wdiff rfc7987.original rfc7987.txt

Networking Working Group
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) L. Ginsberg
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 7987 P. Wells
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Cisco Systems
Expires: February 18, 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721 B. Decraene
Orange
T. Przygienda
Juniper
H. Gredler
Private Contributer
August 17,
RtBrick Inc.
October 2016

IS-IS Minimum Remaining Lifetime
draft-ietf-isis-remaining-lifetime-04.txt

Abstract

Corruption of the Remainining Remaining Lifetime Field field in a Link State PDU Protocol
Data Unit (LSP) can go undetected. In certain scenarios scenarios, this may
cause or exacerbate flooding storms. It is also a possible denial of service denial-
of-service attack vector. This document defines a backwards backwards-
compatible solution to this problem.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

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 an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list It represents the consensus of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for a maximum publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of six months RFC 5741.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents obtained 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 February 18, 2017.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7987.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://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. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Inconsistent Values for MaxAge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Reporting Corrupted Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Impact of Delayed LSP Purging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6
5. Security Considerations . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Contributors . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . 8
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . 7
8.2. Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Problem Statement

[ISO10589] defines the format of a Link State PDU (LSP) which that includes
a Remaining Lifetime field. This field is set by the originator
based on local configuration and then decremented by all systems once
the entry is stored in their Link State PDU LSP Database (LSPDB) consistent with the
passing of time. This allows all Intermediate Systems (ISs) to age
out the LSP at approximately the same time.

Each LSP also has a checksum field to allow receiving systems to
detect errors which that may have occurred during transmission. [ISO
10589] [ISO10589]
mandates that the checksum is calculated by the originator of the LSP
and cannot be modified by other routers. Therefore Therefore, the Remaining
Lifetime is deliberately excluded from the checksum calculation. In
cases where cryptographic authentication is included in an LSP
([RFC5304] or [RFC5310]) [RFC5310]), the Remaining Lifetime field is also
excluded from the hash calculation. If the Remaining Lifetime field
gets corrupted during flooding flooding, this corruption is therefore
undetectable. The consequences of such corruption depend upon how
the Remaining Lifetime is altered.

In cases where the Remaining Lifetime becomes larger than the
originator intended intended, the impact is benign. As the originator is
responsible for refreshing the LSP before it ages out out, a new version
of the LSP will be generated before the LSP ages out - out, so no harm is
done.

In cases where the Remaining Lifetime field becomes smaller than the
originator intended intended, the LSP may age out prematurely (i.e. (i.e., before
the originator refreshes the LSP). This has two negative
consequences:

1. The LSP will be purged by an IS when the Remaining Lifetime
expires. This will cause a temporary loss of reachability to
destinations impacted by the content of that LSP.

2. Unnecessary LSP flooding will occur as a result of the premature
purge and subsequent regeneration/flooding of a new version of
the LSP by the originator originator.

If the corrupted Remaining Lifetime is only modestly shorter than the
lifetime assigned by the originator originator, the negative impacts are also
modest. If, however, the corrupted Remaining Lifetime becomes very
small, then the negative impacts can become significant - significant, especially
in cases where the cause of the corruption is persistent so that the
cycle repeats itself frequently.

A backwards compatible backwards-compatible solution to this problem is defined in the
following sections.

1.1. Requirements Language

2. Solution

As discussed in the previous section, the problematic case is when
the Remaining Lifetime is corrupted and becomes much smaller than it
should be. The goal of the solution is then to prevent premature
purging.

Under normal circumstances circumstances, updates to an LSP - -- including purging purging,
if appropriate - -- are the responsibility of the originator of the
LSP. There is a maximum time between generations of a given LSP.
Once this time has expired expired, it is the responsibility of the
originator to refresh the LSP (i.e. (i.e., issue a new version with a
higher sequence number) even if the contents of the LSP have not
changed. [ISO10589] defines maximumLSPGenerationInterval to be
sufficiently less than the maximum lifetime of an LSP so that the new
version can be flooded network wide before the old version ages out
on any IS.

[ISO10589] defines two cases where a system other than the originator
of an LSP is allowed to purge an LSP:

1. The LSP ages out. This should only occur if the originating IS
is no longer reachable and therefore is unable to update the LSP LSP.

2. There is a Designated Intermediate System (DIS) change on a LAN.
The pseudo-node pseudonode LSPs generated by the previous DIS are no longer
required and may be purged by the new DIS.

