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

Versions: (draft-pentland-dna-protocol) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

DNA Working Group                                      S. Narayanan, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                iTCD/CSUMB
Intended status: Experimental                          November 30, 2009
Expires: June 2, 2010

  Design Alternative for Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks
                       (DNAv6 Design Alternative)
                     draft-ietf-dna-protocol-09.txt

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and 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 June 2, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009



Abstract

   In this memo, a mechanism that was developed for detection of network
   attachement is documented for future reference.  This memo is an
   informational document and thus does not define a new standard.  The
   mechanism proposed in this experimental RFC requires the hosts to
   monitor all the prefixes advertised on the link and use it for link
   identification in the presence of non-DNAv6 routers is presented.  A
   more efficient link-identification mechanism requiring the DNAv6
   routers to monitor the link for advertised prefixes to assist the
   hosts in link identification combined with a fast router
   advertisement mechanism that selects the order of response for the
   router deterministically is also presented.
















































Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


Table of Contents

   1.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

   2.   Terms and Abbreviations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

   3.   Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1  Link Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2  Fast Router Advertisement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

   4.   Data Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.1  New Flags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.2  Landmark Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.3  Learned Prefix Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

   5.   DNA Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1  DNA Router Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.1.1  Data Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.1.2  Bootstrapping DNA Data Structures  . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.1.3  Processing Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.1.4  Processing Router Solicitations  . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       5.1.5  Complete Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       5.1.6  Inclusion of a common prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       5.1.7  Scheduling Fast Router Advertisements  . . . . . . . .  15
       5.1.8  Scheduling Unsolicited Router Advertisements . . . . .  16
       5.1.9  Removing a Prefix from an Interface  . . . . . . . . .  16
       5.1.10   Prefix Reassignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.2  DNA Host Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.2.1  Data Structures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.2.2  Host Configuration Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       5.2.3  Detecting Network Attachment Steps . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.2.4  Selection of a Landmark Prefix . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       5.2.5  Sending Router Solicitations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
       5.2.6  Processing Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       5.2.7  DNA and Address Configuration  . . . . . . . . . . . .  26

   6.   Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     6.1  Attacks on the Token Bucket  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     6.2  Attacks on DNA Hosts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.3  Tentative options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     6.4  Authorization and Detecting Network Attachment . . . . . .  31
     6.5  Addressing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

   7.   Constants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32

   8.   Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33

   9.   Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   10.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     10.1   Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     10.2   Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34

        Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36

        Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . .  38












































Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


1.  Introduction

   An efficient but complex mechanism to achieve the goals for detecting
   network attachment (DNA) [1] is documented in this memo.  As the
   community decided to simplify the goals of DNA, this document was
   modified to be an informational RFC for archival purpose only.
   Hence, this document MUST NOT be considered to be making
   recommendation for the behavior of IPv6 hosts or routers.  A simplied
   solution to achieve detection of network attachment can be found at
   [8].

   This  memo documents the mechanism for an IPv6 host to detect link-
   change in the presence of unmodified  (non-DNAv6) routers and
   proposes new extensions to "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery" [2] to increase
   the efficiency of link-change detection in the presence of DNAv6
   enabled routers.  The proposed mechanism defines the construct that
   identifies a link, proposes an algorithm for the routers on the link
   to send a quick RA response without randomly waiting for upto
   MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME seconds as specified in RFC4861 [2].

   The rest of the document refers to the proposed mechanisms by the
   term "DNAv6".

2.  Terms and Abbreviations

   The term "link" is used as defined in RFC 2460 [7].  NOTE: this is
   completely different from the term "link" as used by IEEE 802, etc.

   Attachment: The process of establishing a layer-2 connection.
      Attachment (and detachment) may cause a link-change.

   DNA Hint: An indication from other subsystems or protocol layers that
      link-change may have occurred.

   Link-Change: Link-Change occurs when a host moves from a point-of-
      attachment on a link, to another point-of-attachment where it is
      unable to reach devices belonging to the previous link, without
      being forwarded through a router.

   Point-of-Attachment: A link-layer base-station, VLAN or port through
      which a device attempts to reach the network.  Changes to a
      host's point-of-attachment may cause link-change.

   Reachability Detection: Determination that a device (such as a
      router) is currently reachable.  This is typically achieved using
      Neighbor Unreachability Detection procedure [2].





Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


3.  Overview

   The DNA protocol presented in this document tries to achieve the
   following objectives:

   o  Eliminate the delays introduced by RFC 4861 in discovering the
      configuration.

   o  Make it possible for the hosts to accurately detect the identity
      of their current link from a single RS-RA pair in the presence of
      either DNAv6 enabled routers and/or non-DNAv6 routers.

   DNAv6 assumes that the host's link interface software and hardware is
   capable of delivering a 'link up' event notification when layer 2 on
   the host is configured and sufficiently stable for IP traffic.  This
   event notification acts as a DNA Hint to the layer 3 DNA procedures
   to check whether or not the host is attached to the same link as
   before.  DNAv6 also assumes that an interface on the host is never
   connected to two links at the same time.  In the case that the layer
   2 technology is capable of having multiple attachments (for instance,
   multiple layer 2 associations or connections) at the same time, DNAv6
   requires the individual layer-2 associations to be represented as
   separate (virtual interfaces) to layer 3 and DNAv6 in particular.

3.1  Link Identification

   DNAv6 uses the set of prefixes that are assigned to the link to
   uniquely identify the link, which is quite natural and doesn't
   require introducing any new form of identifier.  However, this choice
   implies that the protocol needs to be robust against changes in the
   set of prefixes assigned to a link, including the case when a link is
   renumbered and the prefix is later reassigned to a different link.
   The protocol handles this during graceful renumbering (when the valid
   lifetime of the prefix is allowed to decrease to zero before it is
   removed and perhaps reassigned to a different link), it describes how
   to remove and reassign prefixes earlier than this without any
   incorrect behaviour, and will also recover in case where a prefix is
   reassigned without following the draft recommendations.

   DNAv6 is based on using a Router Solicitation/Router Advertisement
   exchange to both verify whether the host has changed link, and if it
   has, provide the host with the configuration information for the new
   link.  The base method for detecting link change involves getting
   routers to listen to all of the prefixes that are being advertised by
   other routers on the link.  They can then respond to solicitations
   with complete prefix information.  This information consists of the
   prefixes a router would advertise itself as per RFC 4861, and also,
   the prefixes learned from other routers on the link that are not



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   being advertised by itself.  These learned prefixes are included in a
   new Learned Prefix Option in the Router Advertisement.

   A host receiving one of these "Complete RAs" - so marked by a flag -
   then knows all of the prefixes in use on a link, and by inference all
   those that are not.  By comparing this with previously received
   prefixes the host can correctly decide whether it is connected to the
   same link as previously, or whether this Router Advertisement is from
   a router on a new link.

   If the link contains all non-DNAv6 routers, then the host relies on
   the completeness (which the host always keeps track) of its own
   prefix list to make a decision; i.e. if its own prefix list is known
   to be 'complete', the host can make a decision by comparing the
   received prefixes with its prefix list, if its own prefix is not yet
   'complete', the host will wait for the completeness criteria to be
   met before making the comparison.

   Though frequently all routers on a link will advertise the same set
   of prefixes and thus experience no cost in making the RAs complete,
   there is potential for the RAs to be large when there are many
   prefixes advertised.  Two mechanisms are defined that allow certain
   RAs to be reduced in size.  Both these mechanisms use one prefix as a
   representative for the set of prefixes on a particular link.

