[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 draft-ietf-6man-flow-update

6MAN                                                        B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                                  S. Jiang
Expires: November 8, 2010                   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
                                                             May 7, 2010

              Update to the IPv6 flow label specification


   Various published proposals for use of the IPv6 flow label are
   incompatible with its existing specification in RFC 3697.  This
   document proposes changes to the specification that permit additional
   use cases.  The concept of flow label domains is introduced, with the
   label possibly being rewritten at domain boundaries.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

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

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 8, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Normative Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Proposed changes to specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   8.  Change log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   Appendix A.  Alternative Approaches  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

1.  Introduction

   The flow label field in the IPv6 header is reserved but left
   experimental by [RFC2460] and is specified by [RFC3697].  We quote
   three rules from that RFC:
   a.  "The Flow Label value set by the source MUST be delivered
       unchanged to the destination node(s)."
   b.  "IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume any mathematical or other properties
       of the Flow Label values assigned by source nodes."
   c.  "Router performance SHOULD NOT be dependent on the distribution
       of the Flow Label values.  Especially, the Flow Label bits alone
       make poor material for a hash key."

   The second rule appears to forbid a usage in which the bits of the
   flow label are encoded with a specific semantic meaning.  If the word
   "alone" is overlooked, the third rule has sometimes been interpreted
   to forbid the use of the flow label by load balancing mechansims.
   However, both before and after these rules were laid down, a
   considerable number of proposals for use of the flow label have been
   published that seem incompatible with them.  An analysis is presented
   in [I-D.hu-flow-label-cases], and examples are
   [I-D.conta-ipv6-flow-label], [I-D.conta-diffserv-ipv6-fl-classifier],
   [I-D.chakravorty-6lsa], [I-D.banerjee-flowlabel-ipv6-qos],
   [I-D.metzler-ipv6-flowlabel], [LeeKim], [LinTseng], and [Prakash].
   These authors propose use cases in which some combination of the
   following options apply:
   o  The flow label may be changed by intermediate systems.
   o  It doesn't matter if the flow label is changed, because the
      receiver doesn't use it.
   o  Some or all bits of the flow label are coded: they have specific
      meanings understood by routers and switches along the path.
   o  The coding is related to the required quality of service, as well
      as identifying a flow.
   o  The label is used to control forwarding or switching in some way.

   These proposals all require either some form of encoding of semantics
   in the bits of the flow label, or the ability for routers to modify
   the flow label, or both.  Thus they appear to infringe the rules from
   RFC 3697 quoted above.

   Although [I-D.roberts-inband-qos-ipv6] does not explicitly consider
   the flow label, it requests hop-by-hop functionality in IPv6 packets
   very similar to what is needed by the above proposals.

   We can conclude that a considerable number of researchers and
   designers are stymied by RFC 3697.  On the other hand, proposals such
   as [I-D.martinbeckman-ietf-ipv6-fls-ipv6flowswitching],

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

   [I-D.blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce], and [I-D.carpenter-flow-ecmp]
   appear to be compatible with RFC 3697.  The latter two are based on
   the originator of a packet choosing a pseudo-random flow label for
   each flow.  Thus, we can also conclude that there is a useful role
   for this approach too.

   If our goal is for the flow label to be used in practice, the
   conflict between these two approaches creates a dilemma.  There
   appear to be two viable approaches:
   1.  Definitively forbid locally defined use of the flow label.
       Strengthen RFC 3697 to say that hosts SHOULD set a pseudo-random
       label value, which would clarify and limit its possible uses.  In
       particular, its use for load balancing and possibly as a nonce
       would be encouraged.
   2.  Encourage locally defined use of the flow label.  This approach
       would make the flow label mutable and would exclude any use case
       depending on end-to-end immutability.  It would encourage
       applications of a pseudo-random flow label, such as load
       balancing, on a local basis, but it would exclude end-to-end
       applications such as [I-D.blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce].

