wdiff rfc8703v1.txt rfc8703.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Taylor
Request for Comments: 8703 Airbus Defence & Space
Category: Standards Track S. Ratliff
ISSN: 2070-1721 VT iDirect
January February 2020

Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) Link Identifier Extension

Abstract

The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is a protocol for modems to
advertise the status of wireless links between reachable destinations
to attached routers. The core specification of the protocol (RFC
8175) assumes that every modem in the radio network has an attached
DLEP router and requires that the Media Access Control (MAC) address
of the DLEP interface on the attached router be used to identify the
destination in the network, for purposes of reporting the state and
quality of the link to that destination.

This document describes a DLEP extension that allows modems that do
not meet the strict requirement above to use DLEP to describe link
availability and quality to one or more destinations reachable beyond
a device on the Layer 2 domain.

Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8703.

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
1.1. Terminology
1.2. Applicability
1.3. Requirements Language
2. Operation
2.1. Identifier Restrictions
2.2. Negotiation
3. New Data Items
3.1. Link Identifier Length Data Item
3.2. Link Identifier Data Item
4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations
6. References
6.1. Normative References
6.2. Informative References
Authors' Addresses

1. Introduction

The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) is a protocol for modems to
advertise the status of wireless links between reachable destinations
to attached routers. The core specification of the protocol
[RFC8175] assumes that every modem in the radio network has an
attached DLEP router and requires that the MAC address of the DLEP
interface on the attached router be used to identify the destination
in the network, for purposes of reporting the state and quality of
the link to that destination.

As with core DLEP, DLEP [RFC8175], a router can use this knowledge to
influence any routing or flow-control decisions regarding traffic to
this destination, understanding that such traffic flows via Layer 3.

1.1. Terminology

Local Layer 2 domain: The Layer 2 domain that links the router and
modem participants of the current DLEP session.

Layer 3 DLEP Destination: A DLEP Destination that is not directly
addressable within the local Layer 2 domain but is reachable via a
node addressable within the local Layer 2 domain.

Gateway Node: The last device with a MAC address reachable in the
local Layer 2 domain on the path from the DLEP router participant
towards the Layer 3 DLEP Destination. This device is commonly the
DLEP peer modem but could be another DLEP Destination in the Layer
2 domain.

1.2. Applicability

This extension was designed primarily to address the following use
cases:

1. A radio system that does not operate in Layer 2 bridge mode but
instead provides Layer 3 connectivity between destinations, often
using its own embedded Layer 3 routing function.

2. A point-to-multipoint tunnel system, such as a software-defined
wide-area network (SD-WAN) deployment, where the tunnel provider
acts as a modem that has knowledge of the characteristics of the
underlay network and provides that information as availability
and metrics between tunnel endpoints in the overlay network.

3. A modem that provides connectivity to a remote wide-area network
via a wireless link, but the concept of a Layer 2 reachable
remote router does not apply. An example of such a modem would
be an LTE device or 802.11 station that provides variable
connectivity to the Internet.

This list of use cases is not exhaustive, and this extension may well
be applicable to future, currently unforeseen, use cases.

1.3. 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
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.

2. Operation

To refer to a Layer 3 DLEP Destination, the DLEP session participant
adds a Link Identifier Data Item (Section 3.2) to the relevant
Destination Message and (as usual) includes a MAC Address Data Item.
When paired with a Link Identifier Data Item, the MAC Address Data
Item MUST contain the MAC address of the Gateway Node.

As only modems are initially aware of Layer 3 DLEP Destinations, Link
Identifier Data Items referring to a new link MUST first appear in a
DLEP Destination Up Message from the modem to the router. Once a
link has been identified in this way, Link Identifier Data Items may
be used by either DLEP participant during the lifetime of a DLEP
session. Because of this, a router MUST NOT send a DLEP Destination
Announce Message containing a Link Identifier Data Item referring to
a link that has not been mentioned in a prior DLEP Destination Up
Message. If a modem receives such a message, it MUST terminate the
session by issuing a Session Termination Message containing a Status
Data Item with status code set to 131 ('Invalid Destination') and
transition to the Session Termination state. If a router receives a
Destination Up Message specifying a Link Identifier that has already
been used, the router MUST respond with a Destination Up Response
Message containing a Status Data Item with status code set to 130
('Invalid Data') and transition to the Session Termination state.

Because the MAC Address address associated with any DLEP Destination Message
containing a Link Identifier Data Item is not the Layer 2 address of
the final destination, all DLEP Destination Up Messages containing a
Link Identifier Data Item MUST contain Layer 3 information. In the
case of modems that provide Layer 3 wide area network connectivity
between devices, this means one or more IPv4 or IPv6 Address Data
Items providing the Layer 3 address of the final destination. When
referring to some upstream backbone network infrastructures, this
means one or more IPv4 or IPv6 Attached Subnet Data Items, for
example: '0.0.0.0/0' or '::/0'. This mechanism allows the DLEP peer
router to understand the properties of the link to those routes. The
address or addresses in the IPv4 or IPv6 Address Data Items MUST be
the addresses in use on the public side of any Network Address
Translation.

When the DLEP peer router wishes to route packets to the Layer 3 DLEP
Destination, the MAC address associated with the Gateway Node MUST be
used as the Layer 2 destination of the packet if it wishes to use the
modem network to forward the packet.

