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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 RFC 4786

Network Working Group                                           J. Abley
Internet-Draft                                                       ISC
Expires: August 19, 2005                                    K. Lindqvist
                                                Netnod Internet Exchange
                                                       February 15, 2005


                     Operation of Anycast Services
                     draft-ietf-grow-anycast-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is subject to all provisions
   of Section 3 of RFC 3667.  By submitting this Internet-Draft, each
   author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of
   which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of
   which he or she become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

   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 August 19, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

   As the Internet has grown, and as systems and networked services
   within enterprises have been more pervasive, many services with high
   availability requirements have emerged.  These requirements have
   increased the demands on the reliability of the infrastructure on
   which those services rely.



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   Various techniques have been employed to increase the availability of
   services deployed on the Internet.  This document presents a series
   of recommendations for distribution of services using anycast.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

   3.  Anycast Service Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1   General Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.2   Goals  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

   4.  Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1   Protocol Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2   Node Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3   Routing Systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.3.1   Anycast within an IGP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.3.2   Anycast within the Global Internet . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.4   Routing Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.4.1   Signalling Service Availability  . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.4.2   Covering Prefix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.4.3   Equal-Cost Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.4.4   Route Dampening  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.4.5   Reverse Path Forwarding Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.4.6   Propagation Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.4.7   Other Peoples' Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.4.8   Aggregation Risks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.5   Addressing Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.6   Data Synchronisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     4.7   Node Autonomy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     4.8   Multi-Service Nodes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       4.8.1   Multiple Covering Prefixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.8.2   Pessimistic Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       4.8.3   Intra-Node Interior Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . 16

   5.  Service Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     5.1   Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.1   Denial-of-Service Attack Mitigation  . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.2   Increased Risk of Service Compromise . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.3   Service Hijacking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

   7.  Protocol Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 21














































Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


1.  Introduction

   To distribute a service using anycast, the service is first
   associated with a stable set of IP addresses, and reachability to
   those addresses is advertised in a routing system from multiple,
   independent service nodes.  Various techniques for anycast deployment
   of services are discussed in RFC 1546 [4], ISC-TN-2003-1 [14] and
   ISC-TN-2004-1 [15].

   Anycast has in recent years become increasingly popular for adding
   redundancy to DNS servers to complement the redundancy which the DNS
   architecture itself already provides.  Several root DNS server
   operators have distributed their servers widely around the Internet,
   and both resolver and authority servers are commonly distributed
   within the networks of service providers.  Anycast distribution has
   been used by commercial DNS authority server operators for several
   years.  The use of anycast is not limited to the DNS, although the
   use of anycast imposes some additional limitations on the nature of
   the service being distributed, including transaction longevity,
   transaction state held on servers and data synchronisation
   capabilities.

   Although anycast is conceptually simple, its implementation
   introduces some pitfalls for operation of the service.  For example,
   monitoring the availability of the service becomes more difficult;
   the observed availability changes according to the location of the
   client within the network, and the client catchment of individual
   anycast nodes is not static, nor especially deterministic.

   This document will describe the use of anycast for both local scope
   distribution of services using an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) and
   global distribution using BGP [5].  Many of the issues for monitoring
   and data synchronisation are common to both, but deployment issues
   differ substantially.

2.  Terminology

   Service Address: an IP address associated with a particular service
      (e.g.  the address of a nameserver).
   Anycast: the practice of making a particular Service Address
      available in multiple, discrete, autonomous locations, such that
      datagrams sent are routed to one of several available locations.
   Anycast Node: an internally-connected collection of hosts and routers
      which together provide service for an anycast Service Address.
      The entire anycast system for the service consists of two or more
      separate Anycast Nodes.





Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   Local-Scope Anycast: reachability information for the anycast Service
      Address is propagated through a routing system in such a way that
      a particular anycast node is only visible to a subset of the whole
      routing system.
   Local Node: an Anycast Node providing service using a Local-Scope
      Anycast address.
   Global-Scope Anycast: reachability information for the anycast
      Service Address is propagated through a routing system in such a
      way that a particular anycast node is potentially visible to the
      whole routing system.
   Global Node: an Anycast Node providing service using a Global-Scope
      Anycast address.

3.  Anycast Service Distribution

3.1  General Description

   Anycast is the name given to the practice of making a Service Address
   available to a routing system at Anycast Nodes in two or more
   discrete locations.  The service provided by each node is necessarily
   consistent regardless of the particular node chosen by the routing
   system to handle a particular request.