   This document is in the form of a set of proposed modifications to
   the standard, expressing approach 2 and written in normative form.
   It is suggested that if the proposal is generally accepted, a revised
   version of RFC 3697 should be produced including these changes.
   Alternatively, a much simpler revision to express approach 1 above
   could be chosen.

2.  Normative Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3.  Proposed changes to specification

   Although RFC 3697 requires the flow label to be delivered unchanged,
   it is not included in any transport layer pseudo-header checksums nor
   in IPsec authentication [RFC4302].  Both RFC 2460 and RFC 3697 define
   the default flow label to be zero.  At the time of writing, this is
   the observed value in an overwhelming proportion of IPv6 packets;
   neither operating systems nor applications currently set it, and
   routers do not rely on it.  Thus there is no reason to expect
   operational difficulties if a careful change is made to the rules of
   RFC 3697.

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

   In particular, the facts that the label is not checksummed and not
   used mean that the current immutability of the label can be changed
   without any operational consequences.

   The purpose of the proposed change is that the flow label should be
   available for domain-specific use, with locally defined semantics,
   without preventing a default type of generic usage.  The proposed
   generic usage is to enourage pseudo-random flow labels that can be
   used to assist load balancing.  There should be no impact on
   specifications other than RFC 3697 and no impact on currently
   operational software and hardware.

   Firstly we define a "Flow Label Domain" by direct analogy with a
   Differentiated Services Domain [RFC2474]:
      Flow Label Domain (also FL domain): a contiguous portion of the
      Internet over which a consistent scheme of flow label mechanisms
      is administered in a coordinated fashion.  A flow label domain can
      represent different administrative domains or autonomous systems,
      different trust regions, different network layer technologies,
      hosts and routers, etc.
      Flow Label Boundary (also FL boundary): the edge of an FL domain.
      A flow label boundary can be further sub-divided into ingress and
      egress nodes, where the ingress/egress nodes are the downstream/
      upstream nodes of a boundary link in a given traffic direction.  A
      flow label boundary is typically found at the ingress to the
      first-hop flow label router (or network node) that a host's
      packets traverse, or at the egress of the last-hop flow label
      router (or network node) that packets traverse before arriving at
      a host.  A flow label boundary may be co-located with a host,
      subject to local policy.
      Flow Label Router (also FL router): a router that sets or
      interprets the flow label according to the mechanisms used in a
      given FL domain.

   The rules of RFC 3697 are modified as follows:
   1.  An FL domain implements a local scheme of flow label mechanisms.
       The RECOMMENDED scheme is that, whether set by the source host
       according to RFC 3697, or by an FL router according to the rules
       below, the label contains a pseudo-random value between 1 and
       0xFFFFF.  This recommendation constrains the choice of flow label
       value more than RFC 3697.  An FL domain MAY define an alternative
   2.  If and only if the flow label in an IPv6 packet has the default
       value of zero, then an FL router MAY set it to a value between
       between 1 and 0xFFFFF.  This option modifies the rule that the
       flow label must be delivered unchanged, by allowing a router in
       an FL domain to set it if the source host did not set it.

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

   3.  If this is done, all packets in a given flow MUST be given the
       same flow label value.  A flow is defined in this case as all
       packets with the same source and destination IPv6 addresses and
       port numbers and the same transport protocol number, i.e., the
       same final Next Header value [RFC2460].  This rule constrains the
       definition of a flow in RFC 3697 for the specific case that a
       router sets the flow label.  It should be noted that an FL router
       applying this rule will be obliged to inspect the IPv6 header of
       every packet, including finding the last "next header" field in
       the packet, at full line speed.
   4.  Hosts connected to an FL domain MUST be configured either to set
       a default (zero) flow label in all IPv6 packets, or to apply the
       locally defined scheme (which, by rule 1, SHOULD be the pseudo-
       random scheme).
   5.  When a locally defined scheme other than the pseudo-random scheme
       is used, packets entering the FL domain from outside might
       contain an invalid label according to that scheme.  Therefore,
       boundary ingress FL routers MUST treat all packets entering such
       an FL domain as if they had a default (zero) flow label.
   6.  When a locally defined scheme other than the pseudo-random scheme
       is used, packets leaving the FL domain might contain a label that
       would be misinterpreted elsewhere.  Therefore, the boundary
       egress FL router SHOULD set the label according to the pseudo-
       random mechanism defined in rule 1.  If not, it MUST set the
       label to the default value of zero.

