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

Versions: (draft-cheshire-pcp-anycast) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 RFC 7723

PCP working group                                              S. Kiesel
Internet-Draft                                   University of Stuttgart
Intended status: Standards Track                                R. Penno
Expires: April 8, 2016                               Cisco Systems, Inc.
                                                             S. Cheshire
                                                                   Apple
                                                         October 6, 2015


             Port Control Protocol (PCP) Anycast Addresses
                       draft-ietf-pcp-anycast-08

Abstract

   The Port Control Protocol (PCP) Anycast Addresses enable PCP clients
   to transmit signaling messages to their closest PCP-aware on-path
   NAT, Firewall, or other middlebox, without having to learn the IP
   address of that middlebox via some external channel.  This document
   establishes one well-known IPv4 address and one well-known IPv6
   address to be used as PCP Anycast Addresses.

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 April 8, 2016.

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



Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  PCP Server Discovery based on well-known IP Address  . . . . .  4
     2.1.  PCP Discovery Client behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  PCP Discovery Server behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Deployment Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Registration of IPv4 Special Purpose Address . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Registration of IPv6 Special Purpose Address . . . . . . .  6
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.1.  Information Leakage through Anycast  . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     5.2.  Hijacking of PCP Messages sent to Anycast Addresses  . . .  7
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11



























Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


1.  Introduction

   The Port Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887] provides a mechanism to
   control how incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such
   as Network Address Translator IPv6/IPv4 (NAT64), Network Address
   Translator IPv4/IPv4 (NAT44), and IPv6 and IPv4 firewall devices.
   Furthermore, it provides a mechanism to reduce application keep alive
   traffic [I-D.ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives].  The PCP base protocol
   document [RFC6887] specifies the message formats used, but the
   address to which a client sends its request is either assumed to be
   the default router (which is appropriate in a typical single-link
   residential network) or has to be configured otherwise via some
   external mechanism, such as a configuration file or a DHCP option
   [RFC7291].

   This document follows a different approach: it establishes two well-
   known anycast addresses for the PCP Server, one IPv4 address and one
   IPv6 address.  PCP clients usually send PCP requests to these well-
   known addresses if no other PCP server addresses are known or after
   communication attempts to such other addresses have failed.  The
   anycast addresses are allocated from pools of special-purpose IP
   addresses (see Section 4), in accordance with Section 3.4 of
   [RFC4085].  Yet, a means to disable or override these well-known
   addresses (e. g., a configuration file option) should be available in
   implementations.

   Using an anycast address is particularly useful in larger network
   topologies.  For example, if the PCP-enabled NAT/firewall function is
   not located on the client's default gateway, but further upstream in
   a Carrier-grade NAT (CGN), sending PCP requests to the default
   gateway's IP address will not have the desired effect.  When using a
   configuration file or the DHCP option to learn the PCP server's IP
   address, this file or the DHCP server configuration must reflect the
   network topology, and the router and CGN configuration.  This may be
   cumbersome to achieve and maintain.  If there is more than one
   upstream CGN and traffic is routed using a dynamic routing protocol
   such as OSPF, this approach may not be feasible at all, as it cannot
   provide timely information on which CGN to interact with.  In
   contrast, when using the PCP anycast address, the PCP request will
   travel through the network like any other packet, without any special
   support from DNS, DHCP, other routers, or anything else, until it
   reaches the PCP-capable device, which receives it, handles it, and
   sends back a reply.  A further advantage of using an anycast address
   instead of a DHCP option is, that the anycast address can be hard-
   coded into the application.  There is no need for an application
   programming interface for passing the PCP server's address from the
   operating system's DHCP client to the application.  For further
   discussion of deployment considerations see Section 3.



Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


2.  PCP Server Discovery based on well-known IP Address

2.1.  PCP Discovery Client behavior

   PCP clients can add the PCP anycast addresses, which are defined in
   Sections 4.1 and 4.2, after the default router list (for IPv4 and
   IPv6) to the list of PCP server(s) (see Section 8.1, step 2. of
   [RFC6887]).  This list is processed as specified in [RFC7488].

   Note: If, in some specific scenario, it was desirable to use only the
   anycast address (and not the default router), this could be achieved
   by putting the anycast address into the configuration file, or DHCP
   option, etc.

