rfc8990.original   rfc8990.txt 
Network Working Group C. Bormann Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI Request for Comments: 8990 Universität Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track B. Carpenter, Ed. Category: Standards Track B. Carpenter, Ed.
Expires: January 8, 2018 Univ. of Auckland ISSN: 2070-1721 Univ. of Auckland
B. Liu, Ed. B. Liu, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
July 7, 2017 May 2021
A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15
Abstract Abstract
This document specifies the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol This document specifies the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol
(GRASP), which enables autonomic nodes and autonomic service agents (GRASP), which enables autonomic nodes and Autonomic Service Agents
to dynamically discover peers, to synchronize state with each other, to dynamically discover peers, to synchronize state with each other,
and to negotiate parameter settings with each other. GRASP depends and to negotiate parameter settings with each other. GRASP depends
on an external security environment that is described elsewhere. The on an external security environment that is described elsewhere. The
technical objectives and parameters for specific application technical objectives and parameters for specific application
scenarios are to be described in separate documents. Appendices scenarios are to be described in separate documents. Appendices
briefly discuss requirements for the protocol and existing protocols briefly discuss requirements for the protocol and existing protocols
with comparable features. with comparable features.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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 http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference received public review and has been approved for publication by the
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2018. 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/rfc8990.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1. Introduction
2. GRASP Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Protocol Overview
2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Terminology
2.2. High Level Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. High-Level Deployment Model
2.3. High Level Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. High-Level Design
2.4. Quick Operating Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.4. Quick Operating Overview
2.5. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms . . . . . 12 2.5. GRASP Basic Properties and Mechanisms
2.5.1. Required External Security Mechanism . . . . . . . . 12 2.5.1. Required External Security Mechanism
2.5.2. Discovery Unsolicited Link-Local (DULL) GRASP . . . . 13 2.5.2. Discovery Unsolicited Link-Local (DULL) GRASP
2.5.3. Transport Layer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.5.3. Transport Layer Usage
2.5.4. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures . . . . . . . . . 15 2.5.4. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures
2.5.5. Negotiation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.5.5. Negotiation Procedures
2.5.6. Synchronization and Flooding Procedures . . . . . . . 21 2.5.6. Synchronization and Flooding Procedures
2.6. GRASP Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.6. GRASP Constants
2.7. Session Identifier (Session ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.7. Session Identifier (Session ID)
2.8. GRASP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.8. GRASP Messages
2.8.1. Message Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.8.1. Message Overview
2.8.2. GRASP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.8.2. GRASP Message Format
2.8.3. Message Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.8.3. Message Size
2.8.4. Discovery Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.8.4. Discovery Message
2.8.5. Discovery Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2.8.5. Discovery Response Message
2.8.6. Request Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 2.8.6. Request Messages
2.8.7. Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.8.7. Negotiation Message
2.8.8. Negotiation End Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.8.8. Negotiation End Message
2.8.9. Confirm Waiting Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.8.9. Confirm Waiting Message
2.8.10. Synchronization Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.8.10. Synchronization Message
2.8.11. Flood Synchronization Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.8.11. Flood Synchronization Message
2.8.12. Invalid Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.8.12. Invalid Message
2.8.13. No Operation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.8.13. No Operation Message
2.9. GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.9. GRASP Options
2.9.1. Format of GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.9.1. Format of GRASP Options
2.9.2. Divert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.9.2. Divert Option
2.9.3. Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.9.3. Accept Option
2.9.4. Decline Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.9.4. Decline Option
2.9.5. Locator Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.9.5. Locator Options
2.10. Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.10. Objective Options
2.10.1. Format of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.10.1. Format of Objective Options
2.10.2. Objective flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.10.2. Objective Flags
2.10.3. General Considerations for Objective Options . . . . 38 2.10.3. General Considerations for Objective Options
2.10.4. Organizing of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.10.4. Organizing of Objective Options
2.10.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options . . . . . 41 2.10.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options
3. Implementation Status [RFC Editor: please remove] . . . . . . 41 3. Security Considerations
3.1. BUPT C++ Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. CDDL Specification of GRASP
3.2. Python Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5. IANA Considerations
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6. References
5. CDDL Specification of GRASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 6.1. Normative References
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.2. Informative References
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix A. Example Message Formats
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 A.1. Discovery Example
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 A.2. Flood Example
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 A.3. Synchronization Example
Appendix A. Open Issues [RFC Editor: This section should be A.4. Simple Negotiation Example
empty. Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 A.5. Complete Negotiation Example
Appendix B. Closed Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . 54 Appendix B. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization,
Appendix C. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . 62 and Negotiation
Appendix D. Example Message Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 B.1. Requirements for Discovery
D.1. Discovery Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 B.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability
D.2. Flood Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 B.3. Specific Technical Requirements
D.3. Synchronization Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Appendix C. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols
D.4. Simple Negotiation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Acknowledgments
D.5. Complete Negotiation Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Authors' Addresses
Appendix E. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization
and Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
E.1. Requirements for Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
E.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation
Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
E.3. Specific Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix F. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols . . . . . . 78
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and
more complicated. Large-scale ISP and enterprise networks have more complicated. Large-scale ISP and enterprise networks have
become more and more problematic for human based management. Also, become more and more problematic for human-based management. Also,
operational costs are growing quickly. Consequently, there are operational costs are growing quickly. Consequently, there are
increased requirements for autonomic behavior in the networks. increased requirements for autonomic behavior in the networks.
General aspects of autonomic networks are discussed in [RFC7575] and General aspects of Autonomic Networks are discussed in [RFC7575] and
[RFC7576]. [RFC7576].
One approach is to largely decentralize the logic of network One approach is to largely decentralize the logic of network
management by migrating it into network elements. A reference model management by migrating it into network elements. A reference model
for autonomic networking on this basis is given in for Autonomic Networking on this basis is given in [RFC8993]. The
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]. The reader should consult this reader should consult this document to understand how various
document to understand how various autonomic components fit together. autonomic components fit together. In order to achieve autonomy,
In order to fulfill autonomy, devices that embody Autonomic Service devices that embody Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs, [RFC7575]) have
Agents (ASAs, [RFC7575]) have specific signaling requirements. In specific signaling requirements. In particular, they need to
particular they need to discover each other, to synchronize state discover each other, to synchronize state with each other, and to
with each other, and to negotiate parameters and resources directly negotiate parameters and resources directly with each other. There
with each other. There is no limitation on the types of parameters is no limitation on the types of parameters and resources concerned,
and resources concerned, which can include very basic information which can include very basic information needed for addressing and
needed for addressing and routing, as well as anything else that routing, as well as anything else that might be configured in a
might be configured in a conventional non-autonomic network. The conventional non-autonomic network. The atomic unit of discovery,
atomic unit of discovery, synchronization or negotiation is referred synchronization, or negotiation is referred to as a technical
to as a technical objective, i.e, a configurable parameter or set of objective, i.e., a configurable parameter or set of parameters
parameters (defined more precisely in Section 2.1). (defined more precisely in Section 2.1).
Negotiation is an iterative process, requiring multiple message Negotiation is an iterative process, requiring multiple message
exchanges forming a closed loop between the negotiating entities. In exchanges forming a closed loop between the negotiating entities. In
fact, these entities are ASAs, normally but not necessarily in fact, these entities are ASAs, normally but not necessarily in
different network devices. State synchronization, when needed, can different network devices. State synchronization, when needed, can
be regarded as a special case of negotiation, without iteration. be regarded as a special case of negotiation without iteration. Both
Both negotiation and synchronization must logically follow discovery. negotiation and synchronization must logically follow discovery.
More details of the requirements are found in Appendix E. More details of the requirements are found in Appendix B.
Section 2.3 describes a behavior model for a protocol intended to Section 2.3 describes a behavior model for a protocol intended to
support discovery, synchronization and negotiation. The design of support discovery, synchronization, and negotiation. The design of
GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) in Section 2 of this GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) in Section 2 is based on
document is based on this behavior model. The relevant capabilities this behavior model. The relevant capabilities of various existing
of various existing protocols are reviewed in Appendix F. protocols are reviewed in Appendix C.
The proposed discovery mechanism is oriented towards synchronization The proposed discovery mechanism is oriented towards synchronization
and negotiation objectives. It is based on a neighbor discovery and negotiation objectives. It is based on a neighbor discovery
process on the local link, but also supports diversion to peers on process on the local link, but it also supports diversion to peers on
other links. There is no assumption of any particular form of other links. There is no assumption of any particular form of
network topology. When a device starts up with no pre-configuration, network topology. When a device starts up with no preconfiguration,
it has no knowledge of the topology. The protocol itself is capable it has no knowledge of the topology. The protocol itself is capable
of being used in a small and/or flat network structure such as a of being used in a small and/or flat network structure such as a
small office or home network as well as in a large professionally small office or home network as well as in a large, professionally
managed network. Therefore, the discovery mechanism needs to be able managed network. Therefore, the discovery mechanism needs to be able
to allow a device to bootstrap itself without making any prior to allow a device to bootstrap itself without making any prior
assumptions about network structure. assumptions about network structure.
Because GRASP can be used as part of a decision process among Because GRASP can be used as part of a decision process among
distributed devices or between networks, it must run in a secure and distributed devices or between networks, it must run in a secure and
strongly authenticated environment. strongly authenticated environment.
In realistic deployments, not all devices will support GRASP. In realistic deployments, not all devices will support GRASP.
Therefore, some autonomic service agents will directly manage a group Therefore, some Autonomic Service Agents will directly manage a group
of non-autonomic nodes, and other non-autonomic nodes will be managed of non-autonomic nodes, and other non-autonomic nodes will be managed
traditionally. Such mixed scenarios are not discussed in this traditionally. Such mixed scenarios are not discussed in this
specification. specification.
2. GRASP Protocol Overview 2. Protocol Overview
2.1. Terminology 2.1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
[RFC2119] when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual capitals, as shown here.
English meanings, and are not to be interpreted as [RFC2119] key
words.
This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575]. This document uses terminology defined in [RFC7575].
The following additional terms are used throughout this document: The following additional terms are used throughout this document:
o Discovery: a process by which an ASA discovers peers according to Discovery:
a specific discovery objective. The discovery results may be A process by which an ASA discovers peers according to a specific
different according to the different discovery objectives. The discovery objective. The discovery results may be different
discovered peers may later be used as negotiation counterparts or according to the different discovery objectives. The discovered
as sources of synchronization data. peers may later be used as negotiation counterparts or as sources
of synchronization data.
o Negotiation: a process by which two ASAs interact iteratively to Negotiation:
agree on parameter settings that best satisfy the objectives of A process by which two ASAs interact iteratively to agree on
both ASAs. parameter settings that best satisfy the objectives of both ASAs.
o State Synchronization: a process by which ASAs interact to receive State Synchronization:
the current state of parameter values stored in other ASAs. This A process by which ASAs interact to receive the current state of
is a special case of negotiation in which information is sent but parameter values stored in other ASAs. This is a special case of
the ASAs do not request their peers to change parameter settings. negotiation in which information is sent, but the ASAs do not
All other definitions apply to both negotiation and request their peers to change parameter settings. All other
synchronization. definitions apply to both negotiation and synchronization.
o Technical Objective (usually abbreviated as Objective): A Technical Objective (usually abbreviated as Objective):
technical objective is a data structure, whose main contents are a A technical objective is a data structure whose main contents are
name and a value. The value consists of a single configurable a name and a value. The value consists of a single configurable
parameter or a set of parameters of some kind. The exact format parameter or a set of parameters of some kind. The exact format
of an objective is defined in Section 2.10.1. An objective occurs of an objective is defined in Section 2.10.1. An objective occurs
in three contexts: Discovery, Negotiation and Synchronization. in three contexts: discovery, negotiation, and synchronization.
Normally, a given objective will not occur in negotiation and Normally, a given objective will not occur in negotiation and
synchronization contexts simultaneously. synchronization contexts simultaneously.
* One ASA may support multiple independent objectives. One ASA may support multiple independent objectives.
* The parameter(s) in the value of a given objective apply to a The parameter(s) in the value of a given objective apply to a
specific service or function or action. They may in principle specific service or function or action. They may in principle
be anything that can be set to a specific logical, numerical or be anything that can be set to a specific logical, numerical,
string value, or a more complex data structure, by a network or string value, or a more complex data structure, by a network
node. Each node is expected to contain one or more ASAs which node. Each node is expected to contain one or more ASAs which
may each manage subsidiary non-autonomic nodes. may each manage subsidiary non-autonomic nodes.
* Discovery Objective: an objective in the process of discovery. Discovery Objective: an objective in the process of discovery.
Its value may be undefined. Its value may be undefined.
* Synchronization Objective: an objective whose specific Synchronization Objective: an objective whose specific
technical content needs to be synchronized among two or more technical content needs to be synchronized among two or more
ASAs. Thus, each ASA will maintain its own copy of the ASAs. Thus, each ASA will maintain its own copy of the
objective. objective.
* Negotiation Objective: an objective whose specific technical Negotiation Objective: an objective whose specific technical
content needs to be decided in coordination with another ASA. content needs to be decided in coordination with another
Again, each ASA will maintain its own copy of the objective. ASA. Again, each ASA will maintain its own copy of the
objective.
A detailed discussion of objectives, including their format, is A detailed discussion of objectives, including their format, is
found in Section 2.10. found in Section 2.10.
o Discovery Initiator: an ASA that starts discovery by sending a Discovery Initiator:
discovery message referring to a specific discovery objective. An ASA that starts discovery by sending a Discovery message
referring to a specific discovery objective.
o Discovery Responder: a peer that either contains an ASA supporting Discovery Responder:
the discovery objective indicated by the discovery initiator, or A peer that either contains an ASA supporting the discovery
caches the locator(s) of the ASA(s) supporting the objective. It objective indicated by the discovery initiator or caches the
sends a Discovery Response, as described later. locator(s) of the ASA(s) supporting the objective. It sends a
Discovery Response, as described later.
o Synchronization Initiator: an ASA that starts synchronization by Synchronization Initiator:
sending a request message referring to a specific synchronization An ASA that starts synchronization by sending a request message
objective. referring to a specific synchronization objective.
o Synchronization Responder: a peer ASA which responds with the Synchronization Responder:
value of a synchronization objective. A peer ASA that responds with the value of a synchronization
objective.
o Negotiation Initiator: an ASA that starts negotiation by sending a Negotiation Initiator:
request message referring to a specific negotiation objective. An ASA that starts negotiation by sending a request message
referring to a specific negotiation objective.
o Negotiation Counterpart: a peer with which the Negotiation Negotiation Counterpart:
Initiator negotiates a specific negotiation objective. A peer with which the negotiation initiator negotiates a specific
negotiation objective.
o GRASP Instance: This refers to an instantiation of a GRASP GRASP Instance:
protocol engine, likely including multiple threads or processes as This refers to an instantiation of a GRASP protocol engine, likely
well as dynamic data structures such as a discovery cache, running including multiple threads or processes as well as dynamic data
in a given security environment on a single device. structures such as a discovery cache, running in a given security
environment on a single device.
o GRASP Core: This refers to the code and shared data structures of GRASP Core:
a GRASP instance, which will communicate with individual ASAs via This refers to the code and shared data structures of a GRASP
a suitable Application Programming Interface (API). instance, which will communicate with individual ASAs via a
suitable Application Programming Interface (API).
o Interface or GRASP Interface: Unless otherwise stated, these refer Interface or GRASP Interface:
to a network interface - which might be physical or virtual - that Unless otherwise stated, this refers to a network interface, which
a specific instance of GRASP is currently using. A device might might be physical or virtual, that a specific instance of GRASP is
have other interfaces that are not used by GRASP and which are currently using. A device might have other interfaces that are
outside the scope of the autonomic network. not used by GRASP and which are outside the scope of the Autonomic
Network.
2.2. High Level Deployment Model 2.2. High-Level Deployment Model
A GRASP implementation will be part of the Autonomic Networking A GRASP implementation will be part of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure (ANI) in an autonomic node, which must also provide an Infrastructure (ANI) in an autonomic node, which must also provide an
appropriate security environment. In accordance with appropriate security environment. In accordance with [RFC8993], this
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model], this SHOULD be the Autonomic SHOULD be the Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) [RFC8994]. As a result,
Control Plane (ACP) [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. As a all autonomic nodes in the ACP are able to trust each other. It is
result, all autonomic nodes in the ACP are able to trust each other. expected that GRASP will access the ACP by using a typical socket
It is expected that GRASP will access the ACP by using a typical programming interface, and the ACP will make available only network
socket programming interface and the ACP will make available only interfaces within the Autonomic Network. If there is no ACP, the
network interfaces within the autonomic network. If there is no ACP, considerations described in Section 2.5.1 apply.
the considerations described in Section 2.5.1 apply.
There will also be one or more Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs). In There will also be one or more Autonomic Service Agents (ASAs). In
the minimal case of a single-purpose device, these components might the minimal case of a single-purpose device, these components might
be fully integrated with GRASP and the ACP. A more common model is be fully integrated with GRASP and the ACP. A more common model is
expected to be a multi-purpose device capable of containing several expected to be a multipurpose device capable of containing several
ASAs, such as a router or large switch. In this case it is expected ASAs, such as a router or large switch. In this case it is expected
that the ACP, GRASP and the ASAs will be implemented as separate that the ACP, GRASP and the ASAs will be implemented as separate
processes, which are able to support asynchronous and simultaneous processes, which are able to support asynchronous and simultaneous
operations, for example by multi-threading. operations, for example by multithreading.
In some scenarios, a limited negotiation model might be deployed In some scenarios, a limited negotiation model might be deployed
based on a limited trust relationship such as that between two based on a limited trust relationship such as that between two
administrative domains. ASAs might then exchange limited information administrative domains. ASAs might then exchange limited information
and negotiate some particular configurations. and negotiate some particular configurations.
GRASP is explicitly designed to operate within a single addressing GRASP is explicitly designed to operate within a single addressing
realm. Its discovery and flooding mechanisms do not support realm. Its discovery and flooding mechanisms do not support
autonomic operations that cross any form of address translator or autonomic operations that cross any form of address translator or
upper layer proxy. upper-layer proxy.
A suitable Application Programming Interface (API) will be needed A suitable Application Programming Interface (API) will be needed
between GRASP and the ASAs. In some implementations, ASAs would run between GRASP and the ASAs. In some implementations, ASAs would run
in user space with a GRASP library providing the API, and this in user space with a GRASP library providing the API, and this
library would in turn communicate via system calls with core GRASP library would in turn communicate via system calls with core GRASP
functions. Details of the API are out of scope for the present functions. Details of the API are out of scope for the present
document. For further details of possible deployment models, see document. For further details of possible deployment models, see
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]. [RFC8993].
An instance of GRASP must be aware of the network interfaces it will An instance of GRASP must be aware of the network interfaces it will
use, and of the appropriate global-scope and link-local addresses. use, and of the appropriate global-scope and link-local addresses.
In the presence of the ACP, such information will be available from In the presence of the ACP, such information will be available from
the adjacency table discussed in [I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]. the adjacency table discussed in [RFC8993]. In other cases, GRASP
In other cases, GRASP must determine such information for itself. must determine such information for itself. Details depend on the
Details depend on the device and operating system. In the rest of device and operating system. In the rest of this document, the terms
this document, the terms 'interfaces' or 'GRASP interfaces' refers 'interfaces' or 'GRASP interfaces' refers only to the set of network
only to the set of network interfaces that a specific instance of interfaces that a specific instance of GRASP is currently using.
GRASP is currently using.
Because GRASP needs to work with very high reliability, especially Because GRASP needs to work with very high reliability, especially
during bootstrapping and during fault conditions, it is essential during bootstrapping and during fault conditions, it is essential
that every implementation continues to operate in adverse conditions. that every implementation continues to operate in adverse conditions.
For example, discovery failures, or any kind of socket exception at For example, discovery failures, or any kind of socket exception at
any time, must not cause irrecoverable failures in GRASP itself, and any time, must not cause irrecoverable failures in GRASP itself, and
must return suitable error codes through the API so that ASAs can must return suitable error codes through the API so that ASAs can
also recover. also recover.
GRASP must not depend upon non-volatile data storage. All run time GRASP must not depend upon nonvolatile data storage. All runtime
error conditions, and events such as address renumbering, network error conditions, and events such as address renumbering, network
interface failures, and CPU sleep/wake cycles, must be handled in interface failures, and CPU sleep/wake cycles, must be handled in
such a way that GRASP will still operate correctly and securely such a way that GRASP will still operate correctly and securely
(Section 2.5.1) afterwards. afterwards (Section 2.5.1).
An autonomic node will normally run a single instance of GRASP, used An autonomic node will normally run a single instance of GRASP, which
by multiple ASAs. Possible exceptions are mentioned below. is used by multiple ASAs. Possible exceptions are mentioned below.
2.3. High Level Design 2.3. High-Level Design
This section describes the behavior model and general design of This section describes the behavior model and general design of
GRASP, supporting discovery, synchronization and negotiation, to act GRASP, supporting discovery, synchronization, and negotiation, to act
as a platform for different technical objectives. as a platform for different technical objectives.
o A generic platform: A generic platform:
The protocol design is generic and independent of the The protocol design is generic and independent of the
synchronization or negotiation contents. The technical contents synchronization or negotiation contents. The technical contents
will vary according to the various technical objectives and the will vary according to the various technical objectives and the
different pairs of counterparts. different pairs of counterparts.
o Normally, a single main instance of the GRASP protocol engine will Multiple instances:
Normally, a single main instance of the GRASP protocol engine will
exist in an autonomic node, and each ASA will run as an exist in an autonomic node, and each ASA will run as an
independent asynchronous process. However, scenarios where independent asynchronous process. However, scenarios where
multiple instances of GRASP run in a single node, perhaps with multiple instances of GRASP run in a single node, perhaps with
different security properties, are possible (Section 2.5.2). In different security properties, are possible (Section 2.5.2). In
this case, each instance MUST listen independently for GRASP link- this case, each instance MUST listen independently for GRASP link-
local multicasts, and all instances MUST be woken by each such local multicasts, and all instances MUST be woken by each such
multicast, in order for discovery and flooding to work correctly. multicast in order for discovery and flooding to work correctly.
o Security infrastructure:
Security infrastructure:
As noted above, the protocol itself has no built-in security As noted above, the protocol itself has no built-in security
functionality, and relies on a separate secure infrastructure. functionality and relies on a separate secure infrastructure.
o Discovery, synchronization and negotiation are designed together:
Discovery, synchronization, and negotiation are designed together:
The discovery method and the synchronization and negotiation The discovery method and the synchronization and negotiation
methods are designed in the same way and can be combined when this methods are designed in the same way and can be combined when this
is useful, allowing a rapid mode of operation described in is useful, allowing a rapid mode of operation described in
Section 2.5.4. These processes can also be performed Section 2.5.4. These processes can also be performed
independently when appropriate. independently when appropriate.
* Thus, for some objectives, especially those concerned with Thus, for some objectives, especially those concerned with
application layer services, another discovery mechanism such as application-layer services, another discovery mechanism such as
the future DNS Service Discovery [RFC7558] MAY be used. The DNS-based Service Discovery [RFC7558] MAY be used. The choice
choice is left to the designers of individual ASAs. is left to the designers of individual ASAs.
o A uniform pattern for technical objectives:
A uniform pattern for technical objectives:
The synchronization and negotiation objectives are defined The synchronization and negotiation objectives are defined
according to a uniform pattern. The values that they contain according to a uniform pattern. The values that they contain
could be carried either in a simple binary format or in a complex could be carried either in a simple binary format or in a complex
object format. The basic protocol design uses the Concise Binary object format. The basic protocol design uses the Concise Binary
Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049], which is readily Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949], which is readily
extensible for unknown future requirements. extensible for unknown, future requirements.
o A flexible model for synchronization:
A flexible model for synchronization:
GRASP supports synchronization between two nodes, which could be GRASP supports synchronization between two nodes, which could be
used repeatedly to perform synchronization among a small number of used repeatedly to perform synchronization among a small number of
nodes. It also supports an unsolicited flooding mode when large nodes. It also supports an unsolicited flooding mode when large
groups of nodes, possibly including all autonomic nodes, need data groups of nodes, possibly including all autonomic nodes, need data
for the same technical objective. for the same technical objective.
* There may be some network parameters for which a more There may be some network parameters for which a more
traditional flooding mechanism such as DNCP [RFC7787] is traditional flooding mechanism such as the Distributed Node
considered more appropriate. GRASP can coexist with DNCP. Consensus Protocol (DNCP) [RFC7787] is considered more
appropriate. GRASP can coexist with DNCP.
o A simple initiator/responder model for negotiation:
Multi-party negotiations are very complicated to model and cannot A simple initiator/responder model for negotiation:
Multiparty negotiations are very complicated to model and cannot
readily be guaranteed to converge. GRASP uses a simple bilateral readily be guaranteed to converge. GRASP uses a simple bilateral
model and can support multi-party negotiations by indirect steps. model and can support multiparty negotiations by indirect steps.
o Organizing of synchronization or negotiation content:
Organizing of synchronization or negotiation content:
The technical content transmitted by GRASP will be organized The technical content transmitted by GRASP will be organized
according to the relevant function or service. The objectives for according to the relevant function or service. The objectives for
different functions or services are kept separate, because they different functions or services are kept separate because they may
may be negotiated or synchronized with different counterparts or be negotiated or synchronized with different counterparts or have
have different response times. Thus a normal arrangement would be different response times. Thus a normal arrangement is a single
a single ASA managing a small set of closely related objectives, ASA managing a small set of closely related objectives, with a
with a version of that ASA in each relevant autonomic node. version of that ASA in each relevant autonomic node. Further
Further discussion of this aspect is out of scope for the current discussion of this aspect is out of scope for the current
document. document.
o Requests and responses in negotiation procedures: Requests and responses in negotiation procedures:
The initiator can negotiate a specific negotiation objective with The initiator can negotiate a specific negotiation objective with
relevant counterpart ASAs. It can request relevant information relevant counterpart ASAs. It can request relevant information
from a counterpart so that it can coordinate its local from a counterpart so that it can coordinate its local
configuration. It can request the counterpart to make a matching configuration. It can request the counterpart to make a matching
configuration. It can request simulation or forecast results by configuration. It can request simulation or forecast results by
sending some dry run conditions. sending some dry-run conditions.