   One uses a technique called a "landmark", where the host chooses one
   of the prefixes as a landmark prefix, and then includes this in the
   Router Solicitation message in the form of a question "Am I on the
   link which has this prefix?".  The landmark is carried in a new
   option, called the Landmark Option.

   In the case when the host is still attached to the same link, which
   might occur when the host has changed from using one layer 2 access
   point to another, but the access points are on the same link, the
   Router Advertisement(s) it receives will contain a "yes, that prefix
   is on this link" answer by the inclusion of the landmark prefix in
   the RA, and no other information.  Thus, such RA messages are quite
   small.

   In the case when the landmark prefix is unknown to the responding
   router, the host will receive a "No" answer by non-inclusion of the
   landmark prefix in the RA, and also the information it needs to
   configure itself for the new link.  The routers try to include as
   much information as possible in such messages, so that the host can
   be informed of all the prefixes assigned to the new link as soon as
   possible.

   A second mechanism for reducing packet sizes applies to unsolicited



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   Router Advertisements.  By selecting a common prefix on the link to
   be the representative for the entire set of prefixes on the link, and
   making sure that it is included in every advertisement, it is
   possible to omit some prefixes.  The smallest prefix on the link is
   selected as the common prefix.  Such advertisements will not inform a
   host of all of the prefixes at once, but in general these unsolicited
   advertisements will not be the first advertisement received on a
   link.  Inclusion of the smallest prefix simply ensures that there is
   overlap in the information advertised by each router on a link and
   that hosts will thus not incorrectly interpret one of these
   incomplete RAs as an indication of movement.

   The Router Advertisement messages are, in general, larger than the
   solicitations, and with multiple routers on the link there will be
   multiple advertisements sent for each solicitation.  This
   amplification can be used by an attacker to cause a Denial of Service
   attack.  Such attacks are limited by applying a rate limit on the
   unicast Router Advertisements sent directly in response to each
   solicitation, and using multicast RAs when the rate limit is
   exceeded.

   In order for the routers be able to both respond to the landmark
   questions and send the complete RAs, the routers need to track the
   prefixes that other routers advertise on the link.  This process is
   initialized when a router is enabled, by sending a Router
   Solicitation and collecting the resulting RAs, and then multicasting
   a few RAs more rapidly as already suggested in RFC 4861.  This
   process ensures with high probability that all the routers have the
   same notion of the set of prefixes assigned to the link.

3.2  Fast Router Advertisement

   According to RFC 4861 a solicited Router Advertisement should have a
   random delay between 0 and MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME, to avoid the
   advertisements from all the routers colliding on the link causing
   congestion and higher probability of packet loss.  In addition, RFC
   4861 suggests that the RAs be multicast, and multicast RAs are rate
   limited to one message every 3 seconds.  This implies that the
   response to a RS might be delayed up to 3.5 seconds.

   DNAv6 avoids this delay by using a different mechanism to ensure that
   two routers will not respond at exactly the same time while allowing
   one of the routers on the link to respond immediately.  Since the
   hosts might be likely to use the first responding router as the first
   choice from their default router list, the mechanism also ensures
   that the same router doesn't respond first to the RSs from different
   hosts.  This modified mechanism replaces the rate limit on responses
   to RS required by [2]



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   The mechanism is based on the routers on the link determining (from
   the same RAs that are used in Section 3.1 to determine all the
   prefixes assigned to the link), the link-local addresses of all the
   other routers on the link.  With this loosely consistent list, each
   router can independently compute some function of the (link-local)
   source address of the RS and each of the routers' link-local
   addresses.  The results of that function are then compared to create
   a ranking, and the ranking determines the delay each router will use
   when responding to the RS.  The router which is ranked as #0 will
   respond with a zero delay.

   If the routers become out-of-sync with respect to their learned
   router lists, two or more routers may respond with the same delay,
   but over time the routers will converge on their lists of learned
   routers on the link.

4.  Data Structures

   This memo defines two new flags  and three new options.  The flags
   and the options MUST be implemented using Router Advertisement Flags
   option specified in RFC 5075 [21].


4.1  New Flags

   This document defines two new flags to be exchanged between the
   router and hosts.  One to indicate that the router sending the
   message is participating in the proposed protocol as well as a flag
   to indicate the completeness of the set of prefixes included in its
   messages.

   DNAAware (D)

      The DNAAware (D) bit indicates that the router sending the message
      is participating in the  protocol documented in this memo.  Other
      routers should include this router in calculating response delay
      tokens.

   Complete (C)

      The Complete (C) bit indicates that the Router Advertisement
      contains PIOs for all prefixes explicitly configured on the
      sending router, and, if other routers on the link are advertising
      additional prefixes, a Learned Prefix Option containing all
      additional prefixes that the router has heard from other routers
      on the link.





Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


4.2  Landmark Option

   The Landmark Option is used by hosts in a Router Solicitation message
   to ask the routers on a link if the specified prefix is being
   advertised by some router on the link.

4.3  Learned Prefix Option

   The Learned Prefix Option (LPO) is used by a router to indicate
   prefixes that are being advertised by other routers on the link, but
   not by itself.

5.  DNA Operation

5.1  DNA Router Operation

   Routers MUST collect information about the other routers that are
   advertising on the link.

5.1.1  Data Structures

   The routers maintain a set of conceptual data structures for each
   interface to track the prefixes advertised by other routers on the
   link, and also the set of DNA routers (the routers that will quickly
   respond to RSs) on the link.

   For each interface, routers maintain a list of all prefixes learned
   from other routers on the link but not explicitly configured on the
   router's own interface.  The list will be referred to in this
   document as "DNARouterLearnedPrefixList".  Prefixes are learned by
   their reception within Prefix Information Options [2] in Router
   Advertisements.  Prefixes in Learned Prefix Options (see Section 4.3)
   MUST NOT update the contents of DNARouterLearnedPrefixList.  For each
   prefix the router MUST store sufficient information to identify the
   prefix and to know when to remove the prefix entry from the list.
   This may be achieved by storing the following information:

   1.  Prefix

   2.  Prefix length

   3.  Prefix valid lifetime

   4.  Expiry time

   The expiry time for entries in DNARouterLearnedPrefixList is
   LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME after the last received Router Advertisement
   affecting the entry, or the scheduled expiry of the prefix valid



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   lifetime, whichever is earlier.

   For each interface, routers also maintain a list of the other routers
   advertising on the link.  The list will be referred to in this memo
   as "DNARouterList".  For each router from which a Router
   Advertisement is received with the DNAAware flag set, the following
   information MUST be stored:

   1.  Link-local source address of advertising router

   2.  Expiry time

   Each router MUST include itself in the DNARouterList based on the
   link-local address used in its RA messages.

   The expiry time for entries in DNARouterList is LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME
   after the last received Router Advertisement affecting the entry.

5.1.2  Bootstrapping DNA Data Structures

   As per RFC 4861 [2], when an interface on a host first starts up, it
   SHOULD transmit up to MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS Router Solicitations
   separated by RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL in order to quickly learn of
   the routers and prefixes active on the link.  DNAv6 requires the
   router to follow the same steps when its interface first starts up.

   Upon startup, a router interface SHOULD also send a few unsolicited
   Router Advertisements as recommended in Section 6.2.4 of RFC 4861
   [2], in order to inform others routers on the link of its presence.

   During the bootstrap period ( (MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS - 1) *
   RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL + RetransTimer [2]), a router interface
   both sends unsolicited Router Advertisements and responds to Router
   Solicitations, but the Router Advertisements MUST NOT include any DNA
   specific options except for setting the DNAAware flag.  The DNAAware
   flag is set so that other routers will know to include this router in
   their timing calculations for fast RA transmission.  Other DNA
   options are omitted because the router may have incomplete
   information during bootstrap.

