draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-03.txt   draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-04.txt 
IPv6 Working Group R. Hinden IPv6 Working Group R. Hinden
INTERNET-DRAFT Nokia INTERNET-DRAFT Nokia
October 18, 2004 D. Thaler June 23, 2005 D. Thaler
Expires April 2005 Microsoft Expires December 2005 Microsoft
IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing
<draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-03.txt> <draft-ietf-ipv6-host-load-sharing-04.txt>
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts. Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress." progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing October 2004 Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing June 2005
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract Abstract
The original IPv6 conceptual sending algorithm does not do load- The original IPv6 conceptual sending algorithm does not do load-
sharing among equivalent IPv6 routers, and suggests schemes which sharing among equivalent IPv6 routers, and suggests schemes which
can be problematic in practice. This document updates the can be problematic in practice. This document updates the
conceptual sending algorithm so that traffic to different conceptual sending algorithm in RFC 2461 so that traffic to
destinations can be distributed among routers in an efficient different destinations can be distributed among routers in an
fashion. efficient fashion.
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
In the conceptual sending algorithm in [ND] and in the optional In the conceptual sending algorithm in [ND] and in the optional
extension in [ROUTERSEL], a next hop is chosen when no destination extension in [ROUTERSEL], a next hop is chosen when no destination
cache entry exists for an off-link destination or when cache entry exists for an off-link destination or when
communication through an existing router is failing. Normally a communication through an existing router is failing. Normally a
router is selected the first time traffic is sent to a specific router is selected the first time traffic is sent to a specific
destination IP address. Subsequent traffic to the same destination IP address. Subsequent traffic to the same
destination address continues to use the same router unless there destination address continues to use the same router unless there
skipping to change at page 2, line 40 skipping to change at page 2, line 40
In addition, as described in [ADDRSEL], the choice of next hop may In addition, as described in [ADDRSEL], the choice of next hop may
also affect the choice of source address, and hence indirectly also affect the choice of source address, and hence indirectly
(and to a lesser extent) may affect the router used for inbound (and to a lesser extent) may affect the router used for inbound
traffic as well. traffic as well.
In both the base sending algorithm and in the optional extension, In both the base sending algorithm and in the optional extension,
sometimes a host has a choice of multiple equivalent routers for a sometimes a host has a choice of multiple equivalent routers for a
destination. That is, all other factors are equal and a host must destination. That is, all other factors are equal and a host must
break a tie via some implementation-specific means. break a tie via some implementation-specific means.
It is typically desirable when there is more than one equivalent It is often desirable when there is more than one equivalent
router that hosts distribute their outgoing traffic among these router that hosts distribute their outgoing traffic among these
routers. This shares the load among multiple routers and provides routers. This shares the load among multiple routers and provides
better performance for the host's traffic. better performance for the host's traffic.
On the other hand, load sharing can be undesirable in situations On the other hand, load sharing can be undesirable in situations
where sufficient capacity is available through a single router and where sufficient capacity is available through a single router and
the traffic patterns could be more predictable by using a single the traffic patterns could be more predictable by using a single
router; in particular, this helps to diagnose connectivity router; in particular, this helps to diagnose connectivity
problems beyond the first-hop routers. problems beyond the first-hop routers.
Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing October 2004 Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing June 2005
[ND] does not require any particular behavior in this respect. It [ND] does not require any particular behavior in this respect. It
specifies that an implementation may always choose the same router specifies that an implementation may always choose the same router
(e.g., the first in the list) or may cycle through the routers in (e.g., the first in the list) or may cycle through the routers in
a round-robin manner. Both of these suggestions are problematic. a round-robin manner. Both of these suggestions are problematic.
