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

Versions: 00 01

IPv6 Operations                                               J. Linkova
Internet-Draft                                                    Google
Intended status: Informational                                M. Stucchi
Expires: January 3, 2018                                    July 2, 2017


   Using Conditional Router Advertisements for Enterprise Multihoming
                 draft-linkova-v6ops-conditional-ras-01

Abstract

   This document discusses most common scenarios of connecting an
   enterprise network to multiple ISPs using an address space assigned
   by an ISP.  The problem of enterprise multihoming without address
   translation of any form has not been solved yet as it requires both
   the network to select the correct egress ISP based on the packet
   source address and hosts to select the correct source address based
   on the desired egress ISP for that traffic.
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] proposes a solution to
   this problem by introducing a new routing functionality (Source
   Address Dependent Routing) to solve the uplink selection issue and
   using Router Advertisements to influence the host source address
   selection.  While the above-mentioned document focuses on solving the
   general problem and on covering various complex use cases, this
   document describes how the solution proposed in
   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] can be adopted for limited
   number of common use cases.  In particular, the focus is on scenarios
   where an enterprise network has two Internet uplinks used either in
   primary/backup mode or simultaneously and hosts in that network might
   not yet properly support multihoming as described in [RFC8028].

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 January 3, 2018.




Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 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 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
   2.  Common Enterprise Multihoming Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Two ISP Uplinks, Primary and Backup . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Two ISP Uplinks, Used for Load Balancing  . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Conditional Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Solution Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.1.  Uplink Selection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.1.2.  Source Address Selection and Conditional RAs  . . . .   4
     3.2.  Example Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.1.  Single Router, Primary/Backup Uplinks . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.2.  Two Routers, Primary/Backup Uplinks . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.2.3.  Single Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks . . . .   9
       3.2.4.  Two Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks  . . . . .  10
       3.2.5.  Topologies with Dedicated Border Routers  . . . . . .  10
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Privacy Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Multihoming is an obvious requirement for many enterprise networks to
   ensure the desired level of network reliability.  However, using more
   than one ISP (and address space assigned by those ISPs) introduces
   the problem of assigning IP addresses to hosts.  In IPv4 there is no
   choice but using [RFC1918] address space and NAT ([RFC3022]) at the



Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   network edge.  Using Provider Independent or PI address space is not
   always an option as it requires running BGP between the enterprise
   network and the ISPs).  As IPv6 host can, by design, have multiple
   addresses of the global scope, multihoming using provider address
   looks even easier for IPv6: each ISP assigns an IPv6 block (usually
   /48) and hosts in the enterprise network have addresses assigned from
   each ISP block.  However using IPv6 PA blocks in multihoming scenario
   introduces some challenges, including but not limited to:

   o  Selecting the correct uplink based on the packet source address;

   o  Signaling to hosts that some source addresses should or should not
      be used (e.g. an uplink to the ISP went down or became available
      again).

   The document [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] discusses
   these and other related challenges in details in relation to the
   general multihoming scenario for enterprise networks.  Unfortunately
   the proposed solution heavily relies on the rule 5.5 of the default
   address selection algorithm ([RFC6724]) which has not been widely
   implemented at the moment this document was written.  Therefore
   network administrators in enterprise networks can't yet assume that
   all devices in their network support the rule 5.5, especially in the
   quite common BYOD ("Bring Your Own Device") scenario.  However, while
   it does not seem feasible to solve all the possible multihoming
   scenarios without reliying on rule 5.5, it is possible to provide
   IPv6 multihoming using provider-assigned (PA) address space for the
   most common use cases.  This document discusses how the general
   solution described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] can
   be applied to those two specific cases.

2.  Common Enterprise Multihoming Scenarios

2.1.  Two ISP Uplinks, Primary and Backup

   This scenario has the following key characteristics:

   o  The enterprise network is using uplinks to two (or more) ISPs for
      Internet access;

   o  Each ISP assigns IPv6 PA address space for the network;

   o  Uplink(s) to one ISP is a primary (preferred) one.  All other
      uplinks are backup and are not expected to be used while the
      primary one is operational;

   o  If the primary uplink is operational, all Internet traffic should
      flow via that uplink;



Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   o  When the primary uplink fails the Internet traffic needs to flow
      via the backup uplinks;

   o  Recovery of the primary uplink needs to trigger the traffic
      switchover from the backup uplinks back to primary one.

