wdiff rfc8319.alt-original rfc8319.txt

IPv6 Maintenance
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Krishnan
Internet-Draft
Request for Comments: 8319 Kaloom
Updates: 4861 (if approved) J. Korhonen
Intended status:
Category: Standards Track Broadcom
Expires: June 1, 2018 Nordic Semiconductor ASA
ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Chakrabarti
Ericsson
Verizon
E. Nordmark
Arista Networks
Zededa
A. Yourtchenko
cisco
November 28, 2017
Cisco
February 2018

Support for adjustable maximum router lifetimes per-link
draft-ietf-6man-maxra-04 Adjustable Maximum Router Lifetimes per Link

Abstract

The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery protocol specifies the maximum time
allowed between sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements
(RAs) from a router interface as well as the maximum router lifetime.
It also allows the limits to be overridden by link-layer documents that are
specific
documents. to the link layer. This document allows for overriding
these values on a per-link basis.

This document specifies updates to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
Protocol (RFC 4861) to increase the maximum time allowed between
sending unsolicited multicast RAs from a router interface as well as
to increase the maximum router lifetime.

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 https://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 7841.

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 June 1, 2018.
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8319.

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Relationship between AdvDefaultLifetime and MaxRtrAdvInterval 3
4. Updates to RFC4861 RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
8. Acknowledgements References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
9. References . . . 5
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8.2. Informative References . . . . 5
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acknowledgements . . . . . 5
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7

1. Introduction

IPv6 Neighbor Discovery relies on IP multicast based on the
expectation that multicast makes efficient use of available bandwidth
and avoids generating interrupts in the network nodes. On some
datalink layers data
link layers, multicast may not be natively supported. On such links,
any possible reduction of multicast traffic will be highly
beneficial. Unfortunately, due to the fixed protocol constants
specified in [RFC4861], it is difficult to relax the multicast timers
for neighbor discovery. Neighbor Discovery. There are already clarifications specific to
the link technology specific
clarifications describing about how to tune the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
(NDP) constants for certain systems with in order to reduce excess NDP
traffic. e.g. [RFC6459][RFC7066] For example, [RFC6459] and [RFC7066] contain such
clarifications for 3GPP cellular links.

This document specifies updates to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
Protocol [RFC4861] for increasing the to increase the maximum time allowed between
sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements (RA) RAs from a router interface as well as for
to increase the maximum router lifetime.

2. Terminology Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

3. Relationship between AdvDefaultLifetime and MaxRtrAdvInterval

MaxRtrAdvInterval is an upper bound on the time between which two
successive Router Advertisement messages are sent. Therefore Therefore, one
might reason about the relationship between these two values in terms
of a ratio K=AdvDefaultLifetime/MaxRtrAdvInterval, K = AdvDefaultLifetime / MaxRtrAdvInterval, which
expresses how many Router Advertisements will be are guaranteed to be sent
before the router lifetime expires.

Assuming unicast Solicited Router Advertisements or a perfectly
stable network, on a theoretically perfect link with no losses, it
would have been be sufficient to have K just above 1 - 1, so that the sent Router
Advertisement refreshes the router entry just before it expires. On
the real links which that allow for some loss, one would need to use K>2 K > 2
in order to minimize the chances of a single router
advertisement Router Advertisement
loss causing a loss of the router entry.

The exact calculation will depend on the packet loss probability. An
example: if we take a ballpark value of 1% probability of a packet
loss, then K=2 K = 2 will give 0.01% percent chance of an outage due to a packet
loss, K=3 K = 3 will give 0.0001% chance of an outage, and so forth. To
reverse the numbers, with these parameters, K~=1 K ~= 1 gives 99%
reliability, K~=2 K ~= 2 gives 99.99% reliability, and K~=3 K ~= 3 gives
99.9999% reliability - the latter -- which should be good enough for a lot of
scenarios.

In a network with higher packet loss probabilities or if the higher
reliability is desired, the K might be chosen to be even higher. On
the other hand, some of the data link layers provide reliable
delivery at layer 2 - Layer 2, so there one might even consider using the
"theoretical" value of K just above 1. Since the choice of these two
parameters does not impact interoperability per se, this document
does not impose any specific constraints on their values other than
providing the guidelines in this section, therefore section. Therefore, each individual
link can optimize accordingly according to its use case.

Also

Also, AdvDefaultLifetime MUST be set to a value greater than or equal
to the selected MaxRtrAdvInterval. Otherwise, a router lifetime is
guaranteed to expire before the new Router Advertisement has a chance
to be sent, thereby creating an outage.

4. Updates to RFC4861 RFC 4861

This document updates Section Sections 4.2 and Section 6.2.1. 6.2.1 of [RFC4861] to
update change
the following router configuration variables.

In Section 4.2, inside the paragraph that defines Router Lifetime,
change 9000 to 65535 seconds.

In Section 6.2.1, inside the paragraph that defines
MaxRtrAdvInterval, change 1800 to 65535 seconds.

In Section 6.2.1, inside the paragraph that defines
AdvDefaultLifetime, change 9000 to 65535 seconds.

As explained in Section 3, the probability of packet loss must be
considered when choosing the relationship between MaxRtrAdvInterval
and AdvDefaultLifetime must be chosen to take into account the
probability of packet loss. AdvDefaultLifetime.

5. Host Behavior

Legacy hosts on a link with updated routers may have issues with a
Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds. In the few
implementations we have tested with general purpose general-purpose operating
systems, there does not seem to be any issues issue with setting this field
to more than 9000, but there might be implementations that
incorrectly reject such RAs (since RFC4861 RFC 4861 requires receivers to
handle any value)
reject such RAs. value).

6. Security Considerations

On a link where router advertisements Router Advertisements are few and far between, the
detrimental effects of a rogue router that sends an unsolicited RA
are greatly increased. These rogue RAs can be prevented by using
approaches like RA-Guard [RFC6105] and SeND [RFC3971] SEcure Neighbor Discovery
(SEND) [RFC3971].

7. IANA Considerations

This document does not require any has no IANA action.

9. actions.

8. References

9.1.

8.1. Normative References

[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>.

[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>.

9.2.

[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

8.2. Informative References

[RFC3971] Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
"SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.

[RFC6105] Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.

[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.

[RFC7066] Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the members of the 6man 6MAN efficient ND
design team for their comments that led to the creation of this
draft.
document. The authors would also like to thank Lorenzo Colitti, Erik
Kline, Jeena Rachel John, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Fernando Gont,
Warren Kumari Kumari, and Adam Roach for their comments and suggestions that
improved this document.

Authors' Addresses

Suresh Krishnan
Kaloom
335 Rue Peel
Montreal, QC
Canada

Email: suresh@kaloom.com

Jouni Korhonen
Broadcom
Porkkalankatu 24
FIN-00180 Helsinki
Nordic Semiconductor ASA
Metsanneidonkuja 10
02130 Espoo
Finland

Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com

Samita Chakrabarti
Ericsson
USA
Verizon
United States of America

Email: samita.chakrabarti@ericsson.com samita.chakrabarti@verizon.com

Erik Nordmark
Arista Networks
Zededa
Santa Clara, CA
USA
United States of America

Email: nordmark@acm.org

Andrew Yourtchenko
cisco
Cisco
6b de Kleetlaan
Diegem 1831
Belgium

Email: ayourtch@cisco.com