   The following are the consequences of the above rules combined with
   those in RFC 3697:
   o  Sending hosts that are not updated will in practice continue to
      send all-zero labels.  If there is no locally defined scheme in
      use along the path taken by a packet, the label will be delivered
      as zero.
   o  Sending hosts conforming to this specification will by default
      choose pseudo-random labels between 1 and 0xFFFFF.
   o  Locally defined behaviour of the flow label will be limited to
      consistent administratively defined domains.
   o  Sending hosts wishing to use locally defined behaviour may
      continue to send all-zero labels, relying on a router in the local
      flow label domain to set a value according to the rules above.
      Alternatively, they may set a label according to locally defined
   o  Routers wishing to implement a locally defined behaviour will set
      a label according to the rules above, if and only if the incoming
      flow label is all-zero, according to rule 1 above.
   o  The flow label is no longer immutable if it crosses a FL domain
      boundary.  This will allow a wide range of uses cases previously
      forbidden, and will allow the ECMP/LAG usage defined in
      [I-D.carpenter-flow-ecmp].  However, it will break the usage

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

      proposed in [I-D.blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce].

4.  Discussion

   Hosts that set a default (zero) flow label and ignore the flow label
   on receipt will be unaffected by implementations of this
   specification.  In general, it is assumed that hosts will ignore the
   flow label on receipt; it cannot be safely used as an end-to-end
   transport or application layer signal of any kind.

   Routers that ignore the flow label will be unaffected by
   implementations of this specification.

   Hosts that set a default (zero) flow label and are in an FL domain
   where routers adopt a locally defined scheme, or the pseudo-random
   mechanism in Section 3, will benefit from whatever flow label
   handling is used in the local domain.  Clearly, the rules b and c
   quoted from RFC 3697 in Section 1 have no effect within the local
   domain, where the locally defined rules (whatever they are) replace

   Hosts and routers that adopt the pseudo-random mechanism will enhance
   the performance of any load balancing devices that include the flow
   label in the hash used to select a particular path or server, even
   when packets leave the local FL domain.  Again, rules b and c have no

   The rules defined in this proposal are intended to allow encourage
   the adoption of pseudo-random flow labels in the general case, but
   also allow a wide variety of locally defined schemes.  Such schemes
   do not need any global assignments of bits in the flow label, and
   should not have noticeable impact on backwards compatibility or on
   domains not using them.

5.  Security Considerations

   The flow label is not protected in any way and can be forged by an
   on-path attacker.  On the other hand, a pseudo-random flow label
   cannot be readily guessed by an off-path attacker.  See RFC 3697 for
   further discussion.

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action by IANA.

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

7.  Acknowledgements

   The authors are grateful to Qinwen Hu for general discussion about
   the flow label and for his work in searching the literature.
   Valuable comments and contributions were made by Shane Amante, Fred
   Baker, Steve Blake, Remi Despres, Joel Halpern, Chris Morrow, Mark
   Smith, and other participants in the 6man working group.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

8.  Change log

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03: futher simplified according to
   WG discussion, 2010-05-07

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-02: revised and simplified according
   to WG discussion, 2010-04-13

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-01: revised according to mail list
   discussion, 2010-03-05

   draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-00: original version, 2010-02-18

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC3697]  Rajahalme, J., Conta, A., Carpenter, B., and S. Deering,
              "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 3697, March 2004.