   During the bootstrap period, the Complete flag in Router
   Advertisements MUST NOT be set.

   During the bootstrap period, the timing of Router Advertisement
   transmission is as specified in RFC 4861.






Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


5.1.3  Processing Router Advertisements

   When a router receives a Router Advertisement, it first validates the
   RA as per the rules in RFC 4861, and then performs the actions
   specified in RFC 4861.  In addition, each valid Router Advertisement
   is processed as follows:

   If the DNAAware flag is set in the RA, the router checks if there is
   an entry in its DNARouterList by looking up the source address of the
   RA in that list.  If not found, a new entry is added to
   DNARouterList, including the source address.  The entry's expiry time
   is updated.

   Regardless of the state of the DNAAware flag, each PIO in the RA is
   examined.  If the prefix is not in the router's
   DNARouterLearnedPrefixList and not in the router's AdvPrefixList [2],
   the prefix is added to the DNARouterLearnedPrefixList, and its expiry
   time is set.

5.1.4  Processing Router Solicitations

   The usual response to a Router Solicitation SHOULD be a unicast RA.
   However, to keep control of the rate of unicast RAs sent, a token
   bucket is used.  The token bucket is filled at one token every
   UNICAST_RA_INTERVAL.  A maximum of MAX_UNICAST_RA_BURST tokens are
   stored.

   When a Router Solicitation is received, the router checks if it is
   possible to send a unicast response.  A unicast response requires
   that the following conditions to be met:

   o  A unicast send token is available.

   o  The source address of the Router Solicitation is NOT the
      unspecified address (::).

   If a unicast response is possible and the Router Solicitation
   contains a Landmark Option whose prefix is present in
   DNARouterLearnedPrefixList or AdvPrefixList, the router SHOULD send
   an abbreviated Router Advertisement.  This abbreviated advertisement
   includes the Landmark prefix in a PIO if the prefix is in the
   AdvPrefixList or in a LPO if the prefix is found in the
   DNAROuterLearnedPrefixList, plus the base RA header and any SEND
   options as appropriate.  The DNAAware flag MUST be set.  The Complete
   flag MUST NOT be set.  This is the one exception where the common
   prefix (i.e. the smallest prefix) MAY be omitted.

   If there is NO Landmark Option in the received Router Solicitation or



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   it contains a Landmark Option whose prefix is NOT present in
   DNARouterLearnedPrefixList or AdvPrefixList or a unicast response is
   not possible, then the router SHOULD generate a Complete RA as
   specified in Section 5.1.5.  The Router Advertisement MUST include
   the common prefix(es), as described in Section 5.1.6.

   If a unicast response is possible, then a token is removed and the
   Router Advertisement is scheduled for transmission as specified in
   Section 5.1.7.

   If a unicast response is not possible and there is no multicast RA
   already scheduled for transmission in the next MULTICAST_RA_DELAY the
   RA MUST be sent to the link-scoped all-nodes multicast address at the
   current time plus MULTICAST_RA_DELAY.

   If a unicast response is not possible but there is a multicast RA
   already scheduled for transmission in the next MULTICAST_RA_DELAY,
   then the Router Solicitation MUST be silently discarded.

   All Router Advertisements sent by a DNA router MUST have the "D" flag
   set so that hosts processing them know that they can interpret the
   messages according to this specification.

   In order to understand the conditions leading to the different type
   of Router Advertisement messages, please refer to the figure below,

    +---------------+--+----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+-----+----+
    |  RA Message   |     Unicast            |     Multicast       |
    +---------------+--+----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+-----+----+
    | Abbreviated RA| Landmark prefix present|    Never            |
    |               |     on the link        |                     |
    +---------------+--+----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+-----+----+
    | Complete RA   |No LO in RS or Landmark |No token available in|
    |               |prefix NOT present      | the token bucket.   |
    |               | on the link.           |                     |
    +---------------+--+----+-----+-----+----+-----+----+-----+----+



5.1.5  Complete Router Advertisements

   A Complete RA is formed as follows:

   Starting with a Router Advertisement with all fixed options (MTU,
   Advertisement Interval, flags, etc.), the DNAAware flag is set.  As
   many Prefix Information Options for explicitly configured prefixes as
   will fit are added to the Router Advertisement.  If there is
   sufficient room, a Learned Prefix Option as defined in Section 4.3



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   containing as many of the learned prefixes as will fit is added.

   It may not be possible to include all of the prefixes in use on the
   link due to MTU or administrative limitations.  If all Prefix
   Information Options and a Learned Prefix Option containing all of the
   learned prefixes were included in the RA, then the Complete flag in
   the Router Advertisement header is set.

   If there are known to be prefixes that are not included in the Router
   Advertisement, then the Complete flag MUST NOT be set.

   Note that although it may not be possible to fit all of the prefixes
   into an RA, the smallest prefix(es) MUST be included as discussed in
   Section 5.1.6.

5.1.6  Inclusion of a common prefixes

   Among the prefixes advertised on a link, all routers selects one
   prefix and include that as a common prefix whenever they send an RA,
   both solicited and unsolicited.The inclusion of the common prefix
   ensures that there always is an overlap in the information advertised
   by each router on the link and that hosts will have a common prefix
   to correlate all RA messages received from routers on the same link.

   This section presents how the routers select the common prefix
   without pre-arrangement,advertise it and change the common prefix
   gracefully without causing hosts to mistakenly assume a link change.

   Even when stateful address configuration (DHCPv6) is used, at least
   one router on a link MUST be configured with one prefix, so that the
   common prefix can be included in the RA messages.

5.1.6.1  Selecting the common prefix

   The router MUST pick the smallest prefix of all the prefixes
   configured on the routers on the link as the common prefix.  The
   selection is made from among the prefixes whose valid lifetime is
   greater than LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME, and learned prefixes which were
   received within LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME.

   For comparing prefixes, they are padded to the right with zeros to
   make them 128 bit unsigned integers.  Note that this smallest prefix
   is the smallest of all the prefixes configured on the routers on the
   link and may not be the smallest prefix used in the link through
   stateful address configuration.  Although, at the time of the writing
   of this memo, prefixes used even for stateful address
   autoconfiguration come from RAs.




Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   When a router receives a new prefix in PIO or new prefix is
   configured on the router, if the prefix is smaller than the current
   common prefix and has valid lifetime greater than
   LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME, the router selects that new prefix as a new
   common prefix.  In case a new prefix smaller than the current common
   prefix is advertised in LPIO, the router doesn't change the common
   prefix.

5.1.6.2  Advertising the common prefix

   Whenever a router sends an RA, whether solicited or unsolicited, it
   MUST include the common prefix in it.  Hence, all RAs MUST carry the
   common prefix except the abbreviated RA message sent in response to a
   RS with LO.

   When a router advertises the common prefix, if the common prefix is
   explicitly configured on the router, it sends it in PIO.  If the
   prefix was learned from advertisement of another router on the link,
   the router sends the common prefix in LPIO.

5.1.6.3  Changing the common prefix gracefully

   Basic idea is, when a router changes a common prefix, it MUST send
   both the new common prefix and the old common prefix to ensure an
   overlapping prefix among RAs for LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME period and then
   it can retire the old common prefix.

   When either a new prefix is added to a link that is numerically
   smaller than the current common prefix or the lifetime of the current
   common prefix falls below LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME, a new common prefix
   MUST be determined.  In order to ensure that there is overlap between
   consecutive RAs on the link, the old common prefix must continue to
   be advertised for some time alongside the new common prefix.  After
   the change, the old common prefix MUST be included in RAs for the
   following LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME.  If the common prefix changes
   multiple times within LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME time window, the RA SHOULD
   include all of the previous common prefixes that were advertised
   during that time window.

