Using Conditional Router Advertisements for Enterprise Multihoming
draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-03
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8475.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Jen Linkova , Massimiliano Stucchi | ||
| Last updated | 2018-04-26 (Latest revision 2018-03-30) | ||
| Replaces | draft-linkova-v6ops-conditional-ras | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews |
TSVART Telechat review
(of
-05)
by Yoshifumi Nishida
Ready w/nits
|
||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | Submitted to IESG for Publication | |
| Document shepherd | Russ White | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2018-04-18 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 8475 (Informational) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Warren Kumari | ||
| Send notices to | Russ White <russ@riw.us> |
draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-03
IPv6 Operations J. Linkova
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational M. Stucchi
Expires: October 1, 2018 RIPE NCC
March 30, 2018
Using Conditional Router Advertisements for Enterprise Multihoming
draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras-03
Abstract
This document discusses most common scenarios of connecting an
enterprise network to multiple ISPs using an address space assigned
by an ISP. The problem of enterprise multihoming without address
translation of any form has not been solved yet as it requires both
the network to select the correct egress ISP based on the packet
source address and hosts to select the correct source address based
on the desired egress ISP for that traffic.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] proposes a solution to
this problem by introducing a new routing functionality (Source
Address Dependent Routing) to solve the uplink selection issue and
using Router Advertisements to influence the host source address
selection. While the above-mentioned document focuses on solving the
general problem and on covering various complex use cases, this
document describes how the solution proposed in
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] can be adopted for limited
number of common use cases. In particular, the focus is on scenarios
where an enterprise network has two Internet uplinks used either in
primary/backup mode or simultaneously and hosts in that network might
not yet properly support multihoming as described in [RFC8028].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 1, 2018.
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Common Enterprise Multihoming Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Two ISP Uplinks, Primary and Backup . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Two ISP Uplinks, Used for Load Balancing . . . . . . . . 4
3. Conditional Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.1. Uplink Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1.2. Source Address Selection and Conditional RAs . . . . 5
3.2. Example Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.1. Single Router, Primary/Backup Uplinks . . . . . . . . 7
3.2.2. Two Routers, Primary/Backup Uplinks . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.3. Single Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks . . . . 10
3.2.4. Two Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks . . . . . 11
3.2.5. Topologies with Dedicated Border Routers . . . . . . 11
3.2.6. Intra-Site Communication during Simultaneous Uplinks
Outage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.7. Uplink Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Solution Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3.1. Connections Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.1. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
1. Introduction
Multihoming is an obvious requirement for many enterprise networks to
ensure the desired level of network reliability. However, using more
than one ISP (and address space assigned by those ISPs) introduces
the problem of assigning IP addresses to hosts. In IPv4 there is no
choice but using [RFC1918] address space and NAT ([RFC3022]) at the
network edge. Using Provider Independent (PI) address space is not
always an option as it requires running BGP between the enterprise
network and the ISPs, not mentioning administrative overhead of
obtaining and managing PI address space. As IPv6 host can, by
design, have multiple addresses of the global scope, multihoming
using provider address looks even easier for IPv6: each ISP assigns
an IPv6 block (usually /48) and hosts in the enterprise network have
addresses assigned from each ISP block. However using IPv6 PA blocks
in multihoming scenario introduces some challenges, including but not
limited to:
o Selecting the correct uplink based on the packet source address;
o Signaling to hosts that some source addresses should or should not
be used (e.g. an uplink to the ISP went down or became available
again).
