Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model
Autoconf E. Baccelli, Ed.
Internet-Draft INRIA
Intended status: Informational M. Townsley, Ed.
Expires: September 23, 2010 Cisco Systems
March 22, 2010
IP Addressing Model in Ad Hoc Networks
draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-03
Abstract
This document describes a model for configuring IP addresses and
subnet prefixes on the interfaces of routers which connect to links
with undetermined connectivity properties.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
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."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 23, 2010.
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
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
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Ad Hoc IP Addressing March 2010
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 BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Applicability Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IP Subnet Prefix Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IP Address Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Addressing Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.1. IPv6 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6.2. IPv4 Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Ad Hoc IP Addressing March 2010
1. Introduction
The appropriate configuration of IP addresses and subnet masks for
router network interfaces is generally a prerequisite to the correct
functioning of routing protocols. Consideration of various items,
including underlying link capabilities and connectivity, geographical
topology, available address blocks, assumed traffic patterns
etc., are used when determining the appropriate network topology and
the associated IP interface configuration.
When the capabilities and connectivity of the links that connect
routers are well-known and stable, logical network topology design
and corresponding IP interface configuration are straightforward.
Absent any assumption about link-level connectivity, however, there
is no canonical method for determining a given IP interface
configuration.
Link-level connectivity is generally qualified as undetermined when
it is unplanned and/or time-varying in character. Ad hoc networks
are typical examples of networks with undetermined link-level
connectivity. Routing protocols for ad hoc networks have as purpose
to detect and maintain paths across the network, even when faced with
links with undetermined connectivity, assuming that routers'
interfaces are configured with IP addresses. This document thus
proposes a model for configuration of IP addresses and subnet
prefixes on router interfaces to links with undetermined connectivity
properties, to allow routing protocols and data packet forwarding to
function.
Note that routers may ultimately need additional IP prefixes for the
diverse applications that could run directly on the routers
themselves, or for assignment to attached hosts or networks. For
IPv6, these addresses may be global [RFC3587], Unique-Local [RFC4193]
or Link-Local [RFC4291]. For IPv4, the addresses may be global
(i.e., public) or private [RFC1918]. In general, global scope is
desired over local scope, though it is understood that this may not
always be achievable via automatic configuration mechanisms. In this
document however, automatic configuration of the prefixes used for
general applications is considered as a problem that is separable
from that of automatic configuration of addresses and prefixes
necessary for routing protocols to function. This document thus
focuses on the latter: the type of IP address and subnet mask
configuration necessary for routing protocols and data packet
forwarding to function.
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Ad Hoc IP Addressing March 2010
2. Terminology
This document uses the vocabulary and the concepts defined in
[RFC1918] and [RFC4632] for IPv4, as well as [RFC4291] for IPv6.
3. Applicability Statement
This model gives guidance about the configuration of IP addresses and
the IP subnet prefixes on router's IP interfaces which connect to
links with undetermined connectivity properties.
When more specific assumptions can be made regarding the connectivity
between interfaces, or the (persistent) reachability of some
addresses, these should be considered when configuring subnet
prefixes.
4. IP Subnet Prefix Configuration
If the link to which an interface connects enables no assumptions of
connectivity to other interfaces, the only addresses which can be
assumed "on link", are the address(es) of that interface itself.
Note that while link-local addresses are assumed to be "on link", the
utility of link-local addresses is limited as described in Section 6.
Subnet prefix configuration on such interfaces must thus not make any
promises in terms of direct (one hop) IP connectivity to IP addresses
other than that of the interface itself. This suggests the following
principle:
o no on-link subnet prefix should be configured on such an
interface.
Note that if layer 2 communication is enabled between a pair of
interfaces, IP packet exchange is also enabled, even if IP subnet
configuration is absent or different on each of these interfaces.
Also note that if, on the contrary, assumptions can be made regarding
the connectivity between interfaces, or regarding the persistent
reachability of some addresses, these should be considered when
configuring IP subnet prefixes, and the corresponding interface(s)
may in such case be configured with an on-link subnet prefix.
5. IP Address Configuration
Routing protocols running on a router may exhibit different
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Ad Hoc IP Addressing March 2010
requirements for uniqueness of interface addresses; some have no such
requirements, others have requirements ranging from local uniqueness
only, to uniqueness within, at least, the routing domain (as defined
in [RFC1136]).
