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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 RFC 5534

Network Working Group                                           J. Arkko
Internet-Draft                                                  Ericsson
Intended status: Informational                            I. van Beijnum
Expires: March 27, 2007                               September 23, 2006


    Failure Detection and Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6
                              Multihoming
                 draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-06

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 27, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).













Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


Abstract

   This document specifies how the level 3 multihoming shim protocol
   (SHIM6) detects failures between two communicating hosts.  It also
   specifies an exploration protocol for switching to another pair of
   interfaces and/or addresses between the same hosts if a failure
   occurs and an operational pair can be found.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Requirements language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Definitions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.1.  Available Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.2.  Locally Operational Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.3.  Operational Address Pairs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       3.4.  Primary Address Pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.5.  Current Address Pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4.  Protocol Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.1.  Failure Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.2.  Alternative Address Pair Exploration . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.3.  Exploration Order  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  Protocol Definition  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.1.  Keepalive Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       5.2.  Probe Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  Behaviour  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   7.  Example Protocol Runs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   8.  Protocol Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
       11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
   Appendix A.  Contributors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   Appendix B.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 38













Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


1.  Introduction

   The SHIM6 protocol [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto] extends IPv6 to support
   multihoming.  It is an IP layer mechanism that hides multihoming from
   applications.  A part of the SHIM6 solution involves detecting when a
   currently used pair of addresses (or interfaces) between two
   communication hosts has failed, and picking another pair when this
   occurs.  We call the former failure detection, and the latter locator
   pair exploration.

   This document specifies the mechanisms and protocol messages to
   achieve both failure detection and locator pair exploration.  This
   part of the SHIM6 protocol is called the REAchability Protocol
   (REAP).

   The document is structured as follows: Section 3 defines a set of
   useful terms, Section 4 gives an overview of REAP, and Section 5
   specifies the message formats and behaviour in detail.  Section 9
   discusses the security considerations of REAP.

   In this specification, we consider an address to be synonymous with a
   locator.  Other parts of the SHIM6 protocol ensure that the different
   locators used by a node actually belong together.  That is, REAP is
   not responsible for ensuring that it ends up with a legitimate
   locator.


























Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


2.  Requirements language

   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 [RFC2119].














































Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


3.  Definitions

   This section defines terms useful for discussing failure detection
   and locator pair exploration.

3.1.  Available Addresses

   SHIM6 nodes need to be aware of what addresses they themselves have.
   If a node loses the address it is currently using for communications,
   another address must replace this address.  And if a node loses an
   address that the node's peer knows about, the peer must be informed.
   Similarly, when a node acquires a new address it may generally wish
   the peer to know about it.

   Definition.  Available address.  An address is said to be available
   if the following conditions are fulfilled:

   o  The address has been assigned to an interface of the node.

   o  The address is valid in the sense of RFC 2461 [RFC2461].

   o  The address is not tentative in the sense of RFC 2462 [RFC2462].
      In other words, the address assignment is complete so that
      communications can be started.

      Note that this explicitly allows an address to be optimistic in
      the sense of Optimistic DAD [RFC4429] even though implementations
      may prefer using other addresses as long as there is an
      alternative.

   o  The address is a global unicast, unique local address [RFC4193],
      or an unambiguous IPv6 link-local address.  That is, it is not an
      IPv6 site-local address.

      Where IPv6 link-local addresses are used, their use needs to be
      unambiguous as follows.  At most one link-local address may be
      used per node within the same connection between two peers.

   o  The address and interface is acceptable for use according to a
      local policy.

   Available addresses are discovered and monitored through mechanisms
   outside the scope of SHIM6.  SHIM6 implementations MUST be able to
   employ information provided by IPv6 Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461],
   Address Autoconfiguration [RFC2462], and DHCP [RFC3315] (when DHCP is
   implemented).  This information includes the availability of a new
   address and status changes of existing addresses (such as when an
   address becomes invalid).



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


3.2.  Locally Operational Addresses

   Two different granularity levels are needed for failure detection.
   The coarser granularity is for individual addresses:

   Definition.  Locally Operational Address.  An available address is
   said to be locally operational when its use is known to be possible
   locally: the interface is up, a default router (if needed) suitable
   for this address is known to be reachable, and no other local
   information points to the address being unusable.

   Locally operational addresses are discovered and monitored through
   mechanisms outside the SHIM6 protocol.  SHIM6 implementations MUST be
   able to employ information provided from Neighbor Unreachability
   Detection [RFC2461].  Implementations MAY also employ additional,
   link layer specific mechanisms.

      Note 1: A part of the problem in ensuring that an address is
      operational is making sure that after a change in link layer
      connectivity we are still connected to the same IP subnet.
      Mechanisms such as DNA CPL [I-D.ietf-dna-cpl] or DNAv6
      [I-D.ietf-dna-protocol] can be used to ensure this.

      Note 2: In theory, it would also be possible for hosts to learn
      about routing failures for a particular selected source prefix, if
      only suitable protocols for this purpose existed.  Some proposals
      in this space have been made, see, for instance
      [I-D.bagnulo-shim6-addr-selection] and
      [I-D.huitema-multi6-addr-selection], but none have been
      standardized to date.

3.3.  Operational Address Pairs

   The existence of locally operational addresses are not, however, a
   guarantee that communications can be established with the peer.  A
   failure in the routing infrastructure can prevent packets from
   reaching their destination.  For this reason we need the definition
   of a second level of granularity, for pairs of addresses:

   Definition.  Bidirectionally operational address pair.  A pair of
   locally operational addresses are said to be an operational address
   pair when bidirectional connectivity can be shown between the
   addresses.  That is, a packet sent with one of the addresses in the
   source field and the other in the destination field reaches the
   destination, and vice versa.

