Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat
Internet Engineering Task Force O. Troan, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Informational D. Miles
Expires: August 18, 2014 Alcatel-Lucent
S. Matsushima
Softbank Telecom
T. Okimoto
NTT West
D. Wing
Cisco
February 14, 2014
IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-06
Abstract
Network Address and Port Translation (NAPT) works well for conserving
global addresses and addressing multihoming requirements, because an
IPv4 NAPT router implements three functions: source address
selection, next-hop resolution and optionally DNS resolution. For
IPv6 hosts one approach could be the use of NPTv6. However, NAT
should be avoided, if at all possible, to permit transparent end-to-
end connectivity. In this document, we analyze the use cases of
multihoming. We also describe functional requirements and possible
solutions for multihoming without the use of NAT in IPv6 for hosts
and small IPv6 networks that would otherwise be unable to meet
minimum IPv6 allocation criteria. We conclude that DHCPv6 based
solutions are suitable to solve the multihoming issues, described in
this document, while NPTv6 may be required as an intermediate
solution.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
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."
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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
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 Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. IPv6 multihomed network scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Classification of network scenarios for multihomed host . 5
3.2. Multihomed network environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1. End-to-End transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Problem statement and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Source address selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Next-hop selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3. DNS recursive name server selection . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6. Implementation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.1. Source address selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
6.2. Next-hop selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.3. DNS recursive name server selection . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.4. Other algorithms available in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Considerations for MHMP deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7.1. Non-MHMP host consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.2. Co-existence considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
7.3. Policy collision consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
1. Introduction
In this document, we analyze the use cases of multihoming, describe
functional requirements and the problems with IPv6 multihoming.
There are two ways to avoid the problems of IPv6 multihoming:
1. IPv6 network prefix translation (NPTv6, [RFC6296]), or;
2. refining IPv6 specifications to resolve the problems with IPv6
multihoming.
This document concerns itself with the latter, and explores the
solution space. We hope this will encourage the development of
solutions to the problem so that, in the long run, NPTv6 can be
avoided.
IPv6 provides enough globally unique addresses to permit every
conceivable host on the Internet to be uniquely addressed without the
requirement for Network Address Port Translation (NAPT [RFC3022]),
offering a renaissance in end-to-end transparent connectivity.
Unfortunately, this may not be possible in every case, due to the
possible necessity of NAT even in IPv6, because of multihoming.
Though there are mechanisms to implement multihoming, such as BGP
multihoming [RFC4116] at the network level, and SCTP based
multihoming [RFC4960] in the transport layer, there is no mechanism
in IPv6 that serves as a replacement for NAT based multihoming in
IPv4. In IPv4, for a host or a small network, NAT based multihoming
is easily deployable and an already deployed technique.
Whenever a host or small network (that does not meet minimum IPv6
allocation criteria) is connected to multiple upstream networks, an
IPv6 address is assigned by each respective service provider
resulting in hosts with multiple global scope IPv6 addresses with
different prefixes. As each service provider is allocated a
different address space from its Internet Registry, it, in turn
assigns a different address space to the end-user network or host.
For example, a remote access user's host or router may use a VPN to
simultaneously connect to a remote network and retain a default route
to the Internet for other purposes.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
In IPv4 a common solution to the multihoming problem is to employ
NAPT on a border router and use private address space for individual
host addressing. The use of NAPT allows hosts to have exactly one IP
address visible on the public network and the combination of NAPT
with provider-specific outside addresses (one for each uplink) and
destination-based routing insulates a host from the impacts of
multiple upstream networks. The border router may also implement a
DNS cache or DNS policy to resolve address queries from hosts.
It is our goal to avoid the IPv6 equivalent of NAT. So, the goals
for IPv6 multihoming defined in [RFC3582] do not match the goals of
this document. Also regardless of what the NPTv6 specification is,
we are trying to avoid any form of network address translation
technique that may not be visible to either of the end hosts. To
reach this goal, several mechanisms are needed for end-user hosts to
have multiple address assignments and resolve issues such as which
address to use for sourcing traffic to which destination:
o If multiple routers exist on a single link the host must select
the appropriate next-hop for each connected network. Each router
is in turn connected to a different service provider network,
which provides independent address assignment. Routing protocols
that would normally be employed for router-to-router network
advertisement seem inappropriate for use by individual hosts.
o Source address selection becomes difficult whenever a host has
more than one address of the same address scope. Current address
selection criteria, may result in hosts using an arbitrary or
random address when sourcing upstream traffic. Unfortunately, for
the host, the appropriate source address is a function of the
upstream network for which the packet is bound for. If an
upstream service provider uses IP anti-spoofing or ingress
filtering, it is conceivable that the packets that have an
inappropriate source address for the upstream network would never
reach their destination.
o In a multihomed environment, different DNS scopes or partitions
may exist in each independent upstream network. A DNS query sent
to an arbitrary upstream DNS recursive name server may result in
incorrect or poisoned responses.
In short, while IPv6 facilitates hosts having more than one address
in the same address scope, the application of this causes significant
issues for a host; from routing, source address selection and DNS
resolution perspectives. A possible consequence of assigning a host
multiple identically-scoped addresses is severely impaired IP
connectivity.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
If a host connects to a network behind an IPv4 NAPT, the host has one
private address in the local network. There is no confusion. The
NAT becomes the gateway of the host and forwards the packet to an
appropriate network when it is multihomed. It also operates a DNS
cache server or DNS proxy, which receives all DNS inquires, and gives
a correct answer to the host.
2. Terminology
NPTv6 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation in
NPTv6 [RFC6296].
