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

Versions: (draft-anipko-mif-mpvd-arch) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 RFC 7556

MIF Working Group                                         D. Anipko, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                              Unaffiliated
Intended status: Informational                          January 23, 2015
Expires: July 25, 2015

               Multiple Provisioning Domain Architecture
                      draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-arch-09

Abstract

   This document is a product of the work of the MIF Architecture Design
   team.  It outlines a solution framework for some of the issues
   experienced by nodes that can be attached to multiple networks
   simultaneously.  The framework defines the concept of a Provisioning
   Domain (PvD) which is a a consistent set of network configuration
   information.  PvD aware nodes learn PvD specific information from the
   networks they are attached to and / or other sources.  PvDs are used
   to enable separation and configuration consistency in presence of
   multiple concurrent connections.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on July 25, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text





Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
     1.1.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Definitions and Types of PvDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Explicit PvDs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Implicit PvDs and Incremental Adoption of Explicit PvDs  .  5
     2.3.  Relationship Between PvDs and Interfaces . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.4.  PvD Identity / Naming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.5.  The Relationship to Dual-Stack Networks  . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.  Conveying PvD information using DHCPv6 and Router Advertisement 8
     3.1.  Separate Messages or One Message?  . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.2.  Securing PvD Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.3.  Backward Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.4.  Retracting / Updating PvD Information  . . . . . . . . . .  8
     3.5.  Conveying Configuration Information using IKEv2  . . . . .  9
   4.  Example Network Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.1.  A Mobile Node  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.2.  A Node with a VPN Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     4.3.  A Home Network and a Network Operator with Multiple PvDs . 11
   5.  Reference Model for the PvD-aware Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     5.1.  Constructions and Maintenance of Separate PvDs . . . . . . 12
     5.2.  Consistent use of PvDs for Network Connections . . . . . . 12
       5.2.1.  Name Resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.2.2.  Next-hop and Source Address Selection  . . . . . . . . 13
       5.2.3.  Listening Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
         5.2.3.1.  Processing of Incoming Traffic . . . . . . . . . . 14
           5.2.3.1.1.  Connection-oriented APIs . . . . . . . . . . . 15
           5.2.3.1.2.  Connectionless APIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       5.2.4.  Enforcement of Security Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.3.  Connectivity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.4.  Relationship to Interface Management and Connection Manage 16
   6.  PvD support in APIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.1.  Basic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.2.  Intermediate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.3.  Advanced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   7.  PvD Trust for PvD-Aware Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.1.  Untrusted PvDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     7.2.  Trusted PvDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       7.2.1.  Authenticated PvDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
       7.2.2.  PvDs Trusted by Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   8.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   9.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   11. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     12.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     12.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

1.  Introduction

Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   Nodes attached to multiple networks may encounter problems from
   conflicting configuration between the networks, or attempts to
   simultaneously use more than one network.  While various techniques
   are currently used to tackle these problems ([RFC6419]), in many
   cases issues may still appear.  The MIF problem statement document
   [RFC6418] describes the general landscape and discusses many of the
   specific issues and scenario details.

   Problems, enumerated in [RFC6418], can be grouped into 3 categories:

   1.  Lack of consistent and distinctive management of configuration
       elements associated with different networks.

   2.  Inappropriate mixed use of configuration elements associated with
       different networks during a particular network activity or
       connection.

   3.  Use of a particular network that is not consistent with the
       intended use of the network, or the intent of the communicating
       parties, leading to connectivity failure and / or other undesired
       consequences.

   An example of (1) is a single, node-scoped list of DNS server IP
   addresses learned from different networks leading to failures or
   delays in resolution of names from particular namespaces;  an example
   of (2) is an attempt to resolve the name of an HTTP proxy server
   learned from network A using a DNS server learned from network B; an
   example of (3) is the use of an employer-provided VPN connection for
   peer-to-peer connectivity unrelated to employment activities.

   This architecture provides solutions to these categories of problems,
   respectively, by:

   1.  Introducing the formal notion of PvDs, including identity for
       PvDs, and describing mechanisms for nodes to learn the intended
       associations between acquired network configuration information
       elements.

   2.  Introducing a reference model for PvD-aware nodes that prevents
       the inadvertent mixed use of configuration information which may
       belong to different PvDs.

   3.  Providing recommendations on PvD selection based on PvD identity
       and connectivity tests for common scenarios.

1.1.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this





Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

2.  Definitions and Types of PvDs

   Provisioning Domain:
      A consistent set of network configuration information.
      Classically, all of the configuration information available on a
      single interface is provided by a single source (such as a network
      administrator) and can therefore be treated as a single
      provisioning domain.  In modern IPv6 networks, multihoming can
      result in more than one provisioning domain being present on a
      single link.  In some scenarios, it is also possible for elements
      of the same PvD to be present on multiple links.

      Typical examples of information in a provisioning domain learned
      from the network are:

      *  Source address prefixes for use by connections within the
         provisioning domain

      *  IP address(es) of DNS server(s)

      *  Name of HTTP proxy server (if available)

      *  DNS suffixes associated with the network

      *  Default gateway address

   PvD-aware node:
      A node that supports the association of network configuration
      information into PvDs and the use of these PvDs to serve requests
      for network connections in ways consistent with the
      recommendations of this architecture.