Beyond the traditional yes/no answer, the responder can reply with Beyond the traditional yes/no answer, the responder can reply with
a suggested alternative value for the objective concerned. This a suggested alternative value for the objective concerned. This
would start a bi-directional negotiation ending in a compromise would start a bidirectional negotiation ending in a compromise
between the two ASAs. between the two ASAs.
o Convergence of negotiation procedures: Convergence of negotiation procedures:
To enable convergence when a responder suggests a new value or
To enable convergence, when a responder suggests a new value or
condition in a negotiation step reply, it should be as close as condition in a negotiation step reply, it should be as close as
possible to the original request or previous suggestion. The possible to the original request or previous suggestion. The
suggested value of later negotiation steps should be chosen suggested value of later negotiation steps should be chosen
between the suggested values from the previous two steps. GRASP between the suggested values from the previous two steps. GRASP
provides mechanisms to guarantee convergence (or failure) in a provides mechanisms to guarantee convergence (or failure) in a
small number of steps, namely a timeout and a maximum number of small number of steps, namely a timeout and a maximum number of
iterations. iterations.
o Extensibility: Extensibility:
GRASP intentionally does not have a version number, and it can be
GRASP intentionally does not have a version number, and can be
extended by adding new message types and options. The Invalid extended by adding new message types and options. The Invalid
Message (M_INVALID) will be used to signal that an implementation message (M_INVALID) will be used to signal that an implementation
does not recognize a message or option sent by another does not recognize a message or option sent by another
implementation. In normal use, new semantics will be added by implementation. In normal use, new semantics will be added by
defining new synchronization or negotiation objectives. defining new synchronization or negotiation objectives.
2.4. Quick Operating Overview 2.4. Quick Operating Overview
An instance of GRASP is expected to run as a separate core module, An instance of GRASP is expected to run as a separate core module,
providing an API (such as [I-D.liu-anima-grasp-api]) to interface to providing an API (such as [RFC8991]) to interface to various ASAs.
various ASAs. These ASAs may operate without special privilege, These ASAs may operate without special privilege, unless they need it
unless they need it for other reasons (such as configuring IP for other reasons (such as configuring IP addresses or manipulating
addresses or manipulating routing tables). routing tables).
The GRASP mechanisms used by the ASA are built around GRASP The GRASP mechanisms used by the ASA are built around GRASP
objectives defined as data structures containing administrative objectives defined as data structures containing administrative
information such as the objective's unique name, and its current information such as the objective's unique name and its current
value. The format and size of the value is not restricted by the value. The format and size of the value is not restricted by the
protocol, except that it must be possible to serialize it for protocol, except that it must be possible to serialize it for
transmission in CBOR, which is no restriction at all in practice. transmission in CBOR, which is no restriction at all in practice.
GRASP provides the following mechanisms: GRASP provides the following mechanisms:
o A discovery mechanism (M_DISCOVERY, M_RESPONSE), by which an ASA * A discovery mechanism (M_DISCOVERY, M_RESPONSE) by which an ASA
can discover other ASAs supporting a given objective. can discover other ASAs supporting a given objective.
o A negotiation request mechanism (M_REQ_NEG), by which an ASA can * A negotiation request mechanism (M_REQ_NEG) by which an ASA can
start negotiation of an objective with a counterpart ASA. Once a start negotiation of an objective with a counterpart ASA. Once a
negotiation has started, the process is symmetrical, and there is negotiation has started, the process is symmetrical, and there is
a negotiation step message (M_NEGOTIATE) for each ASA to use in a negotiation step message (M_NEGOTIATE) for each ASA to use in
turn. Two other functions support negotiating steps (M_WAIT, turn. Two other functions support negotiating steps (M_WAIT,
M_END). M_END).
o A synchronization mechanism (M_REQ_SYN), by which an ASA can * A synchronization mechanism (M_REQ_SYN) by which an ASA can
request the current value of an objective from a counterpart ASA. request the current value of an objective from a counterpart ASA.
With this, there is a corresponding response function (M_SYNCH) With this, there is a corresponding response function (M_SYNCH)
for an ASA that wishes to respond to synchronization requests. for an ASA that wishes to respond to synchronization requests.
o A flood mechanism (M_FLOOD), by which an ASA can cause the current * A flood mechanism (M_FLOOD) by which an ASA can cause the current
value of an objective to be flooded throughout the autonomic value of an objective to be flooded throughout the Autonomic
network so that any ASA can receive it. One application of this Network so that any ASA can receive it. One application of this
is to act as an announcement, avoiding the need for discovery of a is to act as an announcement, avoiding the need for discovery of a
widely applicable objective. widely applicable objective.
Some example messages and simple message flows are provided in Some example messages and simple message flows are provided in
Appendix D. Appendix A.
2.5. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms 2.5. GRASP Basic Properties and Mechanisms
2.5.1. Required External Security Mechanism 2.5.1. Required External Security Mechanism
GRASP does not specify transport security because it is meant to be GRASP does not specify transport security because it is meant to be
adapted to different environments. Every solution adopting GRASP adapted to different environments. Every solution adopting GRASP
MUST specify a security and transport substrate used by GRASP in that MUST specify a security and transport substrate used by GRASP in that
solution. solution.
The substrate MUST enforce sending and receiving GRASP messages only The substrate MUST enforce sending and receiving GRASP messages only
between members of a mutually trusted group running GRASP. Each between members of a mutually trusted group running GRASP. Each
group member is an instance of GRASP. The group members are nodes of group member is an instance of GRASP. The group members are nodes of
a connected graph. The group and graph is created by the security a connected graph. The group and graph are created by the security
and transport substrate and called the GRASP domain. The substrate and transport substrate and are called the GRASP domain. The
must support unicast messages between any group members and (link- substrate must support unicast messages between any group members and
local) multicast messages between adjacent group members. It must (link-local) multicast messages between adjacent group members. It
deny messages between group members and non group members. With this must deny messages between group members and non-group members. With
model, security is provided by enforcing group membership, but any this model, security is provided by enforcing group membership, but
member of the trusted group can attack the entire network until any member of the trusted group can attack the entire network until
revoked. revoked.
Substrates MUST use cryptographic member authentication and message Substrates MUST use cryptographic member authentication and message
integrity for GRASP messages. This can be end-to-end or hop-by-hop integrity for GRASP messages. This can be end to end or hop by hop
across the domain. The security and transport substrate MUST provide across the domain. The security and transport substrate MUST provide
mechanisms to remove untrusted members from the group. mechanisms to remove untrusted members from the group.
If the substrate does not mandate and enforce GRASP message If the substrate does not mandate and enforce GRASP message
encryption then any service using GRASP in such a solution MUST encryption, then any service using GRASP in such a solution MUST
provide protection and encryption for message elements whose exposure provide protection and encryption for message elements whose exposure
could constitute an attack vector. could constitute an attack vector.
The security and transport substrate for GRASP in the ANI is the ACP. The security and transport substrate for GRASP in the ANI is the ACP.
Unless otherwise noted, we assume this security and transport Unless otherwise noted, we assume this security and transport
substrate in the remainder of this document. The ACP does mandate substrate in the remainder of this document. The ACP does mandate
the use of encryption; therefore GRASP in the ANI can rely on GRASP the use of encryption; therefore, GRASP in the ANI can rely on GRASP
message being encrypted. The GRASP domain is the ACP: all nodes in messages being encrypted. The GRASP domain is the ACP: all nodes in
an autonomic domain connected by encrypted virtual links formed by an autonomic domain connected by encrypted virtual links formed by
the ACP. The ACP uses hop-by-hop security (authentication/ the ACP. The ACP uses hop-by-hop security (authentication and
encryption) of messages. Removal of nodes relies on standard PKI encryption) of messages. Removal of nodes relies on standard PKI
certificate revocation or expiry of sufficiently short lived certificate revocation or expiry of sufficiently short-lived
certificates. Refer to [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] for certificates. Refer to [RFC8994] for more details.
more details.
As mentioned in Section 2.3, some GRASP operations might be performed As mentioned in Section 2.3, some GRASP operations might be performed
across an administrative domain boundary by mutual agreement, without across an administrative domain boundary by mutual agreement, without
the benefit of an ACP. Such operations MUST be confined to a the benefit of an ACP. Such operations MUST be confined to a
separate instance of GRASP with its own copy of all GRASP data separate instance of GRASP with its own copy of all GRASP data
structures running across a separate GRASP domain with a security and structures running across a separate GRASP domain with a security and
transport substrate. In the most simple case, each point-to-point transport substrate. In the most simple case, each point-to-point
interdomain GRASP peering could be a separate domain and the security interdomain GRASP peering could be a separate domain, and the
and transport substrate could be built using transport or network security and transport substrate could be built using transport or
layer security protocols. This is subject to future specifications. network-layer security protocols. This is subject to future
specifications.
An exception to the requirements for the security and transport An exception to the requirements for the security and transport
substrate exists for highly constrained subsets of GRASP meant to substrate exists for highly constrained subsets of GRASP meant to
support the establishment of a security and transport substrate, support the establishment of a security and transport substrate,
described in the following section. described in the following section.
2.5.2. Discovery Unsolicited Link-Local (DULL) GRASP 2.5.2. Discovery Unsolicited Link-Local (DULL) GRASP
Some services may need to use insecure GRASP discovery, response and Some services may need to use insecure GRASP discovery, response, and
flood messages without being able to use pre-existing security flood messages without being able to use preexisting security
associations, for example as part of discovery for establishing associations, for example, as part of discovery for establishing
security associations such as a security substrate for GRASP. security associations such as a security substrate for GRASP.
Such operations being intrinsically insecure, they need to be Such operations being intrinsically insecure, they need to be
confined to link-local use to minimize the risk of malicious actions. confined to link-local use to minimize the risk of malicious actions.
Possible examples include discovery of candidate ACP neighbors Possible examples include discovery of candidate ACP neighbors
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane], discovery of bootstrap [RFC8994], discovery of bootstrap proxies [RFC8995], or perhaps
proxies [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] or perhaps
initialization services in networks using GRASP without being fully initialization services in networks using GRASP without being fully
autonomic (e.g., no ACP). Such usage MUST be limited to link-local autonomic (e.g., no ACP). Such usage MUST be limited to link-local
operations on a single interface and MUST be confined to a separate operations on a single interface and MUST be confined to a separate
insecure instance of GRASP with its own copy of all GRASP data insecure instance of GRASP with its own copy of all GRASP data
structures. This instance is nicknamed DULL - Discovery Unsolicited structures. This instance is nicknamed DULL -- Discovery Unsolicited
Link-Local. Link-Local.
The detailed rules for the DULL instance of GRASP are as follows: The detailed rules for the DULL instance of GRASP are as follows:
o An initiator MAY send Discovery or Flood Synchronization link- * An initiator MAY send Discovery or Flood Synchronization link-
local multicast messages which MUST have a loop count of 1, to local multicast messages that MUST have a loop count of 1, to
prevent off-link operations. Other unsolicited GRASP message prevent off-link operations. Other unsolicited GRASP message
types MUST NOT be sent. types MUST NOT be sent.
o A responder MUST silently discard any message whose loop count is * A responder MUST silently discard any message whose loop count is
not 1. not 1.
o A responder MUST silently discard any message referring to a GRASP * A responder MUST silently discard any message referring to a GRASP
Objective that is not directly part of a service that requires objective that is not directly part of a service that requires
this insecure mode. this insecure mode.
o A responder MUST NOT relay any multicast messages. * A responder MUST NOT relay any multicast messages.
o A Discovery Response MUST indicate a link-local address. * A Discovery Response MUST indicate a link-local address.
o A Discovery Response MUST NOT include a Divert option. * A Discovery Response MUST NOT include a Divert option.
o A node MUST silently discard any message whose source address is * A node MUST silently discard any message whose source address is
not link-local. not link-local.
To minimize traffic possibly observed by third parties, GRASP traffic To minimize traffic possibly observed by third parties, GRASP traffic
SHOULD be minimized by using only Flood Synchronization to announce SHOULD be minimized by using only Flood Synchronization to announce
objectives and their associated locators, rather than by using objectives and their associated locators, rather than by using
Discovery and Response. Further details are out of scope for this Discovery and Discovery Response messages. Further details are out
document of scope for this document.
2.5.3. Transport Layer Usage 2.5.3. Transport Layer Usage
All GRASP messages, after they are serialized as a CBOR byte string, All GRASP messages, after they are serialized as a CBOR byte string,
are transmitted as such directly over the transport protocol in use. are transmitted as such directly over the transport protocol in use.
The transport protocol(s) for a GRASP domain are specified by the The transport protocol(s) for a GRASP domain are specified by the
security and transport substrate as introduced in Section 2.5.1. security and transport substrate as introduced in Section 2.5.1.
GRASP discovery and flooding messages are designed for GRASP domain GRASP discovery and flooding messages are designed for GRASP domain-
wide flooding through hop-by-hop link-local multicast forwarding wide flooding through hop-by-hop link-local multicast forwarding
between adjacent GRASP nodes. The GRASP security and transport between adjacent GRASP nodes. The GRASP security and transport
substrate needs to specify how these link local multicasts are substrate needs to specify how these link-local multicasts are
transported. This can be unreliable transport (UDP) but it SHOULD be transported. This can be unreliable transport (UDP) but it SHOULD be
reliable transport (e.g., TCP). reliable transport (e.g., TCP).
If the substrate specifies an unreliable transport such as UDP for If the substrate specifies an unreliable transport such as UDP for
discovery and flooding messages, then it MUST NOT use IP discovery and flooding messages, then it MUST NOT use IP
fragmentation because of its loss characteristic, especially in fragmentation because of its loss characteristic, especially in
multi-hop flooding. GRASP MUST then enforce at the user API level a multi-hop flooding. GRASP MUST then enforce at the user API level a
limit to the size of discovery and flooding messages, so that no limit to the size of discovery and flooding messages, so that no
fragmentation can occur. For IPv6 transport this means that those fragmentation can occur. For IPv6 transport, this means that the
messages must be at most 1280 bytes sized IPv6 packets (unless there size of those messages' IPv6 packets must be at most 1280 bytes
is a known larger minimum link MTU across the whole GRASP domain). (unless there is a known larger minimum link MTU across the whole
GRASP domain).
All other GRASP messages are unicast beteween group members of the All other GRASP messages are unicast between group members of the
GRASP domain. These MUST use a reliable transport protocol because GRASP domain. These MUST use a reliable transport protocol because
GRASP itself does not provide for error detection, retransmission or GRASP itself does not provide for error detection, retransmission, or
flow control. Unless otherwise specified by the security and flow control. Unless otherwise specified by the security and
transport substrate, TCP MUST be used. transport substrate, TCP MUST be used.
The security and transport substrate for GRASP in the ANI is the ACP. The security and transport substrate for GRASP in the ANI is the ACP.
Unless otherwise noted, we assume this security and transport Unless otherwise noted, we assume this security and transport
substrate in the remainder of this document when describing GRASPs substrate in the remainder of this document when describing GRASP's
message transport. In the ACP, TCP is used for GRASP unicast message transport. In the ACP, TCP is used for GRASP unicast
messages. GRASP discovery and flooding messages also use TCP: These messages. GRASP discovery and flooding messages also use TCP: these
link-local messages are forwarded by replicating them to all adjacent link-local messages are forwarded by replicating them to all adjacent
GRASP nodes on the link via TCP connections to those adjacent GRASP GRASP nodes on the link via TCP connections to those adjacent GRASP
nodes. Because of this, GRASP in the ANI has no limitations on the nodes. Because of this, GRASP in the ANI has no limitations on the
size of discovery and flooding messages with respect to fragmentation size of discovery and flooding messages with respect to fragmentation
issues. UDP is used in the ANI with GRASP only with DULL when the issues. While the ACP is being built using a DULL instance of GRASP,
ACP is built to discover ACP/GRASP neighbors on links. native UDP multicast is used to discover ACP/GRASP neighbors on
links.
For link-local UDP multicast, the GRASP protocol listens to the well- For link-local UDP multicast, GRASP listens to the well-known GRASP
known GRASP Listen Port (Section 2.6). Transport connections for Listen Port (Section 2.6). Transport connections for discovery and
Discovery and Flooding on relay nodes must terminate in GRASP flooding on relay nodes must terminate in GRASP instances (e.g.,
instances (eg: GRASP ASAs) so that link-local multicast, hop-by-hop GRASP ASAs) so that link-local multicast, hop-by-hop flooding of
flooding of M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD and hop-by-hop forwarding of M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD messages and hop-by-hop forwarding of
M_RESPONSE and caching of those responses along the path work M_RESPONSE responses and caching of those responses along the path
correctly. work correctly.
Unicast transport connections used for synchronization and Unicast transport connections used for synchronization and
negotiation can terminate directly in ASAs that implement objectives negotiation can terminate directly in ASAs that implement objectives;
and therefore this traffic does not need to pass through GRASP therefore, this traffic does not need to pass through GRASP
instances. For this, the ASA listens on its own dynamically assigned instances. For this, the ASA listens on its own dynamically assigned
ports, which are communicated to its peers during discovery. ports, which are communicated to its peers during discovery.
Alternatively, the GRASP instance can also terminate the unicast Alternatively, the GRASP instance can also terminate the unicast
transport connections and pass the traffic from/to the ASA if that is transport connections and pass the traffic from/to the ASA if that is
preferrable in some implementation (eg: to better decouple ASAs from preferable in some implementations (e.g., to better decouple ASAs
network connections). from network connections).
2.5.4. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures 2.5.4. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures
2.5.4.1. Separated discovery and negotiation mechanisms 2.5.4.1. Separated Discovery and Negotiation Mechanisms
Although discovery and negotiation or synchronization are defined Although discovery and negotiation or synchronization are defined
together in GRASP, they are separate mechanisms. The discovery together in GRASP, they are separate mechanisms. The discovery
process could run independently from the negotiation or process could run independently from the negotiation or
synchronization process. Upon receiving a Discovery (Section 2.8.4) synchronization process. Upon receiving a Discovery message
message, the recipient node should return a response message in which (Section 2.8.4), the recipient node should return a Discovery
it either indicates itself as a discovery responder or diverts the Response message in which it either indicates itself as a discovery
initiator towards another more suitable ASA. However, this response responder or diverts the initiator towards another more suitable ASA.
may be delayed if the recipient needs to relay the discovery onwards, However, this response may be delayed if the recipient needs to relay
as described below. the Discovery message onward, as described in Section 2.5.4.4.
The discovery action (M_DISCOVERY) will normally be followed by a The discovery action (M_DISCOVERY) will normally be followed by a
negotiation (M_REQ_NEG) or synchronization (M_REQ_SYN) action. The negotiation (M_REQ_NEG) or synchronization (M_REQ_SYN) action. The
discovery results could be utilized by the negotiation protocol to discovery results could be utilized by the negotiation protocol to
decide which ASA the initiator will negotiate with. decide which ASA the initiator will negotiate with.
The initiator of a discovery action for a given objective need not be The initiator of a discovery action for a given objective need not be
capable of responding to that objective as a Negotiation Counterpart, capable of responding to that objective as a negotiation counterpart,
as a Synchronization Responder or as source for flooding. For as a synchronization responder, or as source for flooding. For
example, an ASA might perform discovery even if it only wishes to act example, an ASA might perform discovery even if it only wishes to act
a Synchronization Initiator or Negotiation Initiator. Such an ASA as a synchronization initiator or negotiation initiator. Such an ASA
does not itself need to respond to discovery messages. does not itself need to respond to Discovery messages.
It is also entirely possible to use GRASP discovery without any It is also entirely possible to use GRASP discovery without any
subsequent negotiation or synchronization action. In this case, the subsequent negotiation or synchronization action. In this case, the
discovered objective is simply used as a name during the discovery discovered objective is simply used as a name during the discovery
process and any subsequent operations between the peers are outside process, and any subsequent operations between the peers are outside
the scope of GRASP. the scope of GRASP.
2.5.4.2. Discovery Overview 2.5.4.2. Discovery Overview
A complete discovery process will start with a multicast (of A complete discovery process will start with a multicast Discovery
M_DISCOVERY) on the local link. On-link neighbors supporting the message (M_DISCOVERY) on the local link. On-link neighbors
discovery objective will respond directly (with M_RESPONSE). A supporting the discovery objective will respond directly with
neighbor with multiple interfaces may respond with a cached discovery Discovery Response (M_RESPONSE) messages. A neighbor with multiple
response. If it has no cached response, it will relay the discovery interfaces may respond with a cached Discovery Response. If it has
on its other GRASP interfaces. If a node receiving the relayed no cached response, it will relay the Discovery message on its other
discovery supports the discovery objective, it will respond to the GRASP interfaces. If a node receiving the relayed Discovery message
relayed discovery. If it has a cached response, it will respond with supports the discovery objective, it will respond to the relayed
Discovery message. If it has a cached response, it will respond with
that. If not, it will repeat the discovery process, which thereby that. If not, it will repeat the discovery process, which thereby
becomes iterative. The loop count and timeout will ensure that the becomes iterative. The loop count and timeout will ensure that the
process ends. Further details are given below. process ends. Further details are given in Section 2.5.4.4.
A Discovery message MAY be sent unicast to a peer node, which SHOULD A Discovery message MAY be sent unicast to a peer node, which SHOULD
then proceed exactly as if the message had been multicast, except then proceed exactly as if the message had been multicast, except
that when TCP is used, the response will be on the same socket as the that when TCP is used, the response will be on the same socket as the
query. However, this mode does not guarantee successful discovery in query. However, this mode does not guarantee successful discovery in
the general case. the general case.
2.5.4.3. Discovery Procedures 2.5.4.3. Discovery Procedures
Discovery starts as an on-link operation. The Divert option can tell Discovery starts as an on-link operation. The Divert option can tell
the discovery initiator to contact an off-link ASA for that discovery the discovery initiator to contact an off-link ASA for that discovery
objective. If the security and transport substrate of the GRASP objective. If the security and transport substrate of the GRASP
domain (see Section 2.5.3) uses UDP link-local multicast then the domain (see Section 2.5.3) uses UDP link-local multicast, then the
discovery initiator sends these to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS link-local discovery initiator sends these to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS link-local
multicast address (Section 2.6) and and all GRASP nodes need to multicast address (Section 2.6), and all GRASP nodes need to listen
listen to this address to act as discovery responder. Because this to this address to act as discovery responders. Because this port is
port is unique in a device, this is a function of the GRASP instance unique in a device, this is a function of the GRASP instance and not
and not of an individual ASA. As a result, each ASA will need to of an individual ASA. As a result, each ASA will need to register
register the objectives that it supports with the local GRASP the objectives that it supports with the local GRASP instance.
instance.
If an ASA in a neighbor device supports the requested discovery If an ASA in a neighbor device supports the requested discovery
objective, the device SHOULD respond to the link-local multicast with objective, the device SHOULD respond to the link-local multicast with
a unicast Discovery Response message (Section 2.8.5) with locator a unicast Discovery Response message (Section 2.8.5) with locator
option(s), unless it is temporarily unavailable. Otherwise, if the option(s) (Section 2.9.5) unless it is temporarily unavailable.
neighbor has cached information about an ASA that supports the Otherwise, if the neighbor has cached information about an ASA that
requested discovery objective (usually because it discovered the same supports the requested discovery objective (usually because it
objective before), it SHOULD respond with a Discovery Response discovered the same objective before), it SHOULD respond with a
message with a Divert option pointing to the appropriate Discovery Discovery Response message with a Divert option pointing to the
Responder. However, it SHOULD NOT respond with a cached response on appropriate discovery responder. However, it SHOULD NOT respond with
an interface if it learnt that information from the same interface, a cached response on an interface if it learned that information from
because the peer in question will answer directly if still the same interface because the peer in question will answer directly
operational. if still operational.
If a device has no information about the requested discovery If a device has no information about the requested discovery
objective, and is not acting as a discovery relay (see below) it MUST objective and is not acting as a discovery relay (see
silently discard the Discovery message. Section 2.5.4.4), it MUST silently discard the Discovery message.
The discovery initiator MUST set a reasonable timeout on the The discovery initiator MUST set a reasonable timeout on the
discovery process. A suggested value is 100 milliseconds multiplied discovery process. A suggested value is 100 milliseconds multiplied
by the loop count embedded in the objective. by the loop count embedded in the objective.
If no discovery response is received within the timeout, the If no Discovery Response is received within the timeout, the
Discovery message MAY be repeated, with a newly generated Session ID Discovery message MAY be repeated with a newly generated Session ID
(Section 2.7). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for subsequent (Section 2.7). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for subsequent
repetitions, to limit the load during busy periods. The details of repetitions to limit the load during busy periods. The details of
the backoff algorithm will depend on the use case for the objective the backoff algorithm will depend on the use case for the objective
concerned but MUST be consistent with the recommendations in concerned but MUST be consistent with the recommendations in
[RFC8085] for low data-volume multicast. Frequent repetition might [RFC8085] for low data-volume multicast. Frequent repetition might
be symptomatic of a denial of service attack. be symptomatic of a denial-of-service attack.