As routers populate their Routing Information Base with the IP
address of the next-hop router towards a destination, implementations
supporting this extension SHOULD announce at least one valid IPv4 or
IPv6 addresses of the Gateway Node; this removes the need for the
router to use an additional IP address resolution protocol before
adding the route to its Routing Information Base.

2.1. Identifier Restrictions

A Link Identifier is, by default, 4 octets in length. If a modem
wishes to use a Link Identifier of a different length, it MUST be
announced using the Link Identifier Length Data Item (Section 3.1)
contained in the DLEP Session Initialization Response Message sent by
the modem to the router.

During the lifetime of a DLEP session, the length of Link Identifiers
MUST remain constant, i.e., the Length field of the Link Identifier
Data Item MUST NOT differ between destinations.

The method for generating Link Identifiers is a modem implementation
matter and out of scope of this document. Routers must not make any
assumptions about the meaning of Link Identifiers or how Link
Identifiers are generated.

Within a single DLEP session, all Link Identifiers MUST be unique per
MAC Address. address. This means that a Layer 3 DLEP Destination is uniquely
identified by the pair: {MAC Address,Link Identifier}.

Link Identifiers MUST NOT be reused, i.e., a {MAC Address,Link
Identifier} pair that has been used to refer to one Layer 3 DLEP
Destination MUST NOT be used again within the lifetime of a single
DLEP peer-to-peer session.

2.2. Negotiation

To use this extension, as with all DLEP extensions, the extension
MUST be announced during DLEP session initialization. A router
advertises support by including the value 'Link Identifiers' (3) 3 ('Link Identifiers')
(Section 5), in the Extension Data Item within the Session
Initialization Message. A modem advertises support by including the
value 'Link Identifiers' 3 ('Link Identifiers') in the Extension Data Item within the
Session Initialization Response Message. If both DLEP peers
advertise support for this extension, then Link Identifier Data Items
can be included in DLEP Messages.

If a modem requires support for this extension in order to describe
destinations and the router does not advertise support, then the
modem MUST NOT include a Link Identifier Data Item in any DLEP
Message. However, the modem SHOULD NOT immediately terminate the
DLEP session; rather, it SHOULD use a combination of DLEP Session
Messages and DLEP Attached Subnet Data Items to provide general
information.

3. New Data Items

This extension introduces two new DLEP Data Items: 1) the Link
Identifier Length Data Item (Section 3.1) used to announce the length
of Link Identifiers at session initialization and 2) the Link
Identifier Data Item (Section 3.2) used to identify a Layer 3 link at
or beyond a destination.

3.1. Link Identifier Length Data Item

The Link Identifier Length Data Item is used by a DLEP modem
implementation to specify the length of Link Identifier Data Items.
If the router advertised support by including the value 'Link
Identifiers' 3 ('Link
Identifiers') in the Extension Data Item inside the Session
Initialization Message, this Data Item MAY be used in the Session
Initialization Response Message if the specified length is not the
default value of 4 octets. If the router did not specify support by
including the value 'Link Identifiers' 3 ('Link Identifiers') in the Extension Data
Item, this Data Item MUST NOT be sent.

0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Data Item Type | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Link Identifier Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Data Item Type: 26 (see Section 5)

Length: 2

Link Identifier Length: The length, in octets, of Link Identifiers
used by the DLEP modem for this session.

A Link Identifier Length Data Item that specifies a Link Identifier
Length of 4 octets (the default) is valid, even if it has no effect.

3.2. Link Identifier Data Item

The Link Identifier Data Item MAY be used wherever a MAC Address Data
Item is defined as usable in core DLEP. DLEP [RFC8175].

Data Item Type: 27 (see Section 5)

Length: The length of the Data Item, by default 4, but may be
different if a Link Identifier Length Data Item (Section 3.1) has
been announced during session initialization.

Link Identifier: The unique identifier of the Layer 3 DLEP
Destination. This Link Identifier has no implicit meaning and is
only used to discriminate between multiple links.

4. Security Considerations

As an extension to the core DLEP protocol, [RFC8175], the security considerations
of that protocol apply to this extension. This extension adds no
additional security mechanisms or features.

None of the features introduced by this extension require extra
security considerations by an implementation.

5. IANA Considerations

IANA has assigned the following value to the "Extension Type Values"
registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
Parameters" registry. This new value is in the range with the
"Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy.

+------+------------------+
| Code | Description |
+======+==================+
| 3 | Link Identifiers |
+------+------------------+

Table 1: Addition to
the Extension Type
Values Registry

IANA has assigned two new values to the "Data Item Type Values"
registry within the "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)
Parameters" registry. These new values are in the range with the
"Specification Required" [RFC8126] policy.

+-----------+------------------------+
| Type Code | Description |
+===========+========================+
| 26 | Link Identifier Length |
+-----------+------------------------+
| 27 | Link Identifier |
+-----------+------------------------+

Table 2: Additions to the Data
Item Type Values Registry

6. References

6.1. 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>.

[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>.

[RFC8175] Ratliff, S., Jury, S., Satterwhite, D., Taylor, R., and B.
Berry, "Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)", RFC 8175,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8175, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8175>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Authors' Addresses

Rick Taylor
Airbus Defence & Space
Quadrant House
Celtic Springs
Coedkernew
Newport
NP10 8FZ
United Kingdom

Email: rick.taylor@airbus.com

Stan Ratliff
VT iDirect
13861 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 300
Herndon, VA 20171
United States of America

Email: sratliff@idirect.net