2.1.  Explicit PvDs

   A node may receive explicit information from the network and / or
   other sources conveying the presence of PvDs and the association of
   particular network information with a particular PvD. PvDs that are
   constructed based on such information are referred to as "explicit"
   in this document.

   Protocol changes or extensions will likely be required to support
   explicit PvDs through IETF-defined mechanisms.  As an example, one
   could think of one or more DHCP options carrying PvD identity and /










Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   or its elements.

   A different approach could be the introduction of a DHCP option which
   only carries the identity of a PvD. Here, the associations between
   network information elements with the identity is implemented by the
   respective protocols, for example with a Router Discovery [RFC4861]
   option associating an address range with a PvD.

   Another example of a delivery mechanism for PvDs are key exchange or
   tunneling protocols, such as  IKEv2 [RFC5996] that allow the
   transport of host configuration information.

   Specific, existing or new features of networking protocols that
   enable the delivery of PvD identity and association with various
   network information elements will be defined in companion design
   documents.

   Link-specific and / or vendor-proprietary mechanisms for the
   discovery of PvD information (differing from IETF-defined mechanisms)
   can be used by nodes either separate from, or in conjunction with,
   IETF-defined mechanisms; providing they allow the discovery of the
   necessary elements of the PvD(s).

   In all cases, nodes must by default ensure that the lifetime of all
   dynamically discovered PvD configuration is appropriately limited by
   relevant events.  For example, if an interface media state change is
   indicated, previously discovered information relevant to that
   interface may no longer be valid and so need to be confirmed or re-
   discovered.

   It is expected that the way a node makes use of PvD information is
   generally independent of the specific mechanism / protocol that the
   information was received by.

   In some network topologies, network infrastructure elements may need
   to advertise multiple PvDs.  Generally, the details of how this is
   performed will be defined in companion design documents.

2.2.  Implicit PvDs and Incremental Adoption of Explicit PvDs

   For the foreseeable future, there will be networks which do not
   advertise explicit PvD information, because deployment of new
   features in networking protocols is a relatively slow process.

   When connected to networks which don't advertise explicit PvD
   information, a PvD-aware node shall automatically create separate









Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   PvDs for received configuration.  Such PvDs are referred to in this
   document as "implicit".

   Through the use of implicit PvDs, PvD-aware nodes may still provide
   benefits to their users (when compared to non-PvD aware nodes) by
   following the best practices described in Section 5.

   PvD-aware nodes shall treat network information from different
   interfaces, which is not identified as belonging explicitly to some
   PvD, as belonging to separate PvDs, one per interface.

   Implicit PvDs can also occur in a mixed mode, i.e., where of multiple
   networks that are available on an attached link, only some advertise
   PvD information.  In this case, the PvD-aware node shall create
   explicit PvDs from information explicitly labeled as beloinging to
   PvDs.   It shall associate configuration information not labeled with
   an explicit PvD with implicit PvD(s) created for that interface.

2.3.  Relationship Between PvDs and Interfaces

   By default, implicit PvDs are limited to the network configuration
   information received on a single interface and by default one such
   PvD is formed for each interface.  If additional information is
   available to the host (through mechanisms out of scope of this
   document), the host may form implicit PvDs with different
   granularity.  For example, PvDs spanning multiple interfaces such a
   home network with a router that has multiple internal interfaces, or
   multiple PvDs on a single interface such as a network that has
   multiple uplink connections.

   In the simplest case, explicit PvDs will be scoped for configuration
   related only to a specific interface.  However, there is no
   requirement in this architecture for such a limitation.  Explicit
   PvDs may include information related to more than one interface if
   the node learns the presence of the same PvD on those interfaces and
   the authentication of the PvD ID meets the level required by the node
   policy (authentication of a PvD ID may be also required in scenarios
   involving only one connected interface and / or PvD).

   This architecture supports such scenarios.  Hence, no hierarchical
   relationship exists between interfaces and PvDs: it is possible for
   multiple PvDs to be simultaneously accessible over one interface, as
   well as a single PvD to be simultaneously accessible over multiple
   interfaces.

2.4.  PvD Identity / Naming

   For explicit PvDs, the PvD ID is a value that is, or has a high
   probability of being globally unique, and is received as part of PvD
   information.  It shall be possible to generate a human-readable form
   of the PvD ID to present to the end-user, either based on the PvD ID
   itself, or using meta-data associated with the ID. For implicit PvDs,
   the node assigns a locally generated ID with a high probability of
   being globally unique to each implicit PvD.

Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   A PvD-aware node may use these IDs to select a PvD with a matching ID
   for special-purpose connection requests in accordance with node
   policy, as chosen by advanced applications, or to present a human-
   readable representation of the IDs to the end-user for selection of
   PvDs.

   A single network provider may operate multiple networks, including
   networks at different locations.  In such cases, the provider may
   chose whether to advertise single or multiple PvD identities at all
   or some of those networks as it suits their business needs.  This
   architecture does not impose any specific requirements in this
   regard.