   Unfortunately, there are scenarios where bidirectionally operational
   address pairs do not exist.  For instance, ingress filtering or



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   network failures may result in one address pair being operational in
   one direction while another one is operational from the other
   direction.  The following definition captures this general situation:

   Definition.  Unidirectionally operational address pair.  A pair of
   locally operational addresses are said to be an unidirectionally
   operational address pair when packets sent with the first address as
   the source and the second address as the destination can be shown to
   reach the destination.

   SHIM6 implementations MUST support the discovery of operational
   address pairs through the use of explicit rechability tests and
   Forced Bidirectional Communication (FBD), described later in this
   specification.  In addition, implementations MAY employ the following
   additional mechanisms:

   o  Positive feedback from upper layer protocols.  For instance, TCP
      can indicate to the IP layer that it is making progress.  This is
      similar to how IPv6 Neighbor Unreachability Detection can in some
      cases be avoided when upper layers provide information about
      bidirectional connectivity [RFC2461].

      In the case of unidirectional connectivity, the upper layer
      protocol responses come back using another address pair, but show
      that the messages sent using the first address pair have been
      received.

   o  Negative feedback from upper layer protocols.  It is conceivable
      that upper layer protocols give an indication of a problem to the
      multihoming layer.  For instance, TCP could indicate that there's
      either congestion or lack of connectivity in the path because it
      is not getting ACKs.

   o  ICMP error messages.  Given the ease of spoofing ICMP messages,
      one should be careful to not trust these blindly, however.  Our
      suggestion is to use ICMP error messages only as a hint to perform
      an explicit reachability test or move an address pair to a lower
      place in the list of address pairs to be probed, but not as a
      reason to disrupt ongoing communications without other indications
      of problems.  The situation may be different when certain
      verifications of the ICMP messages are being performed, as
      explained by Gont in [I-D.ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks].  These
      verifications can ensure that (practically) only on-path attackers
      can spoof the messages.

   Note SHIM6 needs to perform a return routability test of an address
   before it is taken into use.  The purpose of this test is to ensure
   that fraudulent peers do not trick others into redirecting traffic



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   streams onto innocent victims.  For a discussion of such attacks, see
   Aura et al [AURA02].  The test can at the same time work as a means
   to ensure that an address pair is operational, as discussed in
   Section 4.2.

3.4.  Primary Address Pair

   The primary address pair consists of the ULID addresses that upper
   layer protocols use in their interaction with the SHIM6 layer.  Use
   of the primary address pair means that the communication is
   compatible with regular non-SHIM6 communication and no context ID
   needs to be present.

3.5.  Current Address Pair

   SHIM6 needs to avoid sending packets concurrently over multiple
   paths, because congestion control in commonly used transport
   protocols is based upon a notion of a single path.  While routing can
   introduce path changes as well and transport protocols have means to
   deal with this, frequent changes will cause problems.  Efficient
   congestion control over multible paths is a considered research at
   the time this specification is written.

   For these reasons it is necessary to choose a particular pair of
   addresses as the current address pair which is used until problems
   occur, at least for the same session.

   A current address pair need not be operational at all times.  If
   there is no traffic to send, we may not know if the primary address
   pair is operational.  Nevertheless, it makes sense to assume that the
   address pair that worked in some time ago continues to be operational
   for new communications as well.



















Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


4.  Protocol Overview

   This section discusses the design of the reachability detection and
   address pair exploration mechanisms, and gives on overview of the
   REAP protocol.

   Exploring the full set of communication options between two hosts
   that both have two or more addresses is an expensive operation as the
   number of combinations to be explored increases very quickly with the
   number of addresses.  For instance, with two addresses on both sides,
   there are four possible address pairs.  Since we can't assume that
   reachability in one direction automatically means reachability for
   the complement pair in the other direction, the total number of two-
   way combinations is eight.  (Combinations = nA * nB * 2.)

   An important observation in multihoming is that failures are
   relatively infrequent, so that an operational pair that worked a few
   seconds ago is very likely to be still operational.  So it makes
   sense to have a light-weight protocol that confirms existing
   reachability, and only invoke heavier exploration when a there is a
   suspected failure.

4.1.  Failure Detection

   Failure detection consists of three parts: tracking local
   information, tracking remote peer status, and finally verifying
   reachability.  Tracking local information consists of using, for
   instance, reachability information about the local router as an
   input.  Nodes SHOULD employ techniques listed in Section 3.1 and
   Section 3.2 to be track the local situation.  It is also necessary to
   track remote address information from the peer.  For instance, if the
   peer's currently used address is no longer in use, mechanism to relay
   that information is needed.  The Update message in the SHIM6 protocol
   is used for this purpose [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto].  Finally, when the
   local and remote information indicates that communication should be
   possible and there are upper layer packets to be sent, reachability
   verification is necessary to ensure that the peers actually have an
   operational pair.

   A technique called Forced Bidirectional Detection (FBD, originally
   defined in an earlier SHIM6 document [I-D.ietf-shim6-reach-detect])
   is employed for the reachability verification.  Reachability for the
   currently used address pair in a shim context is determined by making
   sure that whenever there is data traffic in one direction, there is
   also traffic in the other direction.  This can be data traffic as
   well, but also transport layer acknowledgments or a REAP reachability
   keepalive if there is no other traffic.  This way, it is no longer
   possible to have traffic in only one direction, so whenever there is



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   data traffic going out, but there are no return packets, there must
   be a failure, so the full exploration mechanism is started.