After a GRASP device successfully discovers a locator for a Discovery After a GRASP device successfully discovers a locator for a discovery
Responder supporting a specific objective, it SHOULD cache this responder supporting a specific objective, it SHOULD cache this
information, including the interface index [RFC3493] via which it was information, including the interface index [RFC3493] via which it was
discovered. This cache record MAY be used for future negotiation or discovered. This cache record MAY be used for future negotiation or
synchronization, and the locator SHOULD be passed on when appropriate synchronization, and the locator SHOULD be passed on when appropriate
as a Divert option to another Discovery Initiator. as a Divert option to another discovery initiator.
The cache mechanism MUST include a lifetime for each entry. The The cache mechanism MUST include a lifetime for each entry. The
lifetime is derived from a time-to-live (ttl) parameter in each lifetime is derived from a time-to-live (ttl) parameter in each
Discovery Response message. Cached entries MUST be ignored or Discovery Response message. Cached entries MUST be ignored or
deleted after their lifetime expires. In some environments, deleted after their lifetime expires. In some environments,
unplanned address renumbering might occur. In such cases, the unplanned address renumbering might occur. In such cases, the
lifetime SHOULD be short compared to the typical address lifetime. lifetime SHOULD be short compared to the typical address lifetime.
The discovery mechanism needs to track the node's current address to The discovery mechanism needs to track the node's current address to
ensure that Discovery Responses always indicate the correct address. ensure that Discovery Responses always indicate the correct address.
If multiple Discovery Responders are found for the same objective, If multiple discovery responders are found for the same objective,
they SHOULD all be cached, unless this creates a resource shortage. they SHOULD all be cached unless this creates a resource shortage.
The method of choosing between multiple responders is an The method of choosing between multiple responders is an
implementation choice. This choice MUST be available to each ASA but implementation choice. This choice MUST be available to each ASA,
the GRASP implementation SHOULD provide a default choice. but the GRASP implementation SHOULD provide a default choice.
Because Discovery Responders will be cached in a finite cache, they Because discovery responders will be cached in a finite cache, they
might be deleted at any time. In this case, discovery will need to might be deleted at any time. In this case, discovery will need to
be repeated. If an ASA exits for any reason, its locator might still be repeated. If an ASA exits for any reason, its locator might still
be cached for some time, and attempts to connect to it will fail. be cached for some time, and attempts to connect to it will fail.
ASAs need to be robust in these circumstances. ASAs need to be robust in these circumstances.
2.5.4.4. Discovery Relaying 2.5.4.4. Discovery Relaying
A GRASP instance with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically A GRASP instance with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically
running in a router) MUST support discovery on all GRASP interfaces. running in a router) MUST support discovery on all GRASP interfaces.
We refer to this as a 'relaying instance'. We refer to this as a 'relaying instance'.
DULL Instances (Section 2.5.2) are always single-interface instances DULL instances (Section 2.5.2) are always single-interface instances
and therefore MUST NOT perform discovery relaying. and therefore MUST NOT perform discovery relaying.
If a relaying instance receives a Discovery message on a given If a relaying instance receives a Discovery message on a given
interface for a specific objective that it does not support and for interface for a specific objective that it does not support and for
which it has not previously cached a Discovery Responder, it MUST which it has not previously cached a discovery responder, it MUST
relay the query by re-issuing a new Discovery message as a link-local relay the query by reissuing a new Discovery message as a link-local
multicast on its other GRASP interfaces. multicast on its other GRASP interfaces.
The relayed discovery message MUST have the same Session ID and The relayed Discovery message MUST have the same Session ID and
Initiator field as the incoming (see Section 2.8.4). The Initiator 'initiator' field as the incoming message (see Section 2.8.4). The
IP address field is only used to allow for disambiguation of the IP address in the 'initiator' field is only used to disambiguate the
Session ID and is never used to address Response packets. Response Session ID and is never used to address Response packets. Response
packets are sent back to the relaying instance, not the original packets are sent back to the relaying instance, not the original
initiator. initiator.
The M_DISCOVERY message does not encode the transport address of the The M_DISCOVERY message does not encode the transport address of the
originator or relay. Response packets must therefore be sent to the originator or relay. Response packets must therefore be sent to the
transport layer address of the connection on which the M_DISCOVERY transport-layer address of the connection on which the M_DISCOVERY
message was received. If the M_DISCOVERY was relayed via a reliable message was received. If the M_DISCOVERY was relayed via a reliable
hop-by-hop transport connection, the response is simply sent back via hop-by-hop transport connection, the response is simply sent back via
the same connection. the same connection.
If the M_DISCOVERY was relayed via link-local (eg: UDP) multicast, If the M_DISCOVERY was relayed via link-local (e.g., UDP) multicast,
the response is sent back via a reliable hop-by-hop transport the response is sent back via a reliable hop-by-hop transport
connection with the same port number as the source port of the link- connection with the same port number as the source port of the link-
local multicast. Therefore, if link-local multicast is used and local multicast. Therefore, if link-local multicast is used and
M_RESPONSE messages are required (which is the case in almost all M_RESPONSE messages are required (which is the case in almost all
GRASP instances except for the limited use of DULL instances in the GRASP instances except for the limited use of DULL instances in the
ANI), GRASP needs to be able to bind to one port number on UDP from ANI), GRASP needs to be able to bind to one port number on UDP from
which to originate the link-local multicast M_DISCOVERY messages and which to originate the link-local multicast M_DISCOVERY messages and
the same port number on the reliable hop-by-hop transport (eg: TCP by the same port number on the reliable hop-by-hop transport (e.g., TCP
default) to be able to respond to transport connections from by default) to be able to respond to transport connections from
responders that want to send M_RESPONSE messages back. Note that responders that want to send M_RESPONSE messages back. Note that
this port does not need to be the GRASP_LISTEN_PORT. this port does not need to be the GRASP_LISTEN_PORT.
The relaying instance MUST decrement the loop count within the The relaying instance MUST decrement the loop count within the
objective, and MUST NOT relay the Discovery message if the result is objective, and MUST NOT relay the Discovery message if the result is
zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it relays zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it relays
discovery messages to a reasonable value, in order to mitigate Discovery messages to a reasonable value in order to mitigate
possible denial of service attacks. For example, the rate limit possible denial-of-service attacks. For example, the rate limit
could be set to a small multiple of the observed rate of discovery could be set to a small multiple of the observed rate of Discovery
messages during normal operation. The relaying instance MUST cache messages during normal operation. The relaying instance MUST cache
the Session ID value and initiator address of each relayed Discovery the Session ID value and initiator address of each relayed Discovery
message until any Discovery Responses have arrived or the discovery message until any Discovery Responses have arrived or the discovery
process has timed out. To prevent loops, it MUST NOT relay a process has timed out. To prevent loops, it MUST NOT relay a
Discovery message which carries a given cached Session ID and Discovery message that carries a given cached Session ID and
initiator address more than once. These precautions avoid discovery initiator address more than once. These precautions avoid discovery
loops and mitigate potential overload. loops and mitigate potential overload.
Since the relay device is unaware of the timeout set by the original Since the relay device is unaware of the timeout set by the original
initiator it SHOULD set a suitable timeout for the relayed discovery. initiator, it SHOULD set a suitable timeout for the relayed Discovery
A suggested value is 100 milliseconds multiplied by the remaining message. A suggested value is 100 milliseconds multiplied by the
loop count. remaining loop count.
The discovery results received by the relaying instance MUST in turn The discovery results received by the relaying instance MUST in turn
be sent as a Discovery Response message to the Discovery message that be sent as a Discovery Response message to the Discovery message that
caused the relay action. caused the relay action.
2.5.4.5. Rapid Mode (Discovery with Negotiation or Synchronization ) 2.5.4.5. Rapid Mode (Discovery with Negotiation or Synchronization)
A Discovery message MAY include an Objective option. This allows a A Discovery message MAY include an objective option. This allows a
rapid mode of negotiation (Section 2.5.5.1) or synchronization rapid mode of negotiation (Section 2.5.5.1) or synchronization
(Section 2.5.6.3). Rapid mode is currently limited to a single (Section 2.5.6.3). Rapid mode is currently limited to a single
objective for simplicity of design and implementation. A possible objective for simplicity of design and implementation. A possible
future extension is to allow multiple objectives in rapid mode for future extension is to allow multiple objectives in rapid mode for
greater efficiency. greater efficiency.
2.5.5. Negotiation Procedures 2.5.5. Negotiation Procedures
A negotiation initiator opens a transport connection to a counterpart A negotiation initiator opens a transport connection to a counterpart
ASA using the address, protocol and port obtained during discovery. ASA using the address, protocol, and port obtained during discovery.
It then sends a negotiation request (using M_REQ_NEG) to the It then sends a negotiation request (using M_REQ_NEG) to the
counterpart, including a specific negotiation objective. It may counterpart, including a specific negotiation objective. It may
request the negotiation counterpart to make a specific configuration. request the negotiation counterpart to make a specific configuration.
Alternatively, it may request a certain simulation or forecast result Alternatively, it may request a certain simulation or forecast result
by sending a dry run configuration. The details, including the by sending a dry-run configuration. The details, including the
distinction between a dry run and a live configuration change, will distinction between a dry run and a live configuration change, will
be defined separately for each type of negotiation objective. Any be defined separately for each type of negotiation objective. Any
state associated with a dry run operation, such as temporarily state associated with a dry-run operation, such as temporarily
reserving a resource for subsequent use in a live run, is entirely a reserving a resource for subsequent use in a live run, is entirely a
matter for the designer of the ASA concerned. matter for the designer of the ASA concerned.
Each negotiation session as a whole is subject to a timeout (default Each negotiation session as a whole is subject to a timeout (default
GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 2.6), initialised when the GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 2.6), initialized when the
request is sent (see Section 2.8.6). If no reply message of any kind request is sent (see Section 2.8.6). If no reply message of any kind
is received within the timeout, the negotiation request MAY be is received within the timeout, the negotiation request MAY be
repeated, with a newly generated Session ID (Section 2.7). An repeated with a newly generated Session ID (Section 2.7). An
exponential backoff SHOULD be used for subsequent repetitions. The exponential backoff SHOULD be used for subsequent repetitions. The
details of the backoff algorithm will depend on the use case for the details of the backoff algorithm will depend on the use case for the
objective concerned. objective concerned.
If the counterpart can immediately apply the requested configuration, If the counterpart can immediately apply the requested configuration,
it will give an immediate positive (O_ACCEPT) answer (using M_END). it will give an immediate positive (O_ACCEPT) answer using the
This will end the negotiation phase immediately. Otherwise, it will Negotiation End (M_END) message. This will end the negotiation phase
negotiate (using M_NEGOTIATE). It will reply with a proposed immediately. Otherwise, it will negotiate (using M_NEGOTIATE). It
alternative configuration that it can apply (typically, a will reply with a proposed alternative configuration that it can
configuration that uses fewer resources than requested by the apply (typically, a configuration that uses fewer resources than
negotiation initiator). This will start a bi-directional negotiation requested by the negotiation initiator). This will start a
(using M_NEGOTIATE) to reach a compromise between the two ASAs. bidirectional negotiation using the Negotiate (M_NEGOTIATE) message
to reach a compromise between the two ASAs.
The negotiation procedure is ended when one of the negotiation peers The negotiation procedure is ended when one of the negotiation peers
sends a Negotiation Ending (M_END) message, which contains an accept sends a Negotiation End (M_END) message, which contains an Accept
(O_ACCEPT) or decline (O_DECLINE) option and does not need a response (O_ACCEPT) or Decline (O_DECLINE) option and does not need a response
from the negotiation peer. Negotiation may also end in failure from the negotiation peer. Negotiation may also end in failure
(equivalent to a decline) if a timeout is exceeded or a loop count is (equivalent to a decline) if a timeout is exceeded or a loop count is
exceeded. When the procedure ends for whatever reason, the transport exceeded. When the procedure ends for whatever reason, the transport
connection SHOULD be closed. A transport session failure is treated connection SHOULD be closed. A transport session failure is treated
as a negotiation failure. as a negotiation failure.
A negotiation procedure concerns one objective and one counterpart. A negotiation procedure concerns one objective and one counterpart.
Both the initiator and the counterpart may take part in simultaneous Both the initiator and the counterpart may take part in simultaneous
negotiations with various other ASAs, or in simultaneous negotiations negotiations with various other ASAs or in simultaneous negotiations
about different objectives. Thus, GRASP is expected to be used in a about different objectives. Thus, GRASP is expected to be used in a
multi-threaded mode or its logical equivalent. Certain negotiation multithreaded mode or its logical equivalent. Certain negotiation
objectives may have restrictions on multi-threading, for example to objectives may have restrictions on multithreading, for example to
avoid over-allocating resources. avoid over-allocating resources.
Some configuration actions, for example wavelength switching in Some configuration actions, for example, wavelength switching in
optical networks, might take considerable time to execute. The ASA optical networks, might take considerable time to execute. The ASA
concerned needs to allow for this by design, but GRASP does allow for concerned needs to allow for this by design, but GRASP does allow for
a peer to insert latency in a negotiation process if necessary a peer to insert latency in a negotiation process if necessary
(Section 2.8.9, M_WAIT). (Section 2.8.9, M_WAIT).
2.5.5.1. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Negotiation Linkage) 2.5.5.1. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Negotiation Linkage)
A Discovery message MAY include a Negotiation Objective option. In A Discovery message MAY include a Negotiation Objective option. In
this case it is as if the initiator sent the sequence M_DISCOVERY, this case, it is as if the initiator sent the sequence M_DISCOVERY
immediately followed by M_REQ_NEG. This has implications for the immediately followed by M_REQ_NEG. This has implications for the
construction of the GRASP core, as it must carefully pass the construction of the GRASP core, as it must carefully pass the
contents of the Negotiation Objective option to the ASA so that it contents of the Negotiation Objective option to the ASA so that it
may evaluate the objective directly. When a Negotiation Objective may evaluate the objective directly. When a Negotiation Objective
option is present the ASA replies with an M_NEGOTIATE message (or option is present, the ASA replies with an M_NEGOTIATE message (or
M_END with O_ACCEPT if it is immediately satisfied with the M_END with O_ACCEPT if it is immediately satisfied with the proposal)
proposal), rather than with an M_RESPONSE. However, if the recipient rather than with an M_RESPONSE. However, if the recipient node does
node does not support rapid mode, discovery will continue normally. not support rapid mode, discovery will continue normally.
It is possible that a Discovery Response will arrive from a responder It is possible that a Discovery Response will arrive from a responder
that does not support rapid mode, before such a Negotiation message that does not support rapid mode before such a Negotiation message
arrives. In this case, rapid mode will not occur. arrives. In this case, rapid mode will not occur.
This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a
higher efficiency could be achieved. However, a network in which higher efficiency could be achieved. However, a network in which
some nodes support rapid mode and others do not will have complex some nodes support rapid mode and others do not will have complex
timing-dependent behaviors. Therefore, the rapid negotiation timing-dependent behaviors. Therefore, the rapid negotiation
function SHOULD be disabled by default. function SHOULD be disabled by default.
2.5.6. Synchronization and Flooding Procedures 2.5.6. Synchronization and Flooding Procedures
2.5.6.1. Unicast Synchronization 2.5.6.1. Unicast Synchronization
A synchronization initiator opens a transport connection to a A synchronization initiator opens a transport connection to a
counterpart ASA using the address, protocol and port obtained during counterpart ASA using the address, protocol, and port obtained during
discovery. It then sends a synchronization request (using M_REQ_SYN) discovery. It then sends a Request Synchronization message
to the counterpart, including a specific synchronization objective. (M_REQ_SYN, Section 2.8.6) to the counterpart, including a specific
The counterpart responds with a Synchronization message (M_SYNCH, synchronization objective. The counterpart responds with a
Section 2.8.10) containing the current value of the requested Synchronization message (M_SYNCH, Section 2.8.10) containing the
synchronization objective. No further messages are needed and the current value of the requested synchronization objective. No further
transport connection SHOULD be closed. A transport session failure messages are needed, and the transport connection SHOULD be closed.
is treated as a synchronization failure. A transport session failure is treated as a synchronization failure.
If no reply message of any kind is received within a given timeout If no reply message of any kind is received within a given timeout
(default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 2.6), the (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 2.6), the
synchronization request MAY be repeated, with a newly generated synchronization request MAY be repeated with a newly generated
Session ID (Section 2.7). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for Session ID (Section 2.7). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for
subsequent repetitions. The details of the backoff algorithm will subsequent repetitions. The details of the backoff algorithm will
depend on the use case for the objective concerned. depend on the use case for the objective concerned.
2.5.6.2. Flooding 2.5.6.2. Flooding
In the case just described, the message exchange is unicast and In the case just described, the message exchange is unicast and
concerns only one synchronization objective. For large groups of concerns only one synchronization objective. For large groups of
nodes requiring the same data, synchronization flooding is available. nodes requiring the same data, synchronization flooding is available.
For this, a flooding initiator MAY send an unsolicited Flood For this, a flooding initiator MAY send an unsolicited Flood
Synchronization message containing one or more Synchronization Synchronization message (Section 2.8.11) containing one or more
Objective option(s), if and only if the specification of those Synchronization Objective option(s), if and only if the specification
objectives permits it. This is sent as a multicast message to the of those objectives permits it. This is sent as a multicast message
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast address (Section 2.6). to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast address (Section 2.6).
Receiving flood multicasts is a function of the GRASP core, as in the Receiving flood multicasts is a function of the GRASP core, as in the
case of discovery multicasts (Section 2.5.4.3). case of discovery multicasts (Section 2.5.4.3).
To ensure that flooding does not result in a loop, the originator of To ensure that flooding does not result in a loop, the originator of
the Flood Synchronization message MUST set the loop count in the the Flood Synchronization message MUST set the loop count in the
objectives to a suitable value (the default is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). objectives to a suitable value (the default is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
Also, a suitable mechanism is needed to avoid excessive multicast Also, a suitable mechanism is needed to avoid excessive multicast
traffic. This mechanism MUST be defined as part of the specification traffic. This mechanism MUST be defined as part of the specification
of the synchronization objective(s) concerned. It might be a simple of the synchronization objective(s) concerned. It might be a simple
rate limit or a more complex mechanism such as the Trickle algorithm rate limit or a more complex mechanism such as the Trickle algorithm
[RFC6206]. [RFC6206].
A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all GRASP router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all GRASP
interfaces. If it receives a multicast Flood Synchronization message interfaces. If it receives a multicast Flood Synchronization message
on a given interface, it MUST relay it by re-issuing a Flood on a given interface, it MUST relay it by reissuing a Flood
Synchronization message as a link-local multicast on its other GRASP Synchronization message as a link-local multicast on its other GRASP
interfaces. The relayed message MUST have the same Session ID as the interfaces. The relayed message MUST have the same Session ID as the
incoming message and MUST be tagged with the IP address of its incoming message and MUST be tagged with the IP address of its
original initiator. original initiator.
Link-layer Flooding is supported by GRASP by setting the loop count Link-layer flooding is supported by GRASP by setting the loop count
to 1, and sending with a link-local source address. Floods with to 1 and sending with a link-local source address. Floods with link-
link-local source addresses and a loop count other than 1 are local source addresses and a loop count other than 1 are invalid, and
invalid, and such messages MUST be discarded. such messages MUST be discarded.
The relaying device MUST decrement the loop count within the first The relaying device MUST decrement the loop count within the first
objective, and MUST NOT relay the Flood Synchronization message if objective and MUST NOT relay the Flood Synchronization message if the
the result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it
relays Flood Synchronization messages to a reasonable value, in order relays Flood Synchronization messages to a reasonable value, in order
to mitigate possible denial of service attacks. For example, the to mitigate possible denial-of-service attacks. For example, the
rate limit could be set to a small multiple of the observed rate of rate limit could be set to a small multiple of the observed rate of
flood messages during normal operation. The relaying device MUST flood messages during normal operation. The relaying device MUST
cache the Session ID value and initiator address of each relayed cache the Session ID value and initiator address of each relayed
Flood Synchronization message for a time not less than twice Flood Synchronization message for a time not less than twice
GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. To prevent loops, it MUST NOT relay GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. To prevent loops, it MUST NOT relay
a Flood Synchronization message which carries a given cached Session a Flood Synchronization message that carries a given cached Session
ID and initiator address more than once. These precautions avoid ID and initiator address more than once. These precautions avoid
synchronization loops and mitigate potential overload. synchronization loops and mitigate potential overload.
Note that this mechanism is unreliable in the case of sleeping nodes, Note that this mechanism is unreliable in the case of sleeping nodes,
or new nodes that join the network, or nodes that rejoin the network or new nodes that join the network, or nodes that rejoin the network
after a fault. An ASA that initiates a flood SHOULD repeat the flood after a fault. An ASA that initiates a flood SHOULD repeat the flood
at a suitable frequency, which MUST be consistent with the at a suitable frequency, which MUST be consistent with the
recommendations in [RFC8085] for low data-volume multicast. The ASA recommendations in [RFC8085] for low data-volume multicast. The ASA
SHOULD also act as a synchronization responder for the objective(s) SHOULD also act as a synchronization responder for the objective(s)
concerned. Thus nodes that require an objective subject to flooding concerned. Thus nodes that require an objective subject to flooding
can either wait for the next flood or request unicast synchronization can either wait for the next flood or request unicast synchronization
for that objective. for that objective.
The multicast messages for synchronization flooding are subject to The multicast messages for synchronization flooding are subject to
the security rules in Section 2.5.1. In practice this means that the security rules in Section 2.5.1. In practice, this means that
they MUST NOT be transmitted and MUST be ignored on receipt unless they MUST NOT be transmitted and MUST be ignored on receipt unless
there is an operational ACP or equivalent strong security in place. there is an operational ACP or equivalent strong security in place.
However, because of the security weakness of link-local multicast However, because of the security weakness of link-local multicast
(Section 4), synchronization objectives that are flooded SHOULD NOT (Section 3), synchronization objectives that are flooded SHOULD NOT
contain unencrypted private information and SHOULD be validated by contain unencrypted private information and SHOULD be validated by
the recipient ASA. the recipient ASA.
2.5.6.3. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Synchronization Linkage) 2.5.6.3. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Synchronization Linkage)
A Discovery message MAY include a Synchronization Objective option. A Discovery message MAY include a Synchronization Objective option.
In this case the Discovery message also acts as a Request In this case, the Discovery message also acts as a Request
Synchronization message to indicate to the Discovery Responder that Synchronization message to indicate to the discovery responder that
it could directly reply to the Discovery Initiator with a it could directly reply to the discovery initiator with a
Synchronization message Section 2.8.10 with synchronization data for Synchronization message (Section 2.8.10) with synchronization data
rapid processing, if the discovery target supports the corresponding for rapid processing, if the discovery target supports the
synchronization objective. The design implications are similar to corresponding synchronization objective. The design implications are
those discussed in Section 2.5.5.1. similar to those discussed in Section 2.5.5.1.
It is possible that a Discovery Response will arrive from a responder It is possible that a Discovery Response will arrive from a responder
that does not support rapid mode, before such a Synchronization that does not support rapid mode before such a Synchronization
message arrives. In this case, rapid mode will not occur. message arrives. In this case, rapid mode will not occur.
This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a
higher efficiency could be achieved. However, a network in which higher efficiency could be achieved. However, a network in which
some nodes support rapid mode and others do not will have complex some nodes support rapid mode and others do not will have complex
timing-dependent behaviors. Therefore, the rapid synchronization timing-dependent behaviors. Therefore, the rapid synchronization
function SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY be configured on function SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY be configured on
or off by Intent. or off by Intent.
2.6. GRASP Constants 2.6. GRASP Constants
o ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS
A link-local scope multicast address used by a GRASP-enabled A link-local scope multicast address used by a GRASP-enabled
device to discover GRASP-enabled neighbor (i.e., on-link) devices. device to discover GRASP-enabled neighbor (i.e., on-link) devices.
All devices that support GRASP are members of this multicast All devices that support GRASP are members of this multicast
group. group.
* IPv6 multicast address: TBD1 * IPv6 multicast address: ff02::13
* IPv4 multicast address: TBD2
o GRASP_LISTEN_PORT (TBD3) * IPv4 multicast address: 224.0.0.119
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT (7017)
A well-known UDP user port that every GRASP-enabled network device A well-known UDP user port that every GRASP-enabled network device
MUST listen to for link-local multicasts when UDP is used for MUST listen to for link-local multicasts when UDP is used for
M_DISCOVERY or M_FLOOD messages in the GRASP instance This user M_DISCOVERY or M_FLOOD messages in the GRASP instance. This user
port MAY also be used to listen for TCP or UDP unicast messages in port MAY also be used to listen for TCP or UDP unicast messages in
a simple implementation of GRASP (Section 2.5.3). a simple implementation of GRASP (Section 2.5.3).
o GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT (60000 milliseconds) GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT (60000 milliseconds)
The default timeout used to determine that an operation has failed The default timeout used to determine that an operation has failed
to complete. to complete.
o GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT (6) GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT (6)
The default loop count used to determine that a negotiation has The default loop count used to determine that a negotiation has
failed to complete, and to avoid looping messages. failed to complete and to avoid looping messages.
o GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE (2048)
GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE (2048)
The default maximum message size in bytes. The default maximum message size in bytes.
2.7. Session Identifier (Session ID) 2.7. Session Identifier (Session ID)
This is an up to 32-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple This is an up to 32-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple
sessions between the same two devices. A new Session ID MUST be sessions between the same two devices. A new Session ID MUST be
generated by the initiator for every new Discovery, Flood generated by the initiator for every new Discovery, Flood
Synchronization or Request message. All responses and follow-up Synchronization, or Request message. All responses and follow-up
messages in the same discovery, synchronization or negotiation messages in the same discovery, synchronization, or negotiation
procedure MUST carry the same Session ID. procedure MUST carry the same Session ID.
