LF 286 200 OK CR LF 287 288 289
206.123.31.114
290
3ffe:b00:c18:ffff:0000:0000:0000:0000
291 292 293
1.1.1.1
294
3ffe:b00:c18:ffff::0000:0000:0000:0001
295
userid.domain
296 297 CR LF 298 -- TCP Connection closed -- 300 4. Error codes 302 Error codes are sent as a numeric value followed by a text message 303 describing the code. The Tunnel Setup Protocol defines error code 304 numbers 1 through 499 and 1000 through 1499. Profile dependant error 305 codes are defined within the 500 through 999 and 1500 through 1999 306 range. 308 The predifined values are : 310 200 Success 312 Successful operation 314 300 Authentication failed 316 Invalid userid, password or authentication mechanism. 318 301 No more tunnels available 320 The server as reach its capacity limit. 322 302 Unsupported client version 324 The client version is not supported by the server. 326 303 Unsupported tunnel type 328 The server does not provide the requested tunnel type. 330 if a list of tunnel servers is following the error code as a referal 331 service, then 1000 is added to the error code. 333 5. IANA Considerations 335 Tunnel types should be assigned by IANA based on a published RFC 336 document. 338 A port number must be assigned for that protocol. 340 6. Security considerations 342 This protocol does not have encryption. When authenticating clients, 343 SASL provides the necessary mechanism for negociating the 344 authentication mechanism. As stated in SASL, the PLAIN 345 authentication must not be used. The suggested method is DIGEST-MD5 346 (RFC2831) [4]. 348 Tunnels generate routing entries that may be abused [6], while this 349 is not specific to this TSP protocol 351 7. Acknowledgements 353 Alain Durand is the author of the seminal idea of tunnel brokers. 354 This work is a follow-up based on many years of operating the 355 freenet6.net tunnel broker where we saw additional needs for a 356 control protocol to establish the tunnels. 358 Jun-Ichiro Itojun Hagino was, as usual, a great helper in refining 359 and commenting this work. 361 This work has been done on a team basis so all people here 362 contributed to the original work: Andre Cormier, Regis Desmeules, 363 Florent Parent, Jocelyn Picard, Guy Turcotte. 365 References 367 [1] Durand, A., Fasano, P., Guardini, I. and D. Lento, "IPv6 Tunnel 368 Broker", RFC 3053, January 2001. 370 [2] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for 371 IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. 373 [3] Myers, J., "Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)", 374 RFC 2222, October 1997. 376 [4] Leach, P. and C. Newman, "Using Digest Authentication as a SASL 377 Mechanism", RFC 2831, May 2000. 379 [5] Durand, A., "IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels for home to Internet access 380 method", July 2000. 382 [6] Hagino, J., "Possible abuse against IPv6 transition 383 technologies", July 2000. 385 [7] "MIME-type extension for IPv6 configured tunnels". 387 Author's Address 389 Marc Blanchet 390 Viagenie 391 2875 boul. Laurier, bureau 300 392 Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2M2 393 Canada 395 Phone: +1 418 656 9254 396 EMail: Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca 397 URI: http://www.viagenie.qc.ca/ 399 Appendix A. DTD 401 A DTD should be placed here for the protocol. 403 Full Copyright Statement 405 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002). All Rights Reserved. 407 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 408 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 409 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 410 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 411 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 412 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 413 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 414 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 415 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 416 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 417 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 418 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 419 English. 421 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 422 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 424 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 425 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 426 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 427 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 428 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 429 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 431 Acknowledgement 433 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 434 Internet Society.