2.2.  Two ISP Uplinks, Used for Load Balancing

   This scenario has the following key characteristics:

   o  The enterprise network is using uplinks to two (or more) ISPs for
      Internet access;

   o  Each ISP assigns an IPv6 PA address space;

   o  All the uplinks may be used simultaneously, with the traffic being
      randomly balanced between them.

3.  Conditional Router Advertisements

3.1.  Solution Overview

3.1.1.  Uplink Selection

   As discussed in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming], one of
   the two main problems to be solved in the enterprise multihoming
   scenario is the problem of the next-hop (uplink) selection based on
   the packet source address.  For example, if the enterprise network
   has two uplinks, to ISP_A and ISP_B, and hosts have addresses from
   subnet_A and subnet_B (belonging to ISP_A and ISP_B respectively)
   then packets sourced from subnet_A must be sent to ISP_A uplink while
   packets sourced from subnet_B must be sent to ISP_B uplink.

   While some work is being done in the Source Address Dependent Routing
   (SADR) area, the simplest way to implement the desired functionality
   currently is to apply a policy which selects a next-hop or an egress
   interface based on the packet source address.  Most of the SMB/
   Enterprise grade routers have such functionality available currently.

3.1.2.  Source Address Selection and Conditional RAs

   Another problem to be solved in the multihoming scenario is the
   source address selection on hosts.  In the normal situation (all
   uplinks are up/operational) hosts have multiple global unique
   addresses and can rely on the default address selection algorithm
   ([RFC6724]) to pick up a source address, while the network is
   responsible for choosing the correct uplink based on the source
   address selected by a host as described in Section 3.1.2.  However,



Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   some network topology changes (i.e. changing uplink status) might
   affect the global reachability for packets sourced from the
   particular prefixes and therefore such changes have to be signaled
   back to the hosts.  For example:

   o  An uplink to an ISP_A went down.  Hosts should not use addresses
      from ISP_A prefix;

   o  A primary uplink to ISP_A which was not operational has come back
      up.  Hosts should start using the source addresses from ISP_A
      prefix.

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming] provides a detailed
   explanation on why SLAAC and router advertisements are the most
   suitable mechanism for signaling network topology changes to hosts
   and thereby influencing the source address selection.  Sending a
   router advertisement to change the preferred lifetime for a given
   prefix provides the following functionality:

   o  deprecating addresses (by sending an RA with the
      preferred_lifetime set to 0 in the corresponding POI) to indicate
      to hosts that that addresses from that prefix should not be used;

   o  making a previously unused (deprecated) prefix usable again (by
      sending an RA containing a POI with non-zero preferred lifetime)
      to indicate to hosts that addresses from that prefix can be used
      again.

   To provide the desired functionality, first-hop routers are required
   to

   o  send RA triggered by defined event policies in response to uplink
      status change event; and

   o  while sending periodic or solicted RAs, set the value in the given
      RA field (e.g.  PIO preferred lifetime) based on the uplink
      status.

   The exact definition of the 'uplink status' depends on the network
   topology and may include conditions like:

   o  uplink interface status change;

   o  presence of a particular route in the routing table;

   o  presence of a particular route with a particular attribute (next-
      hop, tag etc) in the routing table;




Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   o  protocol adjacency change.

   etc.

   In some scenarios, when two routers are providing first-hop
   redundancy via VRRP, the master-backup status can be considered as a
   condition for sending RAs and changing the preferred lifetime value.
   See Section 3.2.2 for more details.

   If hosts are provided with ISP DNS servers IPv6 addresses via RDNSS
   [RFC8106] it might be desirable for the conditional RAs to update the
   Lifetime field of the RDNSS option as well.

3.2.  Example Scenarios

   This section illustrates how the conditional RAs solution can be
   applied to most common enterprise multihoming scenarios.