The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally. It The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally. It
MUST be generated by a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) using a MUST be generated by a pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) using a
locally generated seed which is unlikely to be used by any other locally generated seed that is unlikely to be used by any other
device in the same network. The PRNG SHOULD be cryptographically device in the same network. The PRNG SHOULD be cryptographically
strong [RFC4086]. When allocating a new Session ID, GRASP MUST check strong [RFC4086]. When allocating a new Session ID, GRASP MUST check
that the value is not already in use and SHOULD check that it has not that the value is not already in use and SHOULD check that it has not
been used recently, by consulting a cache of current and recent been used recently by consulting a cache of current and recent
sessions. In the unlikely event of a clash, GRASP MUST generate a sessions. In the unlikely event of a clash, GRASP MUST generate a
new value. new value.
However, there is a finite probability that two nodes might generate However, there is a finite probability that two nodes might generate
the same Session ID value. For that reason, when a Session ID is the same Session ID value. For that reason, when a Session ID is
communicated via GRASP, the receiving node MUST tag it with the communicated via GRASP, the receiving node MUST tag it with the
initiator's IP address to allow disambiguation. In the highly initiator's IP address to allow disambiguation. In the highly
unlikely event of two peers opening sessions with the same Session ID unlikely event of two peers opening sessions with the same Session ID
value, this tag will allow the two sessions to be distinguished. value, this tag will allow the two sessions to be distinguished.
Multicast GRASP messages and their responses, which may be relayed Multicast GRASP messages and their responses, which may be relayed
skipping to change at page 25, line 22 skipping to change at line 1133
2.8.1. Message Overview 2.8.1. Message Overview
This section defines the GRASP message format and message types. This section defines the GRASP message format and message types.
Message types not listed here are reserved for future use. Message types not listed here are reserved for future use.
The messages currently defined are: The messages currently defined are:
Discovery and Discovery Response (M_DISCOVERY, M_RESPONSE). Discovery and Discovery Response (M_DISCOVERY, M_RESPONSE).
Request Negotiation, Negotiation, Confirm Waiting and Negotiation Request Negotiation, Negotiation, Confirm Waiting, and Negotiation
End (M_REQ_NEG, M_NEGOTIATE, M_WAIT, M_END). End (M_REQ_NEG, M_NEGOTIATE, M_WAIT, M_END).
Request Synchronization, Synchronization, and Flood Request Synchronization, Synchronization, and Flood
Synchronization (M_REQ_SYN, M_SYNCH, M_FLOOD. Synchronization (M_REQ_SYN, M_SYNCH, M_FLOOD).
No Operation and Invalid (M_NOOP, M_INVALID). No Operation and Invalid (M_NOOP, M_INVALID).
2.8.2. GRASP Message Format 2.8.2. GRASP Message Format
GRASP messages share an identical header format and a variable format GRASP messages share an identical header format and a variable format
area for options. GRASP message headers and options are transmitted area for options. GRASP message headers and options are transmitted
in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049]. In this in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC8949]. In this
specification, they are described using CBOR data definition language specification, they are described using Concise Data Definition
(CDDL) [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]. Fragmentary CDDL is Language (CDDL) [RFC8610]. Fragmentary CDDL is used to describe each
used to describe each item in this section. A complete and normative item in this section. A complete and normative CDDL specification of
CDDL specification of GRASP is given in Section 5, including GRASP is given in Section 4, including constants such as message
constants such as message types. types.
Every GRASP message, except the No Operation message, carries a Every GRASP message, except the No Operation message, carries a
Session ID (Section 2.7). Options are then presented serially in the Session ID (Section 2.7). Options are then presented serially.
options field.
In fragmentary CDDL, every GRASP message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, every GRASP message follows the pattern:
grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, ?initiator, message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, ?initiator,
*grasp-option] *grasp-option]
MESSAGE_TYPE = 1..255 MESSAGE_TYPE = 0..255
session-id = 0..4294967295 ;up to 32 bits session-id = 0..4294967295 ; up to 32 bits
grasp-option = any grasp-option = any
The MESSAGE_TYPE indicates the type of the message and thus defines The MESSAGE_TYPE indicates the type of the message and thus defines
the expected options. Any options received that are not consistent the expected options. Any options received that are not consistent
with the MESSAGE_TYPE SHOULD be silently discarded. with the MESSAGE_TYPE SHOULD be silently discarded.
The No Operation (noop) message is described in Section 2.8.13. The No Operation (noop) message is described in Section 2.8.13.
The various MESSAGE_TYPE values are defined in Section 5. The various MESSAGE_TYPE values are defined in Section 4.
All other message elements are described below and formally defined All other message elements are described below and formally defined
in Section 5. in Section 4.
If an unrecognized MESSAGE_TYPE is received in a unicast message, an If an unrecognized MESSAGE_TYPE is received in a unicast message, an
Invalid message (Section 2.8.12) MAY be returned. Otherwise the Invalid message (Section 2.8.12) MAY be returned. Otherwise, the
message MAY be logged and MUST be discarded. If an unrecognized message MAY be logged and MUST be discarded. If an unrecognized
MESSAGE_TYPE is received in a multicast message, it MAY be logged and MESSAGE_TYPE is received in a multicast message, it MAY be logged and
MUST be silently discarded. MUST be silently discarded.
2.8.3. Message Size 2.8.3. Message Size
GRASP nodes MUST be able to receive unicast messages of at least GRASP nodes MUST be able to receive unicast messages of at least
GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE bytes. GRASP nodes MUST NOT send unicast messages GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE bytes. GRASP nodes MUST NOT send unicast messages
longer than GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE bytes unless a longer size is longer than GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE bytes unless a longer size is
explicitly allowed for the objective concerned. For example, GRASP explicitly allowed for the objective concerned. For example, GRASP
negotiation itself could be used to agree on a longer message size. negotiation itself could be used to agree on a longer message size.
The message parser used by GRASP should be configured to know about The message parser used by GRASP should be configured to know about
the GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE, or any larger negotiated message size, so the GRASP_DEF_MAX_SIZE, or any larger negotiated message size, so
that it may defend against overly long messages. that it may defend against overly long messages.
The maximum size of multicast messages (M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD) The maximum size of multicast messages (M_DISCOVERY and M_FLOOD)
depends on the link layer technology or link adaptation layer in use. depends on the link-layer technology or the link-adaptation layer in
use.
2.8.4. Discovery Message 2.8.4. Discovery Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery message follows the pattern:
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective] discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective]
A discovery initiator sends a Discovery message to initiate a A discovery initiator sends a Discovery message to initiate a
discovery process for a particular objective option. discovery process for a particular objective option.
The discovery initiator sends all Discovery messages via UDP to port The discovery initiator sends all Discovery messages via UDP to port
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT at the link-local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast GRASP_LISTEN_PORT at the link-local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast
address on each link-layer interface in use by GRASP. It then address on each link-layer interface in use by GRASP. It then
listens for unicast TCP responses on a given port, and stores the listens for unicast TCP responses on a given port and stores the
discovery results (including responding discovery objectives and discovery results, including responding discovery objectives and
corresponding unicast locators). corresponding unicast locators.
The listening port used for TCP MUST be the same port as used for The listening port used for TCP MUST be the same port as used for
sending the Discovery UDP multicast, on a given interface. In an sending the Discovery UDP multicast, on a given interface. In an
implementation with a single GRASP instance in a node this MAY be implementation with a single GRASP instance in a node, this MAY be
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT. To support multiple instances in the same node, GRASP_LISTEN_PORT. To support multiple instances in the same node,
the GRASP discovery mechanism in each instance needs to find, for the GRASP discovery mechanism in each instance needs to find, for
each interface, a dynamic port that it can bind to for both sending each interface, a dynamic port that it can bind to for both sending
UDP link-local multicast and listening for TCP, before initiating any UDP link-local multicast and listening for TCP before initiating any
discovery. discovery.
The 'initiator' field in the message is a globally unique IP address The 'initiator' field in the message is a globally unique IP address
of the initiator, for the sole purpose of disambiguating the Session of the initiator for the sole purpose of disambiguating the Session
ID in other nodes. If for some reason the initiator does not have a ID in other nodes. If for some reason the initiator does not have a
globally unique IP address, it MUST use a link-local address for this globally unique IP address, it MUST use a link-local address that is
purpose that is highly likely to be unique, for example using highly likely to be unique for this purpose, for example, using
[RFC7217]. Determination of a node's globally unique IP address is [RFC7217]. Determination of a node's globally unique IP address is
implementation-dependent. implementation dependent.
A Discovery message MUST include exactly one of the following: A Discovery message MUST include exactly one of the following:
o a discovery objective option (Section 2.10.1). Its loop count * A Discovery Objective option (Section 2.10.1). Its loop count
MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops
(default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). If the discovery initiator (default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). If the discovery initiator
requires only on-link responses, the loop count MUST be set to 1. requires only on-link responses, the loop count MUST be set to 1.
o a negotiation objective option (Section 2.10.1). This is used * A Negotiation Objective option (Section 2.10.1). This is used
both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery
target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiatior with target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiator with
a Negotiation message for rapid processing, if it could act as the a Negotiation message for rapid processing, if it could act as the
corresponding negotiation counterpart. The sender of such a corresponding negotiation counterpart. The sender of such a
Discovery message MUST initialize a negotiation timer and loop Discovery message MUST initialize a negotiation timer and loop
count in the same way as a Request Negotiation message count in the same way as a Request Negotiation message
(Section 2.8.6). (Section 2.8.6).
o a synchronization objective option (Section 2.10.1). This is used * A Synchronization Objective option (Section 2.10.1). This is used
both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery
target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiator with target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiator with
a Synchronization message for rapid processing, if it could act as a Synchronization message for rapid processing, if it could act as
the corresponding synchronization counterpart. Its loop count the corresponding synchronization counterpart. Its loop count
MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops
(default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). (default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
As mentioned in Section 2.5.4.2, a Discovery message MAY be sent As mentioned in Section 2.5.4.2, a Discovery message MAY be sent
unicast to a peer node, which SHOULD then proceed exactly as if the unicast to a peer node, which SHOULD then proceed exactly as if the
message had been multicast. message had been multicast.
2.8.5. Discovery Response Message 2.8.5. Discovery Response Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery Response message follows the In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery Response message follows the
pattern: pattern:
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, ttl, response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, ttl,
(+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective)] (+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective]
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
A node which receives a Discovery message SHOULD send a Discovery A node that receives a Discovery message SHOULD send a Discovery
Response message if and only if it can respond to the discovery. Response message if and only if it can respond to the discovery.
It MUST contain the same Session ID and initiator as the Discovery It MUST contain the same Session ID and initiator as the Discovery
message. message.
It MUST contain a time-to-live (ttl) for the validity of the It MUST contain a time-to-live (ttl) for the validity of the
response, given as a positive integer value in milliseconds. Zero response, given as a positive integer value in milliseconds. Zero
implies a value significantly greater than GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT implies a value significantly greater than GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT
milliseconds (Section 2.6). A suggested value is ten times that milliseconds (Section 2.6). A suggested value is ten times that
amount. amount.
skipping to change at page 28, line 48 skipping to change at line 1297
In the case of a relayed Discovery message, the Discovery Response is In the case of a relayed Discovery message, the Discovery Response is
thus sent to the relay, not the original initiator. thus sent to the relay, not the original initiator.
In all cases, the transport session SHOULD be closed after sending In all cases, the transport session SHOULD be closed after sending
the Discovery Response. A transport session failure is treated as no the Discovery Response. A transport session failure is treated as no
response. response.
If the responding node supports the discovery objective of the If the responding node supports the discovery objective of the
discovery, it MUST include at least one kind of locator option discovery, it MUST include at least one kind of locator option
(Section 2.9.5) to indicate its own location. A sequence of multiple (Section 2.9.5) to indicate its own location. A sequence of multiple
kinds of locator options (e.g. IP address option and FQDN option) is kinds of locator options (e.g., IP address option and FQDN option) is
also valid. also valid.
If the responding node itself does not support the discovery If the responding node itself does not support the discovery
objective, but it knows the locator of the discovery objective, then objective, but it knows the locator of the discovery objective, then
it SHOULD respond to the discovery message with a divert option it SHOULD respond to the Discovery message with a Divert option
(Section 2.9.2) embedding a locator option or a combination of (Section 2.9.2) embedding a locator option or a combination of
multiple kinds of locator options which indicate the locator(s) of multiple kinds of locator options that indicate the locator(s) of the
the discovery objective. discovery objective.
More details on the processing of Discovery Responses are given in More details on the processing of Discovery Responses are given in
Section 2.5.4. Section 2.5.4.
2.8.6. Request Messages 2.8.6. Request Messages
In fragmentary CDDL, Request Negotiation and Request Synchronization In fragmentary CDDL, Request Negotiation and Request Synchronization
messages follow the patterns: messages follow the patterns:
request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective] request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective]
skipping to change at page 30, line 13 skipping to change at line 1354
GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT. GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
If a node receives a Request message for an objective for which no If a node receives a Request message for an objective for which no
ASA is currently listening, it MUST immediately close the relevant ASA is currently listening, it MUST immediately close the relevant
socket to indicate this to the initiator. This is to avoid socket to indicate this to the initiator. This is to avoid
unnecessary timeouts if, for example, an ASA exits prematurely but unnecessary timeouts if, for example, an ASA exits prematurely but
the GRASP core is listening on its behalf. the GRASP core is listening on its behalf.
To avoid the highly unlikely race condition in which two nodes To avoid the highly unlikely race condition in which two nodes
simultaneously request sessions with each other using the same simultaneously request sessions with each other using the same
Session ID (Section 2.7), when a node receives a Request message, it Session ID (Section 2.7), a node MUST verify that the received
MUST verify that the received Session ID is not already locally Session ID is not already locally active when it receives a Request
active. In case of a clash, it MUST discard the Request message, in message. In case of a clash, it MUST discard the Request message, in
which case the initiator will detect a timeout. which case the initiator will detect a timeout.
2.8.7. Negotiation Message 2.8.7. Negotiation Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation message follows the pattern:
negotiate-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective] negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
A negotiation counterpart sends a Negotiation message in response to A negotiation counterpart sends a Negotiation message in response to
a Request Negotiation message, a Negotiation message, or a Discovery a Request Negotiation message, a Negotiation message, or a Discovery
message in Rapid Mode. A negotiation process MAY include multiple message in rapid mode. A negotiation process MAY include multiple
steps. steps.
The Negotiation message MUST include the relevant Negotiation The Negotiation message MUST include the relevant Negotiation
Objective option, with its value updated according to progress in the Objective option, with its value updated according to progress in the
negotiation. The sender MUST decrement the loop count by 1. If the negotiation. The sender MUST decrement the loop count by 1. If the
loop count becomes zero the message MUST NOT be sent. In this case loop count becomes zero, the message MUST NOT be sent. In this case,
the negotiation session has failed and will time out. the negotiation session has failed and will time out.
2.8.8. Negotiation End Message 2.8.8. Negotiation End Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation End message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation End message follows the pattern:
end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option] end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option]
A negotiation counterpart sends an Negotiation End message to close A negotiation counterpart sends a Negotiation End message to close
the negotiation. It MUST contain either an accept or a decline the negotiation. It MUST contain either an Accept option or a
option, defined in Section 2.9.3 and Section 2.9.4. It could be sent Decline option, defined in Section 2.9.3 and Section 2.9.4. It could
either by the requesting node or the responding node. be sent either by the requesting node or the responding node.
2.8.9. Confirm Waiting Message 2.8.9. Confirm Waiting Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Confirm Waiting message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Confirm Waiting message follows the pattern:
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time] wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time]
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
A responding node sends a Confirm Waiting message to ask the A responding node sends a Confirm Waiting message to ask the
requesting node to wait for a further negotiation response. It might requesting node to wait for a further negotiation response. It might
be that the local process needs more time or that the negotiation be that the local process needs more time or that the negotiation
depends on another triggered negotiation. This message MUST NOT depends on another triggered negotiation. This message MUST NOT
include any other options. When received, the waiting time value include any other options. When received, the waiting time value
overwrites and restarts the current negotiation timer overwrites and restarts the current negotiation timer
(Section 2.8.6). (Section 2.8.6).
The responding node SHOULD send a Negotiation, Negotiation End or The responding node SHOULD send a Negotiation, Negotiation End, or
another Confirm Waiting message before the negotiation timer expires. another Confirm Waiting message before the negotiation timer expires.
If not, when the initiator's timer expires, the initiator MUST treat If not, when the initiator's timer expires, the initiator MUST treat
the negotiation procedure as failed. the negotiation procedure as failed.
2.8.10. Synchronization Message 2.8.10. Synchronization Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Synchronization message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Synchronization message follows the pattern:
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective] synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
A node which receives a Request Synchronization, or a Discovery A node that receives a Request Synchronization, or a Discovery
message in Rapid Mode, sends back a unicast Synchronization message message in rapid mode, sends back a unicast Synchronization message
with the synchronization data, in the form of a GRASP Option for the with the synchronization data, in the form of a GRASP option for the
specific synchronization objective present in the Request specific synchronization objective present in the Request
Synchronization. Synchronization.
2.8.11. Flood Synchronization Message 2.8.11. Flood Synchronization Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Flood Synchronization message follows the In fragmentary CDDL, a Flood Synchronization message follows the
pattern: pattern:
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl, flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
+[objective, (locator-option / [])]] +[objective, (locator-option / [])]]
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
A node MAY initiate flooding by sending an unsolicited Flood A node MAY initiate flooding by sending an unsolicited Flood
Synchronization Message with synchronization data. This MAY be sent Synchronization message with synchronization data. This MAY be sent
to port GRASP_LISTEN_PORT at the link-local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS to port GRASP_LISTEN_PORT at the link-local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS
multicast address, in accordance with the rules in Section 2.5.6. multicast address, in accordance with the rules in Section 2.5.6.
The initiator address is provided, as described for Discovery The initiator address is provided, as described for Discovery
messages (Section 2.8.4), only to disambiguate the Session ID. messages (Section 2.8.4), only to disambiguate the Session ID.
The message MUST contain a time-to-live (ttl) for the validity of The message MUST contain a time-to-live (ttl) for the validity of
the contents, given as a positive integer value in milliseconds. the contents, given as a positive integer value in milliseconds.
There is no default; zero indicates an indefinite lifetime. There is no default; zero indicates an indefinite lifetime.
The synchronization data are in the form of GRASP Option(s) for The synchronization data are in the form of GRASP option(s) for
specific synchronization objective(s). The loop count(s) MUST be specific synchronization objective(s). The loop count(s) MUST be
set to a suitable value to prevent flood loops (default value is set to a suitable value to prevent flood loops (default value is
GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
Each objective option MAY be followed by a locator option Each objective option MAY be followed by a locator option
associated with the flooded objective. In its absence, an empty (Section 2.9.5) associated with the flooded objective. In its
option MUST be included to indicate a null locator. absence, an empty option MUST be included to indicate a null
locator.
A node that receives a Flood Synchronization message MUST cache the A node that receives a Flood Synchronization message MUST cache the
received objectives for use by local ASAs. Each cached objective received objectives for use by local ASAs. Each cached objective
MUST be tagged with the locator option sent with it, or with a null MUST be tagged with the locator option sent with it, or with a null
tag if an empty locator option was sent. If a subsequent Flood tag if an empty locator option was sent. If a subsequent Flood
Synchronization message carrying an objective with same name and the Synchronization message carries an objective with the same name and
same tag, the corresponding cached copy of the objective MUST be the same tag, the corresponding cached copy of the objective MUST be
overwritten. If a subsequent Flood Synchronization message carrying overwritten. If a subsequent Flood Synchronization message carrying
an objective with same name arrives with a different tag, a new an objective with same name arrives with a different tag, a new
cached entry MUST be created. cached entry MUST be created.
Note: the purpose of this mechanism is to allow the recipient of Note: the purpose of this mechanism is to allow the recipient of
flooded values to distinguish between different senders of the same flooded values to distinguish between different senders of the same
objective, and if necessary communicate with them using the locator, objective, and if necessary communicate with them using the locator,
protocol and port included in the locator option. Many objectives protocol, and port included in the locator option. Many objectives
will not need this mechanism, so they will be flooded with a null will not need this mechanism, so they will be flooded with a null
locator. locator.
Cached entries MUST be ignored or deleted after their lifetime Cached entries MUST be ignored or deleted after their lifetime
expires. expires.
2.8.12. Invalid Message 2.8.12. Invalid Message
In fragmentary CDDL, an Invalid message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, an Invalid message follows the pattern:
invalid-message = [M_INVALID, session-id, ?any] invalid-message = [M_INVALID, session-id, ?any]
This message MAY be sent by an implementation in response to an This message MAY be sent by an implementation in response to an
incoming unicast message that it considers invalid. The session-id incoming unicast message that it considers invalid. The Session ID
MUST be copied from the incoming message. The content SHOULD be value MUST be copied from the incoming message. The content SHOULD
diagnostic information such as a partial copy of the invalid message be diagnostic information such as a partial copy of the invalid
up to the maximum message size. An M_INVALID message MAY be silently message up to the maximum message size. An M_INVALID message MAY be
ignored by a recipient. However, it could be used in support of silently ignored by a recipient. However, it could be used in
extensibility, since it indicates that the remote node does not support of extensibility, since it indicates that the remote node
support a new or obsolete message or option. does not support a new or obsolete message or option.
An M_INVALID message MUST NOT be sent in response to an M_INVALID An M_INVALID message MUST NOT be sent in response to an M_INVALID
message. message.
2.8.13. No Operation Message 2.8.13. No Operation Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a No Operation message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a No Operation message follows the pattern:
noop-message = [M_NOOP] noop-message = [M_NOOP]
skipping to change at page 33, line 23 skipping to change at line 1507
a recipient. a recipient.
2.9. GRASP Options 2.9. GRASP Options
This section defines the GRASP options for the negotiation and This section defines the GRASP options for the negotiation and
synchronization protocol signaling. Additional options may be synchronization protocol signaling. Additional options may be
defined in the future. defined in the future.
2.9.1. Format of GRASP Options 2.9.1. Format of GRASP Options
GRASP options are CBOR objects that MUST start with an unsigned GRASP options SHOULD be CBOR arrays that MUST start with an unsigned
integer identifying the specific option type carried in this option. integer identifying the specific option type carried in this option.
These option types are formally defined in Section 5. Apart from These option types are formally defined in Section 4.
that the only format requirement is that each option MUST be a well-
formed CBOR object. In general a CBOR array format is RECOMMENDED to
limit overhead.
GRASP options may be defined to include encapsulated GRASP options. GRASP options may be defined to include encapsulated GRASP options.
2.9.2. Divert Option 2.9.2. Divert Option
The Divert option is used to redirect a GRASP request to another The Divert option is used to redirect a GRASP request to another
node, which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation or node, which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation or
synchronization. It may redirect to an entity that is known as a synchronization. It may redirect to an entity that is known as a
specific negotiation or synchronization counterpart (on-link or off- specific negotiation or synchronization counterpart (on-link or off-
link) or a default gateway. The divert option MUST only be link) or a default gateway. The Divert option MUST only be
encapsulated in Discovery Response messages. If found elsewhere, it encapsulated in Discovery Response messages. If found elsewhere, it
SHOULD be silently ignored. SHOULD be silently ignored.
A discovery initiator MAY ignore a Divert option if it only requires A discovery initiator MAY ignore a Divert option if it only requires
direct discovery responses. direct Discovery Responses.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Divert option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Divert option follows the pattern:
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option] divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
The embedded Locator Option(s) (Section 2.9.5) point to diverted The embedded locator option(s) (Section 2.9.5) point to diverted
destination target(s) in response to a Discovery message. destination target(s) in response to a Discovery message.
2.9.3. Accept Option 2.9.3. Accept Option
The accept option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart The Accept option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
that the proposed negotiation content is accepted. that the proposed negotiation content is accepted.
The accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End The Accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Accept option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Accept option follows the pattern:
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT] accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
2.9.4. Decline Option 2.9.4. Decline Option
The decline option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart The Decline option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
the proposed negotiation content is declined and end the negotiation the proposed negotiation content is declined and to end the
process. negotiation process.
The decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End The Decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Decline option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Decline option follows the pattern:
decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason] decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason]
reason = text ;optional UTF-8 error message reason = text ; optional UTF-8 error message
Note: there might be scenarios where an ASA wants to decline the Note: there might be scenarios where an ASA wants to decline the
proposed value and restart the negotiation process. In this case it proposed value and restart the negotiation process. In this case, it
is an implementation choice whether to send a Decline option or to is an implementation choice whether to send a Decline option or to
continue with a Negotiate message, with an objective option that continue with a Negotiation message, with an objective option that
contains a null value, or one that contains a new value that might contains a null value or one that contains a new value that might
achieve convergence. achieve convergence.
2.9.5. Locator Options 2.9.5. Locator Options
These locator options are used to present reachability information These locator options are used to present reachability information
for an ASA, a device or an interface. They are Locator IPv6 Address for an ASA, a device, or an interface. They are Locator IPv6 Address
Option, Locator IPv4 Address Option, Locator FQDN (Fully Qualified option, Locator IPv4 Address option, Locator FQDN option, and Locator
Domain Name) Option and URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) Option. URI option.
Since ASAs will normally run as independent user programs, locator Since ASAs will normally run as independent user programs, locator
options need to indicate the network layer locator plus the transport options need to indicate the network-layer locator plus the transport
protocol and port number for reaching the target. For this reason, protocol and port number for reaching the target. For this reason,
the Locator Options for IP addresses and FQDNs include this the locator options for IP addresses and FQDNs include this
information explicitly. In the case of the URI Option, this information explicitly. In the case of the Locator URI option, this
information can be encoded in the URI itself. information can be encoded in the URI itself.