2.2.  PCP Discovery Server behavior

   PCP Servers can be configured to listen on the anycast addresses for
   incoming PCP requests.  When a PCP server receives a PCP requests
   destined for an anycast address it supports, it sends the
   corresponding PCP replies using that same anycast address as the
   source address (see Page 6 of [RFC1546] for further discussion).






























Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


3.  Deployment Considerations

   For general recommendations regarding operation of anycast services
   see [RFC4786].  Architectural considerations of IP anycast are
   discussed in [RFC7094].

   In some deployment scenarios, using PCP anycasting may have certain
   limitations, which can be overcome by using additional mechanisms or
   by using other PCP server discovery methods instead, such as DHCP
   [RFC7291] or a configuration file.

   One important example is a network topology, in which a network is
   connected to one or more upstream network(s) via several parallel
   firewalls, each individually controlled by its own PCP server.  Even
   if all of these PCP servers are configured for anycasting, only one
   will receive the messages sent by a given client, depending on the
   state of the routing tables.

   As long as routing is always symmetric, i.e., all upstream and
   downstream packets from/to that client are routed through this very
   same firewall, communication will be possible as expected.  If there
   is a routing change, a PCP client using PCP anycasting might start
   interacting with a different PCP server.  From the PCP client's point
   of view this would be the same as a PCP server reboot and the client
   could detect it by examining the Epoch field during the next PCP
   response or ANNOUNCE message.  The client would re-establish the
   firewall rules and packet flows could resume.

   If, however, routing is asymmetric, upstream packets from a client
   traverse a different firewall than the downstream packets to that
   client.  Establishing policy rules in only one of these two firewalls
   by means of PCP anycasting will not have the desired result of
   allowing bi-directional connectivity.  One solution approach to
   overcome this problem is an implementation-specific mechanism to
   synchronize state between all firewalls at the border of a network,
   i.e., a PEER message sent to any of these PCP servers would establish
   rules in all firewalls.  Another approach would be to use a different
   discovery mechanism (e.g., DHCP or a configuration file) that allows
   a PCP client to acquire a list of all PCP servers controlling the
   parallel firewalls and configure each of them individually.











Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


4.  IANA Considerations

4.1.  Registration of IPv4 Special Purpose Address

   IANA is requested to assign a single IPv4 address from the
   192.0.0.0/24 prefix and register it in the IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose
   Address Registry [RFC6890].

   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Attribute            | Value                                     |
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Address Block        | 192.0.0.???/32        (??? = TBD by IANA) |
   | Name                 | Port Control Protocol Anycast             |
   | RFC                  | This document, if approved          (TBD) |
   | Allocation Date      | Date of approval of this document   (TBD) |
   | Termination Date     | N/A                                       |
   | Source               | True                                      |
   | Destination          | True                                      |
   | Forwardable          | True                                      |
   | Global               | True                                      |
   | Reserved-by-Protocol | False                                     |
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+

4.2.  Registration of IPv6 Special Purpose Address

   IANA is requested to assign a single IPv6 address from the 2001:
   0000::/23 prefix and register it in the IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose
   Address Registry [RFC6890].

   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Attribute            | Value                                     |
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
   | Address Block        | 2001:0????????/128    (??? = TBD by IANA) |
   | Name                 | Port Control Protocol Anycast             |
   | RFC                  | This document, if approved          (TBD) |
   | Allocation Date      | Date of approval of this document   (TBD) |
   | Termination Date     | N/A                                       |
   | Source               | True                                      |
   | Destination          | True                                      |
   | Forwardable          | True                                      |
   | Global               | True                                      |
   | Reserved-by-Protocol | False                                     |
   +----------------------+-------------------------------------------+








Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


5.  Security Considerations

   In addition to the security considerations in [RFC6887], [RFC4786],
   and [RFC7094], two further security issues are considered here.

5.1.  Information Leakage through Anycast

   In a network without any border gateway, NAT or firewall that is
   aware of the PCP anycast address, outgoing PCP requests could leak
   out onto the external Internet, possibly revealing information about
   internal devices.

   Using an IANA-assigned well-known PCP anycast address enables border
   gateways to block such outgoing packets.  In the default-free zone,
   routers should be configured to drop such packets.  Such
   configuration can occur naturally via BGP messages advertising that
   no route exists to said address.

