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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 RFC 6179

Internet Research Task Force                             F. Templin, Ed.
(IRTF)                                      Boeing Research & Technology
Internet-Draft                                           October 8, 2010
Intended status: Experimental
Expires: April 11, 2011


              The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
                       draft-templin-iron-13.txt

Abstract

   Since the Internet must continue to support escalating growth due to
   increasing demand, it is clear that current routing architectures and
   operational practices must be updated.  This document proposes an
   Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) that supports sustainable
   growth through Provider Independent addressing while requiring no
   changes to end systems and no changes to the existing routing system.
   IRON further addresses other important issues including routing
   scaling, mobility management, multihoming, traffic engineering and
   NAT traversal.  While business considerations are an important
   determining factor for widespread adoption, they are out of scope for
   this document.  This document is a product of the IRTF Routing
   Research Group.

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 11, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 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



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   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.











































Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  The Internet Routing Overlay Network . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     3.1.  IRON Client Router . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     3.2.  IRON Serving Router  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     3.3.  IRON Relay Router  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.  IRON Organizational Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   5.  IRON Initialization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.1.  IRON Relay Router Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.2.  IRON Serving Router Initialization . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     5.3.  IRON Client Router Initialization  . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  IRON Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.1.  IRON Client Router Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     6.2.  IRON Serving Router Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.3.  IRON Relay Router Operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     6.4.  IRON Reference Operating Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.4.1.  Both Hosts Within IRON EUNs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       6.4.2.  Mixed IRON and Non-IRON Hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     6.5.  Mobility, Multihoming and Traffic Engineering
           Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       6.5.1.  Mobility Management  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       6.5.2.  Multihoming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       6.5.3.  Inbound Traffic Engineering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       6.5.4.  Outbound Traffic Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     6.6.  Renumbering Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
     6.7.  NAT Traversal Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     6.8.  Nested EUN Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
       6.8.1.  Host A Sends Packets to Host Z . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       6.8.2.  Host Z Sends Packets to Host A . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
   7.  Additional Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   8.  Related Initiatives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   9.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   10. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
   12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
     12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
   Appendix A.  IRON VPs Over Internetworks with Different
                Address Families  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
   Appendix B.  Scaling Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36








Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


1.  Introduction

   Growth in the number of entries instantiated in the Internet routing
   system has led to concerns for unsustainable routing scaling
   [I-D.narten-radir-problem-statement].  Operational practices such as
   increased use of multihoming with IPv4 Provider-Independent (PI)
   addressing are resulting in more and more fine-grained prefixes
   injected into the routing system from more and more end-user
   networks.  Furthermore, the forthcoming depletion of the public IPv4
   address space has raised concerns for both increased address space
   fragmentation (leading to yet further routing table entries) and an
   impending address space run-out scenario.  At the same time, the IPv6
   routing system is beginning to see growth in IPv6 Provider-Aggregated
   (PA) prefixes [BGPMON] which must be managed in order to avoid the
   same routing scaling issues the IPv4 Internet now faces.  Since the
   Internet must continue to scale to accommodate increasing demand, it
   is clear that new routing methodologies and operational practices are
   needed.

   Several related works have investigated routing scaling issues.
   Virtual Aggregation (VA) [I-D.ietf-grow-va] and Aggregation in
   Increasing Scopes (AIS) [I-D.zhang-evolution] are global routing
   proposals that introduce routing overlays with Virtual Prefixes (VPs)
   to reduce the number of entries required in each router's Forwarding
   Information Base (FIB) and Routing Information Base (RIB).  Routing
   and Addressing in Networks with Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER)
   [RFC5720] examines recursive arrangements of enterprise networks that
   can apply to a very broad set of use case scenarios
   [I-D.russert-rangers].  In particular, RANGER supports encapsulation
   and secure redirection by treating each layer in the recursive
   hierarchy as a virtual non-broadcast, multiple access (NBMA) "link".
   RANGER is an architectural framework that includes Virtual Enterprise
   Traversal (VET) [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and the Subnetwork
   Adaptation and Encapsulation Layer (SEAL) [I-D.templin-intarea-seal]
   as its functional building blocks.

   This document proposes an Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
   with goals of supporting sustainable growth while requiring no
   changes to the existing routing system.  IRON borrows concepts from
   VA, AIS and RANGER, and further borrows concepts from the Internet
   Vastly Improved Plumbing (Ivip) [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch] architecture
   proposal along with its associated Translating Tunnel Router (TTR)
   mobility extensions [TTRMOB].  Indeed, the TTR model to a great
   degree inspired the IRON mobility architecture design discussed in
   this document.  The Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal
   techniques adapted for IRON were inspired by the Simple Address
   Mapping for Premises Legacy Equipment (SAMPLE) proposal
   [I-D.carpenter-softwire-sample].



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   IRON specifically seeks to provide scalable PI addressing without
   changing the current BGP [RFC4271] routing system.  IRON observes the
   Internet Protocol standards [RFC0791][RFC2460].  Other network layer
   protocols that can be encapsulated within IP packets (e.g., OSI/CLNP
   [RFC1070], etc.) are also within scope.

   The IRON is a global routing system comprising virtual overlay
   networks managed by Virtual Prefix Companies (VPCs) that own and
   manage Virtual Prefixes (VPs) from which End User Network (EUN) PI
   prefixes (EPs) are delegated to customer sites.  The IRON is
   motivated by a growing customer demand for multihoming, mobility
   management and traffic engineering while using stable PI addressing
   to avoid network renumbering [RFC4192][RFC5887].  The IRON uses the
   existing IPv4 and IPv6 global Internet routing systems as virtual
   links for tunneling inner network protocol packets within outer IPv4
   or IPv6 headers (see: Section 3).  The IRON requires deployment of a
   small number of new BGP core routers and supporting servers, as well
   as IRON-aware routers/servers in customer EUNs.  No modifications to
   hosts, and no modifications to most routers are required.

   While the IRON architecture addresses network mobility, host mobility
   considerations are outside the scope of this document.  IP multicast
   considerations are also out of scope.

   Note: This document is offered in compliance with Internet Research
   Task Force (IRTF) document stream procedures [RFC5743]; it is not an
   IETF product and is not a standard.  The views in this document were
   considered controversial by the IRTF Routing Research Group (RRG) but
   the RG reached a consensus that the document should still be
   published.  The document will undergo a period of review within the
   RRG and through selected expert reviewers prior to publication.  The
   following sections discuss details of the IRON architecture.


2.  Terminology

   This document makes use of the following terms:

   End User Network (EUN)
      an edge network that connects an organization's devices (e.g.,
      computers, routers, printers, etc.) to the Internet.

   End User Network PI Prefix (EP)
      a more-specific Provider-Independent (PI) prefix derived from a
      Virtual Prefix (VP) (e.g., an IPv4 /28, an IPv6 /56, etc.) and
      delegated to an EUN by a Virtual Prefix Company (VPC).





Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   End User Network PI Address (EPA)
      a network layer address belonging to an EP and assigned to the
      interface of an end system in an EUN.

   Forwarding Information Based (FIB)
      a data structure containing network prefix to next-hop mappings;
      usually maintained in a router's fast-path processing lookup
      tables.

   Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON)
      a composite virtual overlay network that comprises the union of
      all VPC overlay networks configured over a common Internetwork.
      The IRON supports routing through encapsulation of inner packets
      with EPA addresses within outer headers that use locator
      addresses.

   IRON Client Router ("Client")
      a customer's router (or host with embedded gateway function) that
      logically connects the customer's EUNs and their associated EPs to
      the IRON via tunnels.

   IRON Serving Router ("Server")
      a VPC's overlay network router that provides forwarding and
      mapping services for the EPs owned by customer Client routers.

   IRON Relay Router ("Relay")
      a VPC's overlay network router that acts as a relay between the
      IRON and the native Internet.

   IRON Router (IR)
      generically refers to any of an IRON Client/Server/Relay router.

   Internet Service Provider (ISP)
      a service provider which connects customer EUNs to the underlying
      Internetwork.  In other words, an ISP is responsible for providing
      basic Internet connectivity for customer EUNs.

   Locator
      an IP address assigned to the interface of a router or end system
      within a public or private network.  Locators taken from public IP
      prefixes are routable on a global basis, while locators taken from
      private IP prefixes are made public via Network Address
      Translation (NAT).

   Provider Aggregated (PA) address or prefix
      a network layer address or prefix delegated to an EUN by an ISP.





Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   Provider Independent (PI) address or prefix
      a network layer address or prefix delegated to an EUN by a third
      party independently of the EUN's ISP arrangements.

   Routing and Addressing in Networks with Global Enterprise Recursion
   (RANGER)
      an architectural examination of virtual overlay networks applied
      to enterprise network scenarios, with implications for a wider
      variety of use cases.

   Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)
      an encapsulation sublayer that provides extended packet
      identification and a control message protocol to ensure
      deterministic network-layer feedback.

   Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)
      a method for discovering border routers and forming dynamic point-
      to-(multi)point tunnels over enterprise networks (or sites) with
      varying properties.

   Virtual Prefix (VP)
      a PI prefix block (e.g., an IPv4 /16, an IPv6 /20, an OSI NSAP
      prefix, etc.) that is owned and managed by a Virtual Prefix
      Company (VPC).

   Virtual Prefix Company (VPC)
      a company that owns and manages a set of VPs from which it
      delegates EPs to EUNs.

   VPC Overlay Network
      a specialized set of routers deployed by a VPC to service customer
      EUNs through a virtual overlay network configured over an
      underlying Internetwork (e.g., the global Internet).


3.  The Internet Routing Overlay Network

   The Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON) is a system of virtual
   overlay networks configured over a common Internetwork.  While the
   principles presented in this document are discussed within the
   context of the public global Internet, they can also be applied to
   any autonomous Internetwork.  The rest of this document therefore
   refers to the terms "Internet" and "Internetwork" interchangeably
   except in cases where specific distinctions must be made.

   The IRON consists of IRON Routers (IRs) that automatically tunnel the
   packets of end-to-end communication sessions within encapsulating
   headers used for Internet routing.  IRs use Virtual Enterprise



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   Traversal (VET) [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] in conjunction with the
   Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)
   [I-D.templin-intarea-seal] to encapsulate inner network layer packets
   within outer headers as shown in Figure 1:

                                         +-------------------------+
                                         |    Outer headers with   |
                                         ~     locator addresses   ~
                                         |     (IPv4 or IPv6)      |
                                         +-------------------------+
                                         |       SEAL Header       |
       +-------------------------+       +-------------------------+
       |   Inner Packet Header   |  -->  |   Inner Packet Header   |
       ~    with EP addresses    ~  -->  ~    with EP addresses    ~
       | (IPv4, IPv6, OSI, etc.) |  -->  | (IPv4, IPv6, OSI, etc.) |
       +-------------------------+       +-------------------------+
       |                         |  -->  |                         |
       ~    Inner Packet Body    ~  -->  ~    Inner Packet Body    ~
       |                         |  -->  |                         |
       +-------------------------+       +-------------------------+

          Inner packet before                Outer packet after
          before encapsulation               after encapsulation

     Figure 1: Encapsulation of Inner Packets Within Outer IP Headers

   VET specifies the automatic tunneling mechanisms used for
   encapsulation, while SEAL specifies the format and usage of the SEAL
   header as well as a set of control messages.  Most notably, IRs use
   the SEAL Control Message Protocol (SCMP) to deterministically
   exchange and authenticate control messages such as route
   redirections, indications of Path Maximum Transmission Unit (PMTU)
   limitations, destination unreachables, etc.

   The IRON is the union of all virtual overlay networks that are
   configured over a common underlying Internet and are owned and
   managed Virtual Prefix Companies (VPCs).  Each such virtual overlay
   network comprises a set of IRs distributed throughout the Internet to
   serve highly-aggregated Virtual Prefixes (VPs).  VPCs delegate sub-
   prefixes from their VPs which they lease to customers as End User
   Network PI prefixes (EPs).  The customers in turn assign the EPs to
   their customer edge IRs which connect their End User Networks (EUNs)
   to the IRON.

   VPCs may have no affiliation with the ISP networks from which
   customers obtain their basic Internet connectivity.  Therefore, a
   customer could procure its summary network services either through a
   common broker or through separate entities.  In that case, the VPC



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   can open for business and begin serving its customers immediately
   without the need to coordinate its activities with ISPs or with other
   VPCs.  Further details on business considerations are out of scope
   for this document.

   The IRON requires no changes to end systems and no changes to most
   routers in the Internet.  Instead, the IRON comprises IRs that are
   deployed either as new platforms or as modifications to existing
   platforms.  IRs may be deployed incrementally without disturbing the
   existing Internet routing system, and act as waypoints (or "cairns")
   for navigating the IRON.  The functional roles for IRs are described
   in the following sections.

3.1.  IRON Client Router

   An IRON client router (or, simply, "Client") is a customer's router
   (or host with embedded gateway function) that logically connects the
   customer's EUNs and their associated EPs to the IRON via tunnels as
   shown in Figure 2.  Clients obtain EPs from VPCs and use them to
   number subnets and interfaces within their EUNs.  A Client can be
   deployed on the same physical platform that also connects the
   customer's EUNs to its ISPs, but it may also be a separate router or
   even a standalone server system located within the EUN.  (This model
   applies even if the EUN connects to the ISP via a Network Address
   Translator (NAT) - see Section 6.7).
                           .-.
                        ,-(  _)-.
        +--------+   .-(_    (_  )-.
        | Client |--(_     ISP      )
        +---+----+     `-(______)-'
            |   <= T         \     .-.
           .-.       u        \ ,-(  _)-.
        ,-(  _)-.       n     .-(_    (-  )-.
     .-(_    (_  )-.      n  (_   Internet   )
    (_     EUN      )       e   `-(______)-
       `-(______)-'           l          ___
            |                   s =>    (:::)-.
       +----+---+                   .-(::::::::)
       |  Host  |                .-(::::::::::::)-.
       +--------+               (:::: The IRON ::::)
                                 `-(::::::::::::)-'
                                    `-(::::::)-'

          Figure 2: IRON Client Router Connecting EUN to the IRON







Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


3.2.  IRON Serving Router

   An IRON serving router (or, simply, "Server") is a VPC's overlay
   network router that provides forwarding and mapping services for the
   EPs owned by customer Client routers.  In typical deployments, a VPC
   will deploy many Servers around the IRON in a globally-distributed
   fashion (e.g., as depicted in Figure 3) so that Clients can discover
   those that are nearby.

             +--------+    +--------+
             | Boston |    | Tokyo  |
             | Server |    | Server |
             +--+-----+    ++-------+
     +--------+  \         /
     | Seattle|   \   ___ /
     | Server |    \ (:::)-.       +--------+
     +------+-+  .-(::::::::)------+ Paris  |
             \.-(::::::::::::)-.   | Server |
             (:::: The IRON ::::)  +--------+
              `-(::::::::::::)-'
   +--------+ /  `-(::::::)-'  \     +--------+
   | Moscow +          |        \--- + Sydney |
   | Server |     +----+---+         | Server |
   +--------+     | Cairo  |         +--------+
                  | Server |
                  +--------+

         Figure 3: IRON Serving Router Global Distribution Example

   Each Server acts as tunnel-endpoint router that forms a bi-
   directional tunnel with each of its Client customers.  Each Server
   also associates with a set of Relays that can forward packets from
   the IRON out to the native Internet and vice-versa as discussed in
   the next section.

3.3.  IRON Relay Router

   An IRON Relay Router (or, simply, "Relay") is a VPC's overlay network
   router that acts as a relay between the IRON and the native Internet.
   It therefore also serves as an Autonomous System Border Router (ASBR)
   that is owned and managed by the VPC.

   Each VPC configures one or more Relays which advertise the company's
   VPs into the IPv4 and IPv6 global Internet BGP routing systems.  Each
   Relay associates with all of the VPC's overlay network Servers, e.g.,
   via tunnels over the IRON, via a direct interconnect such as an
   Ethernet cable, etc.  The Relay role (as well as its relationship
   with overlay network Servers) is depicted in Figure 4:



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


                      .-.
                   ,-(  _)-.
                .-(_    (_  )-.
               (_   Internet   )
                  `-(______)-'   |  +--------+
                        |        |--| Server |
                   +----+---+    |  +--------+
                   | Relay  |----|  +--------+
                   +--------+    |--| Server |
                       _||       |  +--------+
                      (:::)-.  (Ethernet)
                  .-(::::::::)
   +--------+  .-(::::::::::::)-.  +--------+
   | Server |=(:::: The IRON ::::)=| Server |
   +--------+  `-(::::::::::::)-'  +--------+
                  `-(::::::)-'
                       ||      (Tunnels)
                   +--------+
                   | Server |
                   +--------+

      Figure 4: IRON Relay Router Connecting IRON to Native Internet


4.  IRON Organizational Principles

   The IRON consists of the union of all VPC overlay networks configured
   over a common Internetwork (e.g., the public Internet).  Each such
   overlay network represents a distinct "patch" on the Internet
   "quilt", where the patches are stitched together by tunnels over the
   links, routers, bridges, etc., that connect the underlying.  When a
   new VPC overlay network is deployed, it becomes yet another patch on
   the quilt.  The IRON is therefore a composite overlay network
   consisting of multiple individual patches, where each patch
   coordinates its activities independently of all others (with the
   exception that the Servers of each patch must be aware of all VPs in
   the IRON).  In order to ensure mutual cooperation between all VPC
   overlay networks, sufficient address space portions of the inner
   network layer protocol (e.g., IPv4, IPv6, etc.) should be set aside
   and designated as VP space.

