Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing
INTERNET DRAFT Alain Durand
NGTRANS WG IMAG
Expires 20 November, 1998 Bertrand Buclin
Category: Informational AT&T Labs Europe
May 1998
6Bone Routing Practice
<draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet Draft. 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.
Internet Drafts may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is not appropriate to use Internet Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as a ``working draft'' or ``work in
progress.''
Please check the 1id-abstracts.txt listing contained in the internet-drafts
Shadow Directories on nic.ddn.mil, nnsc.nsf.net, nic.nordu.net,
ftp.nisc.sri.com, or munnari.oz.au to learn the current status of any
Internet Draft.
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
This draft expires October 30, 1998.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
1 Introduction
The 6Bone is an environment supporting experimentation with the IPv6
protocols and products implementing it. As the network grows, the need for
common operation rules emerged. In particular, operation of the 6Bone
backbone is a challenge due to the frequent insertion of bogus routes by
leaf or even backbone sites.
This memo identifies guidelines on how 6Bone sites might operate, so that
the 6Bone can remain a quality experimentation environment and to avoid
pathological situations that have been encountered in the past. It defines
the 'best current practice' acceptable in the 6Bone for the configuration
of both Interior Gateway Protocols (such as RIPng [RFC 2080]) and Exterior
Gateway Protocols (like BGP4+ [RFC 2283]).
Bertrand Buclin [Page 1]
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt 6Bone Routing Practice 1 June 1998
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 [RFC 2119].
2 Basic principles
The 6Bone is structured as a hierarchical network with pseudo Top Level
Aggregator (pTLA) sites, pseudo Next Level Aggregator (pNLA) sites and
leaf sites. This topology supports the IPv6 address aggregation
architecture as described in [1]. The 6Bone backbone is made of a mesh
interconnecting pTLAs only. pNLAs connect to one or more pTLAs and provide
transit service for leaf sites.
pTLA sites MUST use BGP4+ [RFC 2283] as the mandatory routing protocol for
exchanging routing information among them.
Multi-homed sites or pNLAs SHOULD also use BGP4+. Regular sites MAY use a
simple default route to their ISP.
3 Common Rules
This section details common rules governing the routing on the 6Bone. They
are derived from issues encountered on the 6Bone, with respect to the
routes advertised, handling of special addresses, and aggregation:
1) link local prefixes
2) site local prefixes
3) loopback prefix & unspecified prefix
4) multicast prefixes
5) IPv4-compatible prefixes
6) IPv4-mapped prefixes
7) default routes
8) Yet undefined unicast prefixes (from a different /3 prefix)
9) Inter site links issues
10) aggregation & advertisement issues
3.1 Link-local prefix
The link-local prefix (FE80::/10) MUST NOT be advertised through either an
IGP or an EGP.
By definition, the link-local prefix has a scope limited to a specific
link. Since the prefix is the same on all IPv6 links, advertising it in any
routing protocol does not make sense and, worse, may introduce nasty error
conditions.
Well known cases where link local prefixes could be advertised by mistake
Bertrand Buclin [Page 2]
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt 6Bone Routing Practice 1 June 1998
include:
- a router advertising all directly connected network prefixes including
the link-local one.
- Subnetting of the link-local prefix.
In such cases, vendors should be urged to correct their code.
3.2 Site-local prefixes
Site local prefixes (in the FEC0::/10 range) MAY be advertized by IGPs or
EGPs within a site. The precise definition of a site is ongoing work
discussed in the IPng working group.
Site local prefixes MUST NOT be advertised to transit pNLAs or pTLAs.
3.3 Loopback and unspecified prefixes
The loopback prefix (::1/128) and the unspecified prefix (::0/128) MUST NOT
be advertised by any routing protocol.
3.4 Multicast prefixes
Multicast prefixes MUST NOT be advertised by any unicast routing protocol.
Multicast routing protocols are designed to respect the semantics of
multicast and MUST therefore be used to route packets with multicast
destination addresses (in the range FF00::/8).
Multicast address scopes MUST be respected on the 6Bone. Only global scope
multicast addresses MAY be routed across transit pNLAs and pTLAs. There is
no requirement on a pTLA to route multicast packets.
Organization-local multicasts (in the FF08::/16 or FF18::/16 ranges) MAY be
routed across a pNLA to its leaf sites.
Site-local multicasts MUST NOT be routed toward transit pNLAs or pTLAs.
Obviously, link-local multicasts and node-local multicasts MUST NOT be
routed at all.
3.5 IPv4-compatible prefixes
Sites may choose to use IPv4 compatible addresses (::a.b.c.d) internally.
As there is no real rationale today for doing that, these addresses SHOULD
NOT be used in the 6Bone.