In both of these cases cases, purging is not necessary for correct
operation of the protocol. It is provided as an optimization to
remove stale entries from the LSPDB.

In cases where the Remaining Lifetime in a received LSP has been
corrupted and is smaller than the Remaining Lifetime at the
originating node node, when the Remaining Lifetime expires on the
receiving
node node, it can appear as if the originating IS has failed to
regenerate the LSP before it ages out (case #1 above). To prevent
this from having a negative impact impact, a modest change to the storage of
"new" LSPs in the LSPDB is specified.

[ISO10589]

Section 7.3.16 of [ISO10589] defines the rules to determine whether a
received LSP is older, the same, or newer than the copy of the same
LSP in the receiver's LSPDB. The key elements are:

o Higher sequence numbers are newer newer.

o If sequence numbers are the same, an LSP with a zero Remaining
Lifetime (a purged LSP) is newer than the same LSP w with a non-zero
Remaining Lifetime Lifetime.

o If both the received and local copy of the LSP have a non-zero
Remaining Lifetime Lifetime, they are considered the same even if the
Remaining Lifetimes differ

[ISO10589] differ.

Section 7.3.15.1.e(1) of [ISO10589] defines the actions to take on
receipt of an LSP generated by another IS which that is newer than the
local copy and has a non-zero Remaining Lifetime. An additional
action is defined by this document:

vi. If the Remaining Lifetime of the new LSP is less than MaxAge MaxAge, it
is set to MaxAge MaxAge.

This additional action insures ensures that no matter what value of Remaining
Lifetime is received received, a system other than the originator of an LSP
will never purge the LSP until the LSP has existed in the database
for at least MaxAge.

It is important to note that no change is proposed for handling the
receipt of purged LSPs. The rules specified in [ISO10589] Section 7.3.15.1b 7.3.15.1.b of
[ISO10589] still apply apply, i.e., an LSP received with a zero Remaining
Lifetime is still considered newer than a matching LSP with
non-zero a non-
zero Remaining Lifetime. Therefore Therefore, the changes proposed here will
not result in LSPDB inconsistency among routers in the newtork. network.

3. Deployment Considerations

This section discusses some possible deployment issues for this
protocol extension.

3.1. Inconsistent Values for MaxAge

[ISO10589] defines MaxAge (the maximum value for the Remaining
Lifetime in an LSP) as an architectural constant of 20 minutes (1200
seconds). However, in practice, implementations have supported
allowing this value to be configurable. The common intent of a
configurable value is to support longer lifetimes than the default - default,
thus reducing the periodic regeneration of LSPs in the absence of
topology changes. See a discussion of this point in [RFC3719]. It
is therefore possible for the value of MaxAge on the IS which that
originates an LSP to be higher or lower than the value of MaxAge on
the ISs which that receive the LSP.

If the value of MaxAge of the IS which that originated the LSP is smaller
than the value of MaxAge of the receiver of an LSP, then setting the
Remaining Lifetime of the received LSP to the local value of MaxAge
will insure ensure that it is not purged prematurely. However, if the value
of MaxAge on the receiver is less than that of the originator originator, then
it is still possible to have an LSP purged prematurely when using the
extension defined in the previous
section to have an LSP purged prematurely. section. Implementors of this
extension may wish to protect against this case by making the value
to which the Remaining Lifetime is set under the conditions described
in the previous section configurable. If that is done done, the
configured value MUST be greater than or equal to the locally
configured value of MaxAge.

3.2. Reporting Corrupted Lifetime

Reporting reception of an LSP with a possible corrupt Remaining
Lifetime field can be useful in identifying a problem in the network.
In order to minimize the reports of false positives positives, the following
algorithm SHOULD be used in determining whether the Remaining
Lifetime in the received LSP is possibly corrupt:

o The LSP has passed all acceptance tests as specified in [ISO10589]
Section 7.3.15.1 of [ISO10589].

o The LSP is newer than the copy in the local LSPDB (including the
case of not being present in the LSPDB) LSPDB).

o The Remaining Lifetime in the received LSP is less than
ZeroAgeLifetime
ZeroAgeLifetime.

o The adjacency to the neighbor from which the LSP is received has
been up for a minimum of ZeroAgeLifetime ZeroAgeLifetime.

In such a case case, an IS SHOULD generate a CorruptRemainingLifetime
event.