   When multiple nodes are connected to the same link with one or more
   explicit PvDs available, this architecture assumes that the
   information about all available PvDs is made available by the
   networks to all the connected nodes.  At the same time, connected
   nodes may have different heuristics, policies and / or other
   settings, including their configured sets of trusted PvDs.  This may
   lead to different PvDs actually being used by different nodes for
   their connections.

   Possible extensions, whereby networks advertize different sets of
   PvDs to different connected nodes are out of scope of this document.

2.5.  The Relationship to Dual-Stack Networks

   When applied to dual-stack networks, the PvD definition allows for
   multiple PvDs to be created whereby each PvD contains information
   relevant to only one address family, or for a single PvD containing
   information for multiple address families.  This architecture
   requires that accompanying design documents describing PvD-related
   protocol changes must support PvDs containing information from
   multiple address families.  PvD-aware nodes must be capable of
   creating and using both single-family and multi-family PvDs.

   For explicit PvDs, the choice of either of these approaches is a
   policy decision for the network administrator and / or the node user/
   administrator.  Since some of the IP configuration information that
   can be learned from the network can be applicable to multiple address
   families (for instance DHCP Address Selection Policy Opt [RFC7078]),
   it is likely that dual-stack networks will deploy single PvDs for
   both address families.

   By default for implicit PvDs, PvD-aware nodes shall include multiple
   IP families into a single implicit PvD created for an interface.  At
   the time of writing, in dual-stack networks it appears to be common
   practice for the configuration of both address families to be
   provided by a single source.

   A PvD-aware node that provides an API to use, enumerate and inspect
   PvDs and / or their properties shall provide the ability to filter


Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   PvDs and / or their properties by address family.

3.  Conveying PvD information using DHCPv6 and Router Advertisements

   DHCPv6 and Router Advertisements are the two most common methods of
   configuring hosts.  To support the architecture described in this
   document, these protocols would need to be extended to convey
   explicit PvD information.  The following sections describe topic
   which must be considered before finalizing a mechanism to augment
   DHCPv6 and RAs with PvD information.

3.1.  Separate Messages or One Message?

   When information related to several PvDs is available from the same
   configuration source, there are two possible ways of distributing
   this information: One way is to send information from each different
   provisioning domain in separate messages.  The second method is
   combining the information from multiple PvDs into a single message.
   The latter method has the advantage of being more efficient but could
   have problems with to authentication and authorization, as well as
   potential issues with accommodating information not tagged with any
   PvD information.

3.2.  Securing PvD Information

   DHCPv6 and RAs both provide some form of authentication to ensure the
   identity of the source as well as the integrity of the secured
   message content.  While this is useful, determining authenticity does
   not tell a node whether the configuration source is actually allowed
   to provide information from a given PvD. To resolve this, there must
   be a mechanism for the PvD owner to attach some form of authorization
   token or signature to the configuration information that is
   delivered.

3.3.  Backward Compatibility

   The extensions to RAs and DHCPv6 should be defined in such a manner
   than unmodified hosts (i.e.  hosts not aware of PvDs) will continue
   to function as well as they did prior to PvD information being added.
   This could imply that some information may need to be duplicated in
   order to be conveyed to legacy hosts.  Similarly, PvD aware hosts
   need to be able to correctly utiilize legacy configuration sources
   which do not provide PvD information.  There are also several
   initiatives that are aimed at adding some form of additional
   information to prefixes [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix] and
   [I-D.korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties] and any new mechanism should try
   to consider co-existence with such deployed mechanisms.

3.4.  Retracting / Updating PvD Information






Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   After PvD information is provisioned to a host, it may become
   outdated or superseded by updated information before the hosts would
   normally request updates.  To resolve this requires that the
   mechanism be able to update and / or withdraw all (or some subset) of
   the information related to a given PvD. For efficiency reasons, there
   should be a way to specify that all information from the PvD needs to
   be reconfigured instead of individually updating each item associated
   with the PvD.

3.5.  Conveying Configuration Information using IKEv2

   Internet Key Exchange protocol version 2 (IKEv2) [RFC5996] [RFC5739]
   is another widely used method of configuring host IP information.
   For IKEv2, the provisioning domain could be implicitly learned from
   the Identification - Responder (IDr) payloads that the IKEv2
   initiator and responder inject during their IKEv2 exchange.  The IP
   configuration may depend on the named IDr.  Another possibility could
   be adding a specific provisioning domain identifying payload
   extensions to IKEv2. All of the considerations for DHCPv6 and RAs
   listed above potentially apply to IKEv2 as well.

4.  Example Network Configurations

4.1.  A Mobile Node

   Consider a mobile node with two network interfaces: one to the mobile
   network, the other to the Wi-Fi network.  When the mobile node is
   only connected to the mobile network, it will typically have one PvD,
   implicit or explicit.  When the mobile node discovers and connects to
   a Wi-Fi network, it will have zero or more (typically one) additional
   PvD(s).