   Each VPC overlay network in the IRON maintains a set of Relays and
   Servers that provide services to their Client customers.  In order to
   ensure adequate customer service levels, the VPC should conduct a
   traffic scaling analysis and distribute sufficient Relays and Servers
   for the overlay network globally throughout the Internet.  Figure 5
   depicts the logical arrangement of Relays Servers and Clients in an
   IRON virtual overlay network:



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


                              .-.
                           ,-(  _)-.
                        .-(_    (_  )-.
                       (__ Internet   _)
                          `-(______)-'

          <------------     Relays      ------------>
                    ________________________
                   (::::::::::::::::::::::::)-.
               .-(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)
            .-(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)-.
           (:::::::::::   The IRON  :::::::::::::::)
            `-(:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)-'
               `-(::::::::::::::::::::::::::::)-'

          <------------    Servers      ------------>
          .-.                .-.                     .-.
       ,-(  _)-.          ,-(  _)-.               ,-(  _)-.
    .-(_    (_  )-.    .-(_    (_  )-.         .-(_    (_  )-.
   (__   ISP A    _)  (__   ISP B    _)  ...  (__   ISP x    _)
      `-(______)-'       `-(______)-'            `-(______)-'
           <-----------      NATs        ------------>

           <----------- Clients and EUNs ----------->

              Figure 5: Virtual Overlay Network Organization

   Each Relay in the VPC overlay network connects the overlay directly
   to the underlying IPv4 and IPv6 Internets.  It also advertises the
   VPC overlay network's IPv4 VPs into the IPv4 BGP routing system and
   advertises the overlay network's IPv6 VPs into the IPv6 BGP routing
   system.  Relays will therefore receive packets with EPA destination
   addresses sent by end systems in the Internet and direct them toward
   EPA-addressed end systems connected to the VPC overlay network.

   Each VPC overlay network also manages a set of Servers that connect
   their Clients and associated EUNs to the IRON and to the IPv6 and
   IPv4 Internets via their associations with Relays.  IRON Servers
   therefore need not be BGP routers themselves and can be simple
   commodity hardware platforms.  Moreover, the Server and Relay
   functions can be deployed together on the same physical platform as a
   unified gateway or they may be deployed on separate platforms (e.g.,
   for load balancing purposes).

   Each Server maintains a working set of Clients for which it caches
   EP-to-Client mappings in its Forwarding Information Base (FIB).  Each
   Server also in turn propagates the list of EPs in its working set to
   each of the Relays in the VPC overlay network via a dynamic routing



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   protocol (e.g., an overlay network internal BGP instance that carries
   only the EP-to-Server mappings and does not interact with the
   external BGP routing system).  Each Server therefore only needs to
   track the EPs for its current working set of Clients, while each
   Relay will maintain a full EP-to-Server mapping table that represents
   reachability information for all EPs in the VPC overlay network.

   Customers establish Clients that obtain their basic Internet
   connectivity from ISPs and connect to Servers to attach their EUNs to
   the IRON.  Each EUN can connect to the IRON via one or multiple
   Clients as long as the Clients coordinate with one another, e.g., to
   mitigate EUN partitions.  Unlike Relays and Servers, Clients may use
   private addresses behind one or several layers of NATs.  Each Client
   initially discovers a list of nearby Servers through an anycast
   discovery process (described below).  It then selects one of these
   nearby Servers and forms a bidirectional tunnel through an initial
   exchange followed by periodic keepalives.

   After the Client selects a Server, it forwards initial outbound
   packets from its EUNs by tunneling them to the Server which in turn
   forwards them to the nearest Relay within the IRON that serves the
   final destination.  The Client will subsequently receive redirect
   messages informing it of a more direct route through a Server that
   serves the final destination EUN.

   The IRON can also be used to support VPs of network layer address
   families that cannot be routed natively in the underlying
   Internetwork (e.g., OSI/CLNP over the public Internet, IPv6 over
   IPv4-only Internetworks, IPv4 over IPv6-only Internetworks, etc.).
   Further details for support of IRON VPs of one address family over
   Internetworks based on other address families are discussed in
   Appendix A.


5.  IRON Initialization

   IRON initialization entails the startup actions of IRs within the VPC
   overlay network and customer EUNs.  The following sections discuss
   these startups procedures.

5.1.  IRON Relay Router Initialization

   Before its first operational use, each Relay in a VPC overlay network
   is provisioned with the list of VPs that it will serve as well as the
   locators for all Servers that belong to the same overlay network.
   The Relay is also provisioned with external BGP interconnections the
   same as for any BGP router.




Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   Upon startup, the Relay engages in BGP routing exchanges with its
   peers in the IPv4 and IPv6 Internets the same as for any BGP router.
   It then connects to all of the Servers in the overlay network (e.g.,
   via a TCP connection over a bidirectional tunnel, via an iBGP route
   reflector, etc.) for the purpose of discovering EP->Server mappings.
   After the Relay has fully populated its EP->Server mapping
   information database, it is said to be "synchronized" wrt its VPs.

   After this initial synchronization procedure, the Relay then
   advertises the overlay network's VPs externally.  In particular, the
   Relay advertises the IPv6 VPs into the IPv6 BGP routing system and
   advertises the IPv4 VPs into the IPv4 BGP routing system.  The Relay
   additionally advertises an IPv4 /24 companion prefix (e.g.,
   192.0.2.0/24) into the IPv4 routing system and an IPv6 ::/64
   companion prefix (e.g., 2001:DB8::/64) into the IPv6 routing system
   (note that these may also be sub-prefixes taken from a VP).  The
   Relay then configures the host number '1' in the IPv4 companion
   prefix (e.g., as 192.0.2.1) and the interface identifier '0' in the
   IPv6 companion prefix (e.g., as 2001:DB8::0) and assigns the
   resulting addresses as subnet router anycast addresses
   [RFC3068][RFC2526] for the VPC overlay network.  (See Appendix A for
   more information on the discovery and use of companion prefixes.)
   The Relay then engages in ordinary packet forwarding operations.

5.2.  IRON Serving Router Initialization

   Before its first operational use, each Server in a VPC overlay
   network is provisioned with the locators for all Relays that
   aggregate the overlay network's VPs.  In order to support route
   optimization, the Server must also be provisioned with the list of
   all VPs in the IRON (i.e., and not just the VPs of its own overlay
   network) so that it can discern EPA and non-EPA addresses.  (The
   Server could therefore be greatly simplified if the list of VPs could
   be covered within a small number of very short prefixes, e.g., one or
   a few IPv6 ::/20's).  The Server must also discover the VP companion
   prefix relationships discussed in Section 5.1, e.g., via a global
   database such as discussed in Appendix A.

   Upon startup, each Server must connect to all of the Relays within
   its overlay network (e.g., via a TCP connection over a bidirectional
   tunnel, via an iBGP route reflector, etc.) for the purpose of
   reporting its EP->Server mappings.  The Server then actively listens
   for Client customers which register their EP prefixes as part of
   establishing a bidirectional tunnel.  When a new Client registers its
   EP prefixes, the Server announces the new EP additions to all Relays;
   when an existing Client unregisters its EP prefixes, the Server
   withdraws its announcements.




Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


5.3.  IRON Client Router Initialization

   Before its first operational use, each Client must obtain one or more
   EPs from its VPC as well as the companion prefixes associated with
   the VPC overlay network (see Section 5.1).  The Client must also
   obtain a certificate and a public/private key pair from the VPC that
   it can later use to prove ownership of its EPs.  This implies that
   each VPC must run its own public key infrastructure to be used only
   for the purpose of verifying its customers' claimed right to use an
   EP.  Hence, the VPC need not coordinate its public key infrastructure
   with any other organization.

   Upon startup, the Client sends an SCMP Router Solicitation (SRS)
   message to the VPC overlay network subnet router anycast address to
   discover the nearest Relay.  The Relay will return an SCMP Router
   Advertisement message that lists the locator addresses of one or more
   nearby Servers.  (This list is analogous to the ISATAP Potential
   Router List (PRL) [RFC5214].)

   After the Client receives an SRA message from the nearby Relay
   listing the locator addresses of nearby Servers, it sends SRS test
   messages to one or more of the locator addresses to elicit SRA
   messages.  The Server that configures the locator will include the
   header of the soliciting SRS message in its SRA message so that the
   Client can determine the number of hops along the forward path.  The
   Server also includes a metric in its SRA messages indicating its
   service availability so that the Client can avoid selecting Servers
   that are overloaded.  The Server also includes a challenge/response
   puzzle that the Client must answer if it wishes to connect to this
   Server.