   A more detailed description of the current pair reachability
   evaluation mechanism:

   1.  To avoid the other side from concluding there is a reachability
       failure, it's necessary for a host implementing the failure
       detection mechanism to generate periodic keepalives when there is
       no other traffic.

       FBD works by generating REAP keepalives if the node is receiving
       packets from its peer but not sending any of its own.  The
       keepalives are sent at certain intervals so that the other side
       knows there is a reachability problem when it doesn't receive any
       incoming packets for 10 seconds, the Keepalive Timeout.
       (Mechanisms to negotiate an alternative Keepalive Timeout may be
       provided in the future.)

       The interval after which keepalives are sent is named Keepalive
       Interval.  This document doesn't specify a value for Keepalive
       Interval, but recognizes that an often used approach is sending
       keepalives at three times the timeout interval, which would be 3
       seconds here, and suggest a possible alternative of 4 seconds so
       that two keepalives are generated and have time to reach the
       correspondent.  An upper bound would be 8 seconds, so that one
       keepalive has time to reach the other side, assuming a maximum
       one-way delay of 2 seconds.

   2.  Whenever outgoing data packets are generated, a timer is started
       to reflect the requirement that the peer should generate return
       traffic from data packets.

       For the purposes of this specification, "data packet" refers to
       any packet that is part of a shim context, including both upper
       layer protocol packets and SHIM6 protocol messages except those
       defined in this specification.

   3.  Whenever incoming data packets are received, the timer associated
       with the return traffic from the peer is stopped, and another
       timer is started to reflect the requirement for this node to
       generate return traffic.

   4.  The reception of a REAP keepalive packet leads to stopping the
       timer associated with the return traffic from the peer.

   5.  Keepalive Interval seconds after the last data packet has been
       received for a context, and if no other packet has been sent



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


       within this context since the data packet has been received, a
       REAP keepalive packet is generated for the context in question
       and transmitted to the correspondent.  A host may send the
       keepalive sooner than Keepalive Interval seconds if
       implementation considerations warrant this, but should take care
       to avoid sending keepalives at an excessive rate.  After sending
       a single keepalive message, no additional keepalive messages are
       sent until a data packet is received within this shim context.
       Keepalives are not sent at all when a data packet was sent since
       the last received data packet.

   6.  Send Timeout seconds (10 seconds; see Section 8) after the
       transmission of a data packet with no return traffic on this
       context, a full reachability exploration is started.

   Note that the above timeout values are suggestions to be used as
   defaults.  Experience from the deployment of the SHIM6 protocol is
   needed in order to determine what values are most suitable.  The
   setting of these values is also related to various parameters in
   transport protocols, such as TCP keepalive interval.

4.2.  Alternative Address Pair Exploration

   As explained in previous section, the currently used address pair may
   become invalid either through one of the addresses being becoming
   unavailable or inoperational, or the pair itself being declared
   inoperational.  An exploration process attempts to find another
   operational pair so that communications can resume.

   What makes this process hard is the requirement to support
   unidirectionally operational address pairs.  It is insufficient to
   probe address pairs by a simple request - response protocol.
   Instead, the party that first detects the problem starts a process
   where it tries each of the different address pairs in turn by sending
   a message to its peer.  These messages carry information about the
   state of connectivity between the peers, such as whether the sender
   has seen any traffic from the peer recently.  When the peer receives
   a message that indicates a problem, it assists the process by
   starting its own parallel exploration to the other direction, again
   sending information about the recently received payload traffic or
   signaling messages.

   Specifically, when A decides that it needs to explore for an
   alternative address pair to B, it will initiate a set of Probe
   messages, in sequence, until it gets an Probe message from B
   indicating that (a) B has received one of A's messages and,
   obviously, (b) that B's Probe message gets back to A. B uses the same
   algorithm, but starts the process from the reception of the first



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   Probe message from A.

   Upon changing to a new address pair, the network path traversed most
   likely has changed, so that the ULP SHOULD be informed.  This can be
   a signal for the ULP to adapt due to the change in path so that, for
   example, TCP could initiate a slow start procedure, although it's
   likely that the circumstances that led to the selection of a new path
   already caused enough packet loss to trigger slow start.

   Similarly, one can also envision that applications would be able to
   tell the IP or transport layer that the current connection in
   unsatisfactory and an exploration for a better one would be
   desirable.  This would require an inter-layer communication mechanism
   to be developed, however.  In any case, this is another issue that we
   treat as being outside the scope of pure address exploration.

   REAP is designed to support failure recovery even in the case of
   having only unidirectionally operational address pairs.  However, due
   to security concerns discussed in Section 9, the exploration process
   can typically be run only for a session that has already been
   established.  Specifically, while REAP would in theory be capable of
   exploration even during connection establishment, its use within the
   SHIM6 protocol does not allow this.

4.3.  Exploration Order

   The exploration process assumes an ability to choose address pairs
   for testing, in some sequence.  This process may result in a
   combinatorial explosion when there are many addresses on both sides,
   but a back-off procedure is employed to avoid a "signaling storm".