   For services distributed using anycast, there is no inherent
   requirement for referrals to other servers or name-based service
   distribution ("round-robin DNS"), although those techniques could be
   combined with anycast service distribution if an application required
   it.  The routing system decides which node is used for each request,
   based on the topological design of the routing system and the point
   in the network at which the request originates.

   The Anycast Node chosen to service a particular query can be
   influenced by the traffic engineering capabilities of the routing
   protocols which make up the routing system.  The degree of influence
   available to the operator of the node depends on the scale of the
   routing system within which the Service Address is anycast.

   Load-balancing between Anycast Nodes is typically difficult to
   achieve (load distribution between nodes is generally unbalanced in
   terms of request and traffic load).  Distribution of load between
   nodes for the purposes of reliability, and coarse-grained
   distribution of load for the purposes of making popular services
   scalable can often be achieved, however.

   The scale of the routing system through which a service is anycast
   can vary from a small Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) connecting a
   small handful of components, to the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [5]
   connecting the global Internet, depending on the nature of the



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   service distribution that is required.

3.2  Goals

   A service may be anycast for a variety of reasons.  A number of
   common objectives are:

   1.  Coarse ("unbalanced") distribution of load across nodes, to allow
       infrastructure to scale to increased numbers of queries and to
       accommodate transient query peaks;
   2.  Mitigation of non-distributed denial of service attacks by
       localising damage to single anycast nodes;
   3.  Constraint of distributed denial of service attacks or flash
       crowds to local regions around anycast nodes (perhaps restricting
       query traffic to local peering links, rather than paid transit
       circuits);
   4.  To provide additional information to help locate location of
       traffic sources in the case of attack (or query) traffic which
       incorporates spoofed source addresses.  This information is
       derived from the property of anycast service distribution that
       the the selection of the Anycast Node used to service a
       particular query may be related to the topological source of the
       request.
   5.  Improvement of query response time, by reducing the network
       distance between client and server with the provision of a local
       Anycast Node.  The extent to which query response time is
       improved depends on the way that nodes are selected for the
       clients by the routing system.  Topological nearness within the
       routing system does not, in general, correlate to round-trip
       performance across a network; in some cases response times may
       see no reduction, and may increase.
   6.  To reduce a list of servers to a single, distributed address.
       For example, a large number of authoritative nameservers for a
       zone may be deployed using a small set of anycast Service
       Addresses; this approach can increase the accessibility of zone
       data in the DNS without increasing the size of a referral
       response from a nameserver authoritative for the parent zone.

4.  Design

4.1  Protocol Suitability

   When a service is anycast between two or more nodes, the routing
   system effectively makes the node selection decision on behalf of a
   client.  Since it is usually a requirement that a single
   client-server interaction is carried out between a client and the
   same server node for the duration of the transaction, it follows that
   the routing system's node selection decision ought to be stable for



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   an order of magnitude longer than the expected transaction time, if
   the service is to be provided reliably.

   Some services have very short transaction times, and may even be
   carried out using a single packet request and a single packet reply
   in some cases (e.g.  DNS transactions over UDP transport).  Other
   services involve far longer-lived transactions (e.g.  bulk file
   downloads and audio-visual media streaming).

   Some anycast deployments have very predictable routing systems, which
   can remain stable for long periods of time (e.g.  anycast within an
   well-managed and topologically-simple IGP, where node selection
   changes only occur as a response to node failures).  Other
   deployments have far less predictable characteristics (see
   Section 4.4.7).

   The stability of the routing system together with the transaction
   time of the service should be carefully compared when deciding
   whether a service is suitable for distribution using anycast.  In
   some cases, for new protocols, it may be practical to split large
   transactions into an initialisation phase which is handled by anycast
   servers, and a sustained phase which is provided by non-anycast
   servers, perhaps chosen during the initialisation phase.

   This document deliberately avoids prescribing rules as to which
   protocols or services are suitable for distribution by anycast; to
   attempt to do so would be presumptuous.

4.2  Node Placement

   Decisions as to where Anycast Nodes should be placed will depend to a
   large extent on the goals of the service distribution.  For example:

   o  A DNS recursive resolver service might be distributed within an
      ISP's network, one Anycast Node per PoP.
   o  A root DNS server service might be distributed throughout the
      Internet with nodes located in regions with poor external
      connectivity, to ensure that the DNS functions adequately within
      the region during times of external network failure.
   o  An FTP mirror service might include local nodes located at
      exchange points, so that ISPs connected to that exchange point
      could download bulk data more cheaply than if they had to use
      expensive transit circuits.

