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

Versions: (draft-costa-6man-dad-proxy) 00 01 02 03 04 05 07 RFC 6957

6man Working Group                                              F. Costa
Internet-Draft                                               J-M. Combes
Intended status: Standards Track                             X. Pougnard
Expires: July 14, 2011                             France Telecom Orange
                                                                   H. Li
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                        January 10, 2011


                   Duplicate Address Detection Proxy
                      draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-00

Abstract

   The document describes a mechanism allowing the use of Duplicate
   Address Detection (DAD) by IPv6 nodes in a point-to-multipoint
   architecture with "split-horizon" forwarding scheme.  Based on the
   DAD signalling, the first hop router stores in a Binding Table all
   known IPv6 addresses used on a point-to-multipoint domain (e.g.
   VLAN).  When a node performs DAD for an address already used by
   another node, the first hop router replies instead of this last one.

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 July 14, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2011 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



Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


   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
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   3.  Why existing IETF solutions are not sufficient?  . . . . . . .  4
     3.1.  Duplicate Address Detection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2.  Neighbor Discovery Proxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.3.  6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.4.  IPv6 Mobility Manager  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Duplicate Address Detection Proxy (DAD-Proxy)
       specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  DAD-Proxy Data structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  DAD-Proxy mechanism  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       4.2.1.  No entry exists for the tentative address  . . . . . .  7
       4.2.2.  An entry already exists for the tentative address  . .  7
       4.2.3.  Confirmation of reachability to check the validity
               of the conflict  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.1.  Interoperability with SEND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     6.2.  IP source address spoofing protection  . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   Appendix A.  Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
















Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


1.  Introduction

   This document explains why Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
   mechanism [RFC4862] cannot be used in a point-to-multipoint
   architecture with "split-horizon" forwarding scheme.  One of the main
   reasons is that, because of this forwarding scheme, IPv6 nodes on the
   same point-to-multipoint domain cannot have direct communication: any
   communication between them must go through the first hop router of
   the same domain.

   This document also specifies a function called DAD proxy allowing the
   use of DAD by the nodes on the same point-to-multipoint domain with
   "split-horizon" forwarding scheme.  It only impacts the first hop
   router and it doesn't need modifications on the other IPv6 nodes.
   This mechanism is fully effective if all the nodes of a point-to-
   multipoint domain (except the DAD proxy itself) perform DAD.
   However, if it is necessary to cover the scenarios where this
   assumption is not met, additional solutions could be defined in the
   future that work in conjunction with the mechanism described here.

   It is assumed in this document that Link-layer addresses on a point-
   to-multipoint domain are unique from the first hop router's point of
   view (e.g. in an untrusted Ethernet architecture this assumption can
   be guaranteed thanks to mechanisms such as "MAC Address Translation"
   performed by an aggregation device between IPv6 nodes and the first
   hop router).

1.1.  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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


2.  Background

   Terminology in this document follows that in Neighbor Discovery for
   IP version 6 (IPv6) document [RFC4861] and IPv6 Stateless Address
   Autoconfiguration document [RFC4862].  In addition, this section
   defines additional terms related to DSL and Fiber access
   architectures, which are an important case where the solution
   described in this document can be used:

   Customer Premises Equipment (CPE)
         The first IPv6 node in a customer's network.






Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


   Access Node (AN)
         The first aggregation point in the public access network.  It
         is considered as a L2 bridge in this document.

   Broadband Network Gateway (BNG)
         The first hop router from the CPE's point of view.

   VLAN N:1 architecture
         A point-to-multipoint architecture where many CPEs are
         connected to the same VLAN.  The CPEs may be connected on the
         same or different Access Nodes.

   split-horizon model
         A forwarding scheme where CPEs cannot have direct layer 2
         communications between them (i.e.  IP flows must be forwarded
         through the BNG via routing).

   The following figure shows where are the different entities defined
   above.

      +------+         +----+
      | CPE3 |---------| AN |
      +------+         +----+
                         |
                         |
      +------+         +----+
      | CPE2 |---------| AN |---+
      +------+         +----+   |
      +------+            |     |
      | CPE1 |------------+     |
      +------+               +-----+
                             | BNG |--- Internet
                             +-----+

                Figure 1: DSL and Fiber access Architecture


3.  Why existing IETF solutions are not sufficient?

   In a DSL or Fiber access architecture depicted in Figure 1, CPE1,2,3
   and the BNG are IPv6 nodes, while AN is a L2 bridge providing
   connectivity between the BNG and each CPE.  The AN enforces a split-
   horizon model so that CPEs can only send and receive frames (e.g.
   Ethernet frames) to and from the BNG but not to each other.  That
   said, the BNG is on a same link with all CPE, but one CPE is not on a
   same link with any other CPE.





Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


3.1.  Duplicate Address Detection

   Duplicate Address Dectection (DAD) [RFC4862] is performed when an
   IPv6 node verifies the uniqueness of a tentative IPv6 address.  This
   node sends a Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message with the IP
   destination set to solicited-node multicast address of the tentative
   address.  This NS message is multicasted to other nodes on a same
   link.  When the tentative address is already used on the link by
   another node, this last one replies with a Neighbor Advertisement
   (NA) message to inform the first node.  So when performing DAD, a
   node expects the NS messages are received by other nodes.

   However, in a point-to-multipoint network with split-horizon
   forwarding scheme implemented in the AN, the CPEs are prevented from
   talking to each other directly.  All packets sent out from a CPE
   would be forwarded by AN only to the BNG but not to any other CPE.
   That said, NS messages sent by a certain CPE will be received only by
   the BNG and will not reach other CPEs.  So, other CPEs have no idea
   that a certain IPv6 address is used by another CPE.  That means, in a
   network with split-horizon, DAD per [RFC4862] can't work properly
   without an additional helper.

3.2.  Neighbor Discovery Proxy

   Neighbor Discovery (ND) Proxy [RFC4389] is designed for forwarding ND
   messages between different IP links where the subnet prefix is the
   same.  A ND Proxy function on a bridge ensures that packets between
   nodes on different segments can be received by this function and have
   the correct link-layer address type on each segment.  When the ND
   proxy receives a multicast ND message, it forwards it to all other
   interfaces on a same link.

   In DSL or Fiber networks, when AN, acting as a ND Proxy, receives a
   ND message from a CPE, it will forward it to the BNG but none of
   other CPEs, as only the BNG is on the same link with the CPE.  Hence,
   implementing ND Proxy on AN would not help a CPE acknowledge link-
   local addresses used by other CPEs.

   As the BNG must not forward link-local scoped messages sent from a
   CPE to other CPEs, ND Proxy cannot be implemented in the BNG.

3.3.  6LoWPAN Neighbor Discovery

   [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd] defines an optional modification of DAD for a
   6LowPAN.  When a 6LoWPAN node wants to configure an IPv6 address, it
   registers that address with one or more of its default router using
   the Address Registration option (ARO).  If this address is already
   owned by another node, the router informs the 6LoWPAN node this



Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


   address cannot be configured.

   A problem for this mechanism is that it requires modifications in
   hosts in order to support the Address Registration option.

3.4.  IPv6 Mobility Manager

   According to [RFC3775], a home agent acts as a proxy for mobile nodes
   when these last ones are away from the home network: the home agent
   defends an mobile node's home address by replying to NS messages with
   NA messages.

   There is a problem for this mechanism if it is applied in a DSL or
   Fiber public access network.  Operators of such networks require a NA
   message is only received by the sender of the corresponding NS
   message, for security and scalability reasons.  However, the home
   agent per [RFC3775] multicasts NA messages on the home link and all
   nodes on this link will receive these NA messages.  This shortcoming
   prevents this mechanism being deployed in DSL or Fiber access
   networks directly.


4.  Duplicate Address Detection Proxy (DAD-Proxy) specifications

4.1.  DAD-Proxy Data structure

   A BNG needs to store in a Binding Table information related to the
   IPv6 addresses generated by any CPE.  This must be done per point to
   multipoint domain (e.g. per Ethernet VLAN).  Each entry in this
   Binding Table MUST contain the following fields:

   o  IPv6 Address

   o  Link-layer Address

   For security or performances reasons, it must be possible to limit
   the number of IPv6 Addresses per Link-layer Address (possibly, but
   not necessarily, to 1).

4.2.  DAD-Proxy mechanism

   When a CPE performs DAD, as specified in [RFC4862], it sends a
   Neighbor Solicitation (NS) message, with the unspecified address as
   source address, in order to check if a tentative address is already
   in use on the link.  The BNG receives this message and MUST perform
   actions depending on the information in the Binding Table.





Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


4.2.1.  No entry exists for the tentative address

   When there is no entry for the tentative address, the BNG MUST create
   one with following information:

   o  IPv6 Address Field set to the tentative address in the NS message.

   o  Link-layer Address Field set to the Link-layer source address in
      the Link-layer Header of the NS message.

   The BNG MUST NOT reply to the CPE or forward the NS message.