   Nodes first consult the RFC 3484 default address selection rules
   [RFC3484] Section 4 rules to determine what combinations of addresses
   are allowed from a local point of view, as this reduces the search
   space.  RFC 3484 also provides a priority ordering among different
   address pairs, making the search possibly faster.  (Additional
   mechanisms may be defined in the future for arriving at an initial
   ordering of address pairs before testing starts
   [I-D.ietf-shim6-locator-pair-selection].)  Nodes may also use local
   information, such as known quality of service parameters or interface
   types to determine what addresses are preferred over others, and try
   pairs containing such addresses first.  The SHIM6 protocol also
   carries preference information in its messages.


      Discussion note: The preferences may either be learned dynamically
      or be configured.  It is believed, however, that dynamic learning
      based purely on the multihoming protocol is too hard and not the



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


      task this layer should do.  Solutions where multiple protocols
      share their information in a common pool of locators could provide
      this information from transport protocols, however.

   Out of the set of possible candidate address pairs, nodes SHOULD
   attempt to test through all of them until an operational pair is
   found, and retrying the process as is necessary.  However, all nodes
   MUST perform this process sequentially and with exponential back-off.
   This sequential process is necessary in order to avoid a "signaling
   storm" when an outage occurs (particularly for a complete site).
   However, it also limits the number of addresses that can in practice
   be used for multihoming, considering that transport and application
   layer protocols will fail if the switch to a new address pair takes
   too long.

   Section 8 suggests default values for the timers associated with the
   exploration process.  The value Initial Probe Timeout (0.5 seconds)
   specifies the interval between initial attempts to send probes;
   Number of Initial Probes (4) specifies how many initial probes can be
   sent before the exponential backoff procedure needs to be employed.
   This process increases the time between every probe if there is no
   response.  Typically, each increase doubles the time but this
   specification does not mandate a particular increase.

   Finally, Max Probe Timeout (60 seconds) specifies a limit beyond
   which the probe interval may not grow.  If the exploration process
   reaches this interval, it will continue sending at this rate until a
   suitable response is triggered or the SHIM6 context is garbage
   collected, because upper layer protocols using the SHIM6 context in
   question are no longer attempting to send packets.  Reaching the Max
   Probe Timeout may also serve as a hint to the garbage collection
   process that the context is no longer usable.



















Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


5.  Protocol Definition

5.1.  Keepalive Message

   The format of the keepalive message is as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  |0|  Type = 66  |   Reserved  |0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Checksum           |R|                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                             |
   |                    Receiver Context Tag                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                          Options                              +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Next Header, Hdr Ext Len, 0, 0, Checksum

      These are as specified in Section 5.3 of the SHIM6 protocol
      description [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto].

   Type

      This field identifies the Probe message and MUST be set to 66
      (Keepalive).

   Reserved

      This is a 7-bit field reserved for future use.  It is set to zero
      on transmit, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   R

      This is a 1-bit field reserved for future use.  It is set to zero
      on transmit, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Receiver Context Tag

      This is a 47-bit field for the Context Tag the receiver has
      allocated for the context.







Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   Options

      This MAY contain one or more SHIM6 options.The inclusion of the
      latter options is not necessary, however, as there are currently
      no defined options that are useful in a Keepalive message.  These
      options are provided only for future extensibility reasons.

   A valid message conforms to the format above, has a Receiver Context
   Tag that matches to context known by the receiver, is valid shim
   control message as defined in Section 12.2 of the SHIM6 protocol
   description [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto], and its shim context state is
   ESTABLISHED.  The receiver processes a valid message by inspecting
   its options, and executing any actions specified for such options.


      Discussion: It may appear prudent to include additional fields
      that would provide at least a basic level of security, but since
      data packets also indicate ongoing reachability, just as
      keepalives, and those packets don't have such fields, there is
      little or no reason to include them in a keepalive.

   The processing rules for this message are the given in more detail in
   Section 6.

5.2.  Probe Message

   This message performs REAP exploration.  Its format is as follows:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  |0|  Type = 67  |   Reserved  |0|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Checksum           |R|                             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                             |
   |                    Receiver Context Tag                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Precvd| Psent |Sta|                 Reserved2                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                      First probe sent                         +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Source address                           +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   +                      First probe sent                         +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Destination address                      +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      First probe nonce                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      First probe option                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   /                                                               /
   /                      Nth probe sent                           /
   |                                                               |
   +                      Source address                           +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                      Nth probe sent                           +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Destination address                      +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Nth probe nonce                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Nth probe option                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                      First probe received                     +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Source address                           +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                      First probe received                     +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Destination address                      +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      First probe nonce                        |



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 16]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      First probe option                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                      Nth probe received                       +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Source address                           +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                      Nth probe received                       +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Destination address                      +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Nth probe nonce                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Nth probe option                         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                          Options                              +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                          Options                              +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Next Header, Hdr Ext Len, 0, 0, Checksum

      These are as specified in Section 5.3 of the SHIM6 protocol
      description [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto].

   Type

      This field identifies the Probe message and MUST be set to 67
      (Probe).

   Reserved

      This is a 7-bit field reserved for future use.  It is set to zero
      on transmit, and MUST be ignored on receipt.





Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 17]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   R

      This is a 1-bit field reserved for future use.  It is set to zero
      on transmit, and MUST be ignored on receipt.

   Receiver Context Tag

      This is a 47-bit field for the Context Tag the receiver has
      allocated for the context.

   Psent

      This is a 4-bit field that indicates the number of sent probes
      included in this probe message.  The first set of probe fields
      pertains to the current message and MUST be present, so the
      minimum value for this field is 1.  Additional sent probe fields
      are copies of the same fields sent in (recent) earlier probes and
      may be included or omitted as per any logic employed by the
      implementation.