Configuring an IP address that is unique within the routing domain
satisfies the less stringent uniqueness requirements of local
uniqueness, while also enabling protocols which have the most
stringent requirements of uniqueness within the routing domain. This
suggests the following principle:
o an IP address assigned to an interface that connects to a link
with undetermined connectivity properties should be unique, at
least within the routing domain.
6. Addressing Model
Section 4 and Section 5 describe principles for IP address and subnet
prefix configuration on an interface of a router, when that interface
connects to a link with undetermined connectivity properties. The
following describes guidelines that follow from these principles,
respectively for IPv6 and IPv4.
Note that the guidelines provided in this document slightly differ
for IPv6 and IPv4, as IPv6 offers possibilities that IPv4 does not
(i.e., the possibility to simply not configure any on-link subnet
prefix on an IPv6 interface), which provide a "cleaner" model.
6.1. IPv6 Model
For IPv6, the principles described in Section 4 and Section 5 suggest
the following rules:
o An IP address configured on this interface should be unique, at
least within the routing domain, and
o No on-link subnet prefix is configured on this interface.
Note that while an IPv6 link-local address is assigned to each
interface as per [RFC4291], in general link-local addresses are of
limited utility on links with undetermined connectivity, as
connectivity to neighbors may be constantly changing. The known
limitations are:
o There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local addresses are
unique across multiple links, hence they cannot be used to
reliably identify routers (it is often desirable to identify a
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Ad Hoc IP Addressing March 2010
router with an IP address).
o Routers cannot forward any packets with link-local source or
destination addresses to other links (as per [RFC4291]) while most
of the time, routers need to be able to forward packets to/from
different links.
Therefore, autoconfiguration solutions should be encouraged to
primarily focus on configuring IP addresses that are not IPv6 link-
local.
6.2. IPv4 Model
For IPv4, the principles described in Section 4 and Section 5 suggest
rules similar to those mentioned for IPv6 in Section 6.1, that are:
o An IP address configured on this interface should be unique, at
least within the routing domain, and
o Any subnet prefix configured on this interface should be 32 bits
long.
Note that the use of IPv4 link-local addresses [RFC3927] in this
context should be discouraged for most applications, as the
limitations outlined in Section 6.1 for IPv6 link-local addresses
also concern IPv4 link-local addresses. These limitations are
further exacerbated by the smaller pool of IPv4 link-local addresses
to choose from and thus increased reliance on Duplicate Address
Detection (DAD).
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
8. Security Considerations
This document thus focuses on the IP address and subnet mask
configuration necessary for routing protocols and data packet
forwarding to function. [RFC4593] describes generic threats to
routing protocols, whose applicability is not altered by the presence
of interfaces with undetermined connectivity properties. As such,
the addressing model described in this document does not introduce
new security threats.
However, the possible lack of pre-established infrastructure or
authority, as enabled by the use of interfaces with undetermined
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Ad Hoc IP Addressing March 2010
connectivity properties, may render some of the attacks described in
[RFC4593] easier to undertake. In particular, detection of
malevolent misconfiguration may be more difficult to detect and to
locate.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1136] Hares, S. and D. Katz, "Administrative Domains and Routing
Domains: A Model for Routing in the Internet", RFC 1136,
December 1989.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, 2006.
[RFC3927] Cheshire, S., Aboba, B., and E. Guttman, "Dynamic
Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses", RFC 3927,
2005.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot, G.,
and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
RFC 1918, 1996.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, 2005.
[RFC3587] Hinden, R., Deering, S., and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Global
Unicast Address Format", RFC 3587, 2003.
[RFC4632] Fuller, V. and T. Li, "Classless Inter-domain Routing
(CIDR): The Internet Address Assignment and Aggregation
Plan", RFC 4632, 2006.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC4593] Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y. Yang, "Generic Threats to
Routing Protocols", RFC 4593, 2006.
Appendix A. Contributors
This document reflects discussions and contributions from several
individuals including (in alphabetical order): Teco Boot, Ulrich
Herberg, Thomas Narten, Erik Nordmark, Charles Perkins, Zach Shelby
and Dave Thaler.
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Ad Hoc IP Addressing March 2010
Authors' Addresses
Emmanuel Baccelli
INRIA
Email: Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr
URI: http://www.emmanuelbaccelli.org/
Mark Townsley
Cisco Systems
Email: townsley@cisco.com
Baccelli, Ed. & Townsley, Ed. Expires September 23, 2010 [Page 8]