   Some existing OS implementations only allow one active network
   connection.  In this case, only the PvD(s) associated with the active
   interface can be used at any given time.

   As an example, the mobile network can explicitly deliver PvD
   information through the PDP context activation process.  Then, the
   PvD aware mobile node will treat the mobile network as an explicit
   PvD. Conversely, the legacy Wi-Fi network may not explicitly
   communicate PvD information to the mobile node.  The PvD aware mobile
   node will associate network configuration for the Wi-Fi network with
   an implicit PvD in this case.

   The following diagram illustrates the use of different PvDs in this
   scenario:








Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015



                 <----------- Wi-Fi 'Internet' PvD ------->
        +--------+
        | +----+ |    +----+         _   __              _  _
        | |WiFi| |    |    |        ( `    )            ( `   )_
        | |-IF +-|----+    |--------------------------(         `)
        | |    | |    |WiFi|      (         )        (_ Internet  _)
        | +----+ |    | AP |     (           )         `- __  _) -
        |        |    |    |    (   Service    )
        |        |    +----+    (  Provider's   )
        |        |              (   Networks    -
        | +----+ |               `_            )          _  _
        | |CELL| |                (          )           ( `   )_
        | |-IF +-|-------------------------------------(         `)
        | |    | |                (_     __)          (_ Internet  _)
        | +----+ |                 `- --               `- __  _) -
        +--------+
                 <------- Mobile 'Internet' PvD ----------->

          An example of PvD use with Wi-Fi and mobile interfaces.

4.2.  A Node with a VPN Connection

   If the node has established a VPN connection, zero or more (typically
   one) additional PvD(s) will be created.  These may be implicit or
   explicit.  The routing to IP addresses reachable within this PvD will
   be set up via the VPN connection, and the routing of packets to
   addresses outside the scope of this PvD will remain unaffected.  If a
   node already has N connected PvDs, after the VPN session has been
   established typically there will be N+1 connected PvDs.

   The following diagram illustrates the use of different PvDs in this
   scenario:

             <----------- 'Internet' PvD ------>
    +--------+
    | +----+ |    +----+         _   __        _  _
    | |Phy | |    |    |        ( `    )      ( `   )_
    | |-IF +-|----+    |--------------------(         `)
    | |    | |    |    |      (         )  (_ Internet  _)
    | +----+ |    |    |     (           )   `- __  _) -
    |        |    |Home|    (   Service    )      ||
    |        |    |gate|    (  Provider's   )     ||
    |        |    |-way|    (   Network     -     ||
    | +----+ |    |    |    `_            )  +---------+  +------------+
    | |VPN | |    |    |      (          )   |   VPN   |  |            |
    | |-IF +-|----+    |---------------------+ Gateway |--+  Private   |
    | |    | |    |    |       (_     __)    |         |  |  Services  |
    | +----+ |    +----+         `- --       +---------+  +------------+
    +--------+
             <-------------- Explicit 'VPN' PvD ----->

                      An example of PvD use with VPN.

Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


4.3.  A Home Network and a Network Operator with Multiple PvDs

   An operator may use separate PvDs for individual services which they
   offer to their customers.  These may be used so that services can be
   designed and provisioned to be completely independent of each other,
   allowing for complete flexibility in combinations of services which
   are offered to customers.

   From the perspective of the home network and the node, this model is
   functionally very similar to being multihomed to multiple upstream
   operators: Each of the different services offered by the service
   provider is its own PvD with associated PvD information.  In this
   case, the operator may provide a generic / default PvD (explicit or
   implicit), which provides Internet access to the customer.
   Additional services would then be provisioned as explicit PvDs for
   subscribing customers.

   The following diagram illustrates this, using video-on-demand as a
   service-specific PvD:

                <------ Implicit 'Internet' PvD ------>
           +----+     +----+         _   __              _  _
           |    |     |    |        ( `    )            ( `   )_
           | PC +-----+    |--------------------------(         `)
           |    |     |    |      (         )        (_ Internet  _)
           +----+     |    |     (           )         `- __  _) -
                      |Home|    (   Service    )
                      |gate|    (  Provider's   )
                      |-way|    (   Network     -
           +-----+    |    |    `_            )        +---------+
           | Set |    |    |      (          )         |ISP Video|
           | Top +----+    |---------------------------+on Demand|
           | Box |    |    |       (_     __)          | Service |
           +-----+    +----+         `- --             +---------+
                 <-- Explicit 'Video-on-Demand' PvD -->

               An example of PvD use within a home network.

   In this case, the number of PvDs that a single operator could
   provision is based on the number of independently provisioned
   services which they offer.  Some examples may include:

   o  Real-time packet voice

   o  Streaming video

   o  Interactive video (n-way video conferencing)

   o  Interactive gaming

   o  Best effort / Internet access

5.  Reference Model for the PvD-aware Node

Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


5.1.  Constructions and Maintenance of Separate PvDs

   It is assumed that normally, the configuration information contained
   in a single PvD shall be sufficient for a node to fulfill a network
   connection request by an application, and hence there should be no
   need to attempt to merge information across different PvDs.