The ::/96 IPv4-compatible prefixes MAY be advertised by IGPs.
IPv4-compatible prefixes MUST NOT be advertised by EGPs to transit pNLAs or
pTLAs.
3.6 IPv4-mapped prefixes
IPv4-mapped prefixes (::FFFF:a.b.c.d where a.b.c.d is an IPv4 address) MAY
be advertised by IGPs within a site. It may be useful for some IPv6 only
Bertrand Buclin [Page 3]
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt 6Bone Routing Practice 1 June 1998
nodes within a site to have such a route pointing to a translation device.
IPv4-mapped prefixes MUST NOT be advertised by EGPs.
3.7 Default routes
6Bone core pTLA routers MUST be default-free.
pTLAs MAY advertise a default route to their pNLAs. Transit pNLAs MAY do
the same for their leaf sites.
3.8 Yet undefined unicast prefixes
Yet undefined unicast prefixes from a format prefix other than 2000::/3
MUST NOT be advertised by any routing protocol in the 6Bone. In particular,
RFC1897 test addresses MUST NOT be advertised on the 6Bone.
Routing of global unicast prefixes outside of the 6Bone range (3FFE::/16)
is discussed in section 4, Routing policies, below.
3.9 Inter-site links
Global IPv6 addresses MUST be used for the end points of the inter-site
links. In particular, IPv4 compatible addresses MUST NOT be used for
tunnels.
Prefixes for those links MUST NOT be injected in the global routing tables.
3.10 Aggregation & advertisement issues
Route aggregation MUST be performed by any border router.
Sites or pNLAs MUST only advertise to their upstream provider the prefixes
assigned by that ISP unless otherwise agreed.
Site border router MUST NOT advertise prefixes more specific than the /48
ones allocated by their ISP.
pTLA MUST NOT advertise prefixes longer than 24 to other pTLAs unless
special peering agreements are implemented. When such special peering
agreements are in place between any two or more pTLAs, care MUST be taken
not to leak the more specific prefixes to other pTLAs not participating
in the peering agreement.
4 Routing policies
6Bone backbone sites maintain the mesh into the backbone and provide an as
reliable as possible service, granted the 6Bone is an experimentation tool.
To achieve their mission, 6Bone backbone sites MUST maintain peerings with
at least 3 (three) other back bone sites.
The peering agreements across the 6Bone are by nature non-commercial, and
therefore SHOULD allow transit traffic through.
Eventually, the Internet registries will assign other TLAs than the 6Bone
one (currently 3FFE::/16). The organizations bearing those TLAs will
Bertrand Buclin [Page 4]
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt 6Bone Routing Practice 1 June 1998
establish a new IPv6 network, parallel to the 6Bone. The 6Bone MIGHT
interconnect with this new IPv6 Internet, b ut transit across the 6Bone
will not be guaranteed. It will be left to each 6Bone backbone site to
decide whether it will carry traffic to or from the IPv6 Internet.
5 The 6Bone registry
The 6Bone registry is a RIPE-181 database with IPv6 extensions used to
store information about the 6Bone. Each 6Bone site MUST maintain the
relevant entries in the 6Bone registry (whois.6bone.net). In particular,
the following objects MUST be present:
- IPv6-site: site description
- Inet6num: prefix delegation
- Mntner: coordinate of site maintenance staff
Other objects MAY be maintained at the discretion of the sites, such as
routing policy descriptors, person or role objects. The Mntner object MUST
make reference to a role or person object, but those must not necessarily
reside in the 6Bone registry, they can be stored within any of the
Internet registry databases (RIPE, InterNIC, APNIC, ...).
6 Guidelines for new sites joining the 6Bone
New sites joining the 6Bone should seek to connect to a transit pNLA or a
pTLA within their region, and preferably as close as possible to their
existing IPv4 physical and routing path for Internet service. The 6Bone
registry is available to find out candidate ISPs.
Any site connected to the 6Bone MUST maintain a DNS server for forward name
looking and reverse address translation. The joining site MUST maintain the
6Bone registry objects relative to its site, and in particular the IPv6-
site and the MNTNER objects.
The upstream ISP MUST delegate the reverse address translation zone in DNS
to the joining site. The ISP MUST also create 6Bone registry objects
reflecting the delegated address space (inet6num:).
Up to date information about how to join the 6Bone is available on the
6Bone Web site at http://www.6bone.net.
7 Guidelines for 6Bone pTLA sites
6Bone pTLA sites are altogether forming the backbone of the 6Bone. In order
to ensure the highest level possible of availability and stability for the
6Bone environment, a few constraints are placed onto sites wishing to
become or stay a 6Bone pTLA:
1. The site MUST have experience with IPv6 on the 6Bone, at least as
a leaf site and preferably as a transit pNLA under an existing pTLA.