   When the Client receives these SRA messages, it can measure the round
   trip time between sending the SRS and receiving the SRA as an
   indication of round-trip delay.  If the Client wishes to enlist the
   services of a specific Server (e.g., based on the measured
   performance), it then calculates the answer to the puzzle using its
   keying information and sends the answer back to the Server in a new
   SRS message that also contains all of the Client's EP prefixes for
   which it claims ownership.  If the Client solved the puzzle
   correctly, the Server will send back a new SRA message that includes
   a non-zero default router lifetime and that signifies the
   establishment of a bidirectional tunnel.  (A zero default router
   lifetime on the other hand signifies that the Server is currently
   unable to establish a bidirectional tunnel, e.g., due to heavy load,
   due to challenge/response failure, etc.)

   Note that in the above procedure it is essential that the Client
   select one and only one Server.  This is to allow the VPC overlay



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   network mapping system to have one and only one active EP-to-Server
   mapping at any point in time which shares fate with the Server
   itself.  If this Server fails, the Client will quickly select a new
   one which will automatically update the VPC overlay network mapping
   system with a new EP-to-Server mapping.


6.  IRON Operation

   Following the IRON initialization detailed in Section 5, IRs engage
   in the steady-state process of receiving and forwarding packets.  All
   IRs forward encapsulated packets over the IRON using the mechanisms
   of VET [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and SEAL [I-D.templin-intarea-seal],
   while Relays (and in some cases Servers) additionally forward packets
   to and from the native IPv6 and IPv4 Internets.  IRs also use SCMP to
   coordinate with other IRs, including the process of sending and
   receiving redirect messages, error messages, etc.  (Note however that
   an IR must not send an SCMP message in response to an SCMP error
   message.)  Each IR operates as specified in the following sub-
   sections.

6.1.  IRON Client Router Operation

   After selecting its Server as specified in Section 5.3, the Client
   should register each of its ISP connections with the Server in order
   to establish multiple bidirectional tunnels for multihoming purposes.
   To do so, it sends periodic SRS messages to its Server via each of
   its ISPs to establish additional bidirectional tunnels and to keep
   each tunnel alive.  These messages need not include challenge/
   response mechanisms since prefix proof of ownership was already
   established in the initial exchange and a nonce in the SEAL header
   can be used to confirm that the SRS message was sent by the correct
   Client.  This implies that a single nonce is used to represent the
   set of all bidirectional tunnels between the Client and the Server.
   Therefore, there are multiple bidirectional tunnels, and the nonce
   names this "bundle" of tunnels.  (The Client and Server may
   conceptually represent this "bundle" as a single tunnel with multiple
   locator addresses, however each such locator address must be tested
   independently in case there are NATs on the path.)

   If the Client ceases to receive SRA messages from its Server via a
   specific ISP connection, it marks the Server as unreachable from that
   address and therefore over that ISP connection.  (The Client should
   also inform its Server of this outage via one of its working ISP
   connections.)  If the Client ceases to receive SRA messages from its
   Server via multiple ISP connections, it marks the Server as unusable
   and quickly attempts to establish a bidirectional tunnel with a new
   Server.  The act of establishing the tunnel with a new Server will



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   automatically purge the stale mapping state associated with the old
   Server.

   When an end system in an EUN sends a flow of packets to a
   correspondent, the packets are forwarded through the EUN via normal
   routing until they reach the Client, which then tunnels the initial
   packets to its Server as the next hop.  In particular, the Client
   encapsulates each packet in an outer header with its locator as the
   source address and the locator of its Server as the destination
   address.  Note that after sending the initial packets of a flow, the
   Client may receive important SCMP messages such as indications of
   PMTU limitations, redirects that point to a better next hop, etc.  It
   is therefore essential that the Client send the initial packets
   through its Server to avoid loss of SCMP messages that cannot
   traverse a NAT in the reverse direction.  (The Server also provides a
   control point for inbound traffic engineering and a mobility anchor
   point and hence cannot by bypassed in the inbound direction).

   The Client uses the mechanisms specified in VET and SEAL to
   encapsulate each forwarded packet.  The Client further uses the SCMP
   protocol to coordinate with other IRs, including accepting redirects
   and other SCMP messages.  When the Client receives an SCMP message,
   it checks the nonce field of the encapsulated packet-in-error to
   verify that the message corresponds to the tunnel to its Server and
   accepts the message if the nonce matches.  (Note however that the
   outer source and destination addresses of the packet-in-error may be
   different than those in the original packet due to possible Server
   and/or Relay address rewritings.)

6.2.  IRON Serving Router Operation

   After the Server is initialized, it responds to SRSs from Clients by
   sending SRAs as described in Section 6.1.  When the Server receives
   an SRS message from a new Client, it sends back an SRA message with a
   challenge/response puzzle.  The Client in turn sends an SRS message
   with an answer to the puzzle.  If this authentication fails, the
   Server discards the message.  Otherwise, it creates tunnel state for
   this new Client, records the Client's EPs (see Section 5.3) in its
   FIB, and records the locator address from the SCMP message as the
   link-layer address of the next hop.  The Server next sends an SRA
   message back to the Client to complete the tunnel establishment.

   When the Server receives a SEAL-encapsulated packet from one of its
   Client tunnel endpoints, it examines the inner destination address.
   If the inner destination address is not an EPA, the Server
   decapsulates the packet and forwards it unencapsulated into the
   Internet if it is able to do so without loss due to ingress
   filtering.  Otherwise, the Server re-encapsulates the packet (i.e.,



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   it removes the outer header and replaces it with a new outer header
   of the same address family) and sets the outer destination address to
   the locator address of an Relay within its VPC overlay network.  It
   then forwards the re-encapsulated packet to the Relay, which will in
   turn decapsulate it and forward it into the Internet.

   If the inner destination address is an EPA, however, the Server
   rewrites the outer source address to one of its own locator addresses
   and rewrites the outer destination address to the subnet router
   anycast address taken from the companion prefix associated with the
   inner destination address (where the companion prefix of the same
   address family as the outer IP protocol is used).  The Server then
   forwards the revised packet into the Internet via a default or more-
   specific route, where it will be directed to the closest Relay within
   the destination VPC overlay network.  After sending the packet, the
   Server may then receive an SCMP error or redirect message from a
   Relay/Server within the destination VPC overlay network.  In that
   case, the Server verifies that the nonce in the message matches the
   tunnel corresponding to the Client that sent the original inner
   packet and discards the message if the nonce does not match.
   Otherwise, the Server re-encapsulates the SCMP message in a new outer
   header that uses the source address, destination address and nonce
   parameters associated with the tunnel to the Client; it then forwards
   the message to the Client.  This arrangement is necessary to allow
   SCMP messages to flow through any NATs on the path.

   When a Server ('A') receives a SEAL-encapsulated packet from a Relay
   or from the Internet, if the inner destination address matches an EP
   in its FIB 'A' re-encapsulates the packet in a new outer header that
   uses the source address, destination address and nonce parameters
   associated with the tunnel and forwards it to a Client ('B') which in
   turn decapsulates the packet and forwards it to the correct end
   system in the EUN.  If 'B' has left notice with 'A' that it has moved
   to a new Server ('C'), however, 'A' will instead forward the packet
   to 'C' and also send an SCMP redirect message back to the source of
   the packet.  In this way, 'B' can leave behind forwarding information
   when changing between Servers 'A' and 'C' (e.g., due to mobility
   events) without exposing packets to loss.

6.3.  IRON Relay Router Operation

   After each Relay has synchronized its VPs (see: Section 5.1) it
   advertises the full set of the company's VPs and companion prefixes
   into the IPv4 and IPv6 Internet BGP routing systems.  These prefixes
   will be represented as ordinary routing information in the BGP, and
   any packets originating from the IPv4 or IPv6 Internet destined to an
   address covered by one of the prefixes will be forwarded to one of
   the VPC overlay network's Relays.



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   When a Relay receives a packet from the Internet destined to an EPA
   covered by one of its VPs, it behaves as an ordinary IP router.  In
   particular, the Relay looks in its FIB to discover a locator of the
   Server that serves the EP that covers the destination address.  The
   Relay then simply encapsulates the packet with its own locator as the
   outer source address and the locator of the Server as the outer
   destination address and forwards the packet to the Server.

   When a Relay receives a packet from the Internet destined to one of
   its subnet router anycast addresses, it discards the packet if it is
   not SEAL-encapsulated.  If the packet is an SCMP SRS message, the
   Relay instead sends an SRA message back to the source listing the
   locator addresses of nearby Servers then discards the message.  The
   Relay otherwise discards all other SCMP messages.