   Nevertheless, even when a PvD lacks some necessary configuration
   information, merging of information associated with different PvD(s)
   shall not be done automatically as this will typically lead to the
   issues described in [RFC6418].

   A node may use other sources, for example: node local policy, user
   input or other mechanisms not defined by the IETF for any of the
   following:

   o  Construction of a PvD in its entirety (analogous to statically
      configuring IP on an interface)

   o  Supplementing some, or all learned PvDs with particular
      configuration elements

   o  Merging of information from different PvDs (if this is explicitly
      allowed by policy)

   As an example, a node administrator could inject a DNS server which
   is not ISP-specific into PvDs for use on any of the networks that the
   node could attach to.  Such creation / augmentation of PvD(s) could
   be static or dynamic.  The specific mechanism(s) for implementing
   this are outside of scope of this document.

5.2.  Consistent use of PvDs for Network Connections

   PvDs enable PvD-aware nodes to consistently use the correct set of
   configuration elements to serve specific network requests from
   beginning to end.  This section provides examples of such use.

5.2.1.  Name Resolution

   When a PvD-aware node needs to resolve the name of the destination
   for use by a connection request, the node could use one, or multiple
   PvDs for a given name lookup.

   The node shall chose a single PvD if, for example, the node policy
   required the use of a particular PvD for a specific purpose (e.g.  to
   download an MMS message using a specific APN over a cellular
   connection). To make this selection, the node could use a match
   between the PvD DNS suffix and an FQDN which is being resolved or
   match of PvD ID, as determined by the node policy.





Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   The node may pick multiple PvDs, if for example, the PvDs are for
   general purpose Internet connectivity, and the node is attempting to
   maximize the probability of connectivity similar to the Happy
   Eyeballs  [RFC6555] approach.  In this case, the node could perform
   DNS lookups in parallel, or in sequence.  Alternatively, the node may
   use only one PvD for the lookup, based on the PvD connectivity
   properties, user configuration of preferred Internet PvD, etc.

   If an application implements an API that provides a way of explicitly
   specifying the desired interface or PvD, that interface or PvD should
   be used for name resolution (and the subsequent connection attempt),
   provided that the host's configuration permits this.

   In either case, by default a node uses information obtained via a
   name service lookup to establish connections only within the same PvD
   as the lookup results were obtained.

   For clarification, when it is written that the name service lookup
   results were obtained "from a PvD", it should be understood to mean
   that the name service query was issued against a name service which
   is configured for use in a particular PvD.  In that sense, the
   results are "from" that particular PvD.

   Some nodes may support transports and / or APIs which provide an
   abstraction of a single connection, aggregating multiple underlying
   connections.  MPTCP [RFC6182] is an example of such a transport
   protocol.  For connections provided by such transports/APIs, a PvD-
   aware node may use different PvDs for servicing that logical
   connection, provided that all operations on the underlying
   connections are performed consistently within their corresponding
   PvD(s).

5.2.2.  Next-hop and Source Address Selection

   For the purpose of this example, let us assume that the preceding
   name lookup succeeded in a particular PvD.  For each obtained
   destination address, the node shall perform a next-hop lookup among
   routers associated with that PvD. As an example, the node could
   determine such associations via matching the source address prefixes/
   specific routes advertized by the router against known PvDs, or
   receiving an explicit PvD affiliation advertized through a new Router
   Discovery [RFC4861] option.

   For each destination, once the best next-hop is found, the node
   selects the best source address according to rules defined in
   [RFC6724], but with the constraint that the source address must








Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   belong to a range associated with the used PvD.  If needed, the node
   would use prefix policy from the same PvD for selecting the best
   source address from multiple candidates.

   When destination / source pairs are identified, they are sorted using
   the [RFC6724] destination sorting rules and prefix policy table from
   the used PvD.

5.2.3.  Listening Applications

   Consider a host connected to several PvDs, running an application
   that opens a listening socket / transport API object.  The
   application is authorized by the host policy to use a subset of
   connected PvDs that may or may not be equal to the complete set of
   the connected PvDs.  As an example, in the case where there are
   different PvDs on the Wi-Fi and cellular interfaces, for general
   Internet traffic the host could use only one, preferred PvD at a time
   (and accordingly, advertise to remote peers the host name and
   addresses associated with that PvD), or it could use one PvD as the
   default for outgoing connections, while still allowing use of the
   other PvDs simultaneously.

   Another example is a host with an established VPN connection.  Here,
   security policy could be used to permit or deny application's access
   to the VPN (and other) PvD(s).

   For non-PvD aware applications, the operating system has policies
   that determine the authorized set of PvDs and the preferred outgoing
   PvD. For PvD-aware applications, both the authorized set of PvDs and
   the default outgoing PvD can be determined as the common subset
   produced between the OS policies and the set of PvD IDs or
   characteristics provided by the application.

   Application input could be provided on per-application, per-
   transport-API-object or per-transport-API-call basis.  The API for
   application input may have an option for specifying whether the input
   should be treated as a preference instead of a requirement.