3.2.1.  Single Router, Primary/Backup Uplinks


                                                                 --------
                                               ,-------,       ,'        ',
                    +----+  2001:db8:1::/48  ,'         ',    :            :
                    |    |------------------+    ISP_A    +--+:            :
 2001:db8:1:1::/64  |    |                   ',         ,'    :            :
                    |    |                     '-------'      :            :
H1------------------| R1 |                                    :  INTERNET  :
                    |    |                     ,-------,      :            :
 2001:db8:2:1::/64  |    |  2001:db8:2::/48  ,'         ',    :            :
                    |    |------------------+    ISP_B    +--+:            :
                    +----+                   ',         ,'    :            :
                                               '-------'       ',        ,'
                                                                 --------


              Figure 1: Single Router, Primary/Backup Uplinks

   Let's look at a simple network topology where a single router acts as
   a border router to terminate two ISP uplinks and as a first-hop
   router for hosts.  Each ISP assigns a /48 to the network, and the
   ISP_A uplink is a primary one, to be used for all Internet traffic,
   while the ISP_B uplink is a backup, to be used only when the primary
   uplink is not operational.

   To ensure that packets with source addresses from ISP_A and ISP_B are
   only routed to ISP_A and ISP_B uplinks respectively, the network
   administrator needs to configure a policy on R1:



Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


if {
     packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
     packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:1::/48
} then {
       next-hop is ISP_A_uplink
}
if {
     packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
     packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:2::/48
}
then {
       next-hop is ISP_B_uplink
}

   Under normal circumstances it is desirable that all traffic be sent
   via the ISP_A uplink, therefore hosts (the host H1 in the example
   topology figure) should be using source addresses from
   2001:db8:1:1::/64.  When/if ISP_A uplink fails, hosts should stop
   using the 2001:db8:1:1::/64 prefix and start using 2001:db8:2:1::/64
   until the ISP_A uplink comes back up.  To achieve the desired
   behavior the router advertisement configuration on the R1 device for
   the interface facing H1 needs to have the following policy:

   prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink is up
       then preferred_lifetime = 604800
     else preferred_lifetime = 0
    }

   prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_Uplink is up
       then preferred_lifetime = 0
     else preferred_lifetime = 604800
   }

   A similar policy needs to be applied to the RDNSS Lifetime if ISP_A
   and ISP_B DNS servers are used.

3.2.2.  Two Routers, Primary/Backup Uplinks

   Let's look at a more complex scenario where two border routers are
   terminating two ISP uplinks (one each), acting as redundant first-hop
   routers for hosts.  The topology is shown on Fig.2








Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


                                                                 --------
                                               ,-------,       ,'        ',
                      +----+ 2001:db8:1::/48 ,'         ',    :            :
  2001:db8:1:1::/64  _|    |----------------+    ISP_A    +--+:            :
                    | | R1 |                 ',         ,'    :            :
                    | +----+                   '-------'      :            :
H1------------------|                                         :  INTERNET  :
                    | +----+                   ,-------,      :            :
                    |_|    | 2001:db8:2::/48 ,'         ',    :            :
  2001:db8:2:1::/64   | R2 |----------------+    ISP_B    +--+:            :
                      +----+                 ',         ,'    :            :
                                               '-------'       ',        ,'
                                                                 --------


               Figure 2: Two Routers, Primary/Backup Uplinks

   In this scenario R1 sends RAs with PIO for 2001:db8:1:1::/64 (ISP_A
   address space) and R2 sends RAs with PIO for 2001:db8:2:1::/64 (ISP_B
   address space).  Each router needs to have a forwarding policy
   configured for packets received on its hosts-facing interface:

if {
     packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
     packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:1::/48
} then {
    next-hop is ISP_A_uplink
}
if {
     packet_destination_address is not in 2001:db8:1::/48 or 2001:db8:2::/48
     packet_source_address is in 2001:db8:2::/48
} then {
    next-hop is ISP_B_uplink
}

   In this case there is more than one way to ensure that hosts are
   selecting the correct source address based on the uplink status.  If
   VRRP is used to provide first-hop redundancy and the master router is
   the one with the active uplink, then the simplest way is to use the
   VRRP mastership as a condition for router advertisement.  So, if
   ISP_A is the primary uplink, the routers R1 and R2 need to be
   configured in the following way:

   R1 is the VRRP master by default (when ISP_A uplink is up).  If ISP_A
   uplink is down, then R1 becomes a backup.  Router advertisements on
   R1's interface facing H1 needs to have the following policy applied:





Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
     if vrrp_master then preferred_lifetime = 604800
       else preferred_lifetime = 0
   }

   R2 is VRRP backup by default.  Router advertsement on R2 interface
   facing H1 needs to have the following policy applied:

   prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
     if vrrp_master then preferred_lifetime = 604800
       else preferred_lifetime = 0
   }

   If VRRP is not used or interface status tracking is not used for
   mastership switchover, then each router needs to be able to detect
   the uplink failure/recovery on the neighboring router, so that RAs
   with updated preferred lifetime values are triggered.  Depending on
   the network setup various triggers like a route to the uplink
   interface subnet or a default route received from the uplink can be
   used.  The obvious drawback of using the routing table to trigger the
   conditional RAs is that some additional configuration is required.
   For example, if a route to the prefix assigned to the ISP uplink is
   used as a trgger, then the conditional RA policy would have the
   following logic:

   R1:

   prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime = 604800
     else preferred_lifetime = 0
     }

   R2:

   prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 0
       else preferred_lifetime = 604800
    }

3.2.3.  Single Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks

   Let's look at the example topology shown in Figure 1, but with both
   uplinks used simultaneously.  In this case R1 would send RAs
   containing PIOs for both prefixes, 2001:db8:1:1::/64 and
   2001:db8:2:1::/64, changing the preferred lifetime based on
   particular uplink availability.  If the interface status is used as
   uplink availability indicator, then the policy logic would look like
   the following:



Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime  = 604800
        else preferred_lifetime = 0
   }
   prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
     if ISP_B_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime  = 604800
        else preferred_lifetime = 0
   }

   R1 needs a forwarding policy to be applied to forward packets to the
   correct uplink based on the source address as described in
   Section 3.2.1.

3.2.4.  Two Router, Load Balancing Between Uplinks

   In this scenario the example topology is similar to the one shown in
   Figure 2, but both uplinks can be used at the same time.  It means
   that both R1 and R2 need to have the corresponding forwarding policy
   to forward packets based on their source addresses.

   Each router would send RAs with POI for the corresponding prefix.
   setting preferred_lifetime to a non-zero value when the ISP uplink is
   up, and deprecating the prefix by setting the preferred lifetime to 0
   in case of uplink failure.  The uplink recovery would trigger another
   RA with non-zero preferred lifetime to make the addresses from the
   prefix preferred again.  The example RA policy on R1 and R2 would
   look like:

   R1:

   prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime  = 604800
        else preferred_lifetime = 0
   }

   R2:

   prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
     if ISP_B_uplink is up then preferred_lifetime  = 604800
        else preferred_lifetime = 0
   }

3.2.5.  Topologies with Dedicated Border Routers

   For simplicity reasons all topologies below show the ISP uplinks
   terminated on the first-hop routers.  Obviously, the proposed
   approach can be used in more complex topologies when dedicated
   devices are used for terminating ISP uplinks.  In that case VRRP



Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   mastership or inteface status can not be used as a trigger for
   conditional RAs and route presence as described above should be used
   instead.

   Let's look at the example topology shown on the Figure 3:


                                2001:db8:1::/48              --------
    2001:db8:1:1::/64                     ,-------,        ,'        ',
              +----+  +---+  +----+     ,'         ',     :            :
             _|    |--|   |--| R3 |----+    ISP_A    +---+:            :
            | | R1 |  |   |  +----+     ',         ,'     :            :
            | +----+  |   |               '-------'       :            :
  H1--------|         |LAN|                               :  INTERNET  :
            | +----+  |   |               ,-------,       :            :
            |_|    |  |   |  +----+     ,'         ',     :            :
              | R2 |--|   |--| R4 |----+    ISP_B    +---+:            :
              +----+  +---+  +----+     ',         ,'     :            :
  2001:db8:2:1::/64                       '-------'        ',        ,'
                                2001:db8:2::/48              --------


