draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-09.txt   draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-10.txt 
Intarea Working Group C. Pignataro Intarea Working Group C. Pignataro
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems Internet-Draft Cisco Systems
Updates: 2784 (if approved) R. Bonica Updates: 2784 (if approved) R. Bonica
Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks Intended status: Standards Track Juniper Networks
Expires: December 28, 2015 S. Krishnan Expires: December 28, 2015 S. Krishnan
Ericsson Ericsson
June 26, 2015 June 26, 2015
IPv6 Support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) IPv6 Support for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-09 draft-ietf-intarea-gre-ipv6-10
Abstract Abstract
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) can be used to carry any network- Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) can be used to carry any network-
layer payload protocol over any network-layer delivery protocol. GRE layer payload protocol over any network-layer delivery protocol. GRE
procedures are specified for IPv4, used as either the payload or procedures are specified for IPv4, used as either the payload or
delivery protocol. However, GRE procedures are not specified for delivery protocol. However, GRE procedures are not specified for
IPv6. IPv6.
This document specifies GRE procedures for IPv6, used as either the This document specifies GRE procedures for IPv6, used as either the
skipping to change at page 2, line 28 skipping to change at page 2, line 28
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. GRE Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. GRE Header Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Checksum Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1. Checksum Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. IPv6 As GRE Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IPv6 As GRE Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. GRE Protocol Type Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. GRE Protocol Type Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. Fragmentation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.3. Fragmentation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IPv6 As GRE Delivery Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. IPv6 As GRE Delivery Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Next Header Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.1. Next Header Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Checksum Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4.2. Checksum Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.3. MTU Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784] [RFC2890] can be used Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784] [RFC2890] can be used
to carry any network-layer payload protocol over any network-layer to carry any network-layer payload protocol over any network-layer
delivery protocol. GRE procedures are specified for IPv4 [RFC0791], delivery protocol. GRE procedures are specified for IPv4 [RFC0791],
used as either the payload or delivery protocol. However, GRE used as either the payload or delivery protocol. However, GRE
procedures are not specified for IPv6 [RFC2460]. procedures are not specified for IPv6 [RFC2460].
skipping to change at page 4, line 25 skipping to change at page 4, line 25
both the GRE Checksum and the IPv4 Checksum both the GRE Checksum and the IPv4 Checksum
o if the payload carries TCP [RFC0793], the TCP pseudo header, TCP o if the payload carries TCP [RFC0793], the TCP pseudo header, TCP
header, and TCP payload are protected by both the GRE Checksum and header, and TCP payload are protected by both the GRE Checksum and
TCP Checksum TCP Checksum
o if the payload carries UDP [RFC0768], the UDP pseudo header, UDP o if the payload carries UDP [RFC0768], the UDP pseudo header, UDP
header, and UDP payload are protected by both the GRE Checksum and header, and UDP payload are protected by both the GRE Checksum and
UDP Checksum UDP Checksum
Therefore, the GRE checksum is not required to protect the packet
from misdelivery if any of the following conditions are true:
o the payload protocol is IPv4
o the payload carries TCP
o the payload carries UDP
However, if the GRE Checksum Present field is set to zero, the GRE However, if the GRE Checksum Present field is set to zero, the GRE
header is not protected by any checksum. Furthermore, depending on header is not protected by any checksum. Furthermore, depending on
which of the above-mentioned conditions are true, selected portions which of the above-mentioned conditions are true, selected portions
of the GRE payload will not be protected by any checksum. of the GRE payload will not be protected by any checksum.
Network operators should evaluate risk factors in their networks and Network operators should evaluate risk factors in their networks and
configure GRE ingress nodes appropriately. configure GRE ingress nodes appropriately.
3. IPv6 As GRE Payload 3. IPv6 As GRE Payload
skipping to change at page 8, line 4 skipping to change at page 7, line 43
any GRE payload. As stated in RFC 4023, these threats can be any GRE payload. As stated in RFC 4023, these threats can be
mitigated by authenticating and/or encrypting the delivery packet mitigated by authenticating and/or encrypting the delivery packet
using IPsec [RFC4301]. Alternatively when the payload is IPv6, these using IPsec [RFC4301]. Alternatively when the payload is IPv6, these
threats can also be mitigated by authenticating and/or encrypting the threats can also be mitigated by authenticating and/or encrypting the
payload using IPsec, instead of the delivery packet. Otherwise, the payload using IPsec, instead of the delivery packet. Otherwise, the
current specification introduces no security considerations beyond current specification introduces no security considerations beyond
those mentioned in RFC 2784. those mentioned in RFC 2784.
More generically, security considerations for IPv6 are discussed in More generically, security considerations for IPv6 are discussed in
[RFC4942]. Operational security for IPv6 is discussed in [RFC4942]. Operational security for IPv6 is discussed in
[I-D.ietf-opsec-v6], and security concerns for tunnels in general are [I-D.ietf-opsec-v6], and security concerns for tunnels in general are
discussed in [RFC6169]. discussed in [RFC6169].
7. Acknowledgements 7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Fred Baker, Stewart Bryant, Carlos The authors would like to thank Fred Baker, Stewart Bryant, Carlos
Jesus Bernardos Cano, Dino Farinacci, David Farmer, Tom Herbert, Fred Jesus Bernardos Cano, Dino Farinacci, David Farmer, Brian Haberman,
Templin, Joe Touch, Andrew Yourtchenko and Lucy Yong for their Tom Herbert, Fred Templin, Joe Touch, Andrew Yourtchenko and Lucy
thorough review and useful comments. Yong for their thorough review and useful comments.
8. References 8. References
8.1. Normative References 8.1. Normative References
[ETYPES] IANA, "ETHER TYPES", 2014, [ETYPES] IANA, "ETHER TYPES", 2014,
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers>. <http://www.iana.org/assignments/ieee-802-numbers>.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980. August 1980.
 End of changes. 7 change blocks. 
17 lines changed or deleted 7 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/