9.2.  Informative References

              Banerjee, R., "A Modified Specification for use of the
              IPv6 Flow Label for providing An  efficient Quality of
              Service using hybrid approach",
              draft-banerjee-flowlabel-ipv6-qos-03 (work in progress),
              April 2002.


Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

              Blake, S., "Use of the IPv6 Flow Label as a Transport-
              Layer Nonce to Defend Against Off-Path Spoofing Attacks",
              draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

              Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 flow label
              for equal cost multipath routing and link aggregation in
              tunnels", draft-carpenter-flow-ecmp-02 (work in progress),
              April 2010.

              Chakravorty, S., Bush, J., and J. Bound, "IPv6 Label
              Switching Architecture", draft-chakravorty-6lsa-03 (work
              in progress), July 2008.

              Conta, A. and J. Rajahalme, "Amodel for Diffserv use of
              the IPv6 Flow Label Specification",
              draft-conta-diffserv-ipv6-fl-classifier-01 (work in
              progress), November 2001.

              Conta, A. and B. Carpenter, "A proposal for the IPv6 Flow
              Label Specification", draft-conta-ipv6-flow-label-02 (work
              in progress), July 2001.

              Hu, Q. and B. Carpenter, "Survey of proposed use cases for
              the IPv6 flow label", draft-hu-flow-label-cases-00 (work
              in progress), April 2010.

              Beckman, M., "IPv6 Header Compression via Addressing
              Mitigation Protocol (IPv6 AMP)",
              draft-martinbeckman-ietf-ipv6-amp-ipv6hcamp-01 (work in
              progress), March 2007.

              Beckman, M., "IPv6 Dynamic Flow Label Switching (FLS)",
              (work in progress), March 2007.

              Metzler, J. and S. Hauth, "An end-to-end usage of the IPv6
              flow label", draft-metzler-ipv6-flowlabel-00 (work in
              progress), November 2000.

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

              Roberts, L. and J. Harford, "In-Band QoS Signaling for
              IPv6", draft-roberts-inband-qos-ipv6-00 (work in
              progress), July 2005.

   [LeeKim]   Lee, I. and S. Kim, "A QoS Improvement Scheme for Real-
              Time Traffic Using IPv6 Flow Labels", Lecture Notes in
              Computer Science Vol. 3043, 2004.

              Lin, C., Tseng, P., and W. Hwang, "End-to-End QoS
              Provisioning by Flow Label in IPv6", JCIS , 2006.

   [Prakash]  Prakash, B., "Using the 20 bit flow label field in the
              IPv6 header to indicate desirable quality of service on
              the internet", University of Colorado (M.Sc. Thesis),

   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              December 2005.

Appendix A.  Alternative Approaches

   Two more complex alternative approaches were considered and rejected.

   The first was to distinguish locally significant flow labels from
   those conforming to RFC 3697 by setting or clearing the most
   significant bit (MSB) of the flow label.  This led to quite
   complicated rules, seems impossible to make fully self-consistent,
   and was not considered practical.

   The second was to use a specific differentiated services code point
   (DSCP)[RFC2474] in the Traffic Class octet instead of the MSB of the
   flow label itself, to flag a locally defined behaviour.  A more
   elaborate version of this was proposed in
   [I-D.martinbeckman-ietf-ipv6-fls-ipv6flowswitching].  There are two
   issues with this approach.  One is that DSCP values are themselves
   only locally significant, inconsistent with the end-to-end nature of
   the original flow label definition.  Secondly, it seems unwise to

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              Flow Label Update                   May 2010

   meld the semantics of differentiated services, which are currently
   deployed, with the unknown future semantics of flow label usage.
   However, this approach, while not recommended, does not appear to
   violate any basic principles if applied strictly within a single
   differentiated services domain that is also a flow label domain.

Authors' Addresses

   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland,   1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com

   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
   Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing
   P.R. China

   Email: shengjiang@huawei.com

Carpenter & Jiang       Expires November 8, 2010               [Page 11]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/