The document [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] discusses
these and other related challenges in details in relation to the
general multihoming scenario for enterprise networks. Unfortunately
the proposed solution heavily relies on the rule 5.5 of the default
address selection algorithm ([RFC6724]) which has not been widely
implemented at the moment this document was written. Therefore
network administrators in enterprise networks can't yet assume that
all devices in their network support the rule 5.5, especially in the
quite common BYOD ("Bring Your Own Device") scenario. However, while
it does not seem feasible to solve all the possible multihoming
scenarios without reliying on rule 5.5, it is possible to provide
IPv6 multihoming using provider-assigned (PA) address space for the
most common use cases. This document discusses how the general
solution described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] can
be applied to scenarios when:
o An enterprise network has two or more ISP uplinks;
o Those uplinks are used for Internet access in active/backup or
load sharing mode w/o any soficticated traffic engineering
requirements;
o Each ISP assigns the network a subnet from its own PA address
space
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
o Hosts in the enterprise network are not expected to support the
Rule 5.5 of the default address selection algorithm ([RFC6724]).
2. Common Enterprise Multihoming Scenarios
2.1. Two ISP Uplinks, Primary and Backup
This scenario has the following key characteristics:
o The enterprise network is using uplinks to two (or more) ISPs for
Internet access;
o Each ISP assigns IPv6 PA address space for the network;
o Uplink(s) to one ISP is a primary (preferred) one. All other
uplinks are backup and are not expected to be used while the
primary one is operational;
o If the primary uplink is operational, all Internet traffic should
flow via that uplink;
o When the primary uplink fails the Internet traffic needs to flow
via the backup uplinks;
o Recovery of the primary uplink needs to trigger the traffic
switchover from the backup uplinks back to primary one;
o Hosts in the enterprise network are not expected to support the
Rule 5.5 of the default address selection algorithm ([RFC6724]).
2.2. Two ISP Uplinks, Used for Load Balancing
This scenario has the following key characteristics:
o The enterprise network is using uplinks to two (or more) ISPs for
Internet access;
o Each ISP assigns an IPv6 PA address space;
o All the uplinks may be used simultaneously, with the traffic flows
being randomly (not nessesary equally) distributed between them;
o Hosts in the enterprise network are not expected to support the
Rule 5.5 of the default address selection algorithm ([RFC6724]).
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
3. Conditional Router Advertisements
3.1. Solution Overview
3.1.1. Uplink Selection
As discussed in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming], one of
the two main problems to be solved in the enterprise multihoming
scenario is the problem of the next-hop (uplink) selection based on
the packet source address. For example, if the enterprise network
has two uplinks, to ISP_A and ISP_B, and hosts have addresses from
subnet_A and subnet_B (belonging to ISP_A and ISP_B respectively)
then packets sourced from subnet_A must be sent to ISP_A uplink while
packets sourced from subnet_B must be sent to ISP_B uplink.
While some work is being done in the Source Address Dependent Routing
(SADR) area, the simplest way to implement the desired functionality
currently is to apply a policy which selects a next-hop or an egress
interface based on the packet source address. Most of the SMB/
Enterprise grade routers have such functionality available currently.
3.1.2. Source Address Selection and Conditional RAs
Another problem to be solved in the multihoming scenario is the
source address selection on hosts. In the normal situation (all
uplinks are up/operational) hosts have multiple global unique
addresses and can rely on the default address selection algorithm
([RFC6724]) to pick up a source address, while the network is
responsible for choosing the correct uplink based on the source
address selected by a host as described in Section 3.1.2. However,
some network topology changes (i.e. changing uplink status) might
affect the global reachability for packets sourced from the
particular prefixes and therefore such changes have to be signaled
back to the hosts. For example:
o An uplink to an ISP_A went down. Hosts should not use addresses
from ISP_A prefix;
o A primary uplink to ISP_A which was not operational has come back
up. Hosts should start using the source addresses from ISP_A
prefix.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] provides a detailed
explanation on why SLAAC and router advertisements are the most
suitable mechanism for signaling network topology changes to hosts
and thereby influencing the source address selection. Sending a
router advertisement to change the preferred lifetime for a given
prefix provides the following functionality:
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
o deprecating addresses (by sending an RA with the
preferred_lifetime set to 0 in the corresponding POI) to indicate
to hosts that that addresses from that prefix should not be used;
o making a previously unused (deprecated) prefix usable again (by
sending an RA containing a POI with non-zero preferred lifetime)
to indicate to hosts that addresses from that prefix can be used
again.