   For the purposes of propagating information, it is reasonable to
   assume that after three advertisements of the change, all routers
   have been made aware of it.

5.1.7  Scheduling Fast Router Advertisements

   RAs may need to be delayed to avoid collisions in the case that there
   is more than one router on a link.  The delay is calculated by
   determining a ranking for the router for the received RS, and



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   multiplying that by RA_SEPARATION.

   A Host identifier is needed from the RS to calculate the router's
   ranking.  The first 64 bits of an SHA-1 hash of the source address of
   the RS MUST be used as the RS host identifier.

   A router's ranking is determined by taking the XOR of the RS Host
   identifier and first 64 bits of an SHA-1 hash of the link local
   source address of the router to be used in the RA.  The results of
   these XOR operations are sorted lowest to highest.  The router
   corresponding to the first entry in the sorted list is ranked zero,
   the second, one, and so on.

      Note: it is not necessary for a router to actually sort the whole
      list.  Each router just needs to determine its own position in the
      sorted list.

   If Rank < FAST_RA_THRESHOLD, then the RA MUST be scheduled for
   transmission in Rank * RA_SEPARATION milliseconds.  When the router
   is ranked as zero, the resulting delay is zero, thus the RA SHOULD be
   sent immediately.

   If Rank >= FAST_RA_THRESHOLD, then the RA MUST be replaced with a
   Complete RA, if there is not one already, and scheduled for multicast
   transmission as in RFC 4861.

5.1.8  Scheduling Unsolicited Router Advertisements

   Unsolicited router advertisements MUST be scheduled as per RFC 4861.

   The "D" flag in the RA header MUST be set.

   They MAY be Complete RAs or MAY include only a subset of the
   configured prefixes, but MUST include the common prefix as discussed
   in Section 5.1.6.

   This ensures that there will be overlap in the sets of prefixes
   contained in consecutive RAs on a link from DNA routers, and thus an
   absence of that overlap can be used to infer link change.

5.1.9  Removing a Prefix from an Interface

   When a prefix is to stop being advertised in a PIO in RAs by an
   interface before the expiry of the prefix's valid lifetime, then the
   router  MUST add the prefix to the DNARouterLearnedPrefixList and set
   it to expire in LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME or at the expiry of the last
   advertised valid lifetime, whichever is earlier.  This ensures that
   to hosts there will be overlap in the prefixes in the RAs they see



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   and prevent them from incorrectly interpreting changed prefixes as
   movement.

5.1.9.1  Early Removal of the common Prefix

   If the common (the smallest) prefix is to be withdrawn early from a
   link, that is before the expiry of its previously advertised valid
   lifetime, it MUST be advertised for at least LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME
   with a valid lifetime of less than LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME.  This
   ensures that all of the other routers are notified to begin the
   process of changing the common prefix as well, and hosts will always
   see overlap between the prefixes in consecutive RAs and thus not
   mistake an RA for an indication of link change.

5.1.10  Prefix Reassignment

   A prefix whose lifetime has expired after counting down in real time
   for at least LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME may be reassigned to another link
   immediately after expiry.  If a prefix is withdrawn from a link
   without counting down to the expiry of its valid lifetime, it SHOULD
   NOT be reassigned to another link for at least LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME
   or until the original expiry time, whichever is earlier.  This gives
   sufficient time for other routers that have learned the prefix to
   expire it, and for hosts that have seen advertisements from those
   routers to expire the prefix as well.

   Earlier reassignment may result in hosts that move from between the
   old and new links failing to detect the movement.

   When the host is sure that the prefix list is complete, a false
   movement assumption may happen due to renumbering when a new prefix
   is introduced in RAs at about the same time as the host handles the
   'link UP' event.  We may solve the renumbering problem with minor
   modification as specified below.

   When a router starts advertising a new prefix, it includes at least
   one old prefix in the same RA.  The old prefix assures that the host
   doesn't falsely assume a link change because of a new prefix.  After
   a while, hosts will recognize the new prefix as the one assigned to
   the current link and update its prefix list.

   In this way, we may provide a fast and robust solution.  If a host
   can make the Complete Prefix List with certainty, it can check for
   link change fast.  Otherwise, it can fall back on a slow but robust
   scheme.  It is up to the host to decide which scheme to use.






Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


5.2  DNA Host Operation

   Hosts collect information about the prefixes advertised on the link
   to facilitate change detection.

5.2.1  Data Structures

   Hosts MUST maintain a list of prefixes advertised on the link.  This
   is separate from the RFC 4861 "Prefix List" and will be referred to
   here as the "DNAHostPrefixList".  All prefixes SHOULD be stored,
   however an upper bound MUST be placed on the number stored to prevent
   overflow.  For each prefix stored the host MUST store the following
   information:

   1.  Prefix

   2.  Prefix length

   3.  Expiry time

   If a host is not able to store this information for every prefix,
   there is a risk that the host will incorrectly decide that it has
   moved to a new link, when it receives advertisements from a non-DNA
   router.

   Prefix entries in the DNAHostPrefixList expire and MUST be removed
   LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME after they are last seen in a received Router
   Advertisement (in either a PIO or LPIO) or at the expiry of the valid
   lifetime of the prefix, whichever is earlier.

   Hosts SHOULD also maintain a "Landmark Prefix" as described in
   Section 5.2.4.

5.2.2  Host Configuration Variables

   Hosts MUST make use of the following conceptual variables and they
   SHOULD be configurable:

   DNASameLinkDADFlag

      Boolean value indicating whether or not a host should re-run DAD
      when DNA indicates that link change has not occurred.

      Default: False







Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


5.2.3  Detecting Network Attachment Steps

   An IPv6 host SHOULD follow the following steps when they receive a
   DNA Hint indicating the possibility of link change.

   1.  Mark all the preferred IPv6 addresses in use as optimistic.  See
       Section 5.2.7.2.

   2.  Set all Neighbor Cache entries for routers on its Default Router
       List to STALE.

   3.  Send router solicitation.  (See Section 5.2.5).

   4.  Receive router advertisement(s).

   5.  Mark the router Neighbor Cache Entry [3] as REACHABLE for the
       router from which RA(s) arrived, or add a new Neighbor Cache
       Entry for the router in the REACHABLE state if one does not
       currently exist.

   6.  Process received router advertisement.  (See Section 5.2.6).

   7.  If the link has changed

          Change the IP configuration parameters of the host (see
          Section 5.2.7).

   8.  If the link has NOT changed

          Restore the address configuration state of all the IPv6
          addresses known to be on the link.  See Section 5.2.7.2.

   9.  Update default routers list and their reachability information
       (see Section 5.2.6.3).


5.2.4  Selection of a Landmark Prefix

   For each interface, hosts SHOULD choose a prefix to use as a Landmark
   Prefix in Router Solicitations.  The following rules are used in
   selecting the landmark prefix:

      The prefix MUST have a non-zero valid lifetime.  If the valid
      lifetime of a previously selected Landmark Prefix expires, a new
      Landmark Prefix MUST be selected.

      The prefix MUST be one of those that the hosts has used to assign
      a non-link-local address to itself.



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


      The prefix SHOULD be chosen as the one with the longest preferred
      lifetime, but it is not necessary to switch to different prefix if
      the preferred lifetime of the current landmark prefix changes.