   In general node placement decisions should be made with consideration
   of likely traffic requirements, the potential for flash crowds or
   denial-of-service traffic, the stability of the local routing system
   and the failure modes with respect to node failure, or local routing



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   system failure.

4.3  Routing Systems

4.3.1  Anycast within an IGP

   There are several common motivations for the distribution of a
   Service Address within the scope of an IGP:

   1.  to improve service response times, by hosting a service close to
       other users of the network;
   2.  to improve service reliability by providing automatic fail-over
       to backup nodes; and
   3.  to keep service traffic local, to avoid congesting wide-area
       links.

   In each case the decisions as to where and how services are
   provisioned can be made by network engineers without requiring such
   operational complexities as regional variances in the configuration
   of client computers, or deliberate DNS incoherence (causing DNS
   queries to yield different answers depending on where the queries
   originate).

   When a service is anycast within an IGP the routing system is
   typically under the control of the same organisation that is
   providing the service, and hence the relationship between service
   transaction characteristics and network stability are likely to be
   relatively well-understood.  This technique is consequently
   applicable to a larger number of applications than Internet-wide
   anycast service distribution (see Section 4.1).

   An IGP will generally have no inherent restriction on the length of
   prefix that can be introduced to it.  There may well therefore be no
   need to construct a covering prefix for particular Service Addresses;
   host routes corresponding to the Service Address can instead be
   introduced to the routing system.  See Section 4.4.2 for more
   discussion of the requirement for a covering prefix.

   IGPs often feature little or no aggregation of routes, partly due to
   algorithmic complexities in supporting aggregation.  There is little
   motiviation for aggregation in many networks' IGPs in any case, since
   the amount of routing information carried in the IGP is small enough
   that scaling concerns in routers do not arise.  For discussion of
   aggregation risks in other routing systems, see Section 4.4.8.

   By reducing the scope of the IGP to just the hosts providing service
   (together with one or more gateway routers) this technique can be
   applied to the construction of server clusters.  This application is



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   discussed in some detail in [15].

4.3.2  Anycast within the Global Internet

   Service Addresses may be anycast within the global Internet routing
   system in order to distribute services across the entire network.
   The principal differences between this application and the IGP-scope
   distribution discussed in Section 4.3.1 are that:

   1.  the routing system is, in general, controlled by other people;
       and
   2.  the routing protocol concerned (BGP), and commonly-accepted
       practices in its deployment, impose some additional constraints
       (see Section 4.4).

4.4  Routing Considerations

4.4.1  Signalling Service Availability

   When a routing system is provided with reachability information for a
   Service Address from an individual node, packets addressed to that
   Service Address will start to arrive at the node.  Since it is
   essential for the node to be ready to accept requests before they
   start to arrive, a coupling between the routing information and the
   availability of the service at a particular node is desirable.

   Where a routing advertisement from a node corresponds to a single
   Service Address, this coupling might be such that availability of the
   service triggers the route advertisement, and non-availability of the
   service triggers a route withdrawal.  This can be achieved using
   routing protocol implementations on the same server which provide the
   service being distributed, which are configured to advertise and
   withdraw the route advertisement in conjunction with the availability
   (and health) of the software on the host which processes service
   requests.  An example of such an arrangement for a DNS service is
   included in [15].

   Where a routing advertisement from a node corresponds to two or more
   Service Addresses, it may not be appropriate to trigger a route
   withdrawal due to the non-availability of a single service.  Another
   approach is to route requests for the service which is down at one
   Anycast Node to a different Anycast Node at which the service is up.
   This approach is discussed in Section 4.8.

4.4.2  Covering Prefix

   In some routing systems (e.g.  the BGP-based routing system of the
   global Internet) it is not possible, in general, to propagate a host



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   route with confidence that availability of the route will be
   signalled throughout the network.  This is a consequence of
   operational policy, and not a protocol restriction.

   In such cases it is necessary to propagate a route which covers the
   Service Address, and which has a sufficiently short prefix that it
   will not be discarded by commonly-deployed import policies.  For IPv4
   Service Addresses, this is often a 24-bit prefix, but there are other
   well-documented examples of IPv4 import polices which filter on
   Regional Internet Registry (RIR) allocation boundaries, and hence
   some experimentation may be prudent.  Corresponding import policies
   for IPv6 prefixes also exist.  See Section 4.5 for more discussion of
   IPv6 Service Addresses and corresponding anycast routes.