   If the packet is an ordinary SEAL packet (i.e., one that encapsulates
   an inner packet) the Relay sends an SCMP redirect message of the same
   address family back to the source with the locator of the Server that
   serves the EPA destination in the inner packet as the redirected
   target.  The source and destination addresses of the SCMP redirect
   message use the outer destination and source addresses of the
   original packet, respectively.  After sending the redirect message,
   the Relay then rewrites the outer destination address of the SEAL-
   encapsulated packet to the locator of the Server and forwards the
   revised packet to the Server.  Note that in this arrangement any
   errors that occur on the path between the Relay and the Server will
   be delivered to the original source but with a different destination
   address due to this Relay address rewriting.

6.4.  IRON Reference Operating Scenarios

   The IRON supports communications when one or both hosts are located
   within EP-addressed EUNs regardless of whether the EPs are
   provisioned by the same VPC or by different VPCs.  When both hosts
   are within IRON EUNs, route redirections that eliminate unnecessary
   Servers and Relays from the path are possible.  When only one host is
   within an IRON EUN, however, route optimization cannot be used.  The
   following sections discuss the two scenarios.

6.4.1.  Both Hosts Within IRON EUNs

   When both hosts are within IRON EUNs, it is sufficient to consider
   the scenario in a unidirectional fashion, i.e., by tracing packet
   flows only in the forward direction from the source host to
   destination host.  The reverse direction can be considered
   separately, and incurs the same considerations as for the forward
   direction.




Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   In this scenario, the initial packets of a flow produced by a source
   host within an EUN connected to the IRON by a Client must flow
   through both the Server of the source host and a Relay of the
   destination host, but route optimization can eliminate these elements
   from the path for subsequent packets in the flow.  Figure 6 shows the
   flow of initial packets from host A to host B within two IRON EUNs
   (the same scenario applies whether the two EUNs are within the same
   VPC overlay network or different overlay networks):

                 ________________________________________
              .-(                 .-.                    )-.
           .-(                 ,-(  _)-.                    )-.
        .-(          +========+(_    (_  +=====+               )-.
      .(             ||    (_|| Internet ||_) ||                  ).
    .(               ||      ||-(______)-||   vv                    ).
  .(        +--------++--+   ||          ||   +------------+          ).
  (     +==>| Server(A)  |   vv          ||   | Server(B)  |====+      )
  (    //   +---------|\-+   +--++----++--+   +------------+    \\     )
  (   //  .-.         | \    |  Relay(B)  |                  .-. \\    )
  (  //,-(  _)-.      |  \   +-v----------+               ,-(  _)-\\   )
  ( .||_    (_  )-.   |   \____|                       .-(_    (_  ||. )
  ( _||  ISP A    .)  |                               (__   ISP B  ||_))
  (  ||-(______)-'    | (redirect)                       `-(______)||  )
  (  ||    |          |                                       |    vv  )
   ( +-----+-----+    |                                 +-----+-----+ )
     | Client(A) | <--+                                 | Client(B) |
     +-----+-----+              The IRON                +-----+-----+
           |    (   (Overlaid on the native Internet)     )   |
          .-.     .-(                                .-)     .-.
       ,-(  _)-.      .-(________________________)-.      ,-(  _)-.
    .-(_    (_  )-.                                    .-(_    (_  )-.
   (_  IRON EUN A  )                                  (_  IRON EUN B  )
      `-(______)-'                                       `-(______)-'
           |                                                  |
       +---+----+                                         +---+----+
       | Host A |                                         | Host B |
       +--------+                                         +--------+

              Figure 6: Initial Packet Flow Before Redirects

   With reference to Figure 6, host A sends packets destined to host B
   via its network interface connected to EUN A. Routing within EUN A
   will direct the packets to Client(A) as a default router for the EUN
   which then uses VET and SEAL to encapsulate them in outer headers
   with its locator address as the outer source address and the locator
   address of Server(A) as the outer destination address.  Client(A)
   then simply releases the encapsulated packets into its ISP network
   connection that provided its locator.  The ISP will release the



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   packets into the Internet without filtering since the (outer) source
   address is topologically correct.  Once the packets have been
   released into the Internet, routing will direct them to Server(A).

   Server(A) receives the encapsulated packets from Client(A) then
   rewrites the outer source address to one of its own locator
   addresses, and rewrites the outer destination address to the subnet
   router anycast address of the appropriate address family associated
   with the inner destination address.  Server(A) then releases the
   revised packets into the Internet where routing will direct them to
   Relay(B).

   Relay(B) will intercept the encapsulated packets from Server(A) then
   check its FIB to discover an entry that covers inner destination
   address B with Server(B) as the next hop.  Relay(B) then returns SCMP
   redirect messages to Server(A) (*), rewrites the outer destination
   address of the encapsulated packets to the locator address of
   Server(B), and forwards these revised packets to Server(B).

   Server(B) will receive the encapsulated packets from Relay(B) then
   check its FIB to discover an entry that covers destination address B
   with Client(B) as the next hop.  Server(B) then re-encapsulates the
   packets in a new outer header that uses the source address,
   destination address and nonce parameters associated with the tunnel
   to Client(B).  Server(B) then releases these re-encapsulated packets
   into the Internet, where routing will direct them to Client(B).
   Client(B) will in turn decapsulate the packets and forward the inner
   packets to host B via EUN B.

   (*) Note that after the initial flow of packets, Server(A) will have
   received one or more SCMP redirect messages from Relay(B) listing
   Server(B) as a better next hop.  Server(A) will in turn forward the
   redirects to Client(A), which will thereafter forward its
   encapsulated packets directly to the locator address of Server(B)
   without involving either Server(A) or Relay(B) as shown in Figure 7:
















Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


                 ________________________________________
              .-(                 .-.                    )-.
           .-(                 ,-(  _)-.                    )-.
        .-( +=============> .-(_    (_  )-.======+             )-.
      .(   //              (__ Internet   _)    ||                ).
    .(    //                  `-(______)-'      vv                  ).
  .(     //                                   +------------+          ).
  (     //                                    |  Server(B) |====+      )
  (    //                                     +------------+    \\     )
  (   //  .-.                                                .-. \\    )
  (  //,-(  _)-.                                          ,-(  _)-\\   )
  ( .||_    (_  )-.                                    .-(_    (_  ||. )
  ( _||  ISP A    .)                                  (__   ISP B  ||_))
  (  ||-(______)-'                                       `-(______)||  )
  (  ||    |                                                  |    vv  )
   ( +-----+-----+              The IRON                +-----+-----+ )
     | Client(A) |  (Overlaid on the native Internet)   | Client(B) |
     +-----+-----+                                      +-----+-----+
           |    (                                         )   |
          .-.     .-(                                .-)     .-.
       ,-(  _)-.      .-(________________________)-.      ,-(  _)-.
    .-(_    (_  )-.                                    .-(_    (_  )-.
   (_  IRON EUN A  )                                  (_  IRON EUN B  )
      `-(______)-'                                       `-(______)-'
           |                                                  |
       +---+----+                                         +---+----+
       | Host A |                                         | Host B |
       +--------+                                         +--------+

              Figure 7: Sustained Packet Flow After Redirects

6.4.2.  Mixed IRON and Non-IRON Hosts

   When one host is within an IRON EUN and the other is in a non-IRON
   EUN (i.e., one that connects to the native Internet instead of the
   IRON), the IR elements involved depend on the packet flow directions.
   The cases are described in the following sections.

6.4.2.1.  From IRON Host A to Non-IRON Host B

   Figure 8 depicts the IRON reference operating scenario for packets
   flowing from Host A in an IRON EUN to Host B in a non-IRON EUN:









Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


                  _________________________________________
               .-(         )-.                             )-.
            .-(      +-------)----+                           )-.
         .-(         |  Relay(A)  |--------------+               )-.
       .(            +------------+               \                ).
     .(     +=======>|  Server(A) |                \                ).
   .(     //         +--------)---+                 \                 ).
   (     //                   )                      \                 )
   (    //      The IRON      )                       \                )
   (   //  .-.                )                        \     .-.       )
   (  //,-(  _)-.             )                         \ ,-(  _)-.    )
   ( .||_    (_  )-.          ) The Native Internet    .-|_    (_  )-. )
   ( _||  ISP A     )         )                       (_ |  ISP B     ))
   (  ||-(______)-'           )                          |-(______)-'  )
   (  ||    |             )-.                            v    |        )
    ( +-----+ ----+    )-.                               +-----+-----+ )
      | Client(A) |)-.                                   |  Router B |
      +-----+-----+                                      +-----+-----+
            |  (                                            )  |
           .-.   .-(____________________________________)-.   .-.
        ,-(  _)-.                                          ,-(  _)-.
     .-(_    (_  )-.                                    .-(_    (_  )-.
    (_  IRON EUN A  )                                  (_non-IRON EUN B)
       `-(______)-'                                       `-(______)-'
            |                                                  |
        +---+----+                                         +---+----+
        | Host A |                                         | Host B |
        +--------+                                         +--------+

               Figure 8: From IRON Host A to Non-IRON Host B

   In this scenario, host A sends packets destined to host B via its
   network interface connected to IRON EUN A. Routing within EUN A will
   direct the packets to Client(A) as a default router for the EUN which
   then uses VET and SEAL to encapsulate them in outer headers with its
   locator address as the outer source address and the locator address
   of Server(A) as the outer destination address.  The ISP will pass the
   packets without filtering since the (outer) source address is
   topologically correct.  Once the packets have been released into the
   native Internet, routing will direct them to Server(A).

