draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-09.txt   draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10.txt 
IPv6 Maintenance F. Baker IPv6 Maintenance F. Baker
Internet-Draft Internet-Draft
Updates: 4861 (if approved) B. Carpenter Updates: 4861 (if approved) B. Carpenter
Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland Intended status: Standards Track Univ. of Auckland
Expires: February 24, 2017 August 23, 2016 Expires: April 10, 2017 October 7, 2016
First-hop router selection by hosts in a multi-prefix network First-hop router selection by hosts in a multi-prefix network
draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-09 draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10
Abstract Abstract
This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a scenario This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a scenario
that has more than one prefix, each allocated by an upstream network that has more than one prefix, each allocated by an upstream network
that is assumed to implement BCP 38 ingress filtering, when the host that is assumed to implement BCP 38 ingress filtering, when the host
has multiple routers to choose from. It also applies to other has multiple routers to choose from. It also applies to other
scenarios such as the usage of stateful firewalls that effectively scenarios such as the usage of stateful firewalls that effectively
act as address-based filters. Host behavior in choosing a first-hop act as address-based filters. Host behavior in choosing a first-hop
router may interact with source address selection in a given router may interact with source address selection in a given
skipping to change at page 1, line 46 skipping to change at page 1, line 46
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 24, 2017. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 10, 2017.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 37 skipping to change at page 2, line 37
2.2. Expectations of multihomed networks . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.2. Expectations of multihomed networks . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Reasonable expectations of the host . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Reasonable expectations of the host . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Interpreting Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1. Interpreting Router Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Default Router Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Default Router Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Source Address Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Source Address Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. Redirects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.5. History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Residual issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Residual issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Change Log (RFC Editor: please delete) . . . . . . . 13 Appendix A. Change Log (RFC Editor: please delete) . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction and Applicability 1. Introduction and Applicability
This document describes the expected behavior of an IPv6 [RFC2460] This document describes the expected behavior of an IPv6 [RFC2460]
host in a network that has more than one prefix, each allocated by an host in a network that has more than one prefix, each allocated by an
upstream network that is assumed to implement BCP 38 [RFC2827] upstream network that is assumed to implement BCP 38 [RFC2827]
ingress filtering, and in which the host is presented with a choice ingress filtering, and in which the host is presented with a choice
of routers. It expects that the network will implement some form of of routers. It expects that the network will implement some form of
egress routing, so that packets sent to a host outside the local egress routing, so that packets sent to a host outside the local
skipping to change at page 7, line 13 skipping to change at page 7, line 13
accordingly: accordingly:
o A host SHOULD NOT ignore a PIO simply because both L and A flags o A host SHOULD NOT ignore a PIO simply because both L and A flags
are cleared (extending Section 6.3.4 of [RFC4861]). are cleared (extending Section 6.3.4 of [RFC4861]).
o A router SHOULD be able to send such a PIO (extending o A router SHOULD be able to send such a PIO (extending
Section 6.2.3 of [RFC4861]). Section 6.2.3 of [RFC4861]).
2.2. Expectations of multihomed networks 2.2. Expectations of multihomed networks
The mechanism specified in this document requires some form of Networking equipment needs to support source/destination routing for
support from the routing protocols used in multihomed networks. One at least some of the routes in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB),
such way of providing the requisite support in routing protocols is such as default egress routes differentiated by source prefix.
described in a routing protocol independent fashion Installation of source/destination routes in the FIB might be
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]. Network designs exist that can accomplished using static routes, SDN technologies, or dynamic
usefully limit themselves to static routing (such as a simple tree routing protocols.
network), or may internally use no routers at all, such as a single
LAN with two CE routers, each of which leads to a different upstream
network.
3. Reasonable expectations of the host 3. Reasonable expectations of the host
3.1. Interpreting Router Advertisements 3.1. Interpreting Router Advertisements
As described in [RFC4191] and [RFC4861], a Router Advertisement may As described in [RFC4191] and [RFC4861], a Router Advertisement may
contain zero or more Prefix information Options (PIOs), or zero or contain zero or more Prefix information Options (PIOs), or zero or
more Route Information Options (RIOs). In their original intent, more Route Information Options (RIOs). In their original intent,
these indicate general information to a host: "the router whose these indicate general information to a host: "the router whose
address is found in the source address field of this packet is one of address is found in the source address field of this packet is one of
skipping to change at page 11, line 43 skipping to change at page 11, line 36
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown, [RFC6724] Thaler, D., Ed., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6 "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012, (IPv6)", RFC 6724, DOI 10.17487/RFC6724, September 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6724>.
8.2. Informative References 8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]
Lamparter, D. and A. Smirnov, "Destination/Source
Routing", draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing-02 (work in
progress), May 2016.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>. <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
[RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering:
Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source
Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827, Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, DOI 10.17487/RFC2827,
May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>. May 2000, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2827>.
skipping to change at page 13, line 37 skipping to change at page 13, line 24
Default Router List in an RA. Default Router List in an RA.
WG Versions 00-02: More clarifications after more WG discussions, WG Versions 00-02: More clarifications after more WG discussions,
2015-11-03. 2015-11-03.
WG Version 03: A final clarification re uRPF, 2015-12-15. WG Version 03: A final clarification re uRPF, 2015-12-15.
WG Versions 04-07: Various clarifications and review comments, WG Versions 04-07: Various clarifications and review comments,
2016-06-23. 2016-06-23.
WG Version 08-09: Fixes for IETF Last Call and IESG comments, WG Version 08-10: Fixes for IETF Last Call and IESG comments,
2016-08-15. 2016-10-07.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Fred Baker Fred Baker
Santa Barbara, California Santa Barbara, California 93117
USA USA
Email: FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com
Brian Carpenter Brian Carpenter
Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science
University of Auckland University of Auckland
PB 92019 PB 92019
Auckland 1142 Auckland 1142
New Zealand New Zealand
Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
 End of changes. 10 change blocks. 
22 lines changed or deleted 17 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/