   Sensitive clients that do not wish to leak information about their
   presence can set an IP TTL on their PCP requests that limits how far
   they can travel towards the public Internet.  However, methods for
   choosing an appropriate TTL value, e.g., based on the assumed radius
   of the trusted network domain, is beyond the scope of this document.

   Before sending PCP requests with possibly privacy-sensitive
   parameters (e.g., IP addresses and port numbers) to the PCP anycast
   addresses, PCP clients can send an ANNOUNCE request (without
   parameters; see Section 14.1 of [RFC6887]), in order to probe whether
   a PCP server consumes and processes PCP requests sent to that anycast
   address.

5.2.  Hijacking of PCP Messages sent to Anycast Addresses

   The anycast addresses are treated by normal host operating systems
   just as normal unicast addresses, i.e., packets destined for an
   anycast address are sent to the default router for processing and
   forwarding.  Hijacking such packets in the first network segment
   would effectively require the attacker to impersonate the default
   router, e.g., by means of ARP spoofing in an Ethernet network.  Once
   an anycast message is forwarded closer to the core network, routing
   will likely become subject to dynamic routing protocols such as OSPF
   or BGP.  Anycast messages could be hijacked by announcing
   counterfeited messages in these routing protocols.  When analyzing
   the risk and possible consequences of such attacks in a given network
   scenario, the probable impacts on PCP signaling need to be put into
   proportion with probable impacts on other protocols such as the
   actual application protocols.




Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


   In addition to following best current practices in first hop security
   and routing protocol security, PCP authentication [RFC7652] may be
   useful in some scenarios.  However, the effort needed for a proper
   setup of this authentication mechanism (e.g., installing the right
   shared secrets or cryptograpic keys on all involved systems) may
   thwart the goal of fully automatic configuration by using PCP
   anycast.  Therefore, this approach may be less suitable for scenarios
   with high trust between the operator of the PCP-controlled middlebox
   and all users (e.g., a residential gateway used only by family
   members) or if there is anyway rather limited trust that the
   middlebox will behave correctly (e.g., the Wifi in an airport
   lounge).  In contrast, this scheme may be highly useful in scenarios
   with many users and a trusted network operator, such as a large
   corporate network or a university campus network, which uses several
   parallel NATs or firewalls to connect to the Internet.  Therefore, a
   thorough analysis of the benefits and costs of using PCP
   authentication in a given network scenario is recommended.


































Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


6.  Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank the members of the PCP working group
   for contributions and feedback, in particular Mohamed Boucadair,
   Charles Eckel, Simon Perreault, Tirumaleswar Reddy, Markus Stenberg,
   Dave Thaler, and Dan Wing.













































Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC6887]  Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and P.
              Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
              April 2013.

   [RFC6890]  Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., and B. Haberman,
              "Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
              RFC 6890, April 2013.

   [RFC7488]  Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., Patil, P., and T.
              Reddy, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server Selection",
              RFC 7488, March 2015.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives]
              Reddy, T., Patil, P., Isomaki, M., and D. Wing,
              "Optimizing NAT and Firewall Keepalives Using Port Control
              Protocol (PCP)", draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-06
              (work in progress), May 2015.

   [RFC1546]  Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host
              Anycasting Service", RFC 1546, November 1993.

   [RFC4085]  Plonka, D., "Embedding Globally-Routable Internet
              Addresses Considered Harmful", BCP 105, RFC 4085,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4085, June 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4085>.

   [RFC4786]  Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
              Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, December 2006.

   [RFC7094]  McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil,
              "Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7094>.

   [RFC7291]  Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "DHCP Options for
              the Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7291, July 2014.

   [RFC7652]  Cullen, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and T. Reddy, "Port
              Control Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism",
              RFC 7652, DOI 10.17487/RFC7652, September 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7652>.




Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft            PCP Anycast Addresses             October 2015


Authors' Addresses

   Sebastian Kiesel
   University of Stuttgart Information Center
   Networks and Communication Systems Department
   Allmandring 30
   Stuttgart  70550
   Germany

   Email: ietf-pcp@skiesel.de


   Reinaldo Penno
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   170 West Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California  95134
   USA

   Email: repenno@cisco.com


   Stuart Cheshire
   Apple Inc.
   1 Infinite Loop
   Cupertino, California  95014
   USA

   Phone: +1 408 974 3207
   Email: cheshire@apple.com






















Kiesel, et al.            Expires April 8, 2016                [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/