4.2.2.  An entry already exists for the tentative address

   When there is an entry for the tentative address, the BNG MUST check
   the following conditions:

   o  The address in the Target Address Field in the NS message is equal
      to the address in the IPv6 Address Field in the entry.

   o  The source address of the IPv6 Header in the NS message is equal
      to the unspecified address.

   When these conditions are met and the source address of the Link-
   Layer Header in the NS message is equal to the address in the Link-
   Layer Address Field in the entry, that means the CPE is still
   performing DAD for this address.  The BNG MUST NOT reply to the CPE
   or forward the NS message.

   When these conditions are met and the source address of the Link-
   Layer Header in the NS message is not equal to the address in the
   Link-Layer Address Field in the entry, that means possibly another
   CPE performs DAD for an already owned address.  The BNG then has to
   verify whether there is a real conflict by checking if the CPE whose
   IPv6 address is in the entry is still connected.  In the following,
   we will call IPv6-CPE1 the IPv6 address of the existing entry, Link-
   layer-CPE1 the Link-layer address of that entry and Link-layer-CPE2
   the Link-layer address of the CPE which is performing DAD, which is
   different from Link-layer-CPE1.

   The BNG MUST check if the potential address conflict is real.  In
   particular:

   o  If IPv6-CPE1 is in the Neighbor Cache and it is associated with
      Link-local-CPE1, the reachibility of IPv6-CPE1 MUST be confirmed
      as explained in Section 4.2.3.





Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


   o  If IPv6-CPE1 is in the Neighbor Cache, but it is associated with
      another Link-layer address than Link-layer-CPE1, that means that
      there is possibly a conflict with another CPE, but that CPE did
      not perform DAD.  This situation is out of the scope of this
      document, since one assumption made above is that all the nodes of
      a point-to-multipoint domain (except the DAD proxy itself) perform
      DAD.  This case could be covered in the future by additional
      solutions that work in conjunction with the DAD proxy.

   o  If IPv6-CPE1 is not in the Neighbor Cache, then the BNG MUST
      create a new entry based on the information of the entry in the
      Binding Table.  This step is necessary in order to trigger the
      reachibility check as explained in Section 4.2.3.  The entry in
      the Neighbor Cache MUST be created based on the algorithm defined
      in section 7.3.3 of [RFC4861], in particular by considering the
      case as if a packet other than a solicited Neighbor Advertisement
      was received from IPv6-CPE1.  That means that the new entry of the
      Neighbor Cache MUST contain the following information:

      *  IPv6 address: IPv6-CPE1

      *  Link-layer address: Link-layer-CPE1

      *  State: STALE

      Then the reachability of IPv6-CPE1 MUST be confirmed as soon as
      possible following the procedure explained in section 4.2.3.

4.2.3.  Confirmation of reachability to check the validity of the
        conflict

   Given that the IPv6-CPE1 is in an entry of the Neighbor Cache, the
   reachability of IPv6-CPE1 is checked by using the NUD (Neighbor
   Unreachibility Detection) mechanism described in section 7.3.1 of
   [RFC4861].  This mechanism MUST be triggered as if a packet has to be
   sent to IPv6-CPE1.  Note that in some cases this mechanism does not
   do anything, for instance if the state of the entry is REACHABLE and
   a positive confirmation was received recently that the forward path
   to the IPv6-CPE1 was functioning properly (see RFC 4861 for more
   details).

   Next, the behavior of the BNG depends on the result of the NUD
   process, as explained in the following sections.

4.2.3.1.  The result of the NUD process is negative

   If the result of the NUD process is negative (i.e. if this process
   removes IPv6-CPE1 from the Neighbor Cache), that means that the



Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


   potential conflict is not real.

   The conflicting entry in the Binding Table (Link-layer-CPE1) is
   deleted and it is replaced by a new entry with the same IPv6 address,
   but the Link-layer address of the CPE which is performing DAD (Link-
   layer-CPE2), as explained in Section 4.2.1.

4.2.3.2.  The result of the NUD process is positive

   If the result of the NUD process is positive (i.e. if after this
   process the state of IPv6-CPE1 is REACHABLE), that means that the
   potential conflict is real.

   As shown in Figure 2, the BNG MUST reply to CPE that is performing
   DAD (CPE2 in Figure 1) with a NA message which has the following
   format:

   Layer 2 Header Fields:

         Source Address
               The Link-layer address of the interface on which the BNG
               received the NS message.

         Destination Address
               The source address in the Layer 2 Header of the NS
               message received by the BNG (i.e.  Link-layer-CPE2)

   IPv6 Header Fields:

         Source Address
               An address assigned to the interface from which the
               advertisement is sent.