5.2.5  Sending Router Solicitations

   Upon the occurrence of a Layer 2 link-up event notification, hosts
   SHOULD send a Router Solicitation.  Hosts SHOULD apply rate limiting
   and/or hysteresis to this behaviour as appropriate to the link
   technology subject to the reliability of the DNA Hints.

   Editor's note: The following two paragraph are talking about behavior
   specified by 4861.  Do we want to keep these?

   The host also uses this to trigger sending an RS, subject to the rate
   limitations in [2].  Since there is no natural limit on how
   frequently the link UP notifications might be generated, we take the
   conservative approach that even if the host establishes new link
   layer connectivity very often, under no circumstances should it send
   Router Solicitations more frequently than RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL
   as specified by RFC 4861 [2].

   If the RS does not result in the host receiving at least one RA with
   at least one valid prefix, then the host can retransmit the RS.  It
   is allowed to multicast up to MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS RS messages
   spaced RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL apart as per RFC 4861 [2].

   Note that if link-layer notifications are reliable, a host can reset
   the number of sent Router Solicitations to 0, while still maintaining
   RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL between RSs.  Resetting the count is
   necessary so that after each link up notification, the host is
   allowed to send MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS to reliably discover the,
   possibly new, prefix list.

   Hosts SHOULD include a Landmark Option (LO) in the RS message with
   the landmark prefix chosen based on the rules in Section 5.2.4.

   Hosts SHOULD include a tentative source link layer address option
   (TO) in the RS message.  The router solicitation message is sent to
   the All_Routers_Multicast address and the source address MUST be the
   link local address of the host.

   The host MUST consider its link local address to be in the
   "Optimistic" state for duplicate address detection [5] until either
   the returned RA confirms that the host has not switched to a new link
   or, if an link change has occurred, until the host has performed
   optimistic duplicate address detection for the address.



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


5.2.6  Processing Router Advertisements

   When the host receives a Router Advertisement, the host checks for
   the following conditions in the given order and derives the
   associated conclusions given below:

      If the RA includes a prefix that matches an entry in its
      DNAHostPrefixList, then the host SHOULD conclude that no link
      change has occurred and the current configuration can be assumed
      to still be current.

      If the RA is a Complete RA, as indicated by the "Complete" flag in
      the RA header, and there are no prefixes included in it in either
      a PIO or LPIO that are also in the host's DNAHostPrefixList, then
      the host MUST conclude that it has changed link and MUST initiate
      re-configuration using the information in the received Router
      Advertisement.



      If the host has the complete prefix list (CPL) and the RA does NOT
      include any prefixes in either a PIO or LPIO that matches a prefix
      in CPL then the host MUST conclude that link change has occurred
      and use the information in the received RA to configure itself.

      If the host doesn't have the complete prefix list (CPL), the
      received RA is not complete, contains no prefixes that are stored
      in DNAHostPrefixList, then the host SHOULD execute RS/RA exchange
      until num_RS_RA is equal to NUM_RS_RA_COMPLETE to create a new CPL
      and compare it with the already known prefixes.  If after
      NUM_RS_RA_COMPLETE exchanges still no prefix received in either a
      PIO or LPO of the RAs match known prefixes, the host MUST conclude
      link change.  If a matching prefix is received in the RAs, then
      the host SHOULD conclude that no link change has occured.


5.2.6.1  Pseudocode

   IF (Receive RA contains a prefix matching a prefix in
   DNAHostPrefixList) THEN

   {

      /* This case covers the landmark prefix being included in the RA,
      smallest prefix included in RA or CompleteRA message containg all
      prefixes*/





Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


      No link change has occured.

      RETURN; // Don't have to do the following checks.

   }

   IF (Receive RA is a CompleteRA) THEN

   {

      /* We already checked if there are any matching prefix before.
      Since this is a CompleteRA, implies link-change.*/

      Link change has occured.

      RETURN; // Don't have to do the following checks.

   }

   IF (DNAHostPrefixList is marked as complete (i.e. the completeness
   criteria is already met)) THEN

   {

      /* We already checked if there are any matching prefix before.
      Since the DNAHostPrefixList is complete, implies link-change.*/

      Link change has occured.

      RETURN; // Don't have to do the following checks.

   }

   Increment variable 'numberOfReceivedRAsSinceLastLinkUPEvent.

   IF (numberOfReceivedRAsSinceLastLinkUPEvent IS EQUAL TO
   NUM_RS_RA_COMPLETE), THEN

   {

      /* numberOfReceivedRAsSinceLastLinkUPEvent is a variable that
      tracks the number of RA received since last link up event.
      Previous link UP event here refers to the link UP received before
      the current link UP event that lead to this processing */

      Set numberOfReceivedRAsSinceLastLinkUPEvent to zero.





Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


      IF (One of the received RA contains a prefix matching a prefix in
      DNAHostPrefixList from before the current link UP event), THEN

      {

         No link change has occured

      }

      ELSE

      {

         link change has occured.

      }

   }

   ELSE

   {

      No Decision.  Wait for more RAs to collect NUM_RS_RA_COMPLETE
      number of RS/RA exchanges.

   }

5.2.6.2  Maintaining the DNAHostPrefixList

   The host should maintain a current DNAHostPrefixList with the
   prefixes learned after the current link UP event and a previous
   DNAHostPrefixList with prefixes learned prior to the link UP event.
   These data structures are maintained per interface.

   If the Router Advertisement has the C flag set, then the host SHOULD
   make the current DNAHostPrefixList match the contents of the
   advertisement and mark it as complete (i.e. it becomes CPL).  Any new
   prefixes are added and any prefixes in the list that are absent in
   the advertisement are removed.  Expiry times on prefixes are updated
   if the prefix was contained in a PIO, but not if it was contained in
   an LPO.

   If the Router Advertisement does not have the C flag set, then the
   host SHOULD add any new prefixes and update expiry times as above,
   but SHOULD NOT remove any entries from DNAHostPrefixList.

   If the host decides that a link change has occurred after processing



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   the received RA message, it uses the information available in the
   current DNAHostPrefixList to configure itself as specified in
   Section 5.2.7.  If the host decides that it is on the same link, then
   the current DNAHostPrefixList and the previous DNAHostPrefixList are
   merged as specified in the next sub-section and the merged list
   becomes the current DNAHostPrefixList.

   For each interface, the host also maintains a counter (called
   num_RS_RA) which counts how many successful RS/RA exchanges have been
   accomplished since the last time the host moved to a different link.
   Note that this is not necessarily since the last link UP event as a
   link UP event may not correspond to an actual link change.  The host
   declares "one successful RS/RA exchange" is accomplished after it
   sends an RS, waits for MIN_RA_WAIT seconds and receives a positive
   number of resulting RAs.  At least one RA (with at least one prefix)
   should be received.  After the RS, if a link UP event occurs before
   MIN_RA_WAIT seconds expire, the host should not assume that a
   successful RS/RA exchange is accomplished.  This counter is used to
   determine when DNAHostPrefixList is considered to be complete.  The
   host SHOULD conclude that the prefix list is complete when
   NUM_RS_RA_COMPLETE number of RS/RA exchanges have been completed or a
   RA message with the complete bit set is received.  The complete
   DNAHostPrefixList is also refered to as CPL ( Complete Prefix List).

   After NUM_RS_RA_COMPLETE RS/ RA exchange, the host will generate the
   Complete Prefix List if there is no packet loss.