5.2.3.1.  Processing of Incoming Traffic

   Unicast IP packets are received on a specific IP address associated
   with a PvD.  For multicast packets, the host can derive the PvD
   association from other configuration information, such as an explicit
   PvD property or local policy.

   The node OS or middleware may apply more advanced techniques for
   determining the resultant PvD and / or authorization of the incoming
   traffic.  Those techniques are outside of scope of this document.







Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   If the determined receiving PvD of a packet is not in the allowed
   subset of PvDs for the particular application / transport API object,
   the packet should be handled in the same way as if there were no
   listener.

5.2.3.1.1.  Connection-oriented APIs

   For connection-oriented APIs, when the initial incoming packet is
   received, the packet PvD is remembered for the established connection
   and used for handling of outgoing traffic for that connection.  While
   typically, connection-oriented APIs use a connection-oriented
   transport protocol, such as TCP, it is possible to have a connection-
   oriented API that uses a generally connectionless transport protocol,
   such as UDP.

   For APIs/protocols that support multiple IP traffic flows associated
   with a single transport API connection object (for example, multi
   path TCP), the processing rules may be adjusted accordingly.

5.2.3.1.2.  Connectionless APIs

   For connectionless APIs, the host should provide an API that PvD-
   aware applications can use to query the PvD associated with the
   packet.  For outgoing traffic on this transport API object, the OS
   should use the selected outgoing PvDs, determined as described above.

5.2.4.  Enforcement of Security Policies

   By themselves, PvDs do not define, and cannot be used for
   communication of, security policies.  When implemented in a network,
   this architecture provides the host with information about connected
   networks.  The actual behavior of the host then depends on the host's
   policies (provisioned through mechanisms out of scope of this
   document), applied taking received PvD information into account.  In
   some scenarios, e.g.  a VPN, such policies could require the host to
   use only a particular VPN PvD for some / all of the application's
   traffic (VPN 'disable split tunneling' also known as 'force
   tunneling' behavior), or apply such restrictions only to selected
   applications and allow the simultaneous use of the VPN PvD together
   with the other connected PvDs by the other or all applications (VPN
   'split tunneling' behavior).

5.3.  Connectivity Tests

   Although some PvDs may appear as valid candidates for PvD selection
   (e.g.  good link quality, consistent connection parameters, etc.),
   they may provide limited or no connectivity to the desired network or
   the Internet.  For example, some PvDs provide limited IP connectivity
   (e.g., scoped to the link or to the access network), but require the
   node to authenticate through a web portal to get full access to the
   Internet.  This may be more likely to happen for PvDs which are not




Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015

   trusted by a given PvD-aware node.

   An attempt to use such a PvD may lead to limited network connectivity
   or application connection failures.  To prevent the latter, a PvD-
   aware node may perform a connectivity test for the PvD before using
   it to serve application network connection requests.  In current
   implementations, some nodes already implement this e.g., by trying to
   reach a dedicated web server (see [RFC6419]).

   Section 5.2 describes how a PvD-aware node shall maintain and use
   multiple PvDs separately.  The PvD-aware node shall perform a
   connectivity test and, only after validation of the PvD, consider
   using it to serve application connections requests.  Ongoing
   connectivity tests are also required, since during the IP session,
   the end-to-end connectivity could be disrupted for various reasons
   (e.g.  L2 problems, IP QoS issues); hence, a connectivity monitoring
   function is needed to check the connectivity status and remove the
   PvD from the set of usable PvDs if necessary.

   There may be cases where a connectivity test for PvD selection may
   not be appropriate and should be complemented, or replaced, by PvD
   selection based on other factors.  For example, this could be
   realized by leveraging some 3GPP and IEEE mechanisms, which would
   allow the exposure of some PvD characteristics to the node (e.g.
   3GPP Access Network Discovery and Selection Function (ANDSF)
   [TS23402], IEEE 802.11u [IEEE802.11u]/ANQP).

5.4.  Relationship to Interface Management and Connection Managers

   Current devices, such as mobile handsets make use of proprietary
   mechanisms and custom applications to manage connectivity in
   environments with multiple interfaces and multiple sets of network
   configuration.  These mechanisms or applications are commonly known
   as connection managers [RFC6419].

   Connection managers sometimes rely on policy servers to allow a node
   that is connected to multiple networks to perform network selection.
   They can also make use of routing guidance from the network (e.g.
   3GPP ANDSF [TS23402]).  Although connection managers solve some
   connectivity problems, they rarely address network selection problems
   in a comprehensive manner.  With proprietary solutions, it is
   challenging to present coherent behavior to the end user of the
   device, as different platforms present different behaviors even when
   connected to the same network, with the same type of interface, and
   for the same purpose.  The architecture described in this document
   should improve the hosts behavior by providing the hosts with tools
   and guidance to make informed network selection decisions.

6.  PvD support in APIs

   For all levels of PvD support in APIs described in this chapter, it
   is expected that the notifications about changes in the set of
   available PvDs are exposed as part of the API surface.


Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


6.1.  Basic

   Applications are not PvD-aware in any manner and only submit
   connection requests.  The node performs PvD selection implicitly,
   without any application participation, based purely on node-specific
   administrative policies and / or choices made by the user from a user
   interface provided by the operating environment, not by the
   application.