                    Figure 3: Dedicated Border Routers

   For example, if ISP_A is a primary uplink and ISP_B is a backup one
   then the following policy might be used to achieve the desired
   behaviour (H1 is using ISP_A address space, 2001:db8:1:1::/64 while
   ISP_A uplink is up and only using ISP_B 2001:db8:2:1::/64 prefix if
   the uplink is non-operational):

   R1 and R2 policy:

   prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 604800
     else preferred_lifetime = 0
     }
   prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 0
       else preferred_lifetime = 604800
    }

   For load-balancing case the policy would look slightly different:
   each prefix has non-zero preferred_lifetime only if the correspnding
   ISP uplink route is present:







Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   prefix 2001:db8:1:1::/64 {
     if ISP_A_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 604800
     else preferred_lifetime = 0
     }
   prefix 2001:db8:2:1::/64 {
     if ISP_B_uplink_route is present then preferred_lifetime = 0
       else preferred_lifetime = 604800
    }

4.  IANA Considerations

   This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.

5.  Security Considerations

5.1.  Privacy Considerations

6.  Acknowledgements

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming]
              Baker, F., Bowers, C., and J. Linkova, "Enterprise
              Multihoming using Provider-Assigned Addresses without
              Network Prefix Translation: Requirements and Solution",
              draft-ietf-rtgwg-enterprise-pa-multihoming-00 (work in
              progress), March 2017.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
              and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, DOI 10.17487/RFC1918, February 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1918>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC2827]  Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
              Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
              Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
              May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.



Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


   [RFC3022]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
              Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3022, January 2001,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3022>.

   [RFC3582]  Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
              Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3582, August 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3582>.

   [RFC4116]  Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.
              Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations",
              RFC 4116, DOI 10.17487/RFC4116, July 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4116>.

   [RFC4193]  Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
              Addresses", RFC 4193, DOI 10.17487/RFC4193, October 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4193>.

   [RFC4218]  Nordmark, E. and T. Li, "Threats Relating to IPv6
              Multihoming Solutions", RFC 4218, DOI 10.17487/RFC4218,
              October 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4218>.

   [RFC4219]  Lear, E., "Things Multihoming in IPv6 (MULTI6) Developers
              Should Think About", RFC 4219, DOI 10.17487/RFC4219,
              October 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4219>.

   [RFC4862]  Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
              Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.

   [RFC6296]  Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
              Translation", RFC 6296, DOI 10.17487/RFC6296, June 2011,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6296>.

   [RFC7157]  Troan, O., Ed., Miles, D., Matsushima, S., Okimoto, T.,
              and D. Wing, "IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address
              Translation", RFC 7157, DOI 10.17487/RFC7157, March 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7157>.

   [RFC8106]  Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
              "IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
              RFC 8106, DOI 10.17487/RFC8106, March 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8106>.






Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
              Lamparter, D. and A. Smirnov, "Destination/Source
              Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-04 (work in
              progress), May 2017.

   [RFC3704]  Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
              Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, DOI 10.17487/RFC3704, March
              2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3704>.

   [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
              "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.

   [RFC4941]  Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
              Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
              IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.

   [RFC5533]  Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
              Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, DOI 10.17487/RFC5533,
              June 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5533>.

   [RFC5534]  Arkko, J. and I. van Beijnum, "Failure Detection and
              Locator Pair Exploration Protocol for IPv6 Multihoming",
              RFC 5534, DOI 10.17487/RFC5534, June 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5534>.

   [RFC6724]  Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
              "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
              (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.

   [RFC7788]  Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
              Control Protocol", RFC 7788, DOI 10.17487/RFC7788, April
              2016, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7788>.

   [RFC8028]  Baker, F. and B. Carpenter, "First-Hop Router Selection by
              Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network", RFC 8028,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8028, November 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8028>.








Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               Conditional RAs                   July 2017


Appendix A.  Change Log

   Initial Version:  July 2017

Authors' Addresses

   Jen Linkova
   Google
   Mountain View, California  94043
   USA

   Email: furry@google.com


   Massimiliano Stucchi

   Email: max@stucchi.ch


































Linkova & Stucchi        Expires January 3, 2018               [Page 15]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.123, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/