   The propagation of a single route per service has some associated
   scaling issues which are discussed in Section 4.4.8.

   Where multiple Service Addresses are covered by the same covering
   route, there is no longer a tight coupling between the advertisement
   of that route and the individual services associated with the covered
   host routes.  The resulting impact on signaling availability of
   individual services is discussed in Section 4.4.1 and Section 4.8.

4.4.3  Equal-Cost Paths

   Some routing systems support equal-cost paths to the same
   destination.  Where multiple, equal-cost paths exist and lead to
   different anycast nodes, there is a risk that different request
   packets associated with a single transaction might be delivered to
   more than one node.  Services provided over TCP necessarily involve
   transactions with multiple request packets, due to the TCP setup
   handshake.

   Equal cost paths are commonly supported in IGPs.  Multi-node
   selection for a single transaction can be avoided in most cases by
   careful consideration of IGP link metrics, or by applying equal-cost
   multi-path (ECMP) selection algorithms which cause a single node to
   be selected for a single multi-packet transaction.  For a description
   of hash-based ECMP selection, see [15].

   For services which are distributed across the global Internet using
   BGP, equal-cost paths are normally not a consideration: BGP's exit
   selection algorithm usually selects a single, consistent exit for a
   single destination regardless of whether multiple candidate paths
   exist.  Implementations of BGP exist that support multi-path exit
   selection, however, and corner cases where dual selected exits route
   to different nodes are possible.  Analysis of the likely incidence of
   such corner cases for particular distributions of Anycast Nodes are



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   recommended for services which involve multi-packet transactions.

4.4.4  Route Dampening

   Frequent advertisements and withdrawals of individual prefixes in BGP
   are known as flaps.  Rapid flapping can lead to CPU exhaustion on
   routers quite remote from the source of the instability, and for this
   reason rapid route oscillations are frequently "damped", as described
   in [10].

   A dampened path will be suppressed by routers for an interval which
   increases according to the frequency of the observed oscillation; a
   suppressed path will not propagate.  Hence a single router can
   prevent the propagation of a flapping prefix to the rest of an
   autonomous system, affording other routers in the network protection
   from the instability.

   Some implementations of flap dampening penalises oscillating
   advertisements based on the observed AS_PATH, and not on the NLRI.
   For this reason, network instability which leads to route flapping
   from a single anycast node ought not to cause advertisements from
   other nodes (which have different AS_PATH attributes) to be dampened.

   As dampening works on advertisements with the same AS_PATH attribute,
   care should be taken so that the AS_PATH is as diverse as possible
   for the anycasted nodes.  The Anycasted nodes should have the same
   origin AS for their advertisements, but they should have different
   upstream ASs for each node.  If the upstream AS is the same at all
   locations, there is a risk that the upstream AS will peer with the
   ASs at multiple locations and could therefore propagate the same
   AS_PATH, but for different Anycast nodes.  This could render the
   service for multiple Anycast nodes unavailable due to dampening
   caused by only one of them.

   Where different implementations of flap dampening are prevalent,
   individual nodes' instability may result in stable nodes becoming
   unavailable.  Judicious deployment of Local Nodes in combination with
   especially stable Global Nodes (with high inter-AS path splay,
   redundant hardware, power, etc) may help mitigate such problems.

4.4.5  Reverse Path Forwarding Checks

   Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) checks, first described in RFC 2267
   [8], are commonly deployed as part of ingress interface packet
   filters on routers in the global Internet in order to deny packets
   whose source addresses are spoofed (see also RFC 2827 [11]).
   Deployed implementations of RPF make several modes of operation
   available (e.g.  "loose" and "strict").



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   Some modes of RPF can cause non-spoofed packets to be denied when
   they originate from multi-homed site, since selected paths might
   legitimately not correspond with the ingress interface of non-spoofed
   packets from the multi-homed site.  This issue is discussed in RFC
   3704 [12].

   A collection of anycast nodes deployed across the Internet is largely
   indistinguishable from a distributed, multi-homed site to the routing
   system, and hence this risk also exists for anycast nodes, even if
   individual nodes are not multi-homed.  Care should be taken to ensure
   that each anycast node is treated as a multi-homed network, and that
   the corresponding recommendations in RFC 3704 [12] with respect to
   RPF checks are heeded.