Clearly, always choosing the same router does not provide load Clearly, always choosing the same router does not provide load
sharing. Some problems with load sharing using naive tie-breaking sharing. Some problems with load sharing using naive tie-breaking
techniques such as round-robin and random are discussed in techniques such as round-robin and random are discussed in
[MULTIPATH]. While the destination cache provides some stability [MULTIPATH]. While the destination cache provides some stability
skipping to change at page 3, line 37 skipping to change at page 3, line 37
2. Load Sharing 2. Load Sharing
When a host chooses from multiple equivalent routers, it SHOULD When a host chooses from multiple equivalent routers, it SHOULD
support choosing using some method which distributes load for support choosing using some method which distributes load for
different destinations among the equivalent routers rather than different destinations among the equivalent routers rather than
always choosing the same router (e.g., the first in the list). always choosing the same router (e.g., the first in the list).
This memo takes no stance on whether the support for load sharing This memo takes no stance on whether the support for load sharing
should be turned on or off by default. Furthermore, a host that should be turned on or off by default. Furthermore, a host that
does attempt to distribute load among routers SHOULD use a hash- does attempt to distribute load among routers SHOULD use a hash-
based scheme which takes the destination IP address into account, based scheme which takes (at least) the destination IP address
such as those described in [MULTIPATH], for choosing a router to into account, such as those described in [MULTIPATH], for choosing
use. a router to use.
Note that traffic for a given destination address will use the Note that traffic for a given destination address will use the
same router as long as the Destination Cache Entry for the same router as long as the Destination Cache Entry for the
destination address is not deleted. With a hash-based scheme, destination address is not deleted. With a hash-based scheme,
traffic for a given destination address will use the same router traffic for a given destination address will use the same router
over time even if the Destination Cache Entry is deleted, as long over time even if the Destination Cache Entry is deleted, as long
as the list of equivalent routers remains the same. as the list of equivalent routers remains the same.
Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing October 2004 Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing June 2005
3. Security Considerations 3. Security Considerations
As mentioned in [MULTIPATH], when next-hop selection is As mentioned in [MULTIPATH], when next-hop selection is
predictable, an application can synthesize traffic that will all predictable, an application can synthesize traffic that will all
hash the same, making it possible to launch a denial-of-service hash the same, making it possible to launch a denial-of-service
attack against the load sharing algorithm, and overload a attack against the load sharing algorithm, and overload a
particular router. This can even be done by a remote application particular router. This can even be done by a remote application
that can cause a host to respond to a given destination address. that can cause a host to respond to a given destination address.
A special case of this is when the same (single) next-hop is A special case of this is when the same (single) next-hop is
skipping to change at page 5, line 5 skipping to change at page 5, line 5
for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998.
[RFC2119] [RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP0014, March 1997. Requirement Levels", RFC 2119, BCP0014, March 1997.
[ADDRSEL] [ADDRSEL]
Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol
version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003.
Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing October 2004 Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing June 2005
[ROUTERSEL]
Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", Work in progress, draft-ietf-
ipv6-router-selection-07.txt, January 2005.
7. Informative References 7. Informative References
[MULTIPATH] [MULTIPATH]
Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and
Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000. Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000.
[ROUTERSEL]
Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", Work in progress, draft-ietf-
ipv6-router-selection-03.txt, December 2003.
8. Authors' Addresses 8. Authors' Addresses
Robert Hinden Robert Hinden
Nokia Nokia
313 Fairchild Drive 313 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043 Mountain View, CA 94043
Phone: +1 650 625-2004 Phone: +1 650 625-2004
Email: bob.hinden@nokia.com Email: bob.hinden@nokia.com
Dave Thaler Dave Thaler
Microsoft Corporation Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052 Redmond, WA 98052
Phone: +1 425 703 8835 Phone: +1 425 703 8835
EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com
9. Full Copyright Statement 9. Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is
subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP
78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their
rights. rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on This document and the information contained herein are provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT
THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR
ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE. PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing October 2004 Draft IPv6 Host to Router Load Sharing June 2005
10. Intellectual Property 10. Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed
to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in this document or the extent to which any license described in this document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights
 End of changes. 

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.24, available from http://www.levkowetz.com/ietf/tools/rfcdiff/