   Server(A) receives the encapsulated packets from Client(A) then re-
   encapsulates and forwards them to Relay(A), which simply decapsulates
   them and releases the unencapsulated packets into the Internet.  Once
   the packets are released into the Internet, routing will direct them
   to the final destination B. (Note that Server(A) and Relay(A) are
   depicted in Figure 8 as two halves of a unified gateway.  In that
   case, the "forwarding" between Server(A) and Relay(A) is a zero-



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   instruction imaginary operation within the gateway.)

   This scenario always involves a Server and Relay owned by the VPC
   that provides service to IRON EUN A. It therefore imparts a cost that
   would need to be borne by either the VPC or its customers.

6.4.2.2.  From Non-IRON Host B to IRON Host A

   Figure 9 depicts the IRON reference operating scenario for packets
   flowing from Host B in an Non-IRON EUN to Host A in an IRON EUN:

                  _______________________________________
               .-(         )-.                             )-.
            .-(      +-------)----+                           )-.
         .-(         |  Relay(A)  |<-------------+              )-.
       .(            +------------+               \                ).
     .(     +========|  Server(A) |                \                ).
   .(     //         +--------)---+                 \                 ).
   (     //                   )                      \                 )
   (    //      The IRON      )                       \                )
   (   //  .-.                )                        \     .-.       )
   (  //,-(  _)-.             )                         \ ,-(  _)-.    )
   ( .||_    (_  )-.          ) The Native Internet    .-|_    (_  )-. )
   ( _||  ISP A     )         )                       (_ |  ISP B     ))
   (  ||-(______)-'           )                          |-(______)-'  )
   (  vv    |             )-.                            |     |       )
    ( +-----+ ----+    )-.                               +-----+-----+ )
      | Client(A) |)-.                                   |  Router B |
      +-----+-----+                                      +-----+-----+
            |  (                                            )  |
           .-.   .-(____________________________________)-.   .-.
        ,-(  _)-.                                          ,-(  _)-.
     .-(_    (_  )-.                                    .-(_    (_  )-.
    (_  IRON EUN A  )                                  (_non-IRON EUN B)
       `-(______)-'                                       `-(_______)-'
            |                                                  |
        +---+----+                                         +---+----+
        | Host A |                                         | Host B |
        +--------+                                         +--------+

               Figure 9: From Non-IRON Host B to IRON Host A

   In this scenario, host B sends packets destined to host A via its
   network interface connected to non-IRON EUN B. Routing will direct
   the packets to Relay(A) which then forwards them to Server(A) using
   encapsulation if necessary.

   Server(A) will then check its FIB to discover an entry that covers



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   destination address A with Client(A) as the next hop.  Server(A) then
   (re-)encapsulates the packets in an outer header that uses the source
   address, destination address and nonce parameters associated with the
   tunnel to Client(A).  Server(A) next releases these (re-)encapsulated
   packets into the Internet, where routing will direct them to
   Client(A).  Client(A) will in turn decapsulate the packets and
   forward the inner packets to host A via its network interface
   connected to IRON EUN A.

   This scenario always involves a Server and Relay owned by the VPC
   that provides service to IRON EUN A. It therefore imparts a cost that
   would need to be borne by either the VPC or its customers.

6.5.  Mobility, Multihoming and Traffic Engineering Considerations

   While IRON Servers and Relays can be considered as fixed
   infrastructure, Clients may need to move between different network
   points of attachment, connect to multiple ISPs, or explicitly manage
   their traffic flows.  The following sections discuss mobility, multi-
   homing and traffic engineering considerations for IRON client
   routers.

6.5.1.  Mobility Management

   When a Client changes its network point of attachment (e.g., due to a
   mobility event), it configures one or more new locators.  If the
   Client has not moved far away from its previous network point of
   attachment, it simply informs its Server of any locator additions or
   deletions.  This operation is performance-sensitive, and should be
   conducted immediately to avoid packet loss.

   If the Client has moved far away from its previous network point of
   attachment, however, it re-issues the anycast discovery procedure
   described in Section 6.1 to discover whether its candidate set of
   Servers has changed.  If the Client's current Server is also included
   in the new list received from the VPC, this provides indication that
   the Client has not moved far enough to warrant changing to a new
   Server.  Otherwise, the Client may wish to move to a new Server in
   order to maintain optimal routing.  This operation is not
   performance-critical, and therefore can be conducted over a matter of
   seconds/minutes instead of milliseconds/microseconds.

   To move to a new Server, the Client first engages in the EP
   registration process with the new Server and maintains the
   registrations through periodic SRS/SRA exchanges the same as
   described in Section 6.1.  The Client then informs its former Server
   that it has moved by providing it with the locator address of the new
   Server.  The Client then discontinues the SRS/SRA keepalive process



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   with the former Server, which will garbage-collect the stale FIB
   entries when their lifetime expires.  This will allow the former
   Server to redirect existing correspondents to the new Server so that
   no packets are lost.

   Note that IRON addresses only network mobility and not host mobility.
   Mobility considerations for hosts within IRON EUNs are out of scope.

6.5.2.  Multihoming

   A Client may register multiple locators with its Server.  It can
   assign metrics with its registrations to inform the Server of
   preferred locators, and can select outgoing locators according to its
   local preferences.  Multihoming is therefore naturally supported.

6.5.3.  Inbound Traffic Engineering

   A Client can dynamically adjust the priorities of its prefix
   registrations with its Server in order to influence inbound traffic
   flows.  It can also change between Servers when multiple Servers are
   available, but should strive for stability in its Server selection in
   order to limit VPC network routing churn.

6.5.4.  Outbound Traffic Engineering

   A Client can select outgoing locators, e.g., based on current QoS
   considerations such as minimizing one-way delay or one-way delay
   variance.

6.6.  Renumbering Considerations

   As new link layer technologies and/or service models emerge,
   customers will be motivated to select their service providers through
   healthy competition between ISPs.  If a customer's EUN addresses are
   tied to a specific ISP, however, the customer may be forced to
   undergo a painstaking EUN renumbering process if it wishes to change
   to a different ISP [RFC4192][RFC5887].

   When a customer obtains EP prefixes from a VPC, it can change between
   ISPs seamlessly and without need to renumber.  If the VPC itself
   applies unreasonable costing structures for use of the EPs, however,
   the customer may be compelled to seek a different VPC and would again
   be required to confront a renumbering scenario.  The IRON approach to
   renumbering avoidance therefore depends on VPCs conducting ethical
   business practices and offering reasonable rates.






Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


6.7.  NAT Traversal Considerations

   The Internet today consists of a global public IPv4 routing and
   addressing system with non-IRON EUNs that use either public or
   private IPv4 addressing.  The latter class of EUNs connect to the
   public Internet via Network Address Translators (NATs).  When a
   Client is located behind a NAT, its selects Servers using the same
   procedures as for Clients with public addresses, i.e., it will send
   SRS messages to Servers in order to get SRA messages in return.  The
   only requirement is that the Client must configure its SEAL
   encapsulation to use a transport protocol that supports NAT
   traversal, namely UDP.

   Since the Server maintains state about its Client customers, it can
   discover locator information for each Client by examining the UDP
   port number and IP address in the outer headers of SRS messages.
   When there is a NAT in the path, the UDP port number and IP address
   in the SRS message will correspond to state in the NAT box and might
   not correspond to the actual values assigned to the Client.  The
   Server can then encapsulate packets destined to hosts in the Client's
   EUN within outer headers that use this IP address and UDP port
   number.  The NAT box will receive the packets, translate the values
   in the outer headers, then forward the packets to the Client.  In
   this sense, the Server's "locator" for the Client consists of the
   concatenation of the IP address and UDP port number.

   IRON does not introduce any new issues to complications raised for
   NAT traversal or for applications embedding address referrals in
   their payload.

6.8.  Nested EUN Considerations

   Each Client configures a locator that may be taken from an ordinary
   non-EPA address assigned by an ISP or from an EPA address taken from
   an EP assigned to another Client.  In that case, the Client is said
   to be "nested" within the EUN of another Client, and recursive
   nestings of multiple layers of encapsulations may be necessary.