   Precvd

      This is a 4-bit field that indicates the number of received probes
      included in this probe messsage.  Received probe fields are copies
      of the same fields received in (recent) earlier probes and may be
      included or omitted as per any logic employed by the
      implementation.

      The fields probe source, probe destination, probe nonce and probe
      option may be repeated, depending on the value of Psent and
      Preceived.

   Sta (State)

      This 2-bit State field is used to inform the peer about the state
      of the sender.  It has three legal values:

      0 (Operational) implies that the sender both (a) believes it has
      no problem communicating and (b) believes that the recipient also
      has no problem communicating.

      1 (Exploring) implies that the sender has a problem communicating
      with the recipient, e.g., it has not seen any traffic from the
      recipient even when it expected some.

      2 (ExploringOk) implies that the sender believes it has no problem
      communicating, but that the recipient either has a problem or has
      not yet confirmed the sender that the problem has been solved.



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 18]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   Reserved2

      MUST be set to 0 upon transmission and MUST be ignored upon
      reception.

   Probe source

      This 128-bit field contains the source IPv6 address used to send
      the probe.

   Probe destination

      This 128-bit field contains the destination IPv6 address used to
      send the probe.

   Probe nonce

      This is a 32-bit field that is initialized by the sender with a
      value that allows it to determine which sent probes a received
      probe correlates with.  It is highly recommeded that the nonce
      field is at least moderately hard to guess so that even on-path
      attackers can't deduce the next nonce value that will be used.
      This value SHOULD be generated using a random number generator
      that is known to have good randomness properties as outlined in
      RFC 1750 [RFC1750].

   Probe option

      This is a 32-bit field with no fixed meaning.  The probe option
      field is copied back with no changes.  Future flags may define a
      use for this field.


         Discussion: One potential use of this field relates to
         communicating delays between reception of a probe and
         transmission of a reply to it.


   Options

      For future extensions.










Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 19]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


6.  Behaviour

   The required behaviour of REAP nodes is specified below in the form
   of a state machine.  The externally observable behaviour of an
   implementation MUST conform to this state machine, but there is no
   requirement that the implementation actually employs a state machine.
   Intermixed with the following description we also provide a state
   machine description in a tabular form.  That form is only
   informational, however.

   On a given context with a given peer, the node can be in one of three
   states: Operational, Exploring, or ExploringOK.  In the Operational
   state the underlying address pairs are assumed to be operational.  In
   the Exploring state this node has observed a problem and has
   currently not seen any traffic from the peer.  Finally, in the
   ExploringOK state this node sees traffic from the peer, but peer may
   not yet see any traffic from this node so that the exploration
   process needs to continue.

   The node maintains also the Send timer (Send Timeout seconds) and
   Keepalive timer (Keepalive Timeout seconds).  The Send timer reflects
   the requirement that when this node sends a payload packet there
   should be some return traffic (either payload packets or Keepalive
   messages) within Send Timeout seconds.  The Keepalive timer reflects
   the requirement that when this node receives a payload packet there
   should a similar response towards the peer.  The Keepalive timer is
   only used within the Operational state, and the Send timer in the
   Operational and ExploringOK states.  No timer is running in the
   Exploring state.

   Upon the reception of a payload packet in the Operational state, the
   node starts the Keepalive timer if it is not yet running, and stops
   the Send timer if it was running.  If the node is in the Exploring
   state it transitions to the ExploringOK state, sends a Probe message,
   and starts the Send timer.  In the ExploringOK state the node stops
   the Send timer if it was running, but does not do anything else.  The
   reception of SHIM6 control messages other than the Keepalive and
   Probe messages are treated similarly with payload packets.

   When sending a Probe message, the State field MUST be set to a value
   that matches the conceptual state of the sender after sending the
   Probe.









Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 20]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


     1. EVENT: Incoming payload packet
     =================================

     Operational            Exploring                ExploringOk
     -------------------------------------------------------------
     STOP Send;             SEND Probe ExploringOk;  STOP Send
     START Keepalive        START Send;
                            GOTO ExploringOk

   Upon sending a payload packet in the Operational state, the node
   stops the Keepalive timer if it was running and starts the Send timer
   if it was not running.  In the Exploring state there is no effect,
   and in the ExploringOK state the node simply starts the Send timer if
   it was not yet running.  (The sending of SHIM6 control messages is
   again treated similarly here.)

     2. EVENT: Outgoing payload packet
     =================================

     Operational              Exploring              ExploringOk
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     START Send;              -                      START Send
     STOP Keepalive

   Upon a timeout on the Keepalive timer the node sends a Keepalive
   message.  This can only happen in the Operational state.

     3. EVENT: Keepalive timeout

     Operational              Exploring              ExploringOk
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     SEND Keepalive           -                      -

   Upon a timeout on the Send timer, the node enters the Exploring
   state, sends a Probe, and stops the Keepalive timer if it was
   running.

   4. EVENT: Send timeout
   ======================

   Operational              Exploring              ExploringOk
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   SEND Probe Exploring;    -                      SEND Probe Exploring;
   STOP Keepalive;                                 GOTO Exploring
   GOTO Exploring

   While in the Exploring state the node keeps retransmitting its Probe
   messages to different (or same) addresses as defined in Section 4.3.



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 21]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   A similar process is employed in the ExploringOk state, except that
   upon such retransmission the Send timer is started if it was not
   running already.