Note: It is assumed that all locators used in locator options are in Note: It is assumed that all locators used in locator options are in
scope throughout the GRASP domain. As stated in Section 2.2, GRASP scope throughout the GRASP domain. As stated in Section 2.2, GRASP
is not intended to work across disjoint addressing or naming realms. is not intended to work across disjoint addressing or naming realms.
2.9.5.1. Locator IPv6 address option 2.9.5.1. Locator IPv6 Address Option
In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv6 address option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Locator IPv6 Address option follows the
pattern:
ipv6-locator-option = [O_IPv6_LOCATOR, ipv6-address, ipv6-locator-option = [O_IPv6_LOCATOR, ipv6-address,
transport-proto, port-number] transport-proto, port-number]
ipv6-address = bytes .size 16 ipv6-address = bytes .size 16
transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP
IPPROTO_TCP = 6 IPPROTO_TCP = 6
IPPROTO_UDP = 17 IPPROTO_UDP = 17
port-number = 0..65535 port-number = 0..65535
The content of this option is a binary IPv6 address followed by the The content of this option is a binary IPv6 address followed by the
protocol number and port number to be used. protocol number and port number to be used.
Note 1: The IPv6 address MUST normally have global scope. However, Note 1: The IPv6 address MUST normally have global scope. However,
during initialization, a link-local address MAY be used for specific during initialization, a link-local address MAY be used for specific
objectives only (Section 2.5.2). In this case the corresponding objectives only (Section 2.5.2). In this case, the corresponding
Discovery Response message MUST be sent via the interface to which Discovery Response message MUST be sent via the interface to which
the link-local address applies. the link-local address applies.
Note 2: A link-local IPv6 address MUST NOT be used when this option Note 2: A link-local IPv6 address MUST NOT be used when this option
is included in a Divert option. is included in a Divert option.
Note 3: The IPPROTO values are taken from the existing IANA Protocol Note 3: The IPPROTO values are taken from the existing IANA Protocol
Numbers registry in order to specify TCP or UDP. If GRASP requires Numbers registry in order to specify TCP or UDP. If GRASP requires
future values that are not in that registry, a new registry for future values that are not in that registry, a new registry for
values outside the range 0..255 will be needed. values outside the range 0..255 will be needed.
2.9.5.2. Locator IPv4 address option 2.9.5.2. Locator IPv4 Address Option
In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv4 address option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Locator IPv4 Address option follows the
pattern:
ipv4-locator-option = [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, ipv4-address, ipv4-locator-option = [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, ipv4-address,
transport-proto, port-number] transport-proto, port-number]
ipv4-address = bytes .size 4 ipv4-address = bytes .size 4
The content of this option is a binary IPv4 address followed by the The content of this option is a binary IPv4 address followed by the
protocol number and port number to be used. protocol number and port number to be used.
Note: If an operator has internal network address translation for Note: If an operator has internal network address translation for
IPv4, this option MUST NOT be used within the Divert option. IPv4, this option MUST NOT be used within the Divert option.
2.9.5.3. Locator FQDN option 2.9.5.3. Locator FQDN Option
In fragmentary CDDL, the FQDN option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Locator FQDN option follows the pattern:
fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text, fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text,
transport-proto, port-number] transport-proto, port-number]
The content of this option is the Fully Qualified Domain Name of the The content of this option is the FQDN of the target followed by the
target followed by the protocol number and port number to be used. protocol number and port number to be used.
Note 1: Any FQDN which might not be valid throughout the network in Note 1: Any FQDN that might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST NOT be used question, such as a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST NOT be used
when this option is used within the Divert option. when this option is used within the Divert option.
Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option. Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option.
It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external
services. services.
2.9.5.4. Locator URI option 2.9.5.4. Locator URI Option
In fragmentary CDDL, the URI option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Locator URI option follows the pattern:
uri-locator = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text, uri-locator-option = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text,
transport-proto / null, port-number / null] transport-proto / null, port-number / null]
The content of this option is the Uniform Resource Identifier of the The content of this option is the URI of the target followed by the
target followed by the protocol number and port number to be used (or protocol number and port number to be used (or by null values if not
by null values if not required) [RFC3986]. required) [RFC3986].
Note 1: Any URI which might not be valid throughout the network in Note 1: Any URI which might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as one based on a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST question, such as one based on a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST
NOT be used when this option is used within the Divert option. NOT be used when this option is used within the Divert option.
Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option. Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option.
It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external
services. Therefore its use is not further described in this services. Therefore, its use is not further described in this
specification. specification.
2.10. Objective Options 2.10. Objective Options
2.10.1. Format of Objective Options 2.10.1. Format of Objective Options
An objective option is used to identify objectives for the purposes An objective option is used to identify objectives for the purposes
of discovery, negotiation or synchronization. All objectives MUST be of discovery, negotiation, or synchronization. All objectives MUST
in the following format, described in fragmentary CDDL: be in the following format, described in fragmentary CDDL:
objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?objective-value] objective = [objective-name, objective-flags,
loop-count, ?objective-value]
objective-name = text objective-name = text
objective-value = any objective-value = any
loop-count = 0..255 loop-count = 0..255
All objectives are identified by a unique name which is a UTF-8 All objectives are identified by a unique name that is a UTF-8 string
string [RFC3629], to be compared byte by byte. [RFC3629], to be compared byte by byte.
The names of generic objectives MUST NOT include a colon (":") and The names of generic objectives MUST NOT include a colon (":") and
MUST be registered with IANA (Section 6). MUST be registered with IANA (Section 5).
The names of privately defined objectives MUST include at least one The names of privately defined objectives MUST include at least one
colon (":"). The string preceding the last colon in the name MUST be colon (":"). The string preceding the last colon in the name MUST be
globally unique and in some way identify the entity or person globally unique and in some way identify the entity or person
defining the objective. The following three methods MAY be used to defining the objective. The following three methods MAY be used to
create such a globally unique string: create such a globally unique string:
1. The unique string is a decimal number representing a registered 1. The unique string is a decimal number representing a registered
32 bit Private Enterprise Number (PEN) [RFC5612] that uniquely 32-bit Private Enterprise Number (PEN) [RFC5612] that uniquely
identifies the enterprise defining the objective. identifies the enterprise defining the objective.
2. The unique string is a fully qualified domain name that uniquely 2. The unique string is a FQDN that uniquely identifies the entity
identifies the entity or person defining the objective. or person defining the objective.
3. The unique string is an email address that uniquely identifies 3. The unique string is an email address that uniquely identifies
the entity or person defining the objective. the entity or person defining the objective.
The GRASP protocol treats the objective name as an opaque string. GRASP treats the objective name as an opaque string. For example,
For example, "EX1", "32473:EX1", "example.com:EX1", "example.org:EX1 "EX1", "32473:EX1", "example.com:EX1", "example.org:EX1", and
and "user@example.org:EX1" would be five different objectives. "user@example.org:EX1" are five different objectives.
The 'objective-flags' field is described below. The 'objective-flags' field is described in Section 2.10.2.
The 'loop-count' field is used for terminating negotiation as The 'loop-count' field is used for terminating negotiation as
described in Section 2.8.7. It is also used for terminating described in Section 2.8.7. It is also used for terminating
discovery as described in Section 2.5.4, and for terminating flooding discovery as described in Section 2.5.4 and for terminating flooding
as described in Section 2.5.6.2. It is placed in the objective as described in Section 2.5.6.2. It is placed in the objective
rather than in the GRASP message format because, as far as the ASA is rather than in the GRASP message format because, as far as the ASA is
concerned, it is a property of the objective itself. concerned, it is a property of the objective itself.
The 'objective-value' field is to express the actual value of a The 'objective-value' field expresses the actual value of a
negotiation or synchronization objective. Its format is defined in negotiation or synchronization objective. Its format is defined in
the specification of the objective and may be a simple value or a the specification of the objective and may be a simple value or a
data structure of any kind, as long as it can be represented in CBOR. data structure of any kind, as long as it can be represented in CBOR.
It is optional because it is optional in a Discovery or Discovery It is optional only in a Discovery or Discovery Response message.
Response message.
2.10.2. Objective flags 2.10.2. Objective Flags
An objective may be relevant for discovery only, for discovery and An objective may be relevant for discovery only, for discovery and
negotiation, or for discovery and synchronization. This is expressed negotiation, or for discovery and synchronization. This is expressed
in the objective by logical flag bits: in the objective by logical flag bits:
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &( objective-flag = &(
F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery
F_NEG: 1 ; valid for negotiation F_NEG: 1 ; valid for negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2 ; valid for synchronization F_SYNCH: 2 ; valid for synchronization
F_NEG_DRY: 3 ; negotiation is dry-run F_NEG_DRY: 3 ; negotiation is a dry run
) )
These bits are independent and may be combined appropriately, e.g. These bits are independent and may be combined appropriately, e.g.,
(F_DISC and F_SYNCH) or (F_DISC and F_NEG) or (F_DISC and F_NEG and (F_DISC and F_SYNCH) or (F_DISC and F_NEG) or (F_DISC and F_NEG and
F_NEG_DRY). F_NEG_DRY).
Note that for a given negotiation session, an objective must be Note that for a given negotiation session, an objective must be used
either used for negotiation, or for dry-run negotiation. Mixing the either for negotiation or for dry-run negotiation. Mixing the two
two modes in a single negotiation is not possible. modes in a single negotiation is not possible.
2.10.3. General Considerations for Objective Options 2.10.3. General Considerations for Objective Options
As mentioned above, Objective Options MUST be assigned a unique name. As mentioned above, objective options MUST be assigned a unique name.
As long as privately defined Objective Options obey the rules above, As long as privately defined objective options obey the rules above,
this document does not restrict their choice of name, but the entity this document does not restrict their choice of name, but the entity
or person concerned SHOULD publish the names in use. or person concerned SHOULD publish the names in use.
Names are expressed as UTF-8 strings for convenience in designing Names are expressed as UTF-8 strings for convenience in designing
Objective Options for localized use. For generic usage, names objective options for localized use. For generic usage, names
expressed in the ASCII subset of UTF-8 are RECOMMENDED. Designers expressed in the ASCII subset of UTF-8 are RECOMMENDED. Designers
planning to use non-ASCII names are strongly advised to consult planning to use non-ASCII names are strongly advised to consult
[RFC7564] or its successor to understand the complexities involved. [RFC8264] or its successor to understand the complexities involved.
Since the GRASP protocol compares names byte by byte, all issues of Since GRASP compares names byte by byte, all issues of Unicode
Unicode profiling and canonicalization MUST be specified in the profiling and canonicalization MUST be specified in the design of the
design of the Objective Option. objective option.
All Objective Options MUST respect the CBOR patterns defined above as All objective options MUST respect the CBOR patterns defined above as
"objective" and MUST replace the "any" field with a valid CBOR data "objective" and MUST replace the 'any' field with a valid CBOR data
definition for the relevant use case and application. definition for the relevant use case and application.
An Objective Option that contains no additional fields beyond its An objective option that contains no additional fields beyond its
"loop-count" can only be a discovery objective and MUST only be used 'loop-count' can only be a discovery objective and MUST only be used
in Discovery and Discovery Response messages. in Discovery and Discovery Response messages.
The Negotiation Objective Options contain negotiation objectives, The Negotiation Objective options contain negotiation objectives,
which vary according to different functions/services. They MUST be which vary according to different functions and/or services. They
carried by Discovery, Request Negotiation or Negotiation messages MUST be carried by Discovery, Request Negotiation, or Negotiation
only. The negotiation initiator MUST set the initial "loop-count" to messages only. The negotiation initiator MUST set the initial 'loop-
a value specified in the specification of the objective or, if no count' to a value specified in the specification of the objective or,
such value is specified, to GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT. if no such value is specified, to GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
For most scenarios, there should be initial values in the negotiation For most scenarios, there should be initial values in the negotiation
requests. Consequently, the Negotiation Objective options MUST requests. Consequently, the Negotiation Objective options MUST
always be completely presented in a Request Negotiation message, or always be completely presented in a Request Negotiation message, or
in a Discovery message in rapid mode. If there is no initial value, in a Discovery message in rapid mode. If there is no initial value,
the value field SHOULD be set to the 'null' value defined by CBOR. the 'value' field SHOULD be set to the 'null' value defined by CBOR.
Synchronization Objective Options are similar, but MUST be carried by Synchronization Objective options are similar, but MUST be carried by
Discovery, Discovery Response, Request Synchronization, or Flood Discovery, Discovery Response, Request Synchronization, or Flood
Synchronization messages only. They include value fields only in Synchronization messages only. They include 'value' fields only in
Synchronization or Flood Synchronization messages. Synchronization or Flood Synchronization messages.
The design of an objective interacts in various ways with the design The design of an objective interacts in various ways with the design
of the ASAs that will use it. ASA design considerations are of the ASAs that will use it. ASA design considerations are
discussed in [I-D.carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines]. discussed in [ASA-GUIDELINES].
2.10.4. Organizing of Objective Options 2.10.4. Organizing of Objective Options
Generic objective options MUST be specified in documents available to Generic objective options MUST be specified in documents available to
the public and SHOULD be designed to use either the negotiation or the public and SHOULD be designed to use either the negotiation or
the synchronization mechanism described above. the synchronization mechanism described above.
As noted earlier, one negotiation objective is handled by each GRASP As noted earlier, one negotiation objective is handled by each GRASP
negotiation thread. Therefore, a negotiation objective, which is negotiation thread. Therefore, a negotiation objective, which is
based on a specific function or action, SHOULD be organized as a based on a specific function or action, SHOULD be organized as a
single GRASP option. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to organize multiple single GRASP option. It is NOT RECOMMENDED to organize multiple
negotiation objectives into a single option, nor to split a single negotiation objectives into a single option nor to split a single
function or action into multiple negotiation objectives. function or action into multiple negotiation objectives.
It is important to understand that GRASP negotiation does not support It is important to understand that GRASP negotiation does not support
transactional integrity. If transactional integrity is needed for a transactional integrity. If transactional integrity is needed for a
specific objective, this must be ensured by the ASA. For example, an specific objective, this must be ensured by the ASA. For example, an
ASA might need to ensure that it only participates in one negotiation ASA might need to ensure that it only participates in one negotiation
thread at the same time. Such an ASA would need to stop listening thread at the same time. Such an ASA would need to stop listening
for incoming negotiation requests before generating an outgoing for incoming negotiation requests before generating an outgoing
negotiation request. negotiation request.
A synchronization objective SHOULD be organized as a single GRASP A synchronization objective SHOULD be organized as a single GRASP
option. option.
Some objectives will support more than one operational mode. An Some objectives will support more than one operational mode. An
example is a negotiation objective with both a "dry run" mode (where example is a negotiation objective with both a dry-run mode (where
the negotiation is to find out whether the other end can in fact make the negotiation is to determine whether the other end can, in fact,
the requested change without problems) and a "live" mode, as make the requested change without problems) and a live mode, as
explained in Section 2.5.5. The semantics of such modes will be explained in Section 2.5.5. The semantics of such modes will be
defined in the specification of the objectives. These objectives defined in the specification of the objectives. These objectives
SHOULD include flags indicating the applicable mode(s). SHOULD include flags indicating the applicable mode(s).
An issue requiring particular attention is that GRASP itself is not a An issue requiring particular attention is that GRASP itself is not a
transactionally safe protocol. Any state associated with a dry run transactionally safe protocol. Any state associated with a dry-run
operation, such as temporarily reserving a resource for subsequent operation, such as temporarily reserving a resource for subsequent
use in a live run, is entirely a matter for the designer of the ASA use in a live run, is entirely a matter for the designer of the ASA
concerned. concerned.
As indicated in Section 2.1, an objective's value may include As indicated in Section 2.1, an objective's value may include
multiple parameters. Parameters might be categorized into two multiple parameters. Parameters might be categorized into two
classes: the obligatory ones presented as fixed fields; and the classes: the obligatory ones presented as fixed fields and the
optional ones presented in some other form of data structure embedded optional ones presented in some other form of data structure embedded
in CBOR. The format might be inherited from an existing management in CBOR. The format might be inherited from an existing management
or configuration protocol, with the objective option acting as a or configuration protocol, with the objective option acting as a
carrier for that format. The data structure might be defined in a carrier for that format. The data structure might be defined in a
formal language, but that is a matter for the specifications of formal language, but that is a matter for the specifications of
individual objectives. There are many candidates, according to the individual objectives. There are many candidates, according to the
context, such as ABNF, RBNF, XML Schema, YANG, etc. The GRASP context, such as ABNF, RBNF, XML Schema, YANG, etc. GRASP itself is
protocol itself is agnostic on these questions. The only restriction agnostic on these questions. The only restriction is that the format
is that the format can be mapped into CBOR. can be mapped into CBOR.
It is NOT RECOMMENDED to mix parameters that have significantly It is NOT RECOMMENDED to mix parameters that have significantly
different response time characteristics in a single objective. different response-time characteristics in a single objective.
Separate objectives are more suitable for such a scenario. Separate objectives are more suitable for such a scenario.
All objectives MUST support GRASP discovery. However, as mentioned All objectives MUST support GRASP discovery. However, as mentioned
in Section 2.3, it is acceptable for an ASA to use an alternative in Section 2.3, it is acceptable for an ASA to use an alternative
method of discovery. method of discovery.
Normally, a GRASP objective will refer to specific technical Normally, a GRASP objective will refer to specific technical
parameters as explained in Section 2.1. However, it is acceptable to parameters as explained in Section 2.1. However, it is acceptable to
define an abstract objective for the purpose of managing or define an abstract objective for the purpose of managing or
coordinating ASAs. It is also acceptable to define a special-purpose coordinating ASAs. It is also acceptable to define a special-purpose
objective for purposes such as trust bootstrapping or formation of objective for purposes such as trust bootstrapping or formation of
the ACP. the ACP.
To guarantee convergence, a limited number of rounds or a timeout is To guarantee convergence, a limited number of rounds or a timeout is
needed for each negotiation objective. Therefore, the definition of needed for each negotiation objective. Therefore, the definition of
each negotiation objective SHOULD clearly specify this, for example a each negotiation objective SHOULD clearly specify this, for example,
default loop count and timeout, so that the negotiation can always be a default loop count and timeout, so that the negotiation can always
terminated properly. If not, the GRASP defaults will apply. be terminated properly. If not, the GRASP defaults will apply.
There must be a well-defined procedure for concluding that a There must be a well-defined procedure for concluding that a
negotiation cannot succeed, and if so deciding what happens next negotiation cannot succeed, and if so, deciding what happens next
(e.g., deadlock resolution, tie-breaking, or revert to best-effort (e.g., deadlock resolution, tie-breaking, or reversion to best-effort
service). This MUST be specified for individual negotiation service). This MUST be specified for individual negotiation
objectives. objectives.
2.10.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options 2.10.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options
The names "EX0" through "EX9" have been reserved for experimental The names "EX0" through "EX9" have been reserved for experimental
options. Multiple names have been assigned because a single options. Multiple names have been assigned because a single
experiment may use multiple options simultaneously. These experiment may use multiple options simultaneously. These
experimental options are highly likely to have different meanings experimental options are highly likely to have different meanings
when used for different experiments. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be when used for different experiments. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be
used without an explicit human decision and MUST NOT be used in used without an explicit human decision and MUST NOT be used in
unmanaged networks such as home networks. unmanaged networks such as home networks.
These names are also RECOMMENDED for use in documentation examples. These names are also RECOMMENDED for use in documentation examples.
3. Implementation Status [RFC Editor: please remove] 3. Security Considerations
Two prototype implementations of GRASP have been made.
3.1. BUPT C++ Implementation
o Name: BaseNegotiator.cpp, msg.cpp, Client.cpp, Server.cpp
o Description: C++ implementation of GRASP core and API
o Maturity: Prototype code, interoperable between Ubuntu.
o Coverage: Corresponds to draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-03.
Since it was implemented based on the old version draft, the most
significant limitations comparing to current protocol design
include:
* Not support CBOR
* Not support Flooding
* Not support loop avoidance
* only coded for IPv6, any IPv4 is accidental
o Licensing: Huawei License.
o Experience: https://github.com/liubingpang/IETF-Anima-Signaling-
Protocol/blob/master/README.md
o Contact: https://github.com/liubingpang/IETF-Anima-Signaling-
Protocol
3.2. Python Implementation
o Name: graspy
o Description: Python 3 implementation of GRASP core and API.
o Maturity: Prototype code, interoperable between Windows 7 and
Linux.
o Coverage: Corresponds to draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13. Limitations
include:
* insecure: uses a dummy ACP module
* only coded for IPv6, any IPv4 is accidental
* FQDN and URI locators incompletely supported
* no code for rapid mode
* relay code is lazy (no rate control)
* all unicast transactions use TCP (no unicast UDP).
Experimental code for unicast UDP proved to be complex and
brittle.
* optional Objective option in Response messages not implemented
* workarounds for defects in Python socket module and Windows
socket peculiarities
o Licensing: Simplified BSD
o Experience: Tested on Windows, Linux and MacOS.
https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/graspy/graspy.pdf
o Contact: https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/graspy/
4. Security Considerations
A successful attack on negotiation-enabled nodes would be extremely A successful attack on negotiation-enabled nodes would be extremely
harmful, as such nodes might end up with a completely undesirable harmful, as such nodes might end up with a completely undesirable
configuration that would also adversely affect their peers. GRASP configuration that would also adversely affect their peers. GRASP
nodes and messages therefore require full protection. As explained nodes and messages therefore require full protection. As explained
in Section 2.5.1, GRASP MUST run within a secure environment such as in Section 2.5.1, GRASP MUST run within a secure environment such as
the Autonomic Control Plane [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane], the ACP [RFC8994], except for the constrained instances described in
except for the constrained instances described in Section 2.5.2. Section 2.5.2.
- Authentication
Authentication
A cryptographically authenticated identity for each device is A cryptographically authenticated identity for each device is
needed in an autonomic network. It is not safe to assume that a needed in an Autonomic Network. It is not safe to assume that a
large network is physically secured against interference or that large network is physically secured against interference or that
all personnel are trustworthy. Each autonomic node MUST be all personnel are trustworthy. Each autonomic node MUST be
capable of proving its identity and authenticating its messages. capable of proving its identity and authenticating its messages.
GRASP relies on a separate external certificate-based security GRASP relies on a separate, external certificate-based security
mechanism to support authentication, data integrity protection, mechanism to support authentication, data integrity protection,
and anti-replay protection. and anti-replay protection.
Since GRASP must be deployed in an existing secure environment, Since GRASP must be deployed in an existing secure environment,
the protocol itself specifies nothing concerning the trust anchor the protocol itself specifies nothing concerning the trust anchor
and certification authority. For example, in the Autonomic and certification authority. For example, in the ACP [RFC8994],
Control Plane [I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane], all nodes all nodes can trust each other and the ASAs installed in them.
can trust each other and the ASAs installed in them.
If GRASP is used temporarily without an external security If GRASP is used temporarily without an external security
mechanism, for example during system bootstrap (Section 2.5.1), mechanism, for example, during system bootstrap (Section 2.5.1),
the Session ID (Section 2.7) will act as a nonce to provide the Session ID (Section 2.7) will act as a nonce to provide
limited protection against third parties injecting responses. A limited protection against the injecting of responses by third
full analysis of the secure bootstrap process is in parties. A full analysis of the secure bootstrap process is in
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]. [RFC8995].
- Authorization and Roles
The GRASP protocol is agnostic about the roles and capabilities of
individual ASAs and about which objectives a particular ASA is
authorized to support. An implementation might support
precautions such as allowing only one ASA in a given node to
modify a given objective, but this may not be appropriate in all
cases. For example, it might be operationally useful to allow an
old and a new version of the same ASA to run simultaneously during
an overlap period. These questions are out of scope for the
present specification.
- Privacy and confidentiality Authorization and roles
GRASP is agnostic about the roles and capabilities of individual
ASAs and about which objectives a particular ASA is authorized to
support. An implementation might support precautions such as
allowing only one ASA in a given node to modify a given objective,
but this may not be appropriate in all cases. For example, it
might be operationally useful to allow an old and a new version of
the same ASA to run simultaneously during an overlap period.
These questions are out of scope for the present specification.
GRASP is intended for network management purposes involving Privacy and confidentiality
GRASP is intended for network-management purposes involving
network elements, not end hosts. Therefore, no personal network elements, not end hosts. Therefore, no personal
information is expected to be involved in the signaling protocol, information is expected to be involved in the signaling protocol,
so there should be no direct impact on personal privacy. so there should be no direct impact on personal privacy.
Nevertheless, applications that do convey personal information Nevertheless, applications that do convey personal information
cannot be excluded. Also, traffic flow paths, VPNs, etc. could be cannot be excluded. Also, traffic flow paths, VPNs, etc., could
negotiated, which could be of interest for traffic analysis. be negotiated, which could be of interest for traffic analysis.
Operators generally want to conceal details of their network Operators generally want to conceal details of their network
topology and traffic density from outsiders. Therefore, since topology and traffic density from outsiders. Therefore, since
insider attacks cannot be excluded in a large network, the insider attacks cannot be excluded in a large network, the
security mechanism for the protocol MUST provide message security mechanism for the protocol MUST provide message
confidentiality. This is why Section 2.5.1 requires either an ACP confidentiality. This is why Section 2.5.1 requires either an ACP
or an alternative security mechanism. or an alternative security mechanism.