5.2.6.2.1  Merging DNAHostPrefixList

   When a host has been collecting information about a potentially
   different link in its Current DNAHostPrefixList, and it discovers
   that it is in fact the same link as another DNAHostPrefixList, then
   it needs to merge the information in the two objects to produce a
   single new object.  Since the DNAHostPrefixList contains the most
   recent information, any information contained in it will override the
   information in the old DNAHostPrefixList, for example the remaining
   lifetimes for the prefixes.  When the two objects contain different
   pieces of information, for instance different prefixes or default
   routers, the union of these are used in the resulting merged object.

5.2.6.3  Router Reachability Detection and Default Router Selection

   The receipt of a unicast RA from a router in response to a multicast
   RS indicates that the host has bi-directional reachability with the
   routers that responded.  Such reachability is necessary for the host
   to use a router as a default router, in order to have packets routed
   off the host's current link.  It is notable that the choice of
   whether the messages are addressed to multicast or unicast address



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   will have different reachability implications.  The reachability
   implications from the hosts' perspective for the four different
   message exchanges defined by RFC 4861 [2] are presented in the table
   below.  The host can confirm bi-directional reachability from the
   neighbor discovery or router discovery message exchanges except when
   a multicast RA is received at the host for its RS message.  In this
   case, using IPv6 Neighbour Discovery procedures, the host cannot know
   whether the multicast RA is in response to its solicitation message
   or whether it is a periodic un-solicited transmission from the router
   [2].

         +-----------------+----+----+----+-----+
         |   Exchanges:    |Upstream |Downstream|
         +-----------------+----+----+----+-----+
         | multicast NS/NA |    Y    |    Y     |
         +-----------------+----+----+----+-----+
         | unicast   NS/NA |    Y    |    Y     |
         +-----------------+----+----+----+-----+
         | RS/multicast RA |    N    |    Y     |
         +-----------------+----+----+----+-----+
         | RS/unicast RA   |    Y    |    Y     |
         +-----------------+----+----+----+-----+

   If the destination address of the received RA is a unicast address,
   the host knows the router heard its RS, and therefore that the host
   has reachability with the router.

   Prior to sending a DNA RS in response to an indication of link
   change, the host SHOULD set all Neighbor Cache entries for routers on
   its Default Router List to STALE.  When the host receives an RA in
   reply to the RS, the host SHOULD mark that router's Neighbor Cache
   Entry [2] as REACHABLE, or add a Neighbor Cache Entry in the
   REACHABLE state if one does not currently exist.

   The host SHOULD also update its Default Router List in the following
   fashion.  If any of the routers returning RAs are already on the
   default router list, the host SHOULD use the information in the RA to
   update the Default Route List entry with the new information.  The
   host SHOULD add entries to the Default Router List for any routers
   returning RAs that are not on the list.  The host SHOULD confine
   selection of a router from the Default Router List to those routers
   whose Neighbor Cache entries are in the REACHABLE state.  Note that
   the Default Router List SHOULD be updated as described here
   regardless of whether the RA indicates that the host has changed to a
   new IP link, since changes in router reachability are possible on
   some link types even if the host remains on the same IP link.

   Note that this procedure does not prevent a host from sending packets



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   to its current default router while the RA solicitation is in
   progress and if reachability with the current default router is
   unchanged, there should be no change in default router after the RA
   solicitation completes.  If the current default router is still
   reachable, it will forward the packets.

5.2.7  DNA and Address Configuration

   When a host moves to a new point of attachment, a potential exists
   for a change in the validity of its unicast and multicast addresses
   on that network interface.  In this section, host processing for
   address configuration is specified.  The section considers both
   statelessly and statefully configured addresses.

5.2.7.1  Duplicate Address Detection

   A DNA host MUST support optimistic Duplicate Address Detection [5]
   for autoconfiguring unicast link local addresses.  If a DNA host uses
   address autoconfiguration [3] for global unicast addresses, the DNA
   host MUST support optimistic Duplicate Address Detection for
   autoconfiguring global unicast addresses.

5.2.7.2  DNA and the Address Autoconfiguration State Machine

   When a link level event occurs on a network interface indicating that
   the host has moved from one point of attachment to another, it is
   possible that a change in the reachability of the addresses
   associated with that interface may occur.  Upon detection of such a
   link event and prior to sending the RS initiating a DNA exchange, a
   DNA host MUST change the state of addresses associated with the
   interface in the following way (address state designations follow RFC
   4861):

   o  Addresses in the "Preferred" state are moved to the "Optimistic"
      state, but the host defers sending out an NS to initiate Duplicate
      Address Detection.

   o  Addresses in the "Optimistic" state remain in the "Optimistic"
      state, but the host defers sending out an NS to initiate Duplicate
      Address Detection.

   o  Addresses in the "Deprecated" state remain in the "Deprecated"
      state.

   o  No addresses should be in the "Tentative" state, since this state
      is unnecessary for nodes that support optimistic Duplicate Address
      Detection.




Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 26]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   A host MUST keep track of which "Preferred" addresses are moved to
   the "Optimistic" state, so it is possible to know which addresses
   were in the "Preferred" state and which were in the "Optimistic"
   state prior to the change in point of attachment.

   In order to perform the DNA transaction, the DNA host SHOULD select
   one of the unicast link local addresses that was in the "Preferred"
   state prior to switching to "Optimistic" and utilize that as the
   source address on the DNA RS.  If the host had no "Preferred" unicast
   link local address but did have an address in the "Optimistic" state,
   it MUST utilize such an address as the source address.  If the host
   currently has no unicast link local addresses, it MUST construct one
   and put it into the "Optimistic" state and note this address as
   having been in the "Optimistic" state previously, but defer sending
   the NS to confirm.  Note that the presence of a duplicate unicast
   link local address on the link will not interfere with the ability of
   the link to route a unicast DNA RA from the router back to the host
   nor will it result in corruption of the router's neighbor cache,
   because the TO is included in the RS and is utilized by the router on
   the RA frame without changing the neighbor cache.

   When the host receives unicast or multicast RAs from the router, if
   the host determines from the received RAs that it has moved to a new
   link, the host MUST immediately move all unicast global addresses to
   the "Deprecated" state and configure new addresses using the subnet
   prefixes obtained from the RA.  For all unicast link local addresses,
   the host MUST initiate NS signaling for optimistic Duplicate Address
   Detection to confirm the uniqueness of the unicast link local
   addresses on the new link.

   If the host determines from the received RAs that it has not moved to
   a new link (i.e. the link has not changed) and the previous state of
   an address was "Optimistic", then the host MUST send an NS to confirm
   that the address is unique on the link.  This is required because
   optimistic Duplicate Address Detection may not have completed on the
   previous point of attachment, so the host may not have confirmed
   address uniqueness.  If the previous state of an address was
   "Preferred", whether or not the host initiates optimistic Duplicate
   Address Detection depends on the configurable DNASameLinkDADFlag
   flag.  A host MUST forgo sending an NS to confirm uniqueness if the
   value of the DNASameLinkDAD flag is False.  If, however, the
   DNASameLinkDAD flag is True, the host MUST perform optimistic
   duplicate address detection on its unicast link local and unicast
   global addresses to determine address uniqueness.

5.2.7.3  DNA and Statefully Configured Addresses

   The DHCPv6 specification [18] requires hosts to send a DHCPv6 CONFIRM



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 27]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   message when a change in point of attachment is detected.  Since the
   DNA protocol provides the same level of movement detection as the
   DHCPv6 CONFIRM, it is RECOMMENDED that DNA hosts not utilize the
   DHCPv6 CONFIRM message when a DNA RA is received, to avoid excessive
   signaling.  If, however, a non-DNA RA is received, the host SHOULD
   use the DHCPv6 CONFIRM message as described in RFC 3315 [18] rather
   than wait for additional RAs to perform CPL, since this will reduce
   the amount of time required for the host to confirm whether or not it
   has moved to a new link.  If the CONFIRM message validates the
   addresses, the host can continue to use them.