2. The site MUST have the ability and intent to provide "production-
like" 6Bone backbone service to provide a robust and operationally
Bertrand Buclin [Page 5]
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt 6Bone Routing Practice 1 June 1998
reliable 6Bone backbone.
3. The site MUST have a potential "user community" that would be
served by becoming a pTLA, e.g., the requester is a major player in a
region, country or focus of interest.
4. Must commit to abide by the 6Bone backbone operational rules and
policies as defined in the present document.
When a candidate site seeks to become a pTLA site, it will apply for it to
the 6Bone Operations group (see below) by bringing evidences it meets the
above criteria.
8 6Bone Operations group
The 6Bone Operations group is the body in charge of monitoring the
adherence to the present rules, and will take the appropriate actions to
correct deviations. Membership in the 6Bone Operations group is mandatory
for, and restricted to, any site connecte d to the 6Bone.
The 6Bone Operations group is currently defined by those members of the
existing 6Bone mailing list, i.e., 6bone@isi.edu, who represent sites
participating on the 6Bone. Therefore it is incumbent on relevant site
contacts to join the mailing list. Instructions on how to join the list are
maintained on the 6Bone web site at http://www.6bone.net.
9 Common rules enforcement
Participation in the 6Bone is a voluntary and benevolent undertaking.
However, participating sites are expected to adhere to the rules described
in this document, in order to maintain the 6Bone as quality tool for
experimenting with the IPv6 protocols and products implementing them.
The following processes are proposed to help enforcing the 6Bone rules:
- Each pTLA site has committed when requesting their pTLA to implement the
rules, and to ensure they are respected by sites within their
administrative control (i.e. those to who prefixes have been delegated).
- When a site detects an issue, it will first use the 6Bone registry to
contact the site maintainer and work the issue.
- If nothing happens, or there is disagreement on what the right solution
is, the issue can be brought to the 6Bone Operations group.
- When the problem is related to a product issue, the site(s) involved is
responsible for contact the product vendor and work toward its resolution.
- When an issue causes major operational problems, backbone sites may
decide to temporarily set filters in order to restore service.
10 Security considerations
The result of bogus entries in routing tables is usually unreachable sites.
Having guidelines to aggregate or reject routes will clean up the routing
Bertrand Buclin [Page 6]
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt 6Bone Routing Practice 1 June 1998
tables. It is expected that using these guidelines, routing on the 6Bone
will be less sensitive to denial of service attacks due to misleading
routes.
The 6Bone is a test network. Therefore, denial of service, packet
disclosure,... are to be expected.
11 Acknowledgements
This document is the result of shared experience on the 6Bone. Special
thanks go to Bob Fink for the hard work make to date to direct the 6Bone
effort, to David Kessens for the 6Bone registry, and to Guy Davies for his
insightful contributions.
12 References
[1] R. Hinden, S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture",
January 1998, internet draft, work in progress,
<draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v2-06.txt>
[RFC 1897] R. Hinden & J. Postel., IPv6 Testing Address Allocation.
January 1996. (Status: OBSOLETE)
[RFC 2080] Malkin, G., Minnear, R., "RIPng for IPv6", January 1997.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC 2283] T. Bates, R. Chandra, D. Katz, Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol
Extensions for BGP-4", March 98
[RIPE-181] T. Bates, E. Gerich, L. Joncheray, J-M. Jouanigot, D.
Karrenberg, M. Terpstra, and J. Yu. Representation of IP
Routing Policies in a Routing Registry. Technical Report ripe-
181, RIPE, RIPE NCC, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 1994.
13 Author address
Alain Durand
Institut d'Informatique et de Mathematiques Appliquees de Grenoble
IMAG BP 53
38041 Grenoble CEDEX 9 France
Phone : +33 4 76 63 57 03
Fax : +33 4 76 51 49 64
E-Mail: Alain.Durand@imag.fr
Bertrand Buclin
AT&T International S.A.
Route de l'aeroport 31, CP 72
CH-1215 Geneve 15 (Switzerland)
Phone : +41 22 929 37 40
Fax : +41 22 929 39 84
E-Mail: Bertrand.Buclin@ch.att.com
Bertrand Buclin [Page 7]
draft-ietf-ngtrans-6bone-routing-01.txt 6Bone Routing Practice 1 June 1998
14 Full Copyright Statement
"Copyright (C) The Internet Society (date). All Rights Reserved.
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished
to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
explain it or assist in its implmentation may be prepared, copied,
published and distributed, in whole or in part, without
restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice
and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative
works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any
way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed
for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the
procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards
process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
languages other than English.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not
be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Bertrand Buclin [Page 8]