- Link-local multicast security Link-local multicast security
GRASP has no reasonable alternative to using link-local multicast GRASP has no reasonable alternative to using link-local multicast
for Discovery or Flood Synchronization messages and these messages for Discovery or Flood Synchronization messages, and these
are sent in clear and with no authentication. They are only sent messages are sent in the clear and with no authentication. They
on interfaces within the autonomic network (see Section 2.1 and are only sent on interfaces within the Autonomic Network (see
Section 2.5.1). They are however available to on-link Section 2.1 and Section 2.5.1). They are, however, available to
eavesdroppers, and could be forged by on-link attackers. In the on-link eavesdroppers and could be forged by on-link attackers.
case of Discovery, the Discovery Responses are unicast and will In the case of discovery, the Discovery Responses are unicast and
therefore be protected (Section 2.5.1), and an untrusted forger will therefore be protected (Section 2.5.1), and an untrusted
will not be able to receive responses. In the case of Flood forger will not be able to receive responses. In the case of
Synchronization, an on-link eavesdropper will be able to receive flood synchronization, an on-link eavesdropper will be able to
the flooded objectives but there is no response message to receive the flooded objectives, but there is no response message
consider. Some precautions for Flood Synchronization messages are to consider. Some precautions for Flood Synchronization messages
suggested in Section 2.5.6.2. are suggested in Section 2.5.6.2.
- DoS Attack Protection
DoS attack protection
GRASP discovery partly relies on insecure link-local multicast. GRASP discovery partly relies on insecure link-local multicast.
Since routers participating in GRASP sometimes relay discovery Since routers participating in GRASP sometimes relay Discovery
messages from one link to another, this could be a vector for messages from one link to another, this could be a vector for
denial of service attacks. Some mitigations are specified in denial-of-service attacks. Some mitigations are specified in
Section 2.5.4. However, malicious code installed inside the Section 2.5.4. However, malicious code installed inside the ACP
Autonomic Control Plane could always launch DoS attacks consisting could always launch DoS attacks consisting of either spurious
of spurious discovery messages, or of spurious discovery Discovery messages or spurious Discovery Responses. It is
responses. It is important that firewalls prevent any GRASP important that firewalls prevent any GRASP messages from entering
messages from entering the domain from an unknown source. the domain from an unknown source.
- Security during bootstrap and discovery
Security during bootstrap and discovery
A node cannot trust GRASP traffic from other nodes until the A node cannot trust GRASP traffic from other nodes until the
security environment (such as the ACP) has identified the trust security environment (such as the ACP) has identified the trust
anchor and can authenticate traffic by validating certificates for anchor and can authenticate traffic by validating certificates for
other nodes. Also, until it has succesfully enrolled other nodes. Also, until it has successfully enrolled [RFC8995],
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] a node cannot assume that a node cannot assume that other nodes are able to authenticate its
other nodes are able to authenticate its own traffic. Therefore, own traffic. Therefore, GRASP discovery during the bootstrap
GRASP discovery during the bootstrap phase for a new device will phase for a new device will inevitably be insecure. Secure
inevitably be insecure. Secure synchronization and negotiation synchronization and negotiation will be impossible until
will be impossible until enrollment is complete. Further details enrollment is complete. Further details are given in
are given in Section 2.5.2. Section 2.5.2.
- Security of discovered locators Security of discovered locators
When GRASP discovery returns an IP address, it MUST be that of a When GRASP discovery returns an IP address, it MUST be that of a
node within the secure environment (Section 2.5.1). If it returns node within the secure environment (Section 2.5.1). If it returns
an FQDN or a URI, the ASA that receives it MUST NOT assume that an FQDN or a URI, the ASA that receives it MUST NOT assume that
the target of the locator is within the secure environment. the target of the locator is within the secure environment.
5. CDDL Specification of GRASP 4. CDDL Specification of GRASP
<CODE BEGINS>
grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, ?initiator,
*grasp-option]
MESSAGE_TYPE = 0..255
session-id = 0..4294967295 ;up to 32 bits
grasp-option = any
message /= discovery-message
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective]
message /= response-message ;response to Discovery
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, ttl,
(+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective]
message /= synch-message ;response to Synchronization request
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
message /= flood-message
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
+[objective, (locator-option / [])]]
message /= request-negotiation-message
request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective]
message /= request-synchronization-message <CODE BEGINS> file "grasp.cddl"
request-synchronization-message = [M_REQ_SYN, session-id, objective] grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message /= negotiation-message message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, ?initiator,
negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective] *grasp-option]
message /= end-message MESSAGE_TYPE = 0..255
end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option ] session-id = 0..4294967295 ; up to 32 bits
grasp-option = any
message /= wait-message message /= discovery-message
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time] discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective]
message /= invalid-message message /= response-message ; response to Discovery
invalid-message = [M_INVALID, session-id, ?any] response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, ttl,
noop-message = [M_NOOP] (+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective]
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option] message /= synch-message ; response to Synchronization request
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT] message /= flood-message
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, ttl,
+[objective, (locator-option / [])]]
decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason] message /= request-negotiation-message
reason = text ;optional UTF-8 error message request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective]
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds message /= request-synchronization-message
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds request-synchronization-message = [M_REQ_SYN, session-id, objective]
locator-option /= [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, ipv4-address, message /= negotiation-message
transport-proto, port-number] negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
ipv4-address = bytes .size 4
locator-option /= [O_IPv6_LOCATOR, ipv6-address, message /= end-message
transport-proto, port-number] end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option]
ipv6-address = bytes .size 16
locator-option /= [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text, transport-proto, port-number] message /= wait-message
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time]
locator-option /= [O_URI_LOCATOR, text, message /= invalid-message
transport-proto / null, port-number / null] invalid-message = [M_INVALID, session-id, ?any]
transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP noop-message = [M_NOOP]
IPPROTO_TCP = 6
IPPROTO_UDP = 17
port-number = 0..65535
initiator = ipv4-address / ipv6-address divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
objective-flag = &( decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason]
F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery reason = text ; optional UTF-8 error message
F_NEG: 1 ; valid for negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2 ; valid for synchronization
F_NEG_DRY: 3 ; negotiation is dry-run
)
objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?objective-value] waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
ttl = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
objective-name = text ;see section "Format of Objective Options" locator-option /= [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, ipv4-address,
transport-proto, port-number]
ipv4-address = bytes .size 4
objective-value = any locator-option /= [O_IPv6_LOCATOR, ipv6-address,
transport-proto, port-number]
ipv6-address = bytes .size 16
loop-count = 0..255 locator-option /= [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text, transport-proto,
; Constants for message types and option types port-number]
M_NOOP = 0 locator-option /= [O_URI_LOCATOR, text,
M_DISCOVERY = 1 transport-proto / null, port-number / null]
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQ_NEG = 3
M_REQ_SYN = 4
M_NEGOTIATE = 5
M_END = 6
M_WAIT = 7
M_SYNCH = 8
M_FLOOD = 9
M_INVALID = 99
O_DIVERT = 100 transport-proto = IPPROTO_TCP / IPPROTO_UDP
O_ACCEPT = 101 IPPROTO_TCP = 6
O_DECLINE = 102 IPPROTO_UDP = 17
O_IPv6_LOCATOR = 103 port-number = 0..65535
O_IPv4_LOCATOR = 104
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 105
O_URI_LOCATOR = 106
<CODE ENDS>
6. IANA Considerations initiator = ipv4-address / ipv6-address
This document defines the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
(GRASP).
Section 2.6 explains the following link-local multicast addresses, objective-flag = &(
which IANA is requested to assign for use by GRASP: F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery
F_NEG: 1 ; valid for negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2 ; valid for synchronization
F_NEG_DRY: 3 ; negotiation is a dry run
)
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast address (IPv6): (TBD1). Assigned in objective = [objective-name, objective-flags,
the IPv6 Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses registry. loop-count, ?objective-value]
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS multicast address (IPv4): (TBD2). Assigned in objective-name = text ; see section "Format of Objective Options"
the IPv4 Multicast Local Network Control Block.
Section 2.6 explains the following User Port, which IANA is requested objective-value = any
to assign for use by GRASP for both UDP and TCP:
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT: (TBD3) loop-count = 0..255
Service Name: Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)
Transport Protocols: UDP, TCP
Assignee: iesg@ietf.org
Contact: chair@ietf.org
Description: See Section 2.6
Reference: RFC XXXX (this document)
The IANA is requested to create a GRASP Parameter Registry including
two registry tables. These are the GRASP Messages and Options
Table and the GRASP Objective Names Table.
GRASP Messages and Options Table. The values in this table are names ; Constants for message types and option types
paired with decimal integers. Future values MUST be assigned using
the Standards Action policy defined by [RFC8126]. The following
initial values are assigned by this document:
M_NOOP = 0 M_NOOP = 0
M_DISCOVERY = 1 M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2 M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQ_NEG = 3 M_REQ_NEG = 3
M_REQ_SYN = 4 M_REQ_SYN = 4
M_NEGOTIATE = 5 M_NEGOTIATE = 5
M_END = 6 M_END = 6
M_WAIT = 7 M_WAIT = 7
M_SYNCH = 8 M_SYNCH = 8
M_FLOOD = 9 M_FLOOD = 9
M_INVALID = 99 M_INVALID = 99
O_DIVERT = 100 O_DIVERT = 100
O_ACCEPT = 101 O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102 O_DECLINE = 102
O_IPv6_LOCATOR = 103 O_IPv6_LOCATOR = 103
O_IPv4_LOCATOR = 104 O_IPv4_LOCATOR = 104
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 105 O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 105
O_URI_LOCATOR = 106 O_URI_LOCATOR = 106
<CODE ENDS>
GRASP Objective Names Table. The values in this table are UTF-8 5. IANA Considerations
strings which MUST NOT include a colon (":"), according to
This document defines the GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol
(GRASP).
Section 2.6 explains the following link-local multicast addresses
that IANA has assigned for use by GRASP.
Assigned in the "Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses" subregistry of
the "IPv6 Multicast Address Space Registry":
Address(es): ff02::13
Description: ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS
Reference: RFC 8990
Assigned in the "Local Network Control Block (224.0.0.0 - 224.0.0.255
(224.0.0/24))" subregistry of the "IPv4 Multicast Address Space
Registry":
Address(es): 224.0.0.119
Description: ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBORS
Reference: RFC 8990
Section 2.6 explains the following User Port (GRASP_LISTEN_PORT),
which IANA has assigned for use by GRASP for both UDP and TCP:
Service Name: grasp
Port Number: 7017
Transport Protocol: udp, tcp
Description GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Reference: RFC 8990
The IANA has created the "GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol
(GRASP) Parameters" registry, which includes two subregistries:
"GRASP Messages and Options" and "GRASP Objective Names".
The values in the "GRASP Messages and Options" subregistry are names
paired with decimal integers. Future values MUST be assigned using
the Standards Action policy defined by [RFC8126]. The following
initial values are assigned by this document:
+=======+================+
| Value | Message/Option |
+=======+================+
| 0 | M_NOOP |
+-------+----------------+
| 1 | M_DISCOVERY |
+-------+----------------+
| 2 | M_RESPONSE |
+-------+----------------+
| 3 | M_REQ_NEG |
+-------+----------------+
| 4 | M_REQ_SYN |
+-------+----------------+
| 5 | M_NEGOTIATE |
+-------+----------------+
| 6 | M_END |
+-------+----------------+
| 7 | M_WAIT |
+-------+----------------+
| 8 | M_SYNCH |
+-------+----------------+
| 9 | M_FLOOD |
+-------+----------------+
| 99 | M_INVALID |
+-------+----------------+
| 100 | O_DIVERT |
+-------+----------------+
| 101 | O_ACCEPT |
+-------+----------------+
| 102 | O_DECLINE |
+-------+----------------+
| 103 | O_IPv6_LOCATOR |
+-------+----------------+
| 104 | O_IPv4_LOCATOR |
+-------+----------------+
| 105 | O_FQDN_LOCATOR |
+-------+----------------+
| 106 | O_URI_LOCATOR |
+-------+----------------+
Table 1: Initial
Values of the "GRASP
Messages and Options"
Subregistry
The values in the "GRASP Objective Names" subregistry are UTF-8
strings that MUST NOT include a colon (":"), according to
Section 2.10.1. Future values MUST be assigned using the Section 2.10.1. Future values MUST be assigned using the
Specification Required policy defined by [RFC8126]. Specification Required policy defined by [RFC8126].
To assist expert review of a new objective, the specification should To assist expert review of a new objective, the specification should
include a precise description of the format of the new objective, include a precise description of the format of the new objective,
with sufficient explanation of its semantics to allow independent with sufficient explanation of its semantics to allow independent
implementations. See Section 2.10.3 for more details. If the new implementations. See Section 2.10.3 for more details. If the new
objective is similar in name or purpose to a previously registered objective is similar in name or purpose to a previously registered
objective, the specification should explain why a new objective is objective, the specification should explain why a new objective is
justified. justified.
The following initial values are assigned by this document: The following initial values are assigned by this document:
EX0 +================+===========+
EX1 | Objective Name | Reference |
EX2 +================+===========+
EX3 | EX0 | RFC 8990 |
EX4 +----------------+-----------+
EX5 | EX1 | RFC 8990 |
EX6 +----------------+-----------+
EX7 | EX2 | RFC 8990 |
EX8 +----------------+-----------+
EX9 | EX3 | RFC 8990 |
+----------------+-----------+
7. Acknowledgements | EX4 | RFC 8990 |
+----------------+-----------+
A major contribution to the original version of this document was | EX5 | RFC 8990 |
made by Sheng Jiang and significant contributions were made by +----------------+-----------+
Toerless Eckert. Significant early review inputs were received from | EX6 | RFC 8990 |
Joel Halpern, Barry Leiba, Charles E. Perkins, and Michael +----------------+-----------+
Richardson. William Atwood provided important assistance in | EX7 | RFC 8990 |
debugging a prototype implementation. +----------------+-----------+
| EX8 | RFC 8990 |
Valuable comments were received from Michael Behringer, Jeferson +----------------+-----------+
Campos Nobre, Laurent Ciavaglia, Zongpeng Du, Yu Fu, Joel Jaeggli, | EX9 | RFC 8990 |
Zhenbin Li, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Pierre Peloso, Reshad Rahman, +----------------+-----------+
Markus Stenberg, Martin Stiemerling, Rene Struik, Martin Thomson,
Dacheng Zhang, and participants in the NMRG research group, the ANIMA
working group, and the IESG.
8. References
8.1. Normative References Table 2: Initial Values of
the "GRASP Objective
Names" Subregistry
[I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl] 6. References
Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise data
definition language (CDDL): a notational convention to
express CBOR data structures", draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-
cbor-cddl-11 (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane] 6.1. Normative References
Behringer, M., Eckert, T., and S. Bjarnason, "An Autonomic
Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-control-
plane-07 (work in progress), July 2017.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO [RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>. 2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform [RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, [RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005, DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque [RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217, Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014, DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>. March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
8.2. Informative References [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>.
[I-D.carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines] [RFC8610] Birkholz, H., Vigano, C., and C. Bormann, "Concise Data
Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Guidelines for Autonomic Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to
Service Agents", draft-carpenter-anima-asa-guidelines-02 Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and
(work in progress), July 2017. JSON Data Structures", RFC 8610, DOI 10.17487/RFC8610,
June 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8610>.
[I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp] [RFC8949] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Behringer, M., Chaparadza, R., Petre, R., Li, X., and H. Representation (CBOR)", STD 94, RFC 8949,
Mahkonen, "IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)", DOI 10.17487/RFC8949, December 2020,
draft-chaparadza-intarea-igcp-00 (work in progress), July <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8949>.
2011.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] [RFC8994] Eckert, T., Ed., Behringer, M., Ed., and S. Bjarnason, "An
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., Bjarnason, Autonomic Control Plane (ACP)", RFC 8994,
S., and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key DOI 10.17487/RFC8994, May 2021,
Infrastructures (BRSKI)", draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping- <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8994>.
keyinfra-07 (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model] 6.2. Informative References
Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L.,
Pierre, P., Liu, B., Nobre, J., and J. Strassner, "A
Reference Model for Autonomic Networking", draft-ietf-
anima-reference-model-04 (work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity] [ADNCP] Stenberg, M., "Autonomic Distributed Node Consensus
Eckert, T. and M. Behringer, "Using Autonomic Control Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM", draft-ietf- stenberg-anima-adncp-00, 5 March 2015,
anima-stable-connectivity-03 (work in progress), July <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stenberg-anima-adncp-
2017. 00>.
[I-D.liu-anima-grasp-api] [ASA-GUIDELINES]
Carpenter, B., Liu, B., Wang, W., and X. Gong, "Generic Carpenter, B., Ciavaglia, L., Jiang, S., and P. Peloso,
Autonomic Signaling Protocol Application Program Interface "Guidelines for Autonomic Service Agents", Work in
(GRASP API)", draft-liu-anima-grasp-api-04 (work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-anima-asa-guidelines-
progress), June 2017. 00, 14 November 2020, <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
ietf-anima-asa-guidelines-00>.
[I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp] [IGCP] Behringer, M. H., Chaparadza, R., Xin, L., Mahkonen, H.,
Stenberg, M., "Autonomic Distributed Node Consensus and R. Petre, "IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)",
Protocol", draft-stenberg-anima-adncp-00 (work in Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-chaparadza-
progress), March 2015. intarea-igcp-00, 25 July 2011,
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chaparadza-intarea-
igcp-00>.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S. [RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1 Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205, Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>. September 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2334] Luciani, J., Armitage, G., Halpern, J., and N. Doraswamy, [RFC2334] Luciani, J., Armitage, G., Halpern, J., and N. Doraswamy,
"Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, "Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2334, April 1998, DOI 10.17487/RFC2334, April 1998,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2334>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2334>.
[RFC2608] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day, [RFC2608] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day,
"Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, "Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2608, June 1999, DOI 10.17487/RFC2608, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2608>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2608>.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson, [RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)", "Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000, RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations [RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations
for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 62, RFC 3416, DOI 10.17487/RFC3416, December 2002, STD 62, RFC 3416, DOI 10.17487/RFC3416, December 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3416>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3416>.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W. [RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6", Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003, RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC3493, February 2003,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3493>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5612] Eronen, P. and D. Harrington, "Enterprise Number for [RFC5612] Eronen, P. and D. Harrington, "Enterprise Number for
Documentation Use", RFC 5612, DOI 10.17487/RFC5612, August Documentation Use", RFC 5612, DOI 10.17487/RFC5612, August
2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5612>. 2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5612>.
[RFC5971] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet [RFC5971] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
Signalling Transport", RFC 5971, DOI 10.17487/RFC5971, Signalling Transport", RFC 5971, DOI 10.17487/RFC5971,
October 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5971>. October 2010, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5971>.
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko, [RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206, "The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>. March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed., [RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011, (NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn, [RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012, DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762, [RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service [RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013, Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and [RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013, DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7558] Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M., and D. Migault, [RFC7558] Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M., and D. Migault,
"Requirements for Scalable DNS-Based Service Discovery "Requirements for Scalable DNS-Based Service Discovery
(DNS-SD) / Multicast DNS (mDNS) Extensions", RFC 7558, (DNS-SD) / Multicast DNS (mDNS) Extensions", RFC 7558,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7558, July 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7558, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7558>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7558>.
[RFC7564] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework:
Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of
Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols",
RFC 7564, DOI 10.17487/RFC7564, May 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7564>.
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A., [RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575, Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
[RFC7576] Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap [RFC7576] Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap
Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576, Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015, DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7576>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7576>.
[RFC7787] Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus [RFC7787] Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", RFC 7787, DOI 10.17487/RFC7787, April 2016, Protocol", RFC 7787, DOI 10.17487/RFC7787, April 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7787>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7787>.
[RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking [RFC7788] Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>. 2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.
[RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF [RFC8040] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017, Protocol", RFC 8040, DOI 10.17487/RFC8040, January 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8040>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
Appendix A. Open Issues [RFC Editor: This section should be empty.
Please remove]
o 68. (Placeholder)
Appendix B. Closed Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove]
o 1. UDP vs TCP: For now, this specification suggests UDP and TCP
as message transport mechanisms. This is not clarified yet. UDP
is good for short conversations, is necessary for multicast
discovery, and generally fits the discovery and divert scenarios
well. However, it will cause problems with large messages. TCP
is good for stable and long sessions, with a little bit of time
consumption during the session establishment stage. If messages
exceed a reasonable MTU, a TCP mode will be required in any case.
This question may be affected by the security discussion.
RESOLVED by specifying UDP for short message and TCP for longer
one.
o 2. DTLS or TLS vs built-in security mechanism. For now, this
specification has chosen a PKI based built-in security mechanism
based on asymmetric cryptography. However, (D)TLS might be chosen
as security solution to avoid duplication of effort. It also
allows essentially similar security for short messages over UDP
and longer ones over TCP. The implementation trade-offs are
different. The current approach requires expensive asymmetric
cryptographic calculations for every message. (D)TLS has startup
overheads but cheaper crypto per message. DTLS is less mature
than TLS.
RESOLVED by specifying external security (ACP or (D)TLS).
o The following open issues applied only if the original security
model was retained:
* 2.1. For replay protection, GRASP currently requires every
participant to have an NTP-synchronized clock. Is this OK for
low-end devices, and how does it work during device
bootstrapping? We could take the Timestamp out of signature
option, to become an independent and OPTIONAL (or RECOMMENDED)
option.
* 2.2. The Signature Option states that this option could be any
place in a message. Wouldn't it be better to specify a
position (such as the end)? That would be much simpler to
implement.
RESOLVED by changing security model.
o 3. DoS Attack Protection needs work.
RESOLVED by adding text.
o 4. Should we consider preferring a text-based approach to
discovery (after the initial discovery needed for bootstrapping)?
This could be a complementary mechanism for multicast based
discovery, especially for a very large autonomic network.
Centralized registration could be automatically deployed
incrementally. At the very first stage, the repository could be
empty; then it could be filled in by the objectives discovered by
different devices (for example using Dynamic DNS Update). The
more records are stored in the repository, the less the multicast-
based discovery is needed. However, if we adopt such a mechanism,
there would be challenges: stateful solution, and security.
RESOLVED for now by adding optional use of DNS-SD by ASAs.
Subsequently removed by editors as irrelevant to GRASP istelf.
o 5. Need to expand description of the minimum requirements for the
specification of an individual discovery, synchronization or
negotiation objective.
RESOLVED for now by extra wording.
o 6. Use case and protocol walkthrough. A description of how a
node starts up, performs discovery, and conducts negotiation and
synchronisation for a sample use case would help readers to
understand the applicability of this specification. Maybe it
should be an artificial use case or maybe a simple real one, based
on a conceptual API. However, the authors have not yet decided
whether to have a separate document or have it in the protocol
document.
RESOLVED: recommend a separate document.
o 7. Cross-check against other ANIMA WG documents for consistency
and gaps.
RESOLVED: Satisfied by WGLC.
o 8. Consideration of ADNCP proposal.
RESOLVED by adding optional use of DNCP for flooding-type
synchronization.
o 9. Clarify how a GDNP instance knows whether it is running inside
the ACP. (Sheng)
RESOLVED by improved text.
o 10. Clarify how a non-ACP GDNP instance initiates (D)TLS.
(Sheng)
RESOLVED by improved text and declaring DTLS out of scope for this
draft.
o 11. Clarify how UDP/TCP choice is made. (Sheng) [Like DNS? -
Brian]
RESOLVED by improved text.
o 12. Justify that IP address within ACP or (D)TLS environment is
sufficient to prove AN identity; or explain how Device Identity
Option is used. (Sheng)
RESOLVED for now: we assume that all ASAs in a device are trusted
as soon as the device is trusted, so they share credentials. In
that case the Device Identity Option is useless. This needs to be
reviewed later.
o 13. Emphasise that negotiation/synchronization are independent
from discovery, although the rapid discovery mode includes the
first step of a negotiation/synchronization. (Sheng)
RESOLVED by improved text.
o 14. Do we need an unsolicited flooding mechanism for discovery
(for discovery results that everyone needs), to reduce scaling
impact of flooding discovery messages? (Toerless)
RESOLVED: Yes, added to requirements and solution.
o 15. Do we need flag bits in Objective Options to distinguish
distinguish Synchronization and Negotiation "Request" or rapid
mode "Discovery" messages? (Bing)
RESOLVED: yes, work on the API showed that these flags are
essential.
o 16. (Related to issue 14). Should we revive the "unsolicited
Response" for flooding synchronisation data? This has to be done
carefully due to the well-known issues with flooding, but it could
be useful, e.g. for Intent distribution, where DNCP doesn't seem
applicable.
RESOLVED: Yes, see #14.
o 17. Ensure that the discovery mechanism is completely proof
against loops and protected against duplicate responses.
RESOLVED: Added loop count mechanism.
o 18. Discuss the handling of multiple valid discovery responses.
RESOLVED: Stated that the choice must be available to the ASA but
GRASP implementation should pick a default.
o 19. Should we use a text-oriented format such as JSON/CBOR
instead of native binary TLV format?
RESOLVED: Yes, changed to CBOR.
o 20. Is the Divert option needed? If a discovery response
provides a valid IP address or FQDN, the recipient doesn't gain
any extra knowledge from the Divert. On the other hand, the
presence of Divert informs the receiver that the target is off-
link, which might be useful sometimes.
RESOLVED: Decided to keep Divert option.
o 21. Rename the protocol as GRASP (GeneRic Autonomic Signaling
Protocol)?
RESOLVED: Yes, name changed.
o 22. Does discovery mechanism scale robustly as needed? Need hop
limit on relaying?
RESOLVED: Added hop limit.
o 23. Need more details on TTL for caching discovery responses.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 24. Do we need "fast withdrawal" of discovery responses?