   5. EVENT: Retransmission
   ========================

   Operational             Exploring              ExploringOk
   ----------------------------------------------------------
   -                       SEND Probe Exploring   SEND Probe ExploringOk
                                                  START Send

   Upon the reception of a Keepalive message in the Operational state,
   the node stops the Send timer, if it was running.  If the node is in
   the Exploring state it transitions to the ExploringOK state, sends a
   Probe message, and starts the Send timer.  In the ExploringOK state
   the Send timer is stopped, if it was running.

     6. EVENT: Reception of the Keepalive message
     ============================================

     Operational            Exploring                ExploringOk
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     STOP Send              SEND Probe ExploringOk;  STOP Send
                            START Send;
                            GOTO ExploringOk

   Upon receiving a Probe with State set to Exploring, the node enters
   the ExploringOK state, sends a Probe, stops the Keepalive timer if it
   was running, and restarts the Send timer.

     7. EVENT: Reception of the Probe message State=Exploring
     ========================================================

     Operational             Exploring               ExploringOk
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     SEND Probe ExploringOk; SEND Probe ExploringOk; SEND Probe
     STOP Keepalive;         START Send;                  ExploringOk;
     RESTART Send;           GOTO ExploringOk        RESTART Send
     GOTO ExploringOk

   Upon the reception of a Probe message with State set to ExploringOk,
   the node sends a Probe message, restarts the Send timer, stops the
   Keepalive timer if it was running, and transitions to the Operational
   state.






Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 22]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


     8. EVENT: Reception of the Probe message State=ExploringOk
     ==========================================================

     Operational             Exploring               ExploringOk
     -------------------------------------------------------------
     SEND Probe Operational; SEND Probe Operational; SEND Probe
     RESTART Send;           RESTART Send;                Operational;
     STOP Keepalive          GOTO Operational        RESTART Send;
                                                     GOTO Operational

   Upon the reception of a Probe message with State set to Operational,
   the node stops the Send timer if it was running, starts the Keepalive
   timer if it was not yet running, and transitions to the Operational
   state.

      Note: This terminates the exploration process when both parties
      are happy and know that their peer is happy as well.


     9. EVENT: Reception of the Probe message State=Operational
     ==========================================================

     Operational              Exploring              ExploringOk
     -----------------------------------------------------------
     STOP Send                STOP Send;             STOP Send;
     START Keepalive          START Keepalive        START Keepalive
                              GOTO Operational       GOTO Operational

   The reachability detection and exploration process has no effect on
   payload communications until a new operational address pairs have
   actually been confirmed.  Prior to that the payload packets continue
   to be sent to the previously used addresses.

   In the PDF version of this specification, an informational drawing
   illustrates the state machine.  Where the text and the drawing
   differ, the text takes precedence.















Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 23]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


7.  Example Protocol Runs

   This section has examples of REAP protocol runs in typical scenarios.
   We start with the simplest scenario of two hosts, A and B, that have
   a SHIM6 connection with each other but are not currently sending any
   data.  As neither side sends anything, they also do not expect
   anything back, so there are no messages at all:

               EXAMPLE 1: No communications

    Peer A                                        Peer B
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |                                             |

   Our second example involves an active connection with bidirectional
   payload packet flows.  Here the reception of data from the peer is
   taken as an indication of reachability, so again there are no extra
   packes:

          EXAMPLE 2: Bidirectional communications

    Peer A                                        Peer B
      |                                             |
      |              payload packet                 |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |              payload packet                 |
      |<--------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |
      |              payload packet                 |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |                                             |

   The third example is the first one that involves an actual REAP
   message.  Here the hosts communicate in just one direction, so REAP
   messages are needed to indicate to the peer that sends payload
   packets that its packets are getting through:







Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 24]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


         EXAMPLE 3: Unidirectional communications

    Peer A                                        Peer B
      |                                             |
      |              payload packet                 |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |              payload packet                 |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |              payload packet                 |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |              Keepalive id=p                 |
      |<--------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |
      |              payload packet                 |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |                                             |

   The next example involves a failure scenario.  Here A has addresses A
   and B has addresses B1 and B2.  The currently used address pairs are
   (A, B1) and (B1, A).  All connections via B1 become broken, which
   leads to an exploration process:

              EXAMPLE 4: Failure scenario

    Peer A                                        Peer B
      |                                             |
   State:                                           | State:
   Operational                                      | Operational
      |            (A,B1) payload packet            |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |            (B1,A) payload packet            |
      |<--------------------------------------------| At time T1
      |                                             | path A<->B1
      |            (A,B1) payload packet            | becomes
      |----------------------------------------/    | broken
      |                                             |
      |           ( B1,A) payload packet            |
      |   /-----------------------------------------|
      |                                             |
      |            (A,B1) payload packet            |
      |----------------------------------------/    |
      |                                             |
      |            (B1,A) payload packet            |



