Network Working Group S. Vinapamula
Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track M. Boucadair
Expires: July 31, 2014 France Telecom
January 27, 2014

Recommendation for Prefix Binding in the Softwire DS-Lite Context
draft-vinapamula-softwire-dslite-prefix-binding-01

Abstract

This document describes possible issues induced by the change of the B4 IPv6 address and sketches a set of recommendations.

Status of This Memo

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

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

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

This Internet-Draft will expire on July 31, 2014.

Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

1. Introduction

IPv6 deployment models assumes IPv6 prefixes are delegated by Service Providers to the connected CPEs (Customer Premise Equipments) or hosts, which in their turn derive IPv6 addresses out of that prefix. In the case of DS-Lite [RFC6333], the B4 element derives an address for the softwire setup purposes.

A B4 element might obtain a new external IPv6 address, for a variety of reasons including a reboot of the CPE, power outage, DHCP lease expiry, or other action undertaken by the Service Provider. If this occurs, traffic forwarded to a B4's previous address might be delivered to another B4 that now acquired that address. This affects all mapping types, whether implicit (e.g., by sending a TCP SYN) or explicit (e.g., using PCP [RFC6887]).

The main goal of this document is to propose a recommendation to soften the impact of such renumbering issues.

Note that in some deployments, CPE renumbering may be require to accommodate some privacy-related requirements to avoid the same prefix be assigned to the same customers. It is out of scope of this document to discuss such contexts.

This document complements [RFC6908].

2. Terminology

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

3. The Problem

Since the network behind B4 can be overlapping across multiple CPEs, B4 address plays a key role in identifying associated resources assigned for each of the connections. These resources maintain state of EIM, EIF, APP, and PCP mappings and flows.

However, there can be change in B4 address for any reason, may be because of change in CPE device or may be because of security extensions enabled in generating the IPv6 address. When the address change, the associated mappings created in the AFTR are no more valid. This may result in creation of new set of mappings.

ISPs may want to limit the usage of these resources on per subscriber basis for fair usage of resources. To do so, a subscriber is identified by an IPv6 prefix mask (i.e., the length of the prefixes assigned to customers, for example /56 or /48). These policies are used for dimensioning purposes and also to ensure that AFTR resources are not exhausted. However, this policy doesn't resolve stale mappings hanging around in the system, consuming not only system resources, but also reducing the available quota of resources per subscriber.

When services are hosted behind B4 element, these services has to advertise about their change, when ever there is a change of the B4 address. Means to discover the change of B4 address are therefore required.

Clearing those mappings can be envisaged, but that will causes a lot of churn in the AFTR, and it doesn't address the latency issue where a service has to advertise its new assigned external IP address and port and the clients have to consume and re-initiate connections.

PCP-specific failure scenarios are discussed in [I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure].

4. Recommendations

In order to mitigate the issues discussed in Section 3, the following recommendations are made:

  1. A policy SHOULD enforced at the AFTR level to limit the amount of active softwires per subscriber. The default value MUST be 1.
  2. Resource contexts created at the AFTR level SHOULD be based on the prefix mask (or the prefix if it is explicitly configured), and not based on the derived B4 address. Administrators SHOULD configure per prefix limits of resource usage, instead of per tunnel limits. These resources include, number of flows, mappings including PCP, NAT pool resources, etc.
  3. In the event a new IPv6 address is assigned to B4, the AFTR SHOULD migrate existing state to be bound to the new B4's IP address. This ensures the traffic destined to the previous IPv6 address will redirected to the new IPv6 address. The destination address for tunneling return traffic SHOULD be the last seen address from the CPE. The source address of the tunnel would remain same as AFTR.
  4. In the event of change of the CPE WAN IPv6 prefix, unsolicited PCP ANNOUNCE messages SHOULD be sent by the B4 element to internal hosts to update their mappings.
  5. When a new prefix is assigned to the CPE, stale mappings may exist in the AFTR. This will consume both implicit and explicit resources. In order to avoid such issues, stable IPv6 prefix are RECOMMENDED.
  6. In case for any reason a prefix has to be reassigned, it is RECOMMENDED to reassign a prefix only when all the resources in use associated with that prefix are cleared from the AFTR.

5. Security Considerations

Security considerations related to DS-Lite are discussed in [RFC6333].

6. IANA Considerations

This document does not require any action from IANA.

7. Acknowledgements

G. Krishna reviewed document and provided useful comments

8. References

8.1. Normative references

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC6333] Durand, A., Droms, R., Woodyatt, J. and Y. Lee, "Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion", RFC 6333, August 2011.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R. and P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887, April 2013.

8.2. Informative references

[I-D.boucadair-pcp-failure] Boucadair, M. and R. Penno, "Analysis of Port Control Protocol (PCP) Failure Scenarios", Internet-Draft draft-boucadair-pcp-failure-06, May 2013.
[RFC6908] Lee, Y., Maglione, R., Williams, C., Jacquenet, C. and M. Boucadair, "Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite", RFC 6908, March 2013.

Authors' Addresses

Suresh Vinapamula Juniper Networks 1194 North Mathilda Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Phone: +1 408 936 5441 EMail: sureshk@juniper.net
Mohamed Boucadair France Telecom Rennes, 35000 France EMail: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com