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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 5943

IETF                                                    B. Haberman, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                   JHU APL
Intended status: Standards Track                            May 27, 2010
Expires: November 28, 2010


 A Dedicated Routing Policy Specification Language Interface Identifier
                        for Operational Testing
                 draft-haberman-rpsl-reachable-test-04

Abstract

   The deployment of new IP connectivity typically results in
   intermittent reachability for numerous reasons which are outside the
   scope of this document.  In order to aid in the debugging of these
   persistent problems, this document proposes the creation of a new
   Routing Policy Specification Language attribute that allows a network
   to advertise an IP address which is reachable and can be used as a
   target for diagnostic tests (e.g., pings).

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 28, 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



Haberman                Expires November 28, 2010               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           RPSL Pingable Attribute                May 2010


   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.  RPSL Extension for Diagnostic Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Using the RPSL Pingable Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5


































Haberman                Expires November 28, 2010               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           RPSL Pingable Attribute                May 2010


1.  Introduction

   The deployment of new IP connectivity typically results in
   intermittent reachability for numerous reasons which are outside the
   scope of this document.  In order to aid in the debugging of these
   persistent problems, this document proposes the creation of a new
   Routing Policy Specification Language attribute [RFC4012] that allows
   a network to advertise an IP address which is reachable and can be
   used as a target for diagnostic tests (e.g., pings).

   The goal of this diagnostic address is to provide operators a means
   to advertise selected hosts that can be targets of tests for such
   common issues as reachability and Path MTU discovery.

   The capitalized 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
   [RFC2119].


2.  RPSL Extension for Diagnostic Address

   Network operators wishing to provide a diagnostic address for its
   peers, customers, etc.  MAY advertise its existence via the Routing
   Policy Specification Language [RFC4012] [RFC2622].  The pingable
   attribute is a member of the route and route6 objects in the RPSL.
   The definition of the pingable attribute is shown in Figure 1.

   +-----------+-------------------+--------------+
   | Attribute |       Value       |    Type      |
   +-----------+-------------------+--------------+
   |  pingable | <ipv6-address> or |  optional,   |
   |           | <ipv4-address>    | multi-valued |
   +-----------+-------------------+--------------+
   |  ping-hdl |   <nic-handle>    |  optional,   |
   |           |                   | multi-valued |
   +-----------+-------------------+--------------+

                Figure 1: pingable attribute specification

   The exact definitions of <ipv4-address> and <nic-handle> can be found
   in [RFC2622], while the definition of <ipv6-address> is in [RFC4012].

   The pingable attribute allows a network operator to advertise an IP
   address of a node which should be reachable from outside networks.
   This node can be used as a destination address for diagnostic tests.
   The address specified MUST fall within the IP address range
   advertised in the route/route6 object containing the pingable



Haberman                Expires November 28, 2010               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           RPSL Pingable Attribute                May 2010


   attribute.  The ping-hdl provides a link to contact information for
   an entity capable of responding to queries concerning the specified
   IP address.  An example of using the pingable attribute is shown in
   Figure 2.

   route6: 2001:DB8::/32
   origin: AS64500
   pingable: 2001:DB8::DEAD:BEEF
   ping-hdl: OPS4-RIPE

                   Figure 2: pingable attribute example


3.  Using the RPSL Pingable Attribute

   The presence of one or more pingable attributes signals to network
   operators that the operator of the target network is providing the
   address(es) for external diagnostic testing.  Tests involving the
   advertised address(es) SHOULD be rate limited to no more than ten
   probes in a five minute window unless prior arrangements are made
   with the maintainer of the attribute.


4.  IANA Considerations

   None.


5.  Security Considerations

   The use of routing registries based on RPSL requires a significant
   level of security.  In-depth discussion of the authentication and
   authorization capabilities and weaknesses within RPSL is discussed in
   [RFC2725].  The application of authentication in RPSL is key
   considering the vulnerabilities that may arise from the abuse of the
   pingable attribute by nefarious actors.  Additional RPSL security
   issues are discussed in the Security Considerations sections of
   [RFC2622] and [RFC4012].

   The publication of this attribute only explicitly signals the
   availability of an ICMP Echo Request/Echo Response service on the
   specified IP address.  The operator, at his/her discretion, MAY
   deploy other services at the same IP address.  These services may be
   impacted by the ping service given its publicity via the RPSL.

   While this document specifies that external users of the pingable
   attribute rate limit their probes, there is no guarantee that they
   will do so.  Operators publicizing a pingable attribute are



Haberman                Expires November 28, 2010               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           RPSL Pingable Attribute                May 2010


   encouraged to deploy their own rate limiting for the advertised IP
   address in order to reduce the risk of a denial-of-service attack.
   Services, protocols, and ports on the advertised IP address should be
   filtered if they are not intended for external users.


6.  Acknowledgements

   Randy Bush and David Farmer provided the original concept for the
   pingable attribute and useful comments on preliminary versions of
   this draft.  Joe Abley provided comments that justified moving the
   attribute to the route/route6 object and the inclusion of a point of
   contact.  Larry Blunk, Tony Tauber, David Harrington, Nicolas
   Williams, Sean Turner, and Peter Saint-Andre provided useful comments
   to improve the document.


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.

   [RFC2622]  Alaettinoglu, C., Villamizar, C., Gerich, E., Kessens, D.,
              Meyer, D., Bates, T., Karrenberg, D., and M. Terpstra,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)", RFC 2622,
              June 1999.

   [RFC2725]  Villamizar, C., Alaettinoglu, C., Meyer, D., and S.
              Murphy, "Routing Policy System Security", RFC 2725,
              December 1999.

   [RFC4012]  Blunk, L., Damas, J., Parent, F., and A. Robachevsky,
              "Routing Policy Specification Language next generation
              (RPSLng)", RFC 4012, March 2005.

7.2.  Informative References













Haberman                Expires November 28, 2010               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           RPSL Pingable Attribute                May 2010


Author's Address

   Brian Haberman (editor)
   Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
   11100 Johns Hopkins Road
   Laurel, MD  20723-6099
   US

   Phone: +1 443 778 1319
   Email: brian@innovationslab.net









































Haberman                Expires November 28, 2010               [Page 6]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.108, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/