RESOLVED: This doesn't seem necessary. If an ASA exits or stops
supporting a given objective, peers will fail to start future
sessions and will simply repeat discovery.
o 25. Does GDNP discovery meet the needs of multi-hop DNS-SD?
RESOLVED: Decided not to consider this further as a GRASP protocol
issue. GRASP objectives could embed DNS-SD formats if needed.
o 26. Add a URL type to the locator options (for security bootstrap
etc.)
RESOLVED: Done, later renamed as URI.
o 27. Security of Flood multicasts (Section 2.5.6.2).
RESOLVED: added text.
o 28. Does ACP support secure link-local multicast?
RESOLVED by new text in the Security Considerations.
o 29. PEN is used to distinguish vendor options. Would it be
better to use a domain name? Anything unique will do.
RESOLVED: Simplified this by removing PEN field and changing
naming rules for objectives.
o 30. Does response to discovery require randomized delays to
mitigate amplification attacks?
RESOLVED: WG feedback is that it's unnecessary.
o 31. We have specified repeats for failed discovery etc. Is that
sufficient to deal with sleeping nodes?
RESOLVED: WG feedback is that it's unnecessary to say more.
o 32. We have one-to-one synchronization and flooding
synchronization. Do we also need selective flooding to a subset
of nodes?
RESOLVED: This will be discussed as a protocol extension in a
separate draft (draft-liu-anima-grasp-distribution).
o 33. Clarify if/when discovery needs to be repeated.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 34. Clarify what is mandatory for running in ACP, expand
discussion of security boundary when running with no ACP - might
rely on the local PKI infrastructure.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 35. State that role-based authorization of ASAs is out of scope
for GRASP. GRASP doesn't recognize/handle any "roles".
RESOLVED: Done.
o 36. Reconsider CBOR definition for PEN syntax. ( objective-name
= text / [pen, text] ; pen = uint )
RESOLVED: See issue 29.
o 37. Are URI locators really needed?
RESOLVED: Yes, e.g. for security bootstrap discovery, but added
note that addresses are the normal case (same for FQDN locators).
o 38. Is Session ID sufficient to identify relayed responses?
Isn't the originator's address needed too?
RESOLVED: Yes, this is needed for multicast messages and their
responses.
o 39. Clarify that a node will contain one GRASP instance
supporting multiple ASAs.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 40. Add a "reason" code to the DECLINE option?
RESOLVED: Done.
o 41. What happens if an ASA cannot conveniently use one of the
GRASP mechanisms? Do we (a) add a message type to GRASP, or (b)
simply pass the discovery results to the ASA so that it can open
its own socket?
RESOLVED: Both would be possible, but (b) is preferred.
o 42. Do we need a feature whereby an ASA can bypass the ACP and
use the data plane for efficiency/throughput? This would require
discovery to return non-ACP addresses and would evade ACP
security.
RESOLVED: This is considered out of scope for GRASP, but a comment
has been added in security considerations.
o 43. Rapid mode synchronization and negotiation is currently
limited to a single objective for simplicity of design and
implementation. A future consideration is to allow multiple
objectives in rapid mode for greater efficiency.
RESOLVED: This is considered out of scope for this version.
o 44. In requirement T9, the words that encryption "may not be
required in all deployments" were removed. Is that OK?.
RESOLVED: No objections.
o 45. Device Identity Option is unused. Can we remove it
completely?.
RESOLVED: No objections. Done.
o 46. The 'initiator' field in DISCOVER, RESPONSE and FLOOD
messages is intended to assist in loop prevention. However, we
also have the loop count for that. Also, if we create a new
Session ID each time a DISCOVER or FLOOD is relayed, that ID can
be disambiguated by recipients. It would be simpler to remove the
initiator from the messages, making parsing more uniform. Is that
OK?
RESOLVED: Yes. Done.
o 47. REQUEST is a dual purpose message (request negotiation or
request synchronization). Would it be better to split this into
two different messages (and adjust various message names
accordingly)?
RESOLVED: Yes. Done.
o 48. Should the Appendix "Capability Analysis of Current
Protocols" be deleted before RFC publication?
RESOLVED: No (per WG meeting at IETF 96).
o 49. Section 2.5.1 Should say more about signaling between two
autonomic networks/domains.
RESOLVED: Description of separate GRASP instance added.
o 50. Is Rapid mode limited to on-link only? What happens if first
discovery responder does not support Rapid Mode? Section 2.5.5,
Section 2.5.6)
RESOLVED: Not limited to on-link. First responder wins.
o 51. Should flooded objectives have a time-to-live before they are
deleted from the flood cache? And should they be tagged in the
cache with their source locator?
RESOLVED: TTL added to Flood (and Discovery Response) messages.
Cached flooded objectives must be tagged with their originating
ASA locator, and multiple copies must be kept if necessary.
o 52. Describe in detail what is allowed and disallowed in an
insecure instance of GRASP.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 53. Tune IANA Considerations to support early assignment request.
o 54. Is there a highly unlikely race condition if two peers
simultaneously choose the same Session ID and send each other
simultaneous M_REQ_NEG messages?
RESOLVED: Yes. Enhanced text on Session ID generation, and added
precaution when receiving a Request message.
o 55. Could discovery be performed over TCP?
RESOLVED: Unicast discovery added as an option.
o 56. Change Session-ID to 32 bits?
RESOLVED: Done.
o 57. Add M_INVALID message?
RESOLVED: Done.
o 58. Maximum message size?
RESOLVED by specifying default maximum message size (2048 bytes).
o 59. Add F_NEG_DRY flag to specify a "dry run" objective?.
RESOLVED: Done.
o 60. Change M_FLOOD syntax to associate a locator with each
objective?
RESOLVED: Done.
o 61. Is the SONN constrained instance really needed?
RESOLVED: Retained but only as an option.
o 62. Is it helpful to tag descriptive text with message names
(M_DISCOVER etc.)?
RESOLVED: Yes, done in various parts of the text.
o 63. Should encryption be MUST instead of SHOULD in Section 2.5.1
and Section 2.5.1?
RESOLVED: Yes, MUST implement in both cases.
o 64. Should more security text be moved from the main text into
the Security Considerations?
RESOLVED: No, on AD advice.
o 65. Do we need to formally restrict Unicode characters allowed in
objective names?
RESOLVED: No, but need to point to guidance from PRECIS WG.
o 66. Split requirements into separate document?
RESOLVED: No, on AD advice.
o 67. Remove normative dependency on draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-
cbor-cddl?
RESOLVED: No, on AD advice. In worst case, fix at AUTH48.
Appendix C. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-15, 2017-07-07:
Updates following additional IESG comments:
Security (Eric Rescorla): missing brittleness of group security
concept, attack via compromised member.
TSV (Mirja Kuehlewind): clarification on the use of UDP, TCP, mandate
use of TCP (or other reliable transport).
Clarified that in ACP, UDP is not used at all.
Clarified that GRASP itself needs TCP listen port (was previously
written as if this was optional).
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-14, 2017-07-02:
Updates following additional IESG comments:
Updated 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 based on IESG security feedback (specify
dependency against security substrate).
Strengthened requirement for reliable transport protocol.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-13, 2017-06-06:
Updates following additional IESG comments:
Removed all mention of TLS, including SONN, since it was under-
specified.
Clarified other text about trust and security model.
Banned Rapid Mode when multicast is insecure.
Explained use of M_INVALID to support extensibility
Corrected details on discovery cache TTL and discovery timeout.
Improved description of multicast UDP w.r.t. RFC8085.
Clarified when transport connections are opened or closed.
Noted that IPPROTO values come from the Protocol Numbers registry
Protocol change: Added protocol and port numbers to URI locator.
Removed inaccurate text about routing protocols
Moved Requirements section to an Appendix.
Other editorial and technical clarifications.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-12, 2017-05-19:
Updates following IESG comments:
Clarified that GRASP runs in a single addressing realm
Improved wording about FQDN resolution, clarified that URI usage is
out of scope.
Clarified description of negotiation timeout.
Noted that 'dry run' semantics are ASA-dependent
Made the ACP a normative reference
Clarified that LL multicasts are limited to GRASP interfaces
Unicast UDP moved out of scope
Editorial clarifications
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-11, 2017-03-30:
Updates following IETF 98 discussion:
Encryption changed to a MUST implement.
Pointed to guidance on UTF-8 names.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-10, 2017-03-10:
Updates following IETF Last call:
Protocol change: Specify that an objective with no initial value
should have its value field set to CBOR 'null'.
Protocol change: Specify behavior on receiving unrecognized message
type.
Noted that UTF-8 names are matched byte-for-byte.
Added brief guidance for Expert Reviewer of new generic objectives.
Numerous editorial improvements and clarifications and minor text
rearrangements, none intended to change the meaning.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09, 2016-12-15:
Protocol change: Add F_NEG_DRY flag to specify a "dry run" objective.
Protocol change: Change M_FLOOD syntax to associate a locator with
each objective.
Concentrated mentions of TLS in one section, with all details out of
scope.
Clarified text around constrained instances of GRASP.
Strengthened text restricting LL addresses in locator options.
Clarified description of rapid mode processsing.
Specified that cached discovery results should not be returned on the
same interface where they were learned.
Shortened text in "High Level Design Choices"
Dropped the word 'kernel' to avoid confusion with o/s kernel mode.
Editorial improvements and clarifications.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-08, 2016-10-30:
Protocol change: Added M_INVALID message.
Protocol change: Increased Session ID space to 32 bits.
Enhanced rules to avoid Session ID clashes.
Corrected and completed description of timeouts for Request messages.
Improved wording about exponential backoff and DoS.
Clarified that discovery relaying is not done by limited security
instances.
Corrected and expanded explanation of port used for Discovery
Response.
Noted that Discovery message could be sent unicast in special cases.
Added paragraph on extensibility.
Specified default maximum message size.
Added Appendix for sample messages.
Added short protocol overview.
Editorial fixes, including minor re-ordering for readability.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-07, 2016-09-13:
Protocol change: Added TTL field to Flood message (issue 51).
Protocol change: Added Locator option to Flood message (issue 51).
Protocol change: Added TTL field to Discovery Response message
(corrollary to issue 51).
Clarified details of rapid mode (issues 43 and 50).
Description of inter-domain GRASP instance added (issue 49).
Description of limited security GRASP instances added (issue 52).
Strengthened advice to use TCP rather than UDP.
Updated IANA considerations and text about well-known port usage
(issue 53).
Amended text about ASA authorization and roles to allow for
overlapping ASAs.
Added text recommending that Flood should be repeated periodically.
Editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-06, 2016-06-27:
Added text on discovery cache timeouts.
Noted that ASAs that are only initiators do not need to respond to
discovery message.
Added text on unexpected address changes.
Added text on robust implementation.
Clarifications and editorial fixes for numerous review comments
Added open issues for some review comments.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-05, 2016-05-13:
Noted in requirement T1 that it should be possible to implement ASAs
independently as user space programs.
Protocol change: Added protocol number and port to discovery
response. Updated protocol description, CDDL and IANA considerations
accordingly.
Clarified that discovery and flood multicasts are handled by the
GRASP core, not directly by ASAs.
Clarified that a node may discover an objective without supporting it
for synchronization or negotiation.
Added Implementation Status section.
Added reference to SCSP.
Editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-04, 2016-03-11:
Protocol change: Restored initiator field in certain messages and
adjusted relaying rules to provide complete loop detection.
Updated IANA Considerations.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-03, 2016-02-24:
Protocol change: Removed initiator field from certain messages and
adjusted relaying requirement to simplify loop detection. Also
clarified narrative explanation of discovery relaying.
Protocol change: Split Request message into two (Request Negotiation
and Request Synchronization) and updated other message names for
clarity.
Protocol change: Dropped unused Device ID option.
Further clarified text on transport layer usage.
New text about multicast insecurity in Security Considerations.
Various other clarifications and editorial fixes, including moving
some material to Appendix.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-02, 2016-01-13:
Resolved numerous issues according to WG discussions.
Renumbered requirements, added D9.
Protocol change: only allow one objective in rapid mode.
Protocol change: added optional error string to DECLINE option.
Protocol change: removed statement that seemed to say that a Request
not preceded by a Discovery should cause a Discovery response. That
made no sense, because there is no way the initiator would know where
to send the Request.
Protocol change: Removed PEN option from vendor objectives, changed
naming rule accordingly.
Protocol change: Added FLOOD message to simplify coding.
Protocol change: Added SYNCH message to simplify coding.
Protocol change: Added initiator id to DISCOVER, RESPONSE and FLOOD
messages. But also allowed the relay process for DISCOVER and FLOOD
to regenerate a Session ID.
Protocol change: Require that discovered addresses must be global
(except during bootstrap).
Protocol change: Receiver of REQUEST message must close socket if no
ASA is listening for the objective.
Protocol change: Simplified Waiting message.
Protocol change: Added No Operation message.
Renamed URL locator type as URI locator type.
Updated CDDL definition.
Various other clarifications and editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-01, 2015-10-09:
Updated requirements after list discussion.
Changed from TLV to CBOR format - many detailed changes, added co-
author.
Tightened up loop count and timeouts for various cases.
Noted that GRASP does not provide transactional integrity.
Various other clarifications and editorial fixes.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-00, 2015-08-14:
File name and protocol name changed following WG adoption.
Added URL locator type.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-04, 2015-06-21:
Tuned wording around hierarchical structure.
Changed "device" to "ASA" in many places.
Reformulated requirements to be clear that the ASA is the main
customer for signaling.
Added requirement for flooding unsolicited synch, and added it to
protocol spec. Recognized DNCP as alternative for flooding synch
data.
Requirements clarified, expanded and rearranged following design team
discussion.
Clarified that GDNP discovery must not be a prerequisite for GDNP
negotiation or synchronization (resolved issue 13).
Specified flag bits for objective options (resolved issue 15).
Clarified usage of ACP vs TLS/DTLS and TCP vs UDP (resolved issues
9,10,11).
Updated DNCP description from latest DNCP draft.
Editorial improvements.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-03, 2015-04-20:
Removed intrinsic security, required external security
Format changes to allow DNCP co-existence
Recognized DNS-SD as alternative discovery method.
Editorial improvements
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-02, 2015-02-19:
Tuned requirements to clarify scope,
Clarified relationship between types of objective,
Clarified that objectives may be simple values or complex data
structures,
Improved description of objective options,
Added loop-avoidance mechanisms (loop count and default timeout,
limitations on discovery relaying and on unsolicited responses),
Allow multiple discovery objectives in one response,
Provided for missing or multiple discovery responses, [RFC8264] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Blanchet, "PRECIS Framework:
Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of
Internationalized Strings in Application Protocols",
RFC 8264, DOI 10.17487/RFC8264, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8264>.
Indicated how modes such as "dry run" should be supported, [RFC8368] Eckert, T., Ed. and M. Behringer, "Using an Autonomic
Control Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network
Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)",
RFC 8368, DOI 10.17487/RFC8368, May 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8368>.
Minor editorial and technical corrections and clarifications, [RFC8415] Mrugalski, T., Siodelski, M., Volz, B., Yourtchenko, A.,
Richardson, M., Jiang, S., Lemon, T., and T. Winters,
"Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)",
RFC 8415, DOI 10.17487/RFC8415, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8415>.
Reorganized future work list. [RFC8991] Carpenter, B., Liu, B., Ed., Wang, W., and X. Gong,
"GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol Application Program
Interface (GRASP API)", RFC 8991, DOI 10.17487/RFC8991,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8991>.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-01, restructured the logical flow [RFC8993] Behringer, M., Ed., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia,
of the document, updated to describe synchronization completely, add L., and J. Nobre, "A Reference Model for Autonomic
unsolicited responses, numerous corrections and clarifications, Networking", RFC 8993, DOI 10.17487/RFC8993, May 2021,
expanded future work list, 2015-01-06. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8993>.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-00, combination of draft-jiang- [RFC8995] Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Eckert, T., Behringer, M.,
config-negotiation-ps-03 and draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol- and K. Watsen, "Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key
02, 2014-10-08. Infrastructure (BRSKI)", RFC 8995, DOI 10.17487/RFC8995,
May 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8995>.
Appendix D. Example Message Formats Appendix A. Example Message Formats
For readers unfamiliar with CBOR, this appendix shows a number of For readers unfamiliar with CBOR, this appendix shows a number of
example GRASP messages conforming to the CDDL syntax given in example GRASP messages conforming to the CDDL syntax given in
Section 5. Each message is shown three times in the following Section 4. Each message is shown three times in the following
formats: formats:
1. CBOR diagnostic notation. 1. CBOR diagnostic notation.
2. Similar, but showing the names of the constants. (Details of the 2. Similar, but showing the names of the constants. (Details of the
flag bit encoding are omitted.) flag bit encoding are omitted.)
3. Hexadecimal version of the CBOR wire format. 3. Hexadecimal version of the CBOR wire format.
Long lines are split for display purposes only. Long lines are split for display purposes only.
D.1. Discovery Example A.1. Discovery Example
The initiator (2001:db8:f000:baaa:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781) multicasts a The initiator (2001:db8:f000:baaa:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781) multicasts a
discovery message looking for objective EX1: Discovery message looking for objective EX1:
[1, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', ["EX1", 5, 2, 0]] [1, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', ["EX1", 5, 2, 0]]
[M_DISCOVERY, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', [M_DISCOVERY, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781',
["EX1", F_SYNCH_bits, 2, 0]] ["EX1", F_SYNCH_bits, 2, 0]]
h'84011a00d4d7485020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c970367818463455831050200' h'84011a00d4d7485020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c970367818463455831050200'
A peer (2001:0db8:f000:baaa:f000:baaa:f000:baaa) responds with a A peer (2001:0db8:f000:baaa:f000:baaa:f000:baaa) responds with a
locator: locator:
[2, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 60000, [2, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 60000,
[103, h'20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa', 6, 49443]] [103, h'20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa', 6, 49443]]
[M_RESPONSE, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 60000, [M_RESPONSE, 13948744, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 60000,
[O_IPv6_LOCATOR, h'20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa', [O_IPv6_LOCATOR, h'20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa',
IPPROTO_TCP, 49443]] IPPROTO_TCP, 49443]]
h'85021a00d4d7485020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c9703678119ea6084186750 h'85021a00d4d7485020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c9703678119ea6084186750
20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa0619c123' 20010db8f000baaaf000baaaf000baaa0619c123'
D.2. Flood Example A.2. Flood Example
The initiator multicasts a flood message. The single objective has a The initiator multicasts a Flood Synchronization message. The single
null locator. There is no response: objective has a null locator. There is no response:
[9, 3504974, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 10000, [9, 3504974, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 10000,
[["EX1", 5, 2, ["Example 1 value=", 100]],[] ] ] [["EX1", 5, 2, ["Example 1 value=", 100]],[] ] ]
[M_FLOOD, 3504974, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 10000, [M_FLOOD, 3504974, h'20010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781', 10000,
[["EX1", F_SYNCH_bits, 2, ["Example 1 value=", 100]],[] ] ] [["EX1", F_SYNCH_bits, 2, ["Example 1 value=", 100]],[] ] ]
h'86091a00357b4e5020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781192710 h'85091a00357b4e5020010db8f000baaa28ccdc4c97036781192710
828463455831050282704578616d706c6520312076616c75653d186480' 828463455831050282704578616d706c6520312076616c75653d186480'
D.3. Synchronization Example A.3. Synchronization Example
Following successful discovery of objective EX2, the initiator Following successful discovery of objective EX2, the initiator
unicasts a request: unicasts a Request Synchronization message:
[4, 4038926, ["EX2", 5, 5, 0]] [4, 4038926, ["EX2", 5, 5, 0]]
[M_REQ_SYN, 4038926, ["EX2", F_SYNCH_bits, 5, 0]] [M_REQ_SYN, 4038926, ["EX2", F_SYNCH_bits, 5, 0]]
h'83041a003da10e8463455832050500' h'83041a003da10e8463455832050500'
The peer responds with a value: The peer responds with a value:
[8, 4038926, ["EX2", 5, 5, ["Example 2 value=", 200]]] [8, 4038926, ["EX2", 5, 5, ["Example 2 value=", 200]]]
[M_SYNCH, 4038926, ["EX2", F_SYNCH_bits, 5, ["Example 2 value=", 200]]] [M_SYNCH, 4038926, ["EX2", F_SYNCH_bits, 5, ["Example 2 value=", 200]]]
h'83081a003da10e8463455832050582704578616d706c6520322076616c75653d18c8' h'83081a003da10e8463455832050582704578616d706c6520322076616c75653d18c8'
D.4. Simple Negotiation Example A.4. Simple Negotiation Example
Following successful discovery of objective EX3, the initiator Following successful discovery of objective EX3, the initiator
unicasts a request: unicasts a Request Negotiation message:
[3, 802813, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 47]]] [3, 802813, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 47]]]
[M_REQ_NEG, 802813, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 47]]] [M_REQ_NEG, 802813, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 47]]]
h'83031a000c3ffd8463455833030682634e5a44182f' h'83031a000c3ffd8463455833030682634e5a44182f'
The peer responds with immediate acceptance. Note that no objective The peer responds with immediate acceptance. Note that no objective
is needed, because the initiator's request was accepted without is needed because the initiator's request was accepted without
change: change:
[6, 802813, [101]] [6, 802813, [101]]
[M_END , 802813, [O_ACCEPT]] [M_END , 802813, [O_ACCEPT]]
h'83061a000c3ffd811865' h'83061a000c3ffd811865'
D.5. Complete Negotiation Example A.5. Complete Negotiation Example
Again the initiator unicasts a request: Again the initiator unicasts a Request Negotiation message:
[3, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 410]]] [3, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 410]]]
[M_REQ_NEG, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 410]]] [M_REQ_NEG, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 410]]]
h'83031a00d214628463455833030682634e5a4419019a' h'83031a00d214628463455833030682634e5a4419019a'
The responder starts to negotiate (making an offer): The responder starts to negotiate (making an offer):
[5, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 80]]] [5, 13767778, ["EX3", 3, 6, ["NZD", 80]]]
[M_NEGOTIATE, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 80]]] [M_NEGOTIATE, 13767778, ["EX3", F_NEG_bits, 6, ["NZD", 80]]]
h'83051a00d214628463455833030682634e5a441850' h'83051a00d214628463455833030682634e5a441850'
skipping to change at page 73, line 26 skipping to change at line 2575
[6, 13767778, [102, "Insufficient funds"]] [6, 13767778, [102, "Insufficient funds"]]
[M_END , 13767778, [O_DECLINE, "Insufficient funds"]] [M_END , 13767778, [O_DECLINE, "Insufficient funds"]]
h'83061a00d2146282186672496e73756666696369656e742066756e6473' h'83061a00d2146282186672496e73756666696369656e742066756e6473'
This negotiation has failed. If either side had sent [M_END, This negotiation has failed. If either side had sent [M_END,
13767778, [O_ACCEPT]] it would have succeeded, converging on the 13767778, [O_ACCEPT]] it would have succeeded, converging on the
objective value in the preceding M_NEGOTIATE. Note that apart from objective value in the preceding M_NEGOTIATE. Note that apart from
the initial M_REQ_NEG, the process is symmetrical. the initial M_REQ_NEG, the process is symmetrical.
Appendix E. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization and Appendix B. Requirement Analysis of Discovery, Synchronization, and
Negotiation Negotiation
This section discusses the requirements for discovery, negotiation This section discusses the requirements for discovery, negotiation,
and synchronization capabilities. The primary user of the protocol and synchronization capabilities. The primary user of the protocol
is an autonomic service agent (ASA), so the requirements are mainly is an Autonomic Service Agent (ASA), so the requirements are mainly
expressed as the features needed by an ASA. A single physical device expressed as the features needed by an ASA. A single physical device
might contain several ASAs, and a single ASA might manage several might contain several ASAs, and a single ASA might manage several
technical objectives. If a technical objective is managed by several technical objectives. If a technical objective is managed by several
ASAs, any necessary coordination is outside the scope of the GRASP ASAs, any necessary coordination is outside the scope of GRASP.
signaling protocol. Furthermore, requirements for ASAs themselves, Furthermore, requirements for ASAs themselves, such as the processing
such as the processing of Intent [RFC7575], are out of scope for the of Intent [RFC7575], are out of scope for the present document.
present document.
E.1. Requirements for Discovery B.1. Requirements for Discovery
D1. ASAs may be designed to manage any type of configurable device D1. ASAs may be designed to manage any type of configurable device
or software, as required in Appendix E.2. A basic requirement is or software, as required in Appendix B.2. A basic requirement
therefore that the protocol can represent and discover any kind of is therefore that the protocol can represent and discover any
technical objective (as defined in Section 2.1) among arbitrary kind of technical objective (as defined in Section 2.1) among
subsets of participating nodes. arbitrary subsets of participating nodes.
In an autonomic network we must assume that when a device starts up In an Autonomic Network, we must assume that when a device
it has no information about any peer devices, the network structure, starts up, it has no information about any peer devices, the
or what specific role it must play. The ASA(s) inside the device are network structure, or the specific role it must play. The
in the same situation. In some cases, when a new application session ASA(s) inside the device are in the same situation. In some
starts up within a device, the device or ASA may again lack cases, when a new application session starts within a device,
information about relevant peers. For example, it might be necessary the device or ASA may again lack information about relevant
to set up resources on multiple other devices, coordinated and peers. For example, it might be necessary to set up resources
matched to each other so that there is no wasted resource. Security on multiple other devices, coordinated and matched to each
settings might also need updating to allow for the new device or other so that there is no wasted resource. Security settings
user. The relevant peers may be different for different technical might also need updating to allow for the new device or user.
objectives. Therefore discovery needs to be repeated as often as The relevant peers may be different for different technical
necessary to find peers capable of acting as counterparts for each objectives. Therefore discovery needs to be repeated as often
objective that a discovery initiator needs to handle. From this as necessary to find peers capable of acting as counterparts
background we derive the next three requirements: for each objective that a discovery initiator needs to handle.