   When a DNA RA is received and the received RA indicates that the host
   has not moved to a new link, the host SHOULD apply the same rules to
   interpreting the 'M' flag in the received RA and any subsequently
   received RAs as in RFC 4861 [2].  That is, if an RA is received with
   the 'M' flag set, then the 'M' flag value is copied into the
   ManagedFlag, and if the ManagedFlag changes from False to True the
   host should run DHCPv6, but if the ManagedFlag changes from True to
   False, the host should continue to run DHCPv6.  If, however, the
   value of the ManagedFlag remains the same both before and after the
   change in point of attachment on the same link has been confirmed, it
   is NOT RECOMMENDED that the host run DHCPv6 to obtain new addresses,
   since the old addresses will continue to be valid.

   If the DNA RA indicates that the host has moved to a new link or the
   DHCPv6 CONFIRM indicates that the addresses are invalid, the host
   MUST move its old addresses to the "Deprecated" state and MUST run
   DHCPv6 to obtain new addresses.  Normally, the DHCPv6 operation is
   4-message exchange, however, this exchange allows for redundancy
   (multiple DHCPv6 servers) without wasting addresses, as addresses are
   only provisionally assigned to a host until the host chooses and
   requests one of the provisionally assigned addresses.  If the DNA
   host supports the Rapid Commit Option [18], the host SHOULD use the
   Rapid Commit Option in order to shorten the exchange from 4 messages
   to 2 messages.

5.2.7.4  Packet Delivery During DNA

   The specification of packet delivery before, during, and immediately
   after DNA when a change in point of attachment occurs is out of scope
   for this document.  The details of how packets are delivered depends
   on the mobility management protocols (if any) available to the host's
   stack.

5.2.7.5  Multicast Address Configuration

   Multicast routers on a link are aware of which groups are in use
   within a link.  This information is used to undertake initiation of



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 28]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   multicast routing for off-link multicast sources to the link
   [11][19].

   If the returning RAs indicate that the host has not moved to a new
   link, no further action is required for multicast addresses to which
   the host has subscribed using MLD Report [19].  In particular, the
   host MUST NOT perform MLD signaling for any multicast addresses
   unless such signaling was not performed prior to movement to the new
   point of attachment.  For example, if an address is put into the
   "Optimistic" state prior to movement but the MLD Report for the
   Solicited_Node_Multicast_Address is not sent prior to movement to a
   new point of attachment, the host MUST send the MLD Report on the new
   point of attachment prior to performing optimistic Duplicate Address
   Detection.  The host SHOULD use the procedure described below for
   sending an MLD Report.

   If, on the other hand, the DNA RA indicates that the host has moved
   to a new link, the host MUST issue a new MLD Report to the router for
   subscribed multicast addresses.  MLD signaling for the
   Solicited_Node_Multicast_Addresses [3] MUST be sent prior to
   performing signaling for optimistic DAD.

   To avoid lengthy delays in address reconfiguration, it is RECOMMENDED
   that the host send the MLD Report for newly configured addresses
   immediately, as soon as the addresses have been constructed, rather
   than waiting for a random backoff.

   Hosts MUST defer MLD signaling until after the results of DNA have
   confirmed whether or not a link change has occurred.

6.  Security Considerations

6.1  Attacks on the Token Bucket

   A host on the link could easily drain the token bucket(s) of the
   router(s) on the link by continuously sending RS messages on the
   link.  For example, if a host sends one RS message every
   UNICAST_RA_INTERVAL, and send a additional RS every third
   UNICAST_RA_INTERVAL, the token bucket in the router(s) on the link
   will drain within MAX_UNICAST_RA_BURST * UNICAST_RA_INTERVAL * 3
   time-units.  For the recommended values of UNICAST_RA_INTERVAL and
   MAX_UNICAST_RA_BURST, this value is 3000 milliseconds.  It is not
   clear whether arrival of such RS messages can be recognized by the
   router as a DoS attack.  This attack can also be mitigated by
   aggregating responses.  Since only one aggregation is possible in
   this interval due to MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS restriction, the routers
   may not be able protect the tokens in the bucket.




Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 29]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


6.2  Attacks on DNA Hosts

   RFC 3756 outlines a collection of threats involving rouge routers.
   Since DNAv6 requires a host to obtain trustworthy responses from
   routers, such threats are relevant to DNAv6.  In order to counter
   such threats, DNAv6 hosts SHOULD support RFC 3971 [4](SEND) secure
   router discovery.

6.3  Tentative options

   The use of the Tentative Option in Neighbour and Router Solicitation
   messages acts in a similar manner to SLLAO, updating neighbour cache
   entries, in a way which causes packet transmission.

   An attacker may cause messages be sent to another node by an
   advertising node (a reflector), without creating any ongoing state on
   the reflector.

   This attack requires one solicitation for each advertisement and the
   advertisement has to go to a unicast MAC destination.  That said, the
   size of the advertisement may be significantly larger than the
   solicitation, or the attacker and reflector may be on a medium with
   greater available bandwidth than the victim.

   For link-layers where it isn't possible to spoof the link-layer
   source address this allows a slightly increased risk of reflection
   attacks from nodes which are on-link.

   Additionally, since a SEND host must always advertise using SEND
   options and signatures, a non-SEND attacker may cause excess
   computation on both a victim node and a router by causing SEND
   advertisement messages to be transmitted to a particular MAC address
   and the all-nodes multicast.  SEND specifies guidelines to hosts
   receiving unsolicited advertisements in order to mitigate such
   attacks [4].

   While this is the same effect as experienced when accepting SLLAO
   from non-SEND nodes, the lack of created neighbour cache entries on
   the advertiser may make such attacks more difficult to trace.

   Modification of Neighbour Discovery messages on the network is
   possible, unless SEND is used. [4] provides a protocol specification
   in which soliciting nodes sign ND messages with a private key and use
   addresses generated from this key.

   Even if SEND is used, the lifetime of a neighbour cache entry may be
   extended by continually replaying a solicitation message to a
   particular router or hosts.  Since this may be achieved for any



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 30]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   Neighbour or Router Solicitation message, corresponding
   advertisements to the original transmitters of these solicitation
   messages may occur.

   SEND defines use of Timestamp values to protect a device from attack
   through replay of previously sent messages.  Although this applies to
   Neighbour and Router Solicitation messages, granularity of the
   timestamp allows the messages to be used for up to five minutes [4].

   All Router and Neighbour Solicitations using SEND contain a Nonce
   option, containing a random identifier octet string.  Since SEND
   messages are digitally signed, and may not be easily modified, replay
   attacks will contain the same Nonce option, as was used in the
   original solicitation.

6.4  Authorization and Detecting Network Attachment

   When a host is determining if link change has occurred, it may
   receive messages from devices with no advertised security mechanisms
   purporting to be routers, nodes sending signed router advertisements
   but with unknown delegation, or routers whose credentials need to be
   checked [14].  Where a host wishes to configure an unsecured router,
   it SHOULD confirm bidirectional reachability with the device, and it
   MUST mark the device as unsecured as described in [4].

   In any case, a secured router SHOULD be preferred over an unsecured
   one, except where other factors (unreachability) make the router
   unsuitable.  Since secured routers' advertisement services may be
   subject to attack, alternative (secured) reachability mechanisms from
   upper layers, or secured reachability of other devices known to be on
   the same link may be used to check reachability in the first
   instance.