4.4.6  Propagation Scope

   In the context of Anycast service distribution across the global
   Internet, Global Nodes are those which are capable of providing
   service to clients anywhere in the network; reachability information
   for the service is propagated globally, without restriction, by
   advertising the routes covering the Service Addresses for global
   transit to one or more providers.

   More than one Global Node can exist for a single service (and indeed
   this is often the case, for reasons of redundancy and load-sharing).

   In contrast, it is sometimes desirable to deploy an Anycast Node
   which only provides services to a local catchment of autonomous
   systems, and which is deliberately not available to the entire
   Internet; such nodes are referred to in this document as Local Nodes.
   An example of circumstances in which a Local Node may be appropriate
   are nodes designed to serve a region with rich internal connectivity
   but unreliable, congested or expensive access to the rest of the
   Internet.

   Local Nodes advertise covering routes for Service Addresses in such a
   way that their propagation is restricted.  This might be done using
   well-known community string attributes such as NO_EXPORT [7] or
   NOPEER [13], or by arranging with peers to apply a conventional
   "peering" import policy instead of a "transit" import policy, or some
   suitable combination of measures.

   Advertising reachability to Service Addresses from Local Nodes should
   ideally be made using a routing policy that require presence of
   explicit attributes for propagation, rather than reling on implicit
   (default) policy.  Inadvertant propagation of a route beyond its
   intended horizon can result in capacity problems for Local Nodes
   which might degrade service performance.



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


4.4.7  Other Peoples' Networks

   When Anycast services are deployed across networks operated by
   others, their reachability is dependent on routing policies and
   topology changes (planned and unplanned) which are unpredictable and
   sometimes difficult to identify.  Since the routing system may
   include networks operated by multiple, unrelated organisations, the
   possibility of unforeseen interactions resulting from the
   combinations of unrelated changes also exists.

   The stability and predictability of such a routing system should be
   taken into consideration when assessing the suitability of anycast as
   a distribution strategy for particular services and protocols (see
   also Section 4.1).

   By way of mitigation, routing policies used by Anycast Nodes across
   such routing systems should be conservative, individual nodes'
   internal and external/connecting infrastructure should be scaled to
   support loads far in excess of the average, and the service should be
   monitored proactively (Section 5.1) from many points in order to
   avoid unpleasant surprises.

4.4.8  Aggregation Risks

   The propagation of a single route for each anycast service does not
   scale well for routing systems in which the load of routing
   information which must be carried is a concern, and where there are
   potentially many services to distribute.  For example, an autonomous
   system which provides services to the Internet with N Service
   Addresses covered by a single exported route, for example, would need
   to advertise (N+1) routes if each of those services were to be
   distributed using anycast.

   The common practice of applying minimm prefix-length filters in
   import policies on the Internet (see Section 4.4.2) means that for a
   route covering a Service Address to be usefully propagated the prefix
   length must be substantially less than that required to advertise
   just the host route.  Widespread advertisement of short prefixes for
   individual services hence also has a negative impact on address
   conservation.

   Both of these issues can be mitigated to some extent by the use of a
   single covering prefix to accommodate multiple Service Addresses, as
   described in Section 4.8).  This implies a decoupling of the route
   advertisement from individual service availability (see
   Section 4.4.1), however, and can also impact the stability of the
   service as a whole (see Section 4.7).




Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   In general, the scaling problems described here prevent anycast from
   being a useful, general approach for service distribution on the
   global Internet.  It remains, however, a useful technique for
   distributing a limited number of Internet-critical services.

4.5  Addressing Considerations

   Service Addresses should be unique within the routing system that
   connects all Anycast Nodes to all possible clients of the service.
   Service Addresses must also be chosen so that corresponding routes
   will be allowed to propagate within that routing system.

   For an IPv4-numbered service deployed across the Internet, for
   example, an address might be chosen from a block where the minimum
   RIR allocation size is 24 bits, and reachability to that address
   might be provided by originating the covering 24-bit prefix.

   For an IPv4-numbered service deployed within a private network, a
   locally-unused RFC1918 [6] address might be chosen, and rechability
   to that address might be signalled using a (32-bit) host route.

   For IPv6-numbered services, Anycast Addresses are not scoped
   differently from unicast addresses (see RFC2713 [9]).  As such the
   guidelines presented for IPv4 with respect to address suitability
   follow for IPv6.