From this background we derive the next three requirements:
D2. When an ASA first starts up, it may have no knowledge of the D2. When an ASA first starts up, it may have no knowledge of the
specific network to which it is attached. Therefore the discovery specific network to which it is attached. Therefore the
process must be able to support any network scenario, assuming only discovery process must be able to support any network scenario,
that the device concerned is bootstrapped from factory condition. assuming only that the device concerned is bootstrapped from
factory condition.
D3. When an ASA starts up, it must require no configured location D3. When an ASA starts up, it must require no configured location
information about any peers in order to discover them. information about any peers in order to discover them.
D4. If an ASA supports multiple technical objectives, relevant peers D4. If an ASA supports multiple technical objectives, relevant
may be different for different discovery objectives, so discovery peers may be different for different discovery objectives, so
needs to be performed separately to find counterparts for each discovery needs to be performed separately to find counterparts
objective. Thus, there must be a mechanism by which an ASA can for each objective. Thus, there must be a mechanism by which
separately discover peer ASAs for each of the technical objectives an ASA can separately discover peer ASAs for each of the
that it needs to manage, whenever necessary. technical objectives that it needs to manage, whenever
necessary.
D5. Following discovery, an ASA will normally perform negotiation or D5. Following discovery, an ASA will normally perform negotiation
synchronization for the corresponding objectives. The design should or synchronization for the corresponding objectives. The
allow for this by conveniently linking discovery to negotiation and design should allow for this by conveniently linking discovery
synchronization. It may provide an optional mechanism to combine to negotiation and synchronization. It may provide an optional
discovery and negotiation/synchronization in a single protocol mechanism to combine discovery and negotiation/synchronization
exchange. in a single protocol exchange.
D6. Some objectives may only be significant on the local link, but D6. Some objectives may only be significant on the local link, but
others may be significant across the routed network and require off- others may be significant across the routed network and require
link operations. Thus, the relevant peers might be immediate off-link operations. Thus, the relevant peers might be
neighbors on the same layer 2 link, or they might be more distant and immediate neighbors on the same layer 2 link, or they might be
only accessible via layer 3. The mechanism must therefore provide more distant and only accessible via layer 3. The mechanism
both on-link and off-link discovery of ASAs supporting specific must therefore provide both on-link and off-link discovery of
technical objectives. ASAs supporting specific technical objectives.
D7. The discovery process should be flexible enough to allow for D7. The discovery process should be flexible enough to allow for
special cases, such as the following: special cases, such as the following:
o During initialization, a device must be able to establish mutual * During initialization, a device must be able to establish
trust with autonomic nodes elsewhere in the network and mutual trust with autonomic nodes elsewhere in the network
participate in an authentication mechanism. Although this will and participate in an authentication mechanism. Although
inevitably start with a discovery action, it is a special case this will inevitably start with a discovery action, it is a
precisely because trust is not yet established. This topic is the special case precisely because trust is not yet established.
subject of [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]. We require This topic is the subject of [RFC8995]. We require that
that once trust has been established for a device, all ASAs within once trust has been established for a device, all ASAs
the device inherit the device's credentials and are also trusted. within the device inherit the device's credentials and are
This does not preclude the device having multiple credentials. also trusted. This does not preclude the device having
multiple credentials.
o Depending on the type of network involved, discovery of other * Depending on the type of network involved, discovery of
central functions might be needed, such as the Network Operations other central functions might be needed, such as the Network
Center (NOC) [I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity]. The protocol Operations Center (NOC) [RFC8368]. The protocol must be
must be capable of supporting such discovery during capable of supporting such discovery during initialization,
initialization, as well as discovery during ongoing operation. as well as discovery during ongoing operation.
D8. The discovery process must not generate excessive traffic and D8. The discovery process must not generate excessive traffic and
must take account of sleeping nodes. must take account of sleeping nodes.
D9. There must be a mechanism for handling stale discovery results. D9. There must be a mechanism for handling stale discovery results.
E.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability B.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation Capability
Autonomic networks need to be able to manage many different types of Autonomic Networks need to be able to manage many different types of
parameter and consider many dimensions, such as latency, load, unused parameters and consider many dimensions, such as latency, load,
or limited resources, conflicting resource requests, security unused or limited resources, conflicting resource requests, security
settings, power saving, load balancing, etc. Status information and settings, power saving, load balancing, etc. Status information and
resource metrics need to be shared between nodes for dynamic resource metrics need to be shared between nodes for dynamic
adjustment of resources and for monitoring purposes. While this adjustment of resources and for monitoring purposes. While this
might be achieved by existing protocols when they are available, the might be achieved by existing protocols when they are available, the
new protocol needs to be able to support parameter exchange, new protocol needs to be able to support parameter exchange,
including mutual synchronization, even when no negotiation as such is including mutual synchronization, even when no negotiation as such is
required. In general, these parameters do not apply to all required. In general, these parameters do not apply to all
participating nodes, but only to a subset. participating nodes, but only to a subset.
SN1. A basic requirement for the protocol is therefore the ability SN1. A basic requirement for the protocol is therefore the ability
to represent, discover, synchronize and negotiate almost any kind of to represent, discover, synchronize, and negotiate almost any
network parameter among selected subsets of participating nodes. kind of network parameter among selected subsets of
participating nodes.
SN2. Negotiation is an iterative request/response process that must SN2. Negotiation is an iterative request/response process that must
be guaranteed to terminate (with success or failure). While tie- be guaranteed to terminate (with success or failure). While
breaking rules must be defined specifically for each use case, the tie-breaking rules must be defined specifically for each use
protocol should have some general mechanisms in support of loop and case, the protocol should have some general mechanisms in
deadlock prevention, such as hop count limits or timeouts. support of loop and deadlock prevention, such as hop-count
limits or timeouts.
SN3. Synchronization must be possible for groups of nodes ranging SN3. Synchronization must be possible for groups of nodes ranging
from small to very large. from small to very large.
SN4. To avoid "reinventing the wheel", the protocol should be able SN4. To avoid "reinventing the wheel", the protocol should be able
to encapsulate the data formats used by existing configuration to encapsulate the data formats used by existing configuration
protocols (such as NETCONF/YANG) in cases where that is convenient. protocols (such as Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) and
YANG) in cases where that is convenient.
SN5. Human intervention in complex situations is costly and error- SN5. Human intervention in complex situations is costly and error
prone. Therefore, synchronization or negotiation of parameters prone. Therefore, synchronization or negotiation of parameters
without human intervention is desirable whenever the coordination of without human intervention is desirable whenever the
multiple devices can improve overall network performance. It follows coordination of multiple devices can improve overall network
that the protocol's resource requirements must be small enough to fit performance. It follows that the protocol's resource
in any device that would otherwise need human intervention. The requirements must be small enough to fit in any device that
issue of running in constrained nodes is discussed in would otherwise need human intervention. The issue of running
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]. in constrained nodes is discussed in [RFC8993].
SN6. Human intervention in large networks is often replaced by use SN6. Human intervention in large networks is often replaced by use
of a top-down network management system (NMS). It therefore follows of a top-down network management system (NMS). It therefore
that the protocol, as part of the Autonomic Networking follows that the protocol, as part of the Autonomic Networking
Infrastructure, should be capable of running in any device that would Infrastructure, should be capable of running in any device that
otherwise be managed by an NMS, and that it can co-exist with an NMS, would otherwise be managed by an NMS, and that it can coexist
and with protocols such as SNMP and NETCONF. with an NMS and with protocols such as SNMP and NETCONF.
SN7. Specific autonomic features are expected to be implemented by SN7. Specific autonomic features are expected to be implemented by
individual ASAs, but the protocol must be general enough to allow individual ASAs, but the protocol must be general enough to
them. Some examples follow: allow them. Some examples follow:
o Dependencies and conflicts: In order to decide upon a * Dependencies and conflicts: In order to decide upon a
configuration for a given device, the device may need information configuration for a given device, the device may need
from neighbors. This can be established through the negotiation information from neighbors. This can be established through
procedure, or through synchronization if that is sufficient. the negotiation procedure, or through synchronization if
However, a given item in a neighbor may depend on other that is sufficient. However, a given item in a neighbor may
information from its own neighbors, which may need another depend on other information from its own neighbors, which
negotiation or synchronization procedure to obtain or decide. may need another negotiation or synchronization procedure to
Therefore, there are potential dependencies and conflicts among obtain or decide. Therefore, there are potential
negotiation or synchronization procedures. Resolving dependencies dependencies and conflicts among negotiation or
and conflicts is a matter for the individual ASAs involved. To synchronization procedures. Resolving dependencies and
allow this, there need to be clear boundaries and convergence conflicts is a matter for the individual ASAs involved. To
mechanisms for negotiations. Also some mechanisms are needed to allow this, there need to be clear boundaries and
avoid loop dependencies or uncontrolled growth in a tree of convergence mechanisms for negotiations. Also some
dependencies. It is the ASA designer's responsibility to avoid or mechanisms are needed to avoid loop dependencies or
detect looping dependencies or excessive growth of dependency uncontrolled growth in a tree of dependencies. It is the
trees. The protocol's role is limited to bilateral signaling ASA designer's responsibility to avoid or detect looping
between ASAs, and the avoidance of loops during bilateral dependencies or excessive growth of dependency trees. The
signaling. protocol's role is limited to bilateral signaling between
ASAs and the avoidance of loops during bilateral signaling.
o Recovery from faults and identification of faulty devices should * Recovery from faults and identification of faulty devices
be as automatic as possible. The protocol's role is limited to should be as automatic as possible. The protocol's role is
discovery, synchronization and negotiation. These processes can limited to discovery, synchronization, and negotiation.
occur at any time, and an ASA may need to repeat any of these These processes can occur at any time, and an ASA may need
steps when the ASA detects an event such as a negotiation to repeat any of these steps when the ASA detects an event
counterpart failing. such as a negotiation counterpart failing.
o Since a major goal is to minimize human intervention, it is * Since a major goal is to minimize human intervention, it is
necessary that the network can in effect "think ahead" before necessary that the network can in effect "think ahead"
changing its parameters. One aspect of this is an ASA that relies before changing its parameters. One aspect of this is an
on a knowledge base to predict network behavior. This is out of ASA that relies on a knowledge base to predict network
scope for the signaling protocol. However, another aspect is behavior. This is out of scope for the signaling protocol.
forecasting the effect of a change by a "dry run" negotiation However, another aspect is forecasting the effect of a
before actually installing the change. Signaling a dry run is change by a "dry run" negotiation before actually installing
therefore a desirable feature of the protocol. the change. Signaling a dry run is therefore a desirable
feature of the protocol.
Note that management logging, monitoring, alerts and tools for Note that management logging, monitoring, alerts, and tools for
intervention are required. However, these can only be features of intervention are required. However, these can only be features
individual ASAs, not of the protocol itself. Another document of individual ASAs, not of the protocol itself. Another
[I-D.ietf-anima-stable-connectivity] discusses how such agents may be document [RFC8368] discusses how such agents may be linked into
linked into conventional OAM systems via an Autonomic Control Plane conventional Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM)
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]. systems via an Autonomic Control Plane [RFC8994].
SN8. The protocol will be able to deal with a wide variety of SN8. The protocol will be able to deal with a wide variety of
technical objectives, covering any type of network parameter. technical objectives, covering any type of network parameter.
Therefore the protocol will need a flexible and easily extensible Therefore the protocol will need a flexible and easily
format for describing objectives. At a later stage it may be extensible format for describing objectives. At a later stage,
desirable to adopt an explicit information model. One consideration it may be desirable to adopt an explicit information model.
is whether to adopt an existing information model or to design a new One consideration is whether to adopt an existing information
one. model or to design a new one.
E.3. Specific Technical Requirements B.3. Specific Technical Requirements
T1. It should be convenient for ASA designers to define new T1. It should be convenient for ASA designers to define new
technical objectives and for programmers to express them, without technical objectives and for programmers to express them,
excessive impact on run-time efficiency and footprint. In without excessive impact on runtime efficiency and footprint.
particular, it should be convenient for ASAs to be implemented In particular, it should be convenient for ASAs to be
independently of each other as user space programs rather than as implemented independently of each other as user-space programs
kernel code, where such a programming model is possible. The classes rather than as kernel code, where such a programming model is
of device in which the protocol might run is discussed in possible. The classes of device in which the protocol might
[I-D.ietf-anima-reference-model]. run is discussed in [RFC8993].
T2. The protocol should be easily extensible in case the initially T2. The protocol should be easily extensible in case the initially
defined discovery, synchronization and negotiation mechanisms prove defined discovery, synchronization, and negotiation mechanisms
to be insufficient. prove to be insufficient.
T3. To be a generic platform, the protocol payload format should be T3. To be a generic platform, the protocol payload format should be
independent of the transport protocol or IP version. In particular, independent of the transport protocol or IP version. In
it should be able to run over IPv6 or IPv4. However, some functions, particular, it should be able to run over IPv6 or IPv4.
such as multicasting on a link, might need to be IP version However, some functions, such as multicasting on a link, might
dependent. By default, IPv6 should be preferred. need to be IP version dependent. By default, IPv6 should be
preferred.
T4. The protocol must be able to access off-link counterparts via T4. The protocol must be able to access off-link counterparts via
routable addresses, i.e., must not be restricted to link-local routable addresses, i.e., must not be restricted to link-local
operation. operation.
T5. It must also be possible for an external discovery mechanism to T5. It must also be possible for an external discovery mechanism to
be used, if appropriate for a given technical objective. In other be used, if appropriate for a given technical objective. In
words, GRASP discovery must not be a prerequisite for GRASP other words, GRASP discovery must not be a prerequisite for
negotiation or synchronization. GRASP negotiation or synchronization.
T6. The protocol must be capable of distinguishing multiple T6. The protocol must be capable of distinguishing multiple
simultaneous operations with one or more peers, especially when wait simultaneous operations with one or more peers, especially when
states occur. wait states occur.
T7. Intent: Although the distribution of Intent is out of scope for T7. Intent: Although the distribution of Intent is out of scope for
this document, the protocol must not by design exclude its use for this document, the protocol must not by design exclude its use
Intent distribution. for Intent distribution.
T8. Management monitoring, alerts and intervention: Devices should T8. Management monitoring, alerts, and intervention: Devices should
be able to report to a monitoring system. Some events must be able be able to report to a monitoring system. Some events must be
to generate operator alerts and some provision for emergency able to generate operator alerts, and some provision for
intervention must be possible (e.g. to freeze synchronization or emergency intervention must be possible (e.g., to freeze
negotiation in a mis-behaving device). These features might not use synchronization or negotiation in a misbehaving device). These
the signaling protocol itself, but its design should not exclude such features might not use the signaling protocol itself, but its
use. design should not exclude such use.
T9. Because this protocol may directly cause changes to device T9. Because this protocol may directly cause changes to device
configurations and have significant impacts on a running network, all configurations and have significant impacts on a running
protocol exchanges need to be fully secured against forged messages network, all protocol exchanges need to be fully secured
and man-in-the middle attacks, and secured as much as reasonably against forged messages and man-in-the-middle attacks, and
possible against denial of service attacks. There must also be an secured as much as reasonably possible against denial-of-
encryption mechanism to resist unwanted monitoring. However, it is service attacks. There must also be an encryption mechanism to
not required that the protocol itself provides these security resist unwanted monitoring. However, it is not required that
features; it may depend on an existing secure environment. the protocol itself provides these security features; it may
depend on an existing secure environment.
Appendix F. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols Appendix C. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols
This appendix discusses various existing protocols with properties This appendix discusses various existing protocols with properties
related to the requirements described in Appendix E. The purpose is related to the requirements described in Appendix B. The purpose is
to evaluate whether any existing protocol, or a simple combination of to evaluate whether any existing protocol, or a simple combination of
existing protocols, can meet those requirements. existing protocols, can meet those requirements.
Numerous protocols include some form of discovery, but these all Numerous protocols include some form of discovery, but these all
appear to be very specific in their applicability. Service Location appear to be very specific in their applicability. Service Location
Protocol (SLP) [RFC2608] provides service discovery for managed Protocol (SLP) [RFC2608] provides service discovery for managed
networks, but requires configuration of its own servers. DNS-SD networks, but it requires configuration of its own servers. DNS-
[RFC6763] combined with mDNS [RFC6762] provides service discovery for Based Service Discovery (DNS-SD) [RFC6763] combined with Multicast
small networks with a single link layer. [RFC7558] aims to extend DNS (mDNS) [RFC6762] provides service discovery for small networks
this to larger autonomous networks but this is not yet standardized. with a single link layer. [RFC7558] aims to extend this to larger
However, both SLP and DNS-SD appear to target primarily application autonomous networks, but this is not yet standardized. However, both
layer services, not the layer 2 and 3 objectives relevant to basic SLP and DNS-SD appear to target primarily application-layer services,
network configuration. Both SLP and DNS-SD are text-based protocols. not the layer 2 and 3 objectives relevant to basic network
configuration. Both SLP and DNS-SD are text-based protocols.
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3416] uses a command/ Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC3416] uses a command/
response model not well suited for peer negotiation. Network response model not well suited for peer negotiation. NETCONF
Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [RFC6241] uses an RPC model that [RFC6241] uses an RPC model that does allow positive or negative
does allow positive or negative responses from the target system, but responses from the target system, but this is still not adequate for
this is still not adequate for negotiation. negotiation.
There are various existing protocols that have elementary negotiation There are various existing protocols that have elementary negotiation
abilities, such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 abilities, such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6
(DHCPv6) [RFC3315], Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861], Port Control (DHCPv6) [RFC8415], Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861], Port Control
Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887], Remote Authentication Dial In User Service Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887], Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service
(RADIUS) [RFC2865], Diameter [RFC6733], etc. Most of them are (RADIUS) [RFC2865], Diameter [RFC6733], etc. Most of them are
configuration or management protocols. However, they either provide configuration or management protocols. However, they either provide
only a simple request/response model in a master/slave context or only a simple request/response model in a master/slave context or
very limited negotiation abilities. very limited negotiation abilities.
There are some signaling protocols with an element of negotiation. There are some signaling protocols with an element of negotiation.
For example Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] was For example, Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) [RFC2205] was
designed for negotiating quality of service parameters along the path designed for negotiating quality-of-service parameters along the path
of a unicast or multicast flow. RSVP is a very specialised protocol of a unicast or multicast flow. RSVP is a very specialized protocol
aimed at end-to-end flows. A more generic design is General Internet aimed at end-to-end flows. A more generic design is General Internet
Signalling Transport (GIST) [RFC5971], but it is complex, tries to Signalling Transport (GIST) [RFC5971]; however, it tries to solve
solve many problems, and is also aimed at per-flow signaling across many problems, making it complex, and is also aimed at per-flow
many hops rather than at device-to-device signaling. However, we signaling across many hops rather than at device-to-device signaling.
cannot completely exclude extended RSVP or GIST as a synchronization However, we cannot completely exclude extended RSVP or GIST as a
and negotiation protocol. They do not appear to be directly useable synchronization and negotiation protocol. They do not appear to be
for peer discovery. directly usable for peer discovery.
RESTCONF [RFC8040] is a protocol intended to convey NETCONF RESTCONF [RFC8040] is a protocol intended to convey NETCONF
information expressed in the YANG language via HTTP, including the information expressed in the YANG language via HTTP, including the
ability to transit HTML intermediaries. While this is a powerful ability to transit HTML intermediaries. While this is a powerful
approach in the context of centralised configuration of a complex approach in the context of centralized configuration of a complex
network, it is not well adapted to efficient interactive negotiation network, it is not well adapted to efficient interactive negotiation
between peer devices, especially simple ones that might not include between peer devices, especially simple ones that might not include
YANG processing already. YANG processing already.
The Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP) [RFC7787] is defined The Distributed Node Consensus Protocol (DNCP) [RFC7787] is defined
as a generic form of state synchronization protocol, with a proposed as a generic form of a state synchronization protocol, with a
usage profile being the Home Networking Control Protocol (HNCP) proposed usage profile being the Home Networking Control Protocol
[RFC7788] for configuring Homenet routers. A specific application of (HNCP) [RFC7788] for configuring Homenet routers. A specific
DNCP for autonomic networking was proposed in application of DNCP for Autonomic Networking was proposed in [ADNCP].
[I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp]. According to [RFC7787]:
| DNCP is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
| publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples (at most 64 KB)
| and to provide a shared and common view about the data
| published...
|
| DNCP is most suitable for data that changes only infrequently...
|
| If constant rapid state changes are needed, the preferable choice
| is to use an additional point-to-point channel...
DNCP "is designed to provide a way for each participating node to
publish a set of TLV (Type-Length-Value) tuples, and to provide a
shared and common view about the data published... DNCP is most
suitable for data that changes only infrequently... If constant rapid
state changes are needed, the preferable choice is to use an
additional point-to-point channel..."
Specific features of DNCP include: Specific features of DNCP include:
o Every participating node has a unique node identifier. * Every participating node has a unique node identifier.
o DNCP messages are encoded as a sequence of TLV objects, sent over * DNCP messages are encoded as a sequence of TLV objects and sent
unicast UDP or TCP, with or without (D)TLS security. over unicast UDP or TCP, with or without (D)TLS security.
o Multicast is used only for discovery of DNCP neighbors when lower * Multicast is used only for discovery of DNCP neighbors when lower
security is acceptable. security is acceptable.
o Synchronization of state is maintained by a flooding process using * Synchronization of state is maintained by a flooding process using
the Trickle algorithm. There is no bilateral synchronization or the Trickle algorithm. There is no bilateral synchronization or
negotiation capability. negotiation capability.
o The HNCP profile of DNCP is designed to operate between directly * The HNCP profile of DNCP is designed to operate between directly
connected neighbors on a shared link using UDP and link-local IPv6 connected neighbors on a shared link using UDP and link-local IPv6
addresses. addresses.
DNCP does not meet the needs of a general negotiation protocol, DNCP does not meet the needs of a general negotiation protocol
because it is designed specifically for flooding synchronization. because it is designed specifically for flooding synchronization.
Also, in its HNCP profile it is limited to link-local messages and to Also, in its HNCP profile, it is limited to link-local messages and
IPv6. However, at the minimum it is a very interesting test case for to IPv6. However, at the minimum, it is a very interesting test case
this style of interaction between devices without needing a central for this style of interaction between devices without needing a
authority, and it is a proven method of network-wide state central authority, and it is a proven method of network-wide state
synchronization by flooding. synchronization by flooding.
The Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP) [RFC2334] also The Server Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP) [RFC2334] also
describes a method for cache synchronization and cache replication describes a method for cache synchronization and cache replication
among a group of nodes. among a group of nodes.
A proposal was made some years ago for an IP based Generic Control A proposal was made some years ago for an IP based Generic Control
Protocol (IGCP) [I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp]. This was aimed at Protocol (IGCP) [IGCP]. This was aimed at information exchange and
information exchange and negotiation but not directly at peer negotiation but not directly at peer discovery. However, it has many
discovery. However, it has many points in common with the present points in common with the present work.
work.
None of the above solutions appears to completely meet the needs of None of the above solutions appears to completely meet the needs of
generic discovery, state synchronization and negotiation in a single generic discovery, state synchronization, and negotiation in a single
solution. Many of the protocols assume that they are working in a solution. Many of the protocols assume that they are working in a
traditional top-down or north-south scenario, rather than a fluid traditional top-down or north-south scenario, rather than a fluid
peer-to-peer scenario. Most of them are specialized in one way or peer-to-peer scenario. Most of them are specialized in one way or
another. As a result, we have not identified a combination of another. As a result, we have not identified a combination of
existing protocols that meets the requirements in Appendix E. Also, existing protocols that meets the requirements in Appendix B. Also,
we have not identified a path by which one of the existing protocols we have not identified a path by which one of the existing protocols
could be extended to meet the requirements. could be extended to meet the requirements.
Acknowledgments
A major contribution to the original draft version of this document
was made by Sheng Jiang, and significant contributions were made by
Toerless Eckert. Significant early review inputs were received from
Joel Halpern, Barry Leiba, Charles E. Perkins, and Michael
Richardson. William Atwood provided important assistance in
debugging a prototype implementation.
Valuable comments were received from Michael Behringer, Jéferson
Campos Nobre, Laurent Ciavaglia, Zongpeng Du, Yu Fu, Joel Jaeggli,
Zhenbin Li, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Pierre Peloso, Reshad Rahman,
Markus Stenberg, Martin Stiemerling, Rene Struik, Martin Thomson,
Dacheng Zhang, and participants in the Network Management Research
Group, the ANIMA Working Group, and the IESG.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Carsten Bormann Carsten Bormann
Universitaet Bremen TZI Universität Bremen TZI
Postfach 330440 Postfach 330440
D-28359 Bremen D-28359 Bremen
Germany Germany
Email: cabo@tzi.org Email: cabo@tzi.org
Brian Carpenter (editor) Brian Carpenter (editor)
Department of Computer Science School of Computer Science
University of Auckland University of Auckland
PB 92019 PB 92019
Auckland 1142 Auckland 1142
New Zealand New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
Bing Liu (editor) Bing Liu (editor)
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Q14, Huawei Campus Q14, Huawei Campus
Hai-Dian District
No.156 Beiqing Road No.156 Beiqing Road
Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100095 Beijing
P.R. China 100095
China
Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com Email: leo.liubing@huawei.com
 End of changes. 461 change blocks. 
2051 lines changed or deleted 1243 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/