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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 RFC 6085

v6ops WG                                                   S. Gundavelli
Internet-Draft                                               M. Townsley
Intended status: Standards Track                                O. Troan
Expires: January 26, 2011                                         W. Dec
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           July 25, 2010


     Unicast Transmission of IPv6 Multicast Messages on Link-layer
                draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-01.txt

Abstract

   When transmitting an IPv6 packet to a multicast group, the
   destination address in the link-layer header is typically set to the
   corresponding mapped address of the destination address from the IP
   header.  However, it is not mandatory that the destination address in
   the link-layer header is always a mapped multicast equivalent of its
   IP destination address.  There are various deployment scenarios where
   there a need to transmit an IPv6 multicast message as an unicast
   message on the link-layer.  Unfortunately, the IPv6 specifications do
   not clearly state this.  This document explicitly clarifies this
   point and makes such packet construct and transmission legal and
   valid.

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 January 26, 2011.

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



Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

   2.  Conventions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

   3.  Sending and Receiving IPv6 Multicast Packets . . . . . . . . .  6

   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11






















Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


1.  Introduction

   This document is about a clarification to the construction and
   processing rules of IPv6 multicast messages.  This clarification
   makes it valid for an IPv6 receiver node to consider a received IPv6
   multicast message with a multicast destination address in the IPv6
   header, but containing a unicast destination address in the link-
   layer header, to be valid withstanding all other validity
   considerations specified in the IPv6 standards specifications.
   Consequentially, it is also legal for an IPv6 sender node to transmit
   an IPv6 multicast message as a unicast message on the link-layer.
   This change follows the principles of protocol layer design more
   tightly.

   There are various deployment scenarios where there is a need to
   transmit an IPv6 multicast message as an unicast message on the link-
   layer.  For example, an 802.11 wireless access point may be hosting
   multiple IPv6 subnets/VLAN's and it would need the ability to
   selectively advertise hosted IPv6 prefixes on a per-node basis.  Such
   segregation can only be possible by ensuring the Router
   Advertisements received by any IPv6 node includes only those prefixes
   that are associated with their respective layer-3 subnet.  This
   essentially requires the ability to transmit IPv6 multicast messages
   as unicast messages on the link-layer.  Another such example where
   this semantic is needed is in ISATAP [RFC5214] for sending a unicast
   Router Advertisement message on ISTAP interfaces.  However, it is
   ambiguous from the protocol specification perspective, on the
   legality of such transmission and any discussions on this subject
   always resulted in differing opinions.  Therefore, it is the intent
   of this document to make the specification clear on this aspect.

   The function of the link-layer is purely for transmitting the frame
   to a peer or to a set of peers on a given media.  A received
   multicast message may have been transmitted as a unicast message on
   the link-layer and so the destination address in the link-layer will
   be a unicast address, while the destination address in the IP header
   can be a multicast address.  It is inconsequential for the network
   layer protocols to go across the layers and check the semantics of
   message delivery in the link-layer header.  Any such check is a
   violation of the principles of protocol layering and does not serve
   any purpose.  Unfortunately, [RFC4861] or [RFC2464] does not
   explicitly state this.  However, we have verified this on many open
   source and commercial IPv6 implementations on the behavior of the
   existing IPv6 stacks, firewalls and we could not find any
   implementation that drops IPv6 packets sent to a multicast
   destination address in the IP header, but with a unicast destination
   address in the link-layer header.  Case and Point:




Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


   o  Microsoft Windows Vista

   o  Linux Operating System

   o  Cisco IOS Operating System

   o  BSD Variants based on IPv6 KAME implementation

   As a result of this analysis, it appears to be quite safe to
   explicitly state that such message construct is valid, so future
   implementations do not drop packets based on these checks.  Section
   3.0 of this document defines the additional normative considerations
   for IPv6 sender and receiver nodes for allowing this mode of packet
   transmission.





































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


2.  Conventions

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














































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


3.  Sending and Receiving IPv6 Multicast Packets

   The following additional considerations MUST be applied by all IPv6
   nodes when sending and receiving IPv6 multicast messages.

   o  An IPv6 receiver node SHOULD NOT drop a received IPv6 multicast
      message containing a multicast destination address in the IPv6
      header, but with a unicast destination address in the link-layer
      header, withstanding all other validity considerations as
      specified in the relevant IPv6 standards specifications.

   o  An IPv6 sender node MAY choose to transmit an IPv6 multicast
      message as a link-layer unicast message.  In this case, the
      destination address in the IPv6 header will be a multicast group
      address, but the destination address in the link-layer header will
      be an unicast address.  It is up to to the system architecture as
      when to transmit an IPv6 multicast message as an link-layer
      unicast message.

































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


4.  IANA Considerations

   This specification does not require any IANA actions.
















































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


5.  Security Considerations

   This document is about a clarification to the construction and
   processing rules of IPv6 multicast messages.  This clarification
   makes it valid for an IPv6 receiver node to consider a received IPv6
   multicast message with a multicast destination address in the IPv6
   header, but containing an unicast destination address in the link-
   layer header, to be valid withstanding all other validity
   considerations specified in the IPv6 standards specifications.  This
   change follows the principles of protocol layer design more tightly
   and does not introduce any security vulnerabilities.

   Network firewalls and Deep Packet inspection tools that perform any
   such improper checks matching the destination address types in IP
   header and link-layers have to modified to allow such packet
   transmission.  However, the authors of this document could not find a
   single such implementation that drops IP packets based on this check.


































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


6.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Stig Venaas, Fred Baker, Hemant
   Singh, Olaf Bonness, Suresh Krishnan, Behcet Sarikaya, Eric Levy,
   Pascal Thubert and Eric Voit for all the discussions on this topic.














































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2464]  Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet
              Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998.

   [RFC5214]  Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
              Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
              March 2008.
































Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft     Unicast Transmission on Link-layer          July 2010


Authors' Addresses

   Sri Gundavelli
   Cisco
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, CA  95134
   USA

   Email: sgundave@cisco.com


   Mark Townsley
   Cisco
   L'Atlantis, 11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
   ISSY LES MOULINEAUX, ILE DE FRANCE  92782
   France

   Email: townsley@cisco.com


   Ole Troan
   Cisco
   Skoyen Atrium, Drammensveien 145A
   Oslo,   N-0277
   Norway

   Email: otroan@cisco.com


   Wojciech Dec
   Cisco
   Haarlerbergweg 13-19
   Amsterdam, Noord-Holland  1101 CH
   Netherlands

   Email: wdec@cisco.com















Gundavelli, et al.      Expires January 26, 2011               [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/