   As an example, PvD selection can be done at the name service lookup
   step by using the relevant configuration elements, such as those
   described in [RFC6731].  As another example, PvD selection could be
   made based on application identity or type (i.e., a node could always
   use a particular PvD for a VOIP application).

6.2.  Intermediate

   Applications indirectly participate in PvD selection by specifying
   hard requirements and soft preferences.  As an example, a real time
   communication application intending to use the connection for the
   exchange of real time audio / video data may indicate a preference or
   a requirement for connection quality, which could affect PvD
   selection (different PvDs could correspond to Internet connections
   with different loss rates and latencies).

   Another example is the connection of an infrequently executed
   background activity, which checks for application updates and
   performs large downloads when updates are available.  For such
   connections, a cheaper or zero cost PvD may be preferable, even if
   such a connection has a higher relative loss rate or lower bandwidth.
   The node performs PvD selection based on applications' inputs and
   policies and / or user preferences.  Some / all properties of the
   resultant PvD may be exposed to applications.

6.3.  Advanced

   PvDs are directly exposed to applications for enumeration and
   selection.  Node polices and / or user choices may still override the
   applications' preferences and limit which PvD(s) can be enumerated
   and / or used by the application, irrespective of any preferences
   which the application may have specified.  Depending on the
   implementation, such restrictions (imposed by node policy and / or
   user choice) may or may not be visible to the application.

7.  PvD Trust for PvD-Aware Node

7.1.  Untrusted PvDs

   Implicit and explicit PvDs for which no trust relationship exists are
   considered untrusted.  Only PvDs which meet the requirements in
   Section 7.2 are trusted; any other PvD is untrusted.



Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   In order to avoid the various forms of misinformation that could
   occur when PvDs are untrusted, nodes that implement PvD separation
   cannot assume that two explicit PvDs with the same identifier are
   actually the same PvD. A node that makes this assumption will be
   vulnerable to attacks where, for example, an open Wifi hotspot might
   assert that it was part of another PvD and thereby attempt to draw
   traffic intended for that PvD onto its own network.

   Since implicit PvD identifiers are synthesized by the node, this
   issue cannot arise with implicit PvDs.

   Mechanisms exist (for example, [RFC6731]) whereby a PvD can provide
   configuration information that asserts special knowledge about the
   reachability of resources through that PvD. Such assertions cannot be
   validated unless the node has a trust relationship with the PvD;
   therefore, assertions of this type must be ignored by nodes that
   receive them from untrusted PvDs.  Failure to ignore such assertions
   could result in traffic being diverted from legitimate destinations
   to spoofed destinations.

7.2.  Trusted PvDs

   Trusted PvDs are PvDs for which two conditions apply: First, a trust
   relationship must exist between the node that is using the PvD
   configuration and the source that provided that configuration; this
   is the authorization portion of the trust relationship.  Second,
   there must be some way to validate the trust relationship.  This is
   the authentication portion of the trust relationship.  Two mechanisms
   for validating the trust relationship are defined.

   It shall be possible to validate the trust relationship for all
   advertised elements of a trusted PvD, irrespective of whether the PvD
   elements are communicated as a whole, e.g., in a single DHCP option,
   or separately, e.g., in supplementary RA options.  The feasibility of
   mechanisms to implement a trust relationship for all PvD elements
   will be determined in the respective companion design documents.

7.2.1.  Authenticated PvDs

   One way to validate the trust relationship between a node and the
   source of a PvD is through the combination of cryptographic
   authentication and an identifier configured on the node.

   If authentication is done using a public key mechanism such as a TLS
   certificate or DANE, authentication by itself is not enough since
   theoretically any PvD could be authenticated in this way.  In
   addition to authentication, the node would need configuration to
   trust the identifier being authenticated.  Validating the
   authenticated PvD name against a list of PvD names configured as
   trusted on the node would constitute the authorization step in this
   case.

7.2.2.  PvDs Trusted by Attachment

Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   In some cases, a trust relationship may be validated by some means
   other than those described in Section 7.2.1 simply by virtue of the
   connection through which the PvD was obtained.  For instance, a
   handset connected to a mobile network may know through the mobile
   network infrastructure that it is connected to a trusted PvD.
   Whatever mechanism was used to validate that connection constitutes
   the authentication portion of the PvD trust relationship.
   Presumably, such a handset would be configured from the factory (or
   else through mobile operator or user preference settings) to trust
   the PvD, and this would constitute the authorization portion of this
   type of trust relationship.

8.  Contributors

   The following individuals contributed to this document (listed in no
   specific order): Alper Yegin (alper.yegin@yegin.org), Aaron Yi Ding
   (yding@cs.helsinki.fi), Zhen Cao (caozhenpku@gmail.com), Dapeng Liu
   (liudapeng@chinamobile.com), Dave Thaler (dthaler@microsoft.com),
   Dmitry Anipko (dmitry.anipko@microsoft.com), Hui Deng
   (denghui@chinamobile.com), Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com),
   Juan Carlos Zuniga (JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com), Konstantinos
   Pentikousis (k.pentikousis@huawei.com), Marc Blanchet
   (marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca), Margaret Wasserman
   (margaretw42@gmail.com), Pierrick Seite (pierrick.seite@orange.com),
   Suresh Krishnan (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com), Teemu Savolainen
   (teemu.savolainen@nokia.com), Ted Lemon (ted.lemon@nominum.com) and
   Tim Chown (tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk).