To provide the desired functionality, first-hop routers are required
to
o send RA triggered by defined event policies in response to uplink
status change event; and
o while sending periodic or solicted RAs, set the value in the given
RA field (e.g. PIO preferred lifetime) based on the uplink
status.
The exact definition of the 'uplink status' depends on the network
topology and may include conditions like:
o uplink interface status change;
o presence of a particular route in the routing table;
o presence of a particular route with a particular attribute (next-
hop, tag etc) in the routing table;
o protocol adjacency change.
etc.
In some scenarios, when two routers are providing first-hop
redundancy via VRRP, the master-backup status can be considered as a
condition for sending RAs and changing the preferred lifetime value.
See Section 3.2.2 for more details.
If hosts are provided with ISP DNS servers IPv6 addresses via RDNSS
[RFC8106] it might be desirable for the conditional RAs to update the
Lifetime field of the RDNSS option as well.
The trigger is not only forcing the router to send an unsolicited RA
to propagate the topology changes to all hosts. Obviously the RA
fields values (like PIO Preferred Lifetime or DNS Server Lifetime)
changed by the particular trigger MUST stay the same until another
event happens causing the value to be updated. E.g. if the ISP_A
uplink failure causes the prefix to be deprecated all solicited and
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
unsolicited RAs sent by the router MUST have the Preferred Lifetime
for that POI set to 0 until the uplink comes back up.
It should be noted that the proposed solution is quite similar to the
existing requirement L-13 for IPv6 CPE routers ([RFC7084]) and the
documented behaviour of homenet devices. It is using the same
mechanism of deprecating a prefix when the corresponding uplink is
not operational, applying it to enterprise network scenario.
3.2. Example Scenarios
This section illustrates how the conditional RAs solution can be
applied to most common enterprise multihoming scenarios, described in
Section 2.
3.2.1. Single Router, Primary/Backup Uplinks
--------
,-------, ,' ',
+----+ 2001:db8:1::/48 ,' ', : :
| |------------------+ ISP_A +--+: :
2001:db8:1:1::/64 | | ', ,' : :
| | '-------' : :
H1------------------| R1 | : INTERNET :
| | ,-------, : :
2001:db8:2:1::/64 | | 2001:db8:2::/48 ,' ', : :
| |------------------+ ISP_B +--+: :
+----+ ', ,' : :
'-------' ', ,'
--------
Figure 1: Single Router, Primary/Backup Uplinks
Let's look at a simple network topology where a single router acts as
a border router to terminate two ISP uplinks and as a first-hop
router for hosts. Each ISP assigns a /48 to the network, and the
ISP_A uplink is a primary one, to be used for all Internet traffic,
while the ISP_B uplink is a backup, to be used only when the primary
uplink is not operational.
To ensure that packets with source addresses from ISP_A and ISP_B are
only routed to ISP_A and ISP_B uplinks respectively, the network
administrator needs to configure a policy on R1:
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
if {
packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:1::/48
} then {
default next-hop is ISP_A_uplink
}
if {
packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:2::/48
}
then {
default next-hop is ISP_B_uplink
}
Under normal circumstances it is desirable that all traffic be sent
via the ISP_A uplink, therefore hosts (the host H1 in the example
topology figure) should be using source addresses from
2001:db8:1:1::/64. When/if ISP_A uplink fails, hosts should stop
using the 2001:db8:1:1::/64 prefix and start using 2001:db8:2:1::/64
until the ISP_A uplink comes back up. To achieve this the router
advertisement configuration on the R1 device for the interface facing
H1 needs to have the following policy:
prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink is up
then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_Uplink is up
then preferred_lifetime = 0
else preferred_lifetime = 604800
}
A similar policy needs to be applied to the RDNSS Lifetime if ISP_A
and ISP_B DNS servers are used.