         Destination Address
               The all-nodes multicast address.

   ICMPv6 Fields:

         Target Address
               The tentative address already used (i.e.  IPv6-CPE1).

         Target Link-layer address
               The Link-layer address of the interface on which the BNG
               received the NS message.







Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


     CPE1      CPE2       BNG
      |         |          |
   (a)|         |          |
      |         |          |
   (b)|===================>|
      |         |          |(c)
      |         |          |
      |      (d)|          |
      |         |          |
      |      (e)|=========>|
      |         |          |
      |         |<=========|(f)
      |         |          |

   (a) CPE1 generated a tentative address
   (b) CPE1 performs DAD for this one
   (c) BNG updates its Binding Table
   (d) CPE2 generates a same tentative address
   (e) CPE2 performs DAD for this one
   (f) BNG informs CPE2 that DAD fails

                                 Figure 2

   The BNG and the CPE MUST support the Unicast Transmission on Link-
   layer of IPv6 Multicast Messages [I-D.gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast],
   to be able, respectively, to generate and to process such a packet
   format.


5.  IANA Considerations

   No new options or messages are defined in this document.


6.  Security Considerations

6.1.  Interoperability with SEND

   If SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971] is used, the mechanism
   specified in this document may break the security.  Indeed, if an
   entry already exists and the BNG has to send a reply (cf.
   Section 4.2.2), the BNG doesn't own the private key(s) associated
   with to the Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA) [RFC3972] to
   correctly sign the proxied ND messages [RFC5909].

   To keep the same level of security, Secure Proxy ND Support for SEND
   [I-D.ietf-csi-proxy-send] SHOULD be used and implemented on the BNG
   and the CPEs.



Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


6.2.  IP source address spoofing protection

   To ensure a protection against IP source address spoofing in data
   packets, this proposal may be used in combinaison with Source Address
   Validation Improvement (SAVI) mechanisms [I-D.ietf-savi-fcfs]
   [I-D.ietf-savi-send].


7.  Acknowledgments

   TbD


8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast]
              Gundavelli, S., Townsley, M., Troan, O., and W. Dec,
              "Unicast Transmission of IPv6 Multicast Messages on Link-
              layer", draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-06 (work in
              progress), August 2010.

   [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.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

8.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-nd]
              Shelby, Z., Chakrabarti, S., and E. Nordmark, "Neighbor
              Discovery Optimization for Low-power and Lossy Networks",
              draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-15 (work in progress),
              September 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-csi-proxy-send]
              Krishnan, S., Laganier, J., Bonola, M., and A. Garcia-
              Martinez, "Secure Proxy ND Support for SEND",
              draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-05 (work in progress), May 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-savi-fcfs]
              Nordmark, E., Bagnulo, M., and E. Levy-Abegnoli, "FCFS-



Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


              SAVI: First-Come First-Serve Source-Address Validation for
              Locally Assigned Addresses", draft-ietf-savi-fcfs-05 (work
              in progress), July 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-savi-send]
              Bagnulo, M. and A. Garcia-Martinez, "SEND-based Source-
              Address Validation Implementation",
              draft-ietf-savi-send-04 (work in progress), May 2010.

   [RFC3775]  Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", June 2004.

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

   [RFC3972]  Aura, T., "Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGA)",
              RFC 3972, March 2005.

   [RFC4389]  Thaler, D., Talwar, M., and C. Patel, "Neighbor Discovery
              Proxies", RFC 4389, April 2006.

   [RFC5909]  Combes, J-M., Krishnan, S., and G. Daley, "Securing
              Neighbor Discovery Proxy: Problem Statement", RFC 5909,
              July 2010.


Appendix A.  Open issues

   o  What happens when the BNG receives a NA message with O-bit set to
      1 (e.g. the Link-Layer address of the CPE has changed)?


Authors' Addresses

   Fabio Costa
   France Telecom Orange
   38 rue du General Leclerc
   92794 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex 9
   France

   Email: fabio.costa@orange-ftgroup.com










Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                  DAD-Proxy                   January 2011


   Jean-Michel Combes
   France Telecom Orange
   38 rue du General Leclerc
   92794 Issy-les-Moulineaux Cedex 9
   France

   Email: jeanmichel.combes@orange-ftgroup.com


   Xavier Pougnard
   France Telecom Orange
   2 avenue Pierre Marzin
   22300 Lannion
   France

   Email: xavier.pougnard@orange-ftgroup.com


   Hongyu Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Industrial Base
   Shenzhen
   China

   Email: lihy@huawei.com


























Costa, et al.             Expires July 14, 2011                [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/