9.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank (in no specific order) Ian Farrer,
   Marcus Stenberg and Mikael Abrahamsson for their review and comments.

10.  IANA Considerations

   This memo does not include any IANA requests.

11.  Security Considerations

   There are at least three different forms of attacks that can be
   performed using configuration sources that support multiple
   provisioning domains.












Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   Tampering with provided configuration information: An attacker may
      attempt to modify information provided inside the PvD container
      option.  These attacks can easily be prevented by using message
      integrity features provided by the underlying protocol used to
      carry the configuration information.  E.g.  SEND [RFC3971] would
      detect any form of tampering with the RA contents and the DHCPv6
      [RFC3315] AUTH option that would detect any form of tampering with
      the DHCPv6 message contents.  This attack can also be performed by
      a compromised configuration source by modifying information inside
      a specific PvD, in which case the mitigations proposed in the next
      subsection may be helpful.

   Rogue configuration source: A compromised configuration source, such
      as a router or a DHCPv6 server, may advertise information about
      PvDs that it is not authorized to advertise.  E.g., a coffee shop
      WLAN may advertise configuration information purporting to be from
      an enterprise and may try to attract enterprise related traffic.
      This may also occur accidentally if two sites choose the same
      identifier (e.g., "linsky").

      In order to detect and prevent this, the client must be able to
      authenticate the identifier provided by the network.   This means
      that the client must have configuration information that maps the
      PvD identifier to an authenticatable identity, and must be able to
      authenticate that identity.

      In addition, the network must provide information the client can
      use to authenticate the identity.   This could take the form of a
      PKI-based or DNSSEC-based trust anchor, or a key remembered from a
      previous leap-of-faith authentication of the identifier.

      Because the PvD-specific information may come to the network
      infrastructure with which the client is actually communicating
      from some upstream provider, it is necessary in this case that the
      PvD container and its contents be relayed to the client unchanged,
      leaving the upstream provider's signature intact.

   Replay attacks: A compromised configuration source or an on-link
      attacker may try to capture advertised configuration information
      and replay it on a different link, or at a future point in time.
      This can be avoided by including a replay protection mechanism
      such as a timestamp or a nonce inside the PvD container to ensure
      the validity of the provided information.

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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

12.2.  Informative References


Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   [I-D.bhandari-dhc-class-based-prefix]
              Systems, C., Halwasia, G., Gundavelli, S., Deng, H.,
              Thiebaut, L., Korhonen, J. and I. Farrer, "DHCPv6 class
              based prefix", Internet-Draft draft-bhandari-dhc-class-
              based-prefix-05, July 2013.

   [I-D.korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties]
              Korhonen, J., Patil, B., Gundavelli, S., Seite, P. and D.
              Liu, "IPv6 Prefix Mobility Management Properties",
              Internet-Draft draft-korhonen-dmm-prefix-properties-03,
              October 2012.

   [IEEE802.11u]
              IEEE, "IEEE Standard 802.11u-2011 (Amendment 9:
              Interworking with External Networks)", 2011.

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

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

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W. and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              September 2007.

   [RFC5739]  Eronen, P., Laganier, J. and C. Madson, "IPv6
              Configuration in Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
              (IKEv2)", RFC 5739, February 2010.

   [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y. and P. Eronen, "Internet
              Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 5996,
              September 2010.

   [RFC6182]  Ford, A., Raiciu, C., Handley, M., Barre, S. and J.
              Iyengar, "Architectural Guidelines for Multipath TCP
              Development", RFC 6182, March 2011.

   [RFC6418]  Blanchet, M. and P. Seite, "Multiple Interfaces and
              Provisioning Domains Problem Statement", RFC 6418,
              November 2011.

   [RFC6419]  Wasserman, M. and P. Seite, "Current Practices for
              Multiple-Interface Hosts", RFC 6419, November 2011.

   [RFC6555]  Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with
              Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, April 2012.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A. and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.


Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft             MPVD architecture                January 2015


   [RFC6731]  Savolainen, T., Kato, J. and T. Lemon, "Improved Recursive
              DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced Nodes", RFC
              6731, December 2012.

   [RFC7078]  Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T. and T. Chown, "Distributing
              Address Selection Policy Using DHCPv6", RFC 7078, January
              2014.

   [TS23402]  3GPP, "3GPP TS 23.402; Architecture enhancements for non-
              3GPP accesses; release 12", 2014.

Author's Address

   Dmitry Anipko, editor
   Unaffiliated

   Phone: +1 425 442 6356
   Email: dmitry.anipko@gmail.com



































Anipko                   Expires July 25, 2015                 [Page 22]


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