   RFC2713 [9] also imposes two restrictions on the use of anycast which
   inhibit deployment of host-based services:

   o  An [IPv6] anycast address must not be used as the source address
      of an IPv6 packet.
   o  An anycast address must not be assigned to an IPv6 host, that is,
      it may be assigned to an IPv6 router only.

   Despite these restrictions (and in violation of them), production
   deployment of IPv6 anycast services across the Internet has taken
   place.

4.6  Data Synchronisation

   Although some services have been deployed in localised form (such
   that clients from particular regions are presented with
   regionally-relevant content) many services have the property that
   responses to client requests should be consistent, regardless of
   where the request originates.  For a service distributed using
   anycast, that implies that different Anycast Nodes must operate in a
   consistent manner and, where that consistent behaviour is based on a
   data set, that the data concerned be synchronised between nodes.



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   The mechanism by which data is synchronised depends on the nature of
   the service; examples are zone transfers for authoritative DNS
   servers and rsync for FTP archives.  In general, the synchronisation
   of data between Anycast Nodes will involve transactions between
   non-anycast addresses.

   Data synchronisation across public networks should be carried out
   with appropriate authentication and encryption.

4.7  Node Autonomy

   For an Anycast deployment whose goals include improved reliability
   through redundancy, it is important to minimise the opportunity for a
   single defect to compromise many (or all) nodes, or for the failure
   of one node to provide a cascading failure bringing down additional
   successive nodes until the service as a whole is defeated.

   Co-dependencies are avoided by making each node as autonomous and
   self-sufficient as possible.  The degree to which nodes can survive
   failure elsewhere depends on the nature of the service being
   delivered, but for services which accommodate disconnected operation
   (e.g.  the timed propagation of changes between master and slave
   servers in the DNS) a high degree of autonomy can be achieved.

   The possibility of cascading failure due to load can also be reduced
   by the deployment of both Global and Local Nodes for a single
   service, since the effective fail-over path of traffic is, in
   general, from Local Node to Global Node; traffic that might sink one
   Local Node is unlikely to sink all Local Nodes, except in the most
   degenerate cases.

   The chance of cascading failure due to a software defect in an
   operating system or server can be reduced in many cases by deploying
   nodes running different software implementations.

4.8  Multi-Service Nodes

   For a service distributed across a routing system where covering
   prefixes are required to announce reachability to a single Service
   Address (see Section 4.4.2), special consideration is required in the
   case where multiple services need to be distributed across a single
   set of nodes.  This results from the requirement to signal
   availability of individual services to the routing system so that
   requests for service are not received by nodes which are not able to
   process them (see Section 4.4.1).

   Several approaches are described in the following sections.




Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


4.8.1  Multiple Covering Prefixes

   Each Service Address is chosen such that only one Service Address is
   covered by each advertised prefix.  Advertisement and withdrawal of a
   single covering prefix can be tightly coupled to the availability of
   the single associated service.

   This is the most straightforward approach.  However, since it makes
   very poor utilisation of globally-unique addresses, it is only
   suitable for use for a small number of critical, infrastructural
   services such as root DNS servers.  General deployment of services
   using this approach will not scale.

4.8.2  Pessimistic Withdrawal

   Multiple Service Addresses are chosen such that they are covered by a
   single prefix.  Advertisement and withdrawl of the single covering
   prefix is coupled to the availability of all associated services; if
   any individual service becomes unavailable, the covering prefix is
   withdrawn.

   The coupling between service availability and advertisement of the
   covering prefix is complicated by the requirement that all Service
   Addresses must be available -- the announcement needs to be triggered
   by the presence of all component routes, and not just a single
   covered route.

   The fact that a single malfunctioning service causes all deployed
   services in a node to be taken off-line may make this approach
   unsuitable for many applications.

4.8.3  Intra-Node Interior Connectivity

   Multiple Service Addresses are chosen such that they are covered by a
   single prefix.  Advertisement and withdrawal of the single covering
   prefix is coupled to the availability of any one service.  Nodes have
   interior connectivity, e.g.  using tunnels, and host routes for
   service addresses are distributed using an IGP which extends to
   include routers at all nodes.

   In the event that a service is unavailable at one node, but available
   at other nodes, a request may be routed over the interior network
   from the receiving node towards some other node for processing.

   In the event that some local services in a node are down and the node
   is disconnected from other nodes, continued advertisement of the
   covering prefix might cause requests to become black-holed.




Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   This approach allows reasonable address utilisation of the netblock
   covered by the announced prefix, at the expense of reduced autonomy
   of individual nodes; the IGP in which all nodes participate can be
   viewed as a single point of failure.

5.  Service Management

5.1  Monitoring

   Monitoring a service which is distributed is more complex than
   monitoring a non-distributed service, since the observed accuracy and
   availability of the service is, in general, different when viewed
   from clients attached to different parts of the network.  When a
   problem is identified, it is also not always obvious which node
   served the request, and hence which node is malfunctioning.

   It is recommended that distributed services are monitored from probes
   distributed representatively across the routing system, and, where
   possible, the identity of the node answering individual requests is
   recorded along with performance and availability statistics.  The
   RIPE NCC DNSMON service [16] is an example of such monitoring for the
   DNS.

   Monitoring the routing system (from a variety of places, in the case
   of routing systems where perspective counts) can also provide useful
   diagnostics for troubleshooting service availability.  This can be
   achieved using dedicated probes, or public route measurement
   facilities on the Internet such as the RIPE NCC Routing Information
   Service [17] and the University of Oregon Route Views Project [18].

6.  Security Considerations

6.1  Denial-of-Service Attack Mitigation

   This document describes mechanisms for deploying services on the
   Internet which can be used to mitigate vulnerability to attack.

6.2  Increased Risk of Service Compromise

   The distribution of a service across several (or many) autonomous
   nodes imposes increased monitoring as well as an increased systems
   administration burden on the operator of the service which might
   reduce the effectiveness of host and router security.

   The potential benefit of being able to take compromised servers
   off-line without compromising the service can only be realised if
   there are working procedures to do so quickly and reliably.




Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


6.3  Service Hijacking

   It is possible that an unauthorised party might advertise routes
   corresponding to anycast Service Addresses across a network, and by
   doing so capture legitimate request traffic or process requests in a
   manner which compromises the service (or both).  A rogue Anycast Node
   might be difficult to detect by clients or by the operator of the
   service.

   The risk of service hijacking by manipulation of the routing sytem
   exists regardless of whether a service is distributed using anycast.
   However, the fact that legitimate Anycast Nodes are observable in the
   routing system may make it more difficult to detect rogue nodes.

7.  Protocol Considerations

   This document does not impose any protocol considerations.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no action from IANA.

9.  References

   [1]   Oran, D., "OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol", RFC 1142,
         February 1990.

   [2]   Rivest, R., "The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm", RFC 1321, April
         1992.

   [3]   Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", RFC 1247, July 1991.

   [4]   Partridge, C., Mendez, T. and W. Milliken, "Host Anycasting
         Service", RFC 1546, November 1993.

   [5]   Rekhter, Y. and T. Li, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)",
         RFC 1771, March 1995.

   [6]   Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G. and E.
         Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5,
         RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [7]   Chandrasekeran, R., Traina, P. and T. Li, "BGP Communities
         Attribute", RFC 1997, August 1996.

   [8]   Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
         Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
         Address Spoofing", RFC 2267, January 1998.



Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   [9]   Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
         Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.

   [10]  Villamizar, C., Chandra, R. and R. Govindan, "BGP Route Flap
         Damping", RFC 2439, November 1998.

   [11]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
         Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
         Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000.

   [12]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
         Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004.

   [13]  Huston, G., "NOPEER Community for Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)
         Route Scope Control", RFC 3765, April 2004.

   [14]  Abley, J., "Hierarchical Anycast for Global Service
         Distribution", March 2003,
         <http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.html>.

   [15]  Abley, J., "A Software Approach to Distributing Requests for
         DNS Service using GNU Zebra, ISC BIND 9 and FreeBSD", March
         2004, <http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2004-1.html>.

   [16]  <http://dnsmon.ripe.net/>

   [17]  <http://ris.ripe.net>

   [18]  <http://www.route-views.org>


Authors' Addresses

   Joe Abley
   Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 423 1317
   Email: jabley@isc.org
   URI:   http://www.isc.org/









Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


   Kurt Erik Lindqvist
   Netnod Internet Exchange
   Bellmansgatan 30
   118 47 Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: kurtis@kurtis.pp.se
   URI:   http://www.netnod.se/











































Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                 Anycast BCP                 February 2005


Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

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


Disclaimer of Validity

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


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).  This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Abley & Lindqvist        Expires August 19, 2005               [Page 21]


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