3.2.2. Two Routers, Primary/Backup Uplinks
Let's look at a more complex scenario where two border routers are
terminating two ISP uplinks (one each), acting as redundant first-hop
routers for hosts. The topology is shown on Fig.2
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
--------
,-------, ,' ',
+----+ 2001:db8:1::/48 ,' ', : :
2001:db8:1:1::/64 _| |----------------+ ISP_A +--+: :
| | R1 | ', ,' : :
| +----+ '-------' : :
H1------------------| : INTERNET :
| +----+ ,-------, : :
|_| | 2001:db8:2::/48 ,' ', : :
2001:db8:2:1::/64 | R2 |----------------+ ISP_B +--+: :
+----+ ', ,' : :
'-------' ', ,'
--------
Figure 2: Two Routers, Primary/Backup Uplinks
In this scenario R1 sends RAs with PIO for 2001:db8:1:1::/64 (ISP_A
address space) and R2 sends RAs with PIO for 2001:db8:2:1::/64 (ISP_B
address space). Each router needs to have a forwarding policy
configured for packets received on its hosts-facing interface:
if {
packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:1::/48
} then {
default next-hop is ISP_A_uplink
}
if {
packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:2::/48
} then {
default next-hop is ISP_B_uplink
}
In this case there is more than one way to ensure that hosts are
selecting the correct source address based on the uplink status. If
VRRP is used to provide first-hop redundancy and the master router is
the one with the active uplink, then the simplest way is to use the
VRRP mastership as a condition for router advertisement. So, if
ISP_A is the primary uplink, the routers R1 and R2 need to be
configured in the following way:
R1 is the VRRP master by default (when ISP_A uplink is up). If ISP_A
uplink is down, then R1 becomes a backup. Router advertisements on
R1's interface facing H1 needs to have the following policy applied:
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
if vrrp_master then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
R2 is VRRP backup by default. Router advertsement on R2 interface
facing H1 needs to have the following policy applied:
prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
if vrrp_master then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
If VRRP is not used or interface status tracking is not used for
mastership switchover, then each router needs to be able to detect
the uplink failure/recovery on the neighboring router, so that RAs
with updated preferred lifetime values are triggered. Depending on
the network setup various triggers like a route to the uplink
interface subnet or a default route received from the uplink can be
used. The obvious drawback of using the routing table to trigger the
conditional RAs is that some additional configuration is required.
For example, if a route to the prefix assigned to the ISP uplink is
used as a trigger, then the conditional RA policy would have the
following logic:
R1:
prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
R2:
prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 0
else preferred_lifetime = 604800
}
3.2.3. Single Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks
Let's look at the example topology shown in Figure 1, but with both
uplinks used simultaneously. In this case R1 would send RAs
containing PIOs for both prefixes, 2001:db8:1:1::/64 and
2001:db8:2:1::/64, changing the preferred lifetime based on
particular uplink availability. If the interface status is used as
uplink availability indicator, then the policy logic would look like
the following:
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
if ISP_B_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
R1 needs a forwarding policy to be applied to forward packets to the
correct uplink based on the source address as described in
Section 3.2.1.
3.2.4. Two Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks
In this scenario the example topology is similar to the one shown in
Figure 2, but both uplinks can be used at the same time. It means
that both R1 and R2 need to have the corresponding forwarding policy
to forward packets based on their source addresses.
Each router would send RAs with POI for the corresponding prefix.
setting preferred_lifetime to a non-zero value when the ISP uplink is
up, and deprecating the prefix by setting the preferred lifetime to 0
in case of uplink failure. The uplink recovery would trigger another
RA with non-zero preferred lifetime to make the addresses from the
prefix preferred again. The example RA policy on R1 and R2 would
look like:
R1:
prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
R2:
prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
if ISP_B_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
3.2.5. Topologies with Dedicated Border Routers
For simplicity reasons all topologies below show the ISP uplinks
terminated on the first-hop routers. Obviously, the proposed
approach can be used in more complex topologies when dedicated
devices are used for terminating ISP uplinks. In that case VRRP
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
mastership or inteface status can not be used as a trigger for
conditional RAs and route presence as described above should be used
instead.