   For example, in the network scenario depicted in Figure 10 Client(A)
   configures a locator EPA(B) taken from the EP assigned to EUN(B).
   Client(B) in turn configures a locator EPA(C) taken from the EP
   assigned to EUN(C).  Finally, Client(C) configures a locator ISP(D)
   taken from a non-EPA address delegated by an ordinary ISP(D).  Using
   this example, the "nested-IRON" case must be examined in which a host
   A which configures the address EPA(A) within EUN(A) exchanges packets
   with host Z located elsewhere in the Internet.





Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


                            .-.
                 ISP(D)  ,-(  _)-.
      +-----------+   .-(_    (_  )-.
      | Client(C) |--(_    ISP(D)    )
      +-----+-----+     `-(______)-'
            |   <= T         \     .-.
           .-.       u        \ ,-(  _)-.
        ,-(  _)-.       n     .-(_    (-  )-.
     .-(_    (_  )-.      n  (_   Internet   )
    (_    EUN(C)    )       e   `-(______)-'
       `-(______)-'           l          ___
            | EPA(C)           s =>     (:::)-.
      +-----+-----+                 .-(::::::::)
      | Client(B) |              .-(::::::::::::)-.  +-----------+
      +-----+-----+             (:::: The IRON ::::) |  Relay(Z) |
            |                    `-(::::::::::::)-'  +-----------+
           .-.                      `-(::::::)-'        +-----------+
        ,-(  _)-.                                       | Server(Z) |
     .-(_    (_  )-.              +-----------+         +-----------+
    (_    EUN(B)    )             | Server(C) |            +-----------+
       `-(______)-'               +-----------+            | Client(Z) |
            | EPA(B)                 +-----------+         +-----------+
      +-----+-----+                  | Server(B) |            +--------+
      | Client(A) |                  +-----------+            | Host Z |
      +-----------+                     +-----------+         +--------+
            |                           | Server(A) |
           .-.                          +-----------+
        ,-(  _)-.  EPA(A)
     .-(_    (_  )-.    +--------+
    (_    EUN(A)    )---| Host A |
       `-(______)-'     +--------+

                       Figure 10: Nested EUN Example

   The two cases of host A sending packets to host Z, and host Z sending
   packets to host A, must be considered separately as described below.

6.8.1.  Host A Sends Packets to Host Z

   Host A first forwards a packet with source address EPA(A) and
   destination address Z into EUN(A).  Routing within EUN(A) will direct
   the packet to Client(A), which encapsulates it in an outer header
   with EPA(B) as the outer source address and Server(A) as the outer
   destination address then forwards the once-encapsulated packet into
   EUN(B).  Routing within EUN[B] will direct the packet to Client(B),
   which encapsulates it in an outer header with EPA(C) as the outer
   source address and Server(B) as the outer destination address then
   forwards the twice-encapsulated packet into EUN(C).  Routing within



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   EUN(C) will direct the packet to Client(C), which encapsulates it in
   an outer header with ISP(D) as the outer source address and Server(C)
   as the outer destination address.  Client(C) then sends this triple-
   encapsulated packet into the ISP(D) network, where it will be routed
   into the Internet to Server(C).

   When Server(C) receives the triple-encapsulated packet, it removes
   the outer layer of encapsulation and forwards the resulting twice-
   encapsulated packet into the Internet to Server(B).  Next, Server(B)
   removes the outer layer of encapsulation and forwards the resulting
   once-encapsulated packet into the Internet to Server(A).  Next,
   Server(A) checks the address type of the inner address 'Z'.  If Z is
   a non-EPA address, Server(A) simply decapsulates the packet and
   forwards it into the Internet.  Otherwise, Server(A) rewrites the
   outer source and destination addresses of the once-encapsulated
   packet and forwards it to Relay(Z).  Relay(Z) in turn rewrites the
   outer destination address of the packet to the locator for Server(Z),
   then forwards the packet and sends a redirect to Server(A) (which
   forwards the redirect to Client(A)).  Server(Z) then re-encapsulates
   the packet and forwards it to Client(Z), which decapsulates it and
   forwards the inner packet to host Z. Subsequent packets from
   Client(A) will then use Server(Z) as the next hop toward host Z,
   which eliminates Server(A) and Relay(Z) from the path.

6.8.2.  Host Z Sends Packets to Host A

   Whether or not host Z configures an EPA address, its packets destined
   to Host A will eventually reach Server(A).  Server(A) will have a
   mapping that lists Client(A) as the next hop toward EPA(A).
   Server(A) will then encapsulate the packet with EPA(B) as the outer
   destination address and forward the packet into the Internet.
   Internet routing will convey this once-encapsulated packet to
   Server(B) which will have a mapping that lists Client(B) as the next
   hop toward EPA(B).  Server(B) will then encapsulate the packet with
   EPA(C) as the outer destination address and forward the packet into
   the Internet.  Internet routing will then convey this twice-
   encapsulated packet to Server(C) which will have a mapping that lists
   Client(C) as the next hop toward EPA(C).  Server(C) will then
   encapsulate the packet with ISP(D) as the outer destination address
   and forward the packet into the Internet.  Internet routing will then
   convey this triple-encapsulated packet to Client(C).

   When the triple-encapsulated packet arrives at Client(C), it strips
   the outer layer of encapsulation and forwards the twice-encapsulated
   packet to EPA(C) which is the locator address of Client(B).  When
   Client(B) receives the twice-encapsulated packet, it strips the outer
   layer of encapsulation and forwards the once-encapsulated packet to
   EPA(B) which is the locator address of Client(A).  When Client(A)



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   receives the once-encapsulated packet, it strips the outer layer of
   encapsulation and forwards the unencapsulated packet to EPA(A) which
   is the host address of host A.


7.  Additional Considerations

   Considerations for the scalability of Internet Routing due to
   multihoming, traffic engineering and provider-independent addressing
   are discussed in [I-D.narten-radir-problem-statement].  Other scaling
   considerations specific to IRON are discussed in Appendix B.

   Route optimization considerations for mobile networks are found in
   [RFC5522].


8.  Related Initiatives

   IRON builds upon the concepts RANGER architecture [RFC5720], and
   therefore inherits the same set of related initiatives.

   Virtual Aggregation (VA) [I-D.ietf-grow-va] and Aggregation in
   Increasing Scopes (AIS) [I-D.zhang-evolution] provide the basis for
   the Virtual Prefix concepts.

   Internet vastly improved plumbing (Ivip) [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch] has
   contributed valuable insights, including the use of real-time
   mapping.  The use of Servers as mobility anchor points is directly
   influenced by Ivip's associated TTR mobility extensions [TTRMOB].

   [I-D.bernardos-mext-nemo-ro-cr] discussed a route optimization
   approach using a Correspondent Router (CR) model.  The IRON Server
   construct is similar to the CR concept described in this work,
   however the manner in which customer EUNs coordinates with Servers is
   different and based on the redirection model associated with NBMA
   links.

   Numerous publications have proposed NAT traversal techniques.  The
   NAT traversal techniques adapted for IRON were inspired by the Simple
   Address Mapping for Premises Legacy Equipment (SAMPLE) proposal
   [I-D.carpenter-softwire-sample].


9.  IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations for this document.





Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


10.  Security Considerations

   Security considerations that apply to tunneling in general are
   discussed in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns].  Additional
   considerations that apply also to IRON are discussed in RANGER
   [RFC5720], VET [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] and SEAL
   [I-D.templin-intarea-seal].

   The IRON system further depends on mutual authentication of IRON
   Clients to Servers and Servers to Relays.  This is accomplished
   through initial authentication exchanges followed by per-packet
   nonces that can be used to detect off-path attacks.  As for all
   Internet communications, the IRON system also depends on Relays
   acting with integrity and not injecting false advertisements into the
   BGP (e.g., to mount traffic siphoning attacks).

   Each VPC overlay network requires a means for assuring the integrity
   of the interior routing system so that all Relays and Servers in the
   overlay have a consistent view of Client<->Server bindings.  Finally,
   DOS attacks on IRON Relays and Servers can occur when packets with
   spoofed source addresses arrive at high data rates.  This issue is no
   different than for any border router in the public Internet today,
   however.


11.  Acknowledgements

   This ideas behind this work have benefited greatly from discussions
   with colleagues; some of which appear on the RRG and other IRTF/IETF
   mailing lists.  Robin Whittle and Steve Russert co-authored the TTR
   mobility architecture which strongly influenced IRON.  Eric
   Fleischman pointed out the opportunity to leverage anycast for
   discovering topologically-close Servers.  Thomas Henderson
   recommended a quantitative analysis of scaling properties.

   The following individuals provided essential review input: Mohamed
   Boucadair, John Buford, Wesley Eddy, Dae Young Kim and Robin Whittle.


12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


12.2.  Informative References

   [BGPMON]   net, B., "BGPmon.net - Monitoring Your Prefixes,
              http://bgpmon.net/stat.php", June 2010.