Note that it is not possible to guarantee that all cases of a corrupt
Remaining Lifetime will be detected using the above algorithm. It is
also not possible to guarantee that all CorruptRemainingLifetime
events reported using the above algorithm are valid. As a diagnostic
aid
aid, an implementation MAY wish to retain the value of the Remaining
Lifetime received when the LSP was added to the LSPDB.

3.3. Impact of Delayed LSP Purging

The extensions defined in this document may result in retaining an
LSP longer than its original lifetime. In order for this to occur occur,
the scheduled refresh of the LSP by the originator of the LSP must
fail to occur - which -- this implies that the originator is no longer
reachable. In such a case case, its neighbors will update their own LSPs reporting
to report the loss of connectivity to the originator. [ISO10589]
specifies that LSPs from a node which that is unreachable (failure of the two-way-
two-way connectivity check) will not be used. Note that this
behavior applies to ALL information in the set of LSPs from such a
node.

Retention of stale LSPs therefore has no negative side effects other
than requiring additional memory for the LSPDB. In networks where a
combination of pathological behaviors (LSP corruption, (e.g., LSP corruption and
frequent resetting of nodes in the network) is seen seen, this could lead
to a large number of stale LSPs being retained - retained, but such networks are
already compromised.

4. IANA Considerations

None.

5. Security Considerations

The ability to introduce corrupt LSPs is not altered by the rules
defined in this document. Use of authentication as defined in
[RFC5304] and [RFC5310] prevents such LSPs from being intentionally
introduced. A "man-in-the-middle" man-in-the-middle attack which that modifies an existing LSP
by changing the Remaining Lifetime to a small value can cause
premature purges even in the presence of cryptographic
authentication. The mechanisms defined in this document prevent such
an attack from being effective.

6. Acknowledgements

The problem statement in [LIFE-PROB] motivated this work.

7. Contributors

The following people gave a substantial conrtibution to the content
of this document and should be considered as co-authors:

Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems

Email: sprevidi@cisco.com

5. References

8.1.

5.1. Normative References

[ISO10589]
International Organization for Standardization,
"Intermediate system
"Information technology -- Telecommunications and
information exchange between systems -- Intermediate
System to Intermediate system System intra-domain routeing
information exchange protocol for use in conjunction with
the protocol for providing the connectionless-mode Network Service network
service (ISO 8473)", ISO/
IEC ISO/IEC 10589:2002, Second Edition, Nov
November 2002.

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

[RFC5304] Li, T. and R. Atkinson, "IS-IS Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5304, DOI 10.17487/RFC5304, October
2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5304>.

[RFC5310] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., Li, T., Atkinson, R., White, R.,
and M. Fanto, "IS-IS Generic Cryptographic
Authentication", RFC 5310, DOI 10.17487/RFC5310, February
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5310>.

8.2. Informational

5.2. Informative References

[LIFE-PROB]

[PROB-STATEMENT]
Decraene, B. and C. Schmitz, "IS-IS LSP lifetime
corruption - Problem Statement, draft-
decraene-isis-lsp-lifetime-problem-statement-02(work Statement", Work in
progress)", Progress, draft-
decraene-isis-lsp-lifetime-problem-statement-02, July
2016.

[RFC3719] Parker, J., Ed., "Recommendations for Interoperable
Networks using Intermediate System to Intermediate System
(IS-IS)", RFC 3719, DOI 10.17487/RFC3719, February 2004,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3719>.

Acknowledgements

The problem statement in [PROB-STATEMENT] motivated this work.

Contributors

The following individual contributed substantially to the content of
this document and should be considered a co-author:

Stefano Previdi
Cisco Systems
Email: sprevidi@cisco.com

Authors' Addresses

Les Ginsberg
Cisco Systems
510 McCarthy Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
USA
United States of America

Email: ginsberg@cisco.com

Paul Wells
Cisco Systems
170 W W. Tasman Dr Dr.
San Jose, Ca CA 95035
USA
United States of America

Email: pauwells@cisco.com

Bruno Decraene
Orange
38 rue du General Leclerc
Issy Moulineaux cedex 9
44 avenue de la Republique, CS 50010
92326 Chatillon Cedex 92794
France

Email: bruno.decraene@orange.com
Tony Przygienda
Juniper
1137 Innovation Way
Sunnyvale, Ca CA 94089
USA
United States of America

Email: prz@juniper.net

Hannes Gredler
Private Contributer
RtBrick Inc.

Email: hannes@gredler.at hannes@rtbrick.com