6.5  Addressing

   While a DNA host is checking for link-change, and observing DAD, it
   may receive a DAD defense NA from an unsecured source.

   According to the SEND specification (RFC 3971 [4]) DAD defenses MAY
   be accepted even from non SEND nodes for the first configured address
   [4].

   While deconfiguring the address is a valid action in the case where a
   host collides with another address owner after arrival on a new link,
   In the case that the host returns immediately to the same link, such
   a DAD defense NA message may be a denial-of-service attempt.





Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 31]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


7.  Constants

   NUM_RS_RA_COMPLETE

      Definition: Number of RS/RA exchange messages necessary to declare
      the prefix list to be complete.

      Value: 2

   MIN_RA_WAIT

      Definition: Minimum time the host will have to wait before
      assuming receipt of all possible RAs.

      Default: 4 seconds

   UNICAST_RA_INTERVAL

      Definition: The interval corresponding to the maximum average rate
      of Router Solicitations that the router is prepared to service
      with unicast responses.  This is the interval at which the token
      bucket controlling the unicast responses is replenished.

      Value: 50 milliseconds

   MAX_UNICAST_RA_BURST

      Definition: The maximum size burst of Router Solicitations that
      the router is prepared to service with unicast responses.  This is
      the maximum number of tokens allowed in the token bucket
      controlling the unicast responses.

      Value: 20

   RA_SEPARATION

      Definition: The separation between responses from different
      routers on the same link to a single Router Solicitation.

      Value: 20 milliseconds

   MULTICAST_RA_DELAY

      Definition: The delay to be introduced when scheduling a multicast
      RA in response to a RS message when the token bucket is empty.






Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 32]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


      Value: 3000 milliseconds

   FAST_RA_THRESHOLD

      Definition: The maximum number of fast responses that a host
      should receive when soliciting for Router Advertisements.

      Value: 3

   LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME

      Definition: The time for which received prefix can be considered
      valid for use in link indentification.

      Value: LEAST_VALID_LIFETIME


8.  Contributors

   This document is the result of merging four different working group
   documents.  The draft-ietf-dna-protocol-01.txt authored by James
   Kempf, Sathya Narayanan, Erik Nordmark, Brett Pentland and JinHyeock
   Choi was used as the base for the merger.  The draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02
   authored by JinHyeock Choi and Erik Normark provided the idea/text
   for the complete prefix list mechanism described in this document.
   The best current practice for hosts draft (draft-ietf-dna-hosts-03)
   authored by Sathya Narayanan, Greg Daley and Nicolas Montavont, and
   the tentative options (draft-ietf-dna-tentative-00) authored by Greg
   Daley, Erik Normark and Nick Moore were also adopted into this
   document.

9.  Acknowledgments

   The design presented in this document grew out of discussions among
   the members of the DNA design team (JinHyeock Choi, Tero Kauppinen,
   James Kempf, Sathya Narayanan, Erik Nordmark and Brett Pentland).
   The spirited debates on the design, and the advantages and dis-
   advantages of various DNA solutions helped the creation of this
   document.

   Thanks to Syam Madanapalli who co-authored
   draft-jinchoi-dna-protocol2 from which this draft draws ideas, as
   well as providing feedback on draft-pentland-dna-protocol from which
   most of the text for this draft comes.

   Thanks to Greg Daley for much feedback on draft-pentland-dna-protocol
   and for helping to work out how to merge the two drafts into this
   one.



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 33]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   Thanks to Jari Arkko, Jim Bound, Tero Kauppinen, Syam Madanapalli,
   Mohan Parthasarathy, Subba Reddy, and Christian Vogt for their review
   of draft-ietf-dna-protocol-01.

   Thanks to Gabriel Montenegro for his review of
   draft-pentland-dna-protocol.

   Thanks also to other members of the DNA working group for their
   comments that helped shape this work.

10.  References

10.1  Normative References

   [1]  Choi, JH. and G. Daley, "Goals of Detecting Network Attachment
        in IPv6", RFC 4135, August 2005.

   [2]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor
        Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, December 1998.

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

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

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

10.2  Informative References

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

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

   [8]   Krishnan, S. and SG. Daley, "Simple procedures for Detecting
         Network Attachment in IPv6", draft-ietf-dna-simple-01 (work in
         progress), July 2008.

   [9]   Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
         IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [10]  Haskin, D. and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 2472,
         December 1998.

   [11]  Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast Listener



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 34]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


         Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999.

   [12]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Internet Control Message Protocol
         (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
         Specification", RFC2463 2463, December 1998.

   [13]  Christensen, M., Kimball, K., and F. Solensky, "Considerations
         for IGMP and MLD Snooping Switches", draft-ietf-magma-snoop-12
         (work in progress), February 2005.

   [14]  Nikander, P., Kempf, J., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor
         Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 2004.

   [15]  Liebsch, M., Singh, A., Chaskar, H., Funato, D., and E. Shim,
         "Candidate Access Router Discovery (CARD)", RFC 4066,
         July 2005.

   [16]  Koodli, R., "Fast Handovers for Mobile IPv6", RFC 4068,
         July 2005.

   [17]  O'Hara, B. and G. Ennis, "Wireless LAN Medium Access Control
         (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications", ANSI/IEEE
         Std 802.11, 1999.

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

   [19]  Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2
         (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004.

   [20]  Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)
         Addressing Architecture", RFC 3513, April 2003.

   [21]  Haberman, B. and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags
         Option", RFC 5175, March 2008.

   [22]  Yegin, A., "Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting
         Network Attachments", draft-ietf-dna-link-information-00 (work
         in progress), September 2004.

   [23]  Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology",
         draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology-06 (work in progress),
         February 2004.

   [24]  Choi, J. and E. Nordmark, "DNA with unmodified routers: Prefix
         list based approach", draft-ietf-dna-cpl-00 (work in progress),
         April 2005.



Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 35]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


Authors' Addresses

   Sathya Narayanan (editor)
   School of Information Technology and Communications Design
   California State University, Monterey Bay
   3110, Inter-Garrison Road, Building 18, Room 150
   Seaside, CA  93955
   USA

   Phone: +1 (831) 582-33411
   Email: snarayanan@csumb.edu


   James Kempf
   DoCoMo Communications Labs USA
   USA

   Phone:
   Email: kempf@docomolabs-usa.com


   Erik Nordmark
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.
   17 Network Circle
   Mountain View, CA
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 786 2921
   Email: erik.nordmark@sun.com


   Brett Pentland
   Centre for Telecommunications and Information Engineering
   Department of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering
   Monash University
   Clayton, Victoria  3800
   Australia

   Phone: +61 3 9905 5245
   Email: brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au











Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 36]


Internet-Draft          DNAv6 Alternative Design           November 2009


   JinHyeock Choi
   Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology
   PO Box 111
   Suwon 440-600
   Korea

   Phone: +82-31-280-8194
   Email: jinchoe@samsung.com


   Greg Daley
   Centre for Telecommunications and Information Engineering
   Department of Electrical adn Computer Systems Engineering
   Monash University
   Clayton, Victoria  3800
   Australia

   Phone: +61 3 9905 4655
   Email: greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au


   Nicolas Montavont
   LSIIT - Univerity Louis Pasteur
   Pole API, bureau C444
   Boulevard Sebastien Brant
   Illkirch  67400
   FRANCE

   Phone: (33) 3 90 24 45 87
   Email: montavont@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr
   URI:   http://www-r2.u-strasbg.fr/~montavont/


   Nick 'Sharkey' Moore

   Email: sharkey@zoic.org















Narayanan, et al.         Expires June 2, 2010                 [Page 37]


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