Let's look at the example topology shown on the Figure 3:
2001:db8:1::/48 --------
2001:db8:1:1::/64 ,-------, ,' ',
+----+ +---+ +----+ ,' ', : :
_| |--| |--| R3 |----+ ISP_A +---+: :
| | R1 | | | +----+ ', ,' : :
| +----+ | | '-------' : :
H1--------| |LAN| : INTERNET :
| +----+ | | ,-------, : :
|_| | | | +----+ ,' ', : :
| R2 |--| |--| R4 |----+ ISP_B +---+: :
+----+ +---+ +----+ ', ,' : :
2001:db8:2:1::/64 '-------' ', ,'
2001:db8:2::/48 --------
Figure 3: Dedicated Border Routers
For example, if ISP_A is a primary uplink and ISP_B is a backup one
then the following policy might be used to achieve the desired
behaviour (H1 is using ISP_A address space, 2001:db8:1:1::/64 while
ISP_A uplink is up and only using ISP_B 2001:db8:2:1::/64 prefix if
the uplink is non-operational):
R1 and R2 policy:
prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 0
else preferred_lifetime = 604800
}
For load-balancing case the policy would look slightly different:
each prefix has non-zero preferred_lifetime only if the correspoding
ISP uplink route is present:
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
if ISP_B_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 604800
else preferred_lifetime = 0
}
3.2.6. Intra-Site Communication during Simultaneous Uplinks Outage
Prefix deprecation as a result of an uplink status change might lead
to a situation when all global prefixes are deprecated (all ISP
uplinks are not operational for some reason). Even when there is no
Internet connectivity it might be still desirable to have intra-site
IPv6 connectivity (especially when the network in question is an
IPv6-only one). However while an address is in a deprecated state,
its use is discouraged, but not strictly forbidden ([RFC4862]). In
such scenario all IPv6 source addresses in the candidate set
([RFC6724]) are deprecated which means that they still can be used
(as there is no preferred addresses available) and the source address
selection algorith can pick up one of them, allowing the intra-site
communication. However some OSes might just fall back to IPv4 if the
network interface has no preferred IPv6 global addresses. Therefore
if intra-site connectivity is vital during simultanious outages of
multiple uplinks, administrators might consider using ULAs or
provisioning additional backup uplinks to protect the network from
double-failure cases.
3.2.7. Uplink Damping
If an actively used uplink (primary one or one used in load balaning
scenario) starts flapping, it might lead to undesirable situation of
flapping addresses on hosts (every time the uplink goes up hosts
receive an RA with non-zerop preferred PIO lifetime, and every time
the uplink goes down all address in the affected prefix become
deprecated). Undoubtedly it would negatively impact user experience,
not mentioning spikes of DAD traffic every time an uplink comes back
up. Therefore it's recommended that router vendors implement some
form of damping policy for conditional RAs and either postpone
sending an RA with non-zero lifetime for a POI when the uplink comes
up for a number of seconds or even introduce accumulated penalties/
exponential backoff algorithm for such delays. (In the case of
multiple simultaneous uplink failure scenario, when all but one
uplinks are down and the last remaining is flapping it might result
in all addresses being deprecated for a while after the flapping
uplink recovers.)
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
3.3. Solution Limitations
It should be noted that the proposed approach is not a silver bullet
for all possible multihoming scenarios. The main goal is to solve
some common use cases so it would suit very well relatively simple
topologies with straightforward policies. The more complex the
network topology and the corresponding routing policies more
configuration would be required to implement the solution.
Another limitation is related to the load balancing between the
uplinks. In that scenario when both uplinks are active hosts would
select the source prefix using the Default Address Selection
algorithm ([RFC6724]) and therefore the load between two uplinks most
likely would not be evenly distributed. (However the proposed
mechanism does allow a creative way of controlling uplinks load in
SDN networks where controllers might selectively deprecate prefixes
on some hosts but not others to move egress traffic between uplinks).