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 25]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


      |   /-----------------------------------------|
      |                                             |
      |            (A,B1) payload packet            |
      |----------------------------------------/    |
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |                                             | 10 seconds after
      |             (B1,A) Probe id=p,              | T1, sends a com-
      |                          state=exploring    | plaint that
      |   /-----------------------------------------| it is not rec-
      |                                             | eiving anything
      |                                             | State:
      |                                             | Exploring
      |                                             |
      |             (B2,A) Probe id=q,              |
      |                          state=exploring    | But its lost,
      |<--------------------------------------------| retransmission
      |                                             | uses another pair
   A realizes                                       |
   that it needs                                    |
   to start the                                     |
   exploration. It                                  |
   picks B2 as the                                  |
   most likely candidate,                           |
   as it appeared in the                            |
   Probe                                            |
   State: ExploringOk                               |
      |                                             |
      |       (A, B2) Probe id=r,                   |
      |                     state=exploringok,      |
      |                     received probe q        | This one gets
      |-------------------------------------------->| through.
      |                                             | State:
      |                                             | Operational
      |                                             |
      |                                             |
      |       (B2,A) Probe id=s,                    |
      |                    state=operational,       | B now knows
      |                    received probe r         | that A has no
      |<--------------------------------------------| problem to receive
      |                                             | its packets
   State: Operational                               |
      |                                             |
      |            (A,B2) payload packet            |
      |-------------------------------------------->| Payload packets
      |                                             | flow again
      |            (B2,A) payload packet            |
      |<--------------------------------------------|



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 26]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   The next example shows when the failure for the current locator pair
   is in the other direction only.  A has addresses A1 and A2, and B has
   addresses B1 and B2.  The current communication is between A1 and B1,
   but A's packets no longer reach B using this pair.

              EXAMPLE 5: One-way failure

    Peer A                                        Peer B
      |                                             |
   State:                                           | State:
   Operational                                      | Operational
      |                                             |
      |           (A1,B1) payload packet            |
      |-------------------------------------------->|
      |                                             |
      |           (B1,A1) payload packet            |
      |<--------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |
      |           (A1,B1) payload packet            | At time T1
      |----------------------------------------/    | path A1->B1
      |                                             | becomes
      |                                             | broken
      |           (B1,A1) payload packet            |
      |<--------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |
      |           (A1,B1) payload packet            |
      |----------------------------------------/    |
      |                                             |
      |           (B1,A1) payload packet            |
      |<--------------------------------------------|
      |                                             |
      |           (A1,B1) payload packet            |
      |----------------------------------------/    |
      |                                             |
      |                                             | 10 seconds after
      |          (B1,A1) Probe id=p,                | T1, B sends a com-
      |                        state=exploring      | plaint that
      |<--------------------------------------------| it is not rec-
      |                                             | eiving anything
   A responds                                       | State: Exploring
   State: ExploringOk                               |
      |                                             |
      |      (A1, B1) Probe id=q,                   |
      |                     state=exploringok,      |
      |                     received payload,       |
      |                     received probe q        |
      |----------------------------------------/    | But A's response
      |                                             | is lost



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 27]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


      |         (B2,A2) Probe id=r,                 |
      |                       state=exploring       | Next try different
      |<--------------------------------------------| locator pair
      |                                             |
      |     (A2, B2) Probe id=s,                    |
      |                    state=exploringok,       |
      |                    received payload,        |
      |                    received probes p, r     | This one gets
      |-------------------------------------------->| through
      |                                             | State: Operational
      |                                             |
      |                                             | B now knows
      |                                             | that A has no
      |      (B2,A2) Probe id=t,                    | problem to receive
      |                    state=operational,       | its packets, and
      |                    received probe s         | that A's probe
      |<--------------------------------------------| gets to B. It
      |                                             | sends a
   State: Operational                               | confirmation to A
      |                                             |
      |           (A2,B2) payload packet            |
      |-------------------------------------------->| Payload packets
      |                                             | flow again
      |           (B1,A1) payload packet            |
      |<--------------------------------------------|


























Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 28]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


8.  Protocol Constants

   The following protocol constants are defined:

   Send Timeout                              10 seconds
   Keepalive Interval                           Not specified here
   Initial Probe Timeout                    0.5 seconds
   Number of Initial Probes                   4 probes
   Max Probe Timeout                         60 seconds










































Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 29]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


9.  Security Considerations

   Attackers may spoof various indications from lower layers and the
   network in an effort to confuse the peers about which addresses are
   or are not operational.  For example, attackers may spoof ICMP error
   messages in an effort to cause the parties to move their traffic
   elsewhere or even to disconnect.  Attackers may also spoof
   information related to network attachments, router discovery, and
   address assignments in an effort to make the parties believe they
   have Internet connectivity when in reality they do not.

   This may cause use of non-preferred addresses or even denial-of-
   service.

   This protocol does not provide any protection of its own for
   indications from other parts of the protocol stack.  Unprotected
   indications SHOULD NOT be taken as a proof of connectivity problems.
   However, REAP has weak resistance against incorrect information even
   from unprotected indications in the sense that it performs its own
   tests prior to picking a new address pair.  Denial-of- service
   vulnerabilities remain, however, as do vulnerabilities against on
   path attackers.

   Some aspects of these vulnerabilities can be mitigated through the
   use of techniques specific to the other parts of the stack, such as
   properly dealing with ICMP errors [I-D.ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks], link
   layer security, or the use of SEND [RFC3971] to protect IPv6 Router
   and Neighbor Discovery.

   Other parts of the SHIM6 protocol ensure that the set of addresses we
   are switching between actually belong together.  REAP itself provides
   no such assurances.  Similarly, REAP provides only minimal protection
   against third party flooding attacks; when REAP is run its Probe
   identifiers can be used as a return routability check that the
   claimed address is indeed willing to receive traffic.  However, this
   needs to be complemented with another mechanism to ensure that the
   claimed address is also the correct host.  SHIM6 does this by
   performing binding of all operations to context tags.