   [I-D.bernardos-mext-nemo-ro-cr]
              Bernardos, C., Calderon, M., and I. Soto, "Correspondent
              Router based Route Optimisation for NEMO (CRON)",
              draft-bernardos-mext-nemo-ro-cr-00 (work in progress),
              July 2008.

   [I-D.carpenter-softwire-sample]
              Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Legacy NAT Traversal for
              IPv6: Simple Address Mapping for Premises Legacy Equipment
              (SAMPLE)", draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00 (work in
              progress), June 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-grow-va]
              Francis, P., Xu, X., Ballani, H., Jen, D., Raszuk, R., and
              L. Zhang, "FIB Suppression with Virtual Aggregation",
              draft-ietf-grow-va-03 (work in progress), August 2010.

   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns]
              Hoagland, J., Krishnan, S., and D. Thaler, "Security
              Concerns With IP Tunneling",
              draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns-02 (work in
              progress), August 2010.

   [I-D.narten-radir-problem-statement]
              Narten, T., "On the Scalability of Internet Routing",
              draft-narten-radir-problem-statement-05 (work in
              progress), February 2010.

   [I-D.russert-rangers]
              Russert, S., Fleischman, E., and F. Templin, "RANGER
              Scenarios", draft-russert-rangers-05 (work in progress),
              July 2010.

   [I-D.templin-intarea-seal]
              Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
              Layer (SEAL)", draft-templin-intarea-seal-20 (work in
              progress), September 2010.

   [I-D.templin-intarea-vet]
              Templin, F., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)",
              draft-templin-intarea-vet-16 (work in progress),
              July 2010.




Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   [I-D.whittle-ivip-arch]
              Whittle, R., "Ivip (Internet Vastly Improved Plumbing)
              Architecture", draft-whittle-ivip-arch-04 (work in
              progress), March 2010.

   [I-D.zhang-evolution]
              Zhang, B. and L. Zhang, "Evolution Towards Global Routing
              Scalability", draft-zhang-evolution-02 (work in progress),
              October 2009.

   [RFC1070]  Hagens, R., Hall, N., and M. Rose, "Use of the Internet as
              a subnetwork for experimentation with the OSI network
              layer", RFC 1070, February 1989.

   [RFC2526]  Johnson, D. and S. Deering, "Reserved IPv6 Subnet Anycast
              Addresses", RFC 2526, March 1999.

   [RFC3068]  Huitema, C., "An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers",
              RFC 3068, June 2001.

   [RFC3849]  Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
              Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, July 2004.

   [RFC4192]  Baker, F., Lear, E., and R. Droms, "Procedures for
              Renumbering an IPv6 Network without a Flag Day", RFC 4192,
              September 2005.

   [RFC4271]  Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway
              Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006.

   [RFC4548]  Gray, E., Rutemiller, J., and G. Swallow, "Internet Code
              Point (ICP) Assignments for NSAP Addresses", RFC 4548,
              May 2006.

   [RFC5214]  Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
              Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", RFC 5214,
              March 2008.

   [RFC5522]  Eddy, W., Ivancic, W., and T. Davis, "Network Mobility
              Route Optimization Requirements for Operational Use in
              Aeronautics and Space Exploration Mobile Networks",
              RFC 5522, October 2009.

   [RFC5720]  Templin, F., "Routing and Addressing in Networks with
              Global Enterprise Recursion (RANGER)", RFC 5720,
              February 2010.

   [RFC5737]  Arkko, J., Cotton, M., and L. Vegoda, "IPv4 Address Blocks



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


              Reserved for Documentation", RFC 5737, January 2010.

   [RFC5743]  Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
              (IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, December 2009.

   [RFC5887]  Carpenter, B., Atkinson, R., and H. Flinck, "Renumbering
              Still Needs Work", RFC 5887, May 2010.

   [TTRMOB]   Whittle, R. and S. Russert, "TTR Mobility Extensions for
              Core-Edge Separation Solutions to the Internet's Routing
              Scaling Problem,
              http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/TTR-Mobility.pdf",
              August 2008.


Appendix A.  IRON VPs Over Internetworks with Different Address Families

   The IRON architecture leverages the routing system by providing
   generally shortest-path routing for packets with EPA addresses from
   VPs that match the address family of the underlying Internetwork.
   When the VPs are of an address family that is not routable within the
   underlying Internetwork, however, (e.g., when OSI/NSAP [RFC4548] VPs
   are used within an IPv4 Internetwork) a global mapping database is
   required to allow Servers to map VPs to companion prefixes taken from
   address families that are routable within the Internetwork.  For
   example, an IPv6 VP (e.g., 2001:DB8::/32) could be paired with a
   companion IPv4 prefix (e.g., 192.0.2.0/24) so that encapsulated IPv6
   packets can be forwarded over IPv4-only Internetworks.

   Every VP in the IRON must therefore be represented in a globally
   distributed Master VP database (MVPd) that maintains VP-to-companion
   prefix mappings for all VPs in the IRON.  The MVPd is maintained by a
   globally-managed assigned numbers authority in the same manner as the
   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) currently maintains the
   master list of all top-level IPv4 and IPv6 delegations.  The database
   can be replicated across multiple servers for load balancing much in
   the same way that FTP mirror sites are used to manage software
   distributions.

   Upon startup, each Server discovers the full set of VPs for the IRON
   by reading the MVPd.  The Server reads the MVPd from a nearby server
   and periodically checks the server for deltas since the database was
   last read.  After reading the MVPd, the Server has a full list of VP
   to companion prefix mappings.

   The Server can then forward packets toward EPAs covered by a VP by
   encapsulating them in an outer header of the VP's companion prefix
   address family and using any address taken from the companion prefix



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   as the outer destination address.  The companion prefix therefore
   serves as an anycast prefix.

   Possible encapsulations in this model include IPv6-in-IPv4, IPv4-in-
   IPv6, OSI/CLNP-in-IPv6, OSI/CLNP-in-IPv4, etc.


Appendix B.  Scaling Considerations

   Scaling aspects of the IRON architecture have strong implications for
   its applicability in practical deployments.  Scaling must be
   considered along multiple vectors including Interdomain core routing
   scaling, scaling to accommodate large numbers of customer EUNs,
   traffic scaling, state requirements, etc.

   In terms of routing scaling, each VPC will advertise one or more VPs
   from which EPs are delegated to customer EUNs.  Routing scaling will
   therefore be minimized when each VP covers many EPs.  For example,
   the IPv6 prefix 2001:DB8::/32 contains 2^24 ::/56 EP prefixes for
   assignment to EUNs.  The IRON could therefore accommodate 2^32 ::/56
   EPs with only 2^8 ::/32 VPs advertised in the interdomain routing
   core.

   In terms of traffic scaling for Relays, each Relay represents an ASBR
   of a "shell" enterprise network that simply directs arriving traffic
   packets with EPA destination addresses towards Servers that service
   customer EUNs.  Moreover, the Relay sheds traffic destined to EPAs
   through redirection which removes it from the path for the vast
   majority of traffic packets.  On the other hand, each Relay must
   handle all traffic packets forwarded between its customer EUNs and
   the non-IRON Internet.  The scaling concerns for this latter class of
   traffic are no different than for ASBR routers that connect large
   enterprise networks to the Internet.  In terms of traffic scaling for
   Servers, each Server services a set of the VPC overlay network's
   customer EUNs.  The Server services all traffic packets destined to
   its EUNs but only services the initial packets of flows initiated
   from the EUNs and destined to EPAs.  Therefore, traffic scaling for
   EPA-addressed traffic is an asymmetric consideration and is
   proportional to the number of EUNs each Server serves.

   In terms of state requirements for Relays, each Relay maintains a
   list of all Servers in the VPC overlay network as well as FIB entries
   for all customer EUNs that each Server serves.  This state is
   therefore dominated by the number of EUNs in the VPC overlay network.
   Sizing the Relay to accommodate state information for all EUNs is
   therefore required during VPC overlay network planning.  In terms of
   state requirements for Servers, each Server maintains tunnel state
   for each of the customer EUNs it serves but need not keep state for



Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                    IRON                      October 2010


   all EUNs in the VPC overlay network.  Finally, neither Relays nor
   Servers need keep state for final destinations of outbound traffic.

   Clients source and sink all traffic packets originating from or
   destined to the customer EUN.  Therefore traffic scaling
   considerations for Clients are the same as for any site border
   router.  Clients also retain state for the Servers for final
   destinations of outbound traffic flows.  This can be managed as soft
   state, since stale entries purged from the cache will be refreshed
   when new traffic packets are sent.


Author's Address

   Fred L. Templin (editor)
   Boeing Research & Technology
   P.O. Box 3707 MC 7L-49
   Seattle, WA  98124
   USA

   Email: fltemplin@acm.org






























Templin                  Expires April 11, 2011                [Page 36]


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