Also the prefix selection does not take into account any other
uplinks properties (such as RTT etc) so egress traffic might not be
sent to the nearest uplink if the corresponding prefix is selected as
a source. In general if not all uplinks are equal and some uplinks
are expected to be preferred over others then the network
adminitrator should ensure that prefixes from non-preferred ISP(s)
are kept deprecated (so primary/backup setup is used).
3.3.1. Connections Preservation
The proposed solution is not designed to preserve connections state
after an uplink failure. If all uplinks to an ISP go down all
sessions to/from addresses from that ISP address space are
interrupted as there is no egress path for those packets and there is
not return path from Internet to the correspodning prefix. In this
regard it is similar to IPv4 multihoming using NAT, where an uplink
failure and failover to another uplink means that a public IPv4
address changes and all existing connections are interrupted.
An uplink recovery, however, does not nessesary leads to connections
interruption. In the load sharing/balancing scenario an uplink
recovery does not affect any existing connections at all. In the
active/backup topology when the primary uplink recovers from the
failure and the backup prefix is deprectaed, the existing sessions
(established to/from the backup ISP addresses) can be preserved if
the routers are configured as described in Section 3.2.1 and send
packets with the backup ISP source addresses to the backup uplink
even when the primary one is operational. As a result, the primary
uplink recovery makes the usage of the backup ISP addresses
discouraged but still possible.
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
It should be noted that in IPv4 multihoming with NAT, when the egress
interface is chosen without taking packet source address into account
(as internal hosts usually have addresses from [RFC1918] space),
sessions can not be preserved after an uplink recovery.
4. IANA Considerations
This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.
5. Security Considerations
This memo introduces no new security considerations.
5.1. Privacy Considerations
This memo introduces no new privacy considerations.
6. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
review and feedback: Mikael Abrahamsson, Lorenzo Colitti, Marcus
Keane, Erik Kline, David Lamparter, Dusan Mudric, Erik Nordmark, Dave
Thaler.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
[RFC3582] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3582, August 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3582>.
[RFC4116] Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.
Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations",
RFC 4116, DOI 10.17487/RFC4116, July 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4116>.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.
[RFC4218] Nordmark, E. and T. Li, "Threats Relating to IPv6
Multihoming Solutions", RFC 4218, DOI 10.17487/RFC4218,
October 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4218>.
[RFC4219] Lear, E., "Things Multihoming in IPv6 (MULTI6) Developers
Should Think About", RFC 4219, DOI 10.17487/RFC4219,
October 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4219>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
[RFC7157] Troan, O., Ed., Miles, D., Matsushima, S., Okimoto, T.,
and D. Wing, "IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address
Translation", RFC 7157, DOI 10.17487/RFC7157, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7157>.
[RFC8028] Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
[RFC8106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
Lamparter, D. and A. Smirnov, "Destination/Source
Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-06 (work in
progress), October 2017.
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming]
Baker, F., Bowers, C., and J. Linkova, "Enterprise
Multihoming using Provider-Assigned Addresses without
Network Prefix Translation: Requirements and Solution",
draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-03 (work in
progress), February 2018.
[RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, March
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC5533] Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, DOI 10.17487/RFC5533,
June 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5533>.
[RFC5534] Arkko, J. and I. van Beijnum, "Failure Detection and
Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming",
RFC 5534, DOI 10.17487/RFC5534, June 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5534>.
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Conditional RAs March 2018
[RFC7084] Singh, H., Beebee, W., Donley, C., and B. Stark, "Basic
Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers", RFC 7084,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7084, November 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7084>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
Appendix A. Change Log
Initial Version: July 2017
Authors' Addresses
Jen Linkova
Google
Mountain View, California 94043
USA
Email: furry@google.com
Massimiliano Stucchi
RIPE NCC
Stationsplein, 11
Amsterdam 1012 AB
The Netherlands
Email: mstucchi@ripe.net
Linkova & Stucchi Expires October 1, 2018 [Page 18]