   The keepalive mechanism in this specification is vulnerable to
   spoofing.  On path-attackers that can see a SHIM6 context tag can
   send spoofed Keepalive messages once per Send Timeout interval, to
   prevent two SHIM6 nodes from sending Keepalives themselves.  This
   vulnerability is only relevant to nodes involved in a one-way
   communication.  The result of the attack is that the nodes enter the
   exploration phase needlessly, but they should be able to confirm
   connectivity unless, of course, the attacker is able to prevent the
   exploration phase from completing.  Off-path attackers may not be



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 30]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


   able to generate spoofed results, given that the context tags are 47-
   bit random numbers.

   The exploration phase is vulnerable to attackers that are on the
   path.  Off-path attackers would find it hard to guess either the
   context tag or the correct probe identifiers.  Given that IPsec
   operates above the shim layer, it is not possible to protect the
   exploration phase against on-path attackers.  This is similar to the
   ability to protect other Shim6 control exchanges.  There are
   mechanisms in place to prevent the redirection of communications to
   wrong addresses, but on-path attackers can cause denial-of-service,
   move communications to less-preferred address pairs, and so on.

   Finally, the exploration itself can cause a number of packets to be
   sent.  As a result it may be used as a tool for packet amplification
   in flooding attacks.  In order to prevent this it is required that
   the protocol employing REAP has built-in mechanisms to prevent this.
   For instance, in SHIM6 contexts are created only after a relatively
   large number of packets has been exchanged, a cost which reduces the
   attractiveness of using SHIM6 and REAP for amplification attacks.
   However, such protections are typically not present at connection
   establishment time.  When exploration would be needed for connection
   establishment to succeed, its usage would result in an amplification
   vulnerability.  As a result, SHIM6 does not support the use of REAP
   in connection establishment stage.


























Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 31]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


10.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are required.
















































Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 32]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC1750]  Eastlake, D., Crocker, S., and J. Schiller, "Randomness
              Recommendations for Security", RFC 1750, December 1994.

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

   [RFC2461]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
              Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461,
              December 1998.

   [RFC2462]  Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
              Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

   [RFC3315]  Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C.,
              and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
              IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3484]  Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet
              Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, October 2005.

   [RFC4429]  Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
              for IPv6", RFC 4429, April 2006.

11.2.  Informative References

   [AURA02]   Aura, T., Roe, M., and J. Arkko, "Security of Internet
              Location Management", In Proceedings of the 18th Annual
              Computer Security Applications Conference, Las Vegas,
              Nevada, USA., December 2002.

   [I-D.bagnulo-shim6-addr-selection]
              Bagnulo, M., "Address selection in multihomed
              environments", draft-bagnulo-shim6-addr-selection-00 (work
              in progress), October 2005.

   [I-D.huitema-multi6-addr-selection]
              Huitema, C., "Address selection in multihomed
              environments", draft-huitema-multi6-addr-selection-00
              (work in progress), October 2004.

   [I-D.ietf-dna-cpl]



Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 33]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


              Nordmark, E. and J. Choi, "DNA with unmodified routers:
              Prefix list based approach", draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02 (work
              in progress), January 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-dna-protocol]
              Kempf, J., "Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks
              (DNAv6)", draft-ietf-dna-protocol-01 (work in progress),
              June 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-hip-mm]
              Nikander, P., "End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the
              Host Identity Protocol", draft-ietf-hip-mm-04 (work in
              progress), June 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-shim6-locator-pair-selection]
              Bagnulo, M., "Default Locator-pair selection algorithm for
              the SHIM6 protocol",
              draft-ietf-shim6-locator-pair-selection-00 (work in
              progress), May 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-shim6-proto]
              Bagnulo, M. and E. Nordmark, "Level 3 multihoming shim
              protocol", draft-ietf-shim6-proto-05 (work in progress),
              May 2006.

   [I-D.ietf-shim6-reach-detect]
              Beijnum, I., "Shim6 Reachability Detection",
              draft-ietf-shim6-reach-detect-01 (work in progress),
              October 2005.

   [I-D.ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks]
              Gont, F., "ICMP attacks against TCP",
              draft-ietf-tcpm-icmp-attacks-00 (work in progress),
              February 2006.

   [RFC2960]  Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C.,
              Schwarzbauer, H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M.,
              Zhang, L., and V. Paxson, "Stream Control Transmission
              Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.

   [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure
              Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005.









Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 34]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


Appendix A.  Contributors

   This draft attempts to summarize the thoughts and unpublished
   contributions of many people, including the MULTI6 WG design team
   members Marcelo Bagnulo Braun, Erik Nordmark, Geoff Huston, Kurtis
   Lindqvist, Margaret Wasserman, and Jukka Ylitalo, the MOBIKE WG
   contributors Pasi Eronen, Tero Kivinen, Francis Dupont, Spencer
   Dawkins, and James Kempf, and HIP WG contributors such as Pekka
   Nikander.  This draft is also in debt to work done in the context of
   SCTP [RFC2960] and HIP multihoming and mobility extension
   [I-D.ietf-hip-mm].








































Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 35]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


Appendix B.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would also like to thank Christian Huitema, Pekka Savola,
   John Loughney, Sam Xia, and Hannes Tschofenig for interesting
   discussions in this problem space, and for review of this
   specification.













































Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 36]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


Authors' Addresses

   Jari Arkko
   Ericsson
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: jari.arkko@ericsson.com


   Iljitsch van Beijnum

   Email: iljitsch@muada.com






































Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 37]

Internet-Draft         Failure Detection Protocol         September 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Arkko & van Beijnum      Expires March 27, 2007                [Page 38]


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