NAPT Network Address Port Translation as described
in [RFC3022]. In other contexts, NAPT is often
pronounced "NAT" or written as "NAT".
Multihomed with multi-prefix (MHMP) A host implementation which
supports the mechanisms described in this
document. Namely source address selection
policy, next-hop selection and DNS selection
policy.
3. IPv6 multihomed network scenarios
In this section, we classify three scenarios of the multihoming
environment.
3.1. Classification of network scenarios for multihomed host
Scenario 1:
In this scenario, two or more routers are present on a single link
shared with the host(s). Each router is in turn connected to a
different service provider network, that provides independent address
assignment and DNS recursive name servers. A host in this
environment would be offered multiple prefixes and DNS recursive name
servers advertised from the two different routers.
+------+ ___________
| | / \
+---| rtr1 |=====/ network \
| | | \ 1 /
+------+ | +------+ \___________/
| | |
| hosts|-----+
| | |
+------+ | +------+ ___________
| | | / \
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
+---| rtr2 |=====/ network \
| | \ 2 /
+------+ \___________/
Figure 1: single uplink, multiple next-hop, multiple prefix
(Scenario 1)
Figure 1 illustrates the host connecting to rtr1 and rtr2 via a
shared link. Networks 1 and 2 are reachable via rtr1 and rtr2
respectively. When the host sends packets to network 1, the next-hop
to network 1 is rtr1. Similarly, rtr2 is the next-hop to network 2.
- e.g., multiple broadband service providers (Internet, VoIP, IPTV,
etc.)
Scenario 2:
In this scenario, a single gateway router connects the host to two or
more upstream service provider networks. This gateway router would
receive prefix delegations and a different set of DNS recursive name
servers from each independent service provider network. The gateway
in turn advertises the provider prefixes to the host, and for DNS,
may either act as a lightweight DNS cache server or may advertise the
complete set of service provider DNS recursive name servers to the
hosts.
+------+ ___________
+-----+ | | / \
| |=======| rtr1 |=====/ network \
| |port1 | | \ 1 /
+------+ | | +------+ \___________/
| | | |
| hosts|-----| GW |
| | | rtr |
+------+ | | +------+ ___________
| |port2 | | / \
| |-------| rtr2 |=====/ network \
+-----+ | | \ 2 /
+------+ \___________/
Figure 2: single uplink, single next-hop, multiple prefix
(Scenario 2)
Figure 2 illustrates the host connected to GW rtr. GW rtr connects
to networks 1 and 2 via port1 and 2 respectively. As the figure
shows a logical topology of the scenario, the port1 could be a pseudo
interface for tunneling, which connects to the network 1 through the
network 2, and vice versa. When the host sends packets to either
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
network 1 or 2, the next-hop is GW rtr. When the packets are sent to
network 1 (network 2), GW rtr forwards the packets to port1 (port2).
- e.g, Internet + VPN/Application Service Provider (ASP)
Scenario 3:
In this scenario, a host has more than one active interface that
connects to different routers and service provider networks. Each
router provides the host with a different address prefix and set of
DNS recursive name servers, resulting in a host with a unique address
per link/interface.
+------+ +------+ ___________
| | | | / \
| |-----| rtr1 |=====/ network \
| | | | \ 1 /
| | +------+ \___________/
| |
| host |
| |
| | +------+ ___________
| | | | / \
| |=====| rtr2 |=====/ network \
| | | | \ 2 /
+------+ +------+ \___________/
Figure 3: Multiple uplink, multiple next-hop, multiple prefix
(Scenario 3)
Figure 3 illustrates the host connecting to rtr1 and rtr2 via a
direct connection or a virtual link. When the host sends packets
network 1, the next-hop to network 1 is rtr1. Similarly, rtr2 is the
next-hop to network 2.
- e.g., Mobile Wifi + 3G, ISP A + ISP B
3.2. Multihomed network environment
In an IPv6 multihomed network, a host is assigned two or more IPv6
addresses and DNS recursive name servers from independent service
provider networks. When this multihomed host attempts to connect
with other hosts, it may incorrectly resolve the next-hop router, use
an inappropriate source address, or use a DNS response from an
incorrect service provider that may result in impaired IP
connectivity.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
Multihomed networks in IPv4 have been implemented through the use of
a gateway router with NAPT function (scenario 2 with NAPT) in many
cases. An analysis of the current IPv4 NAPT and DNS functions within
the gateway router should provide a baseline set of requirements for
IPv6 multihomed environments. A destination prefix/route is often
used on the gateway router to separate traffic between the networks.
+------+ ___________
| | / \
+---| rtr1 |=====/ network \
| | | \ 1 /
+------+ +-----+ | +------+ \___________/
| IPv4 | | | |
| hosts|-----| GW |---+
| | | rtr | |
+------+ +-----+ | +------+ ___________
(NAPT&DNS) | | | / \
(private +---| rtr2 |=====/ network \
address | | \ 2 /
space) +------+ \___________/
Figure 4: IPv4 Multihomed environment with Gateway Router performing
NAPT
3.3. Problem Statement
A multihomed IPv6 host has one or more assigned IPv6 addresses and
DNS recursive name servers from each upstream service provider,
resulting in the host having multiple valid IPv6 addresses and DNS
recursive name servers. The host must be able to resolve the
appropriate next-hop, the correct source address and DNS recursive
name server to use based on the destination prefix. To prevent IP
spoofing, operators will often implement ingress filtering to discard
traffic with an inappropriate source address, making it essential for
the host to correctly resolve these three items before sourcing the
first packet.
IPv6 has mechanisms for the provision of multiple routers on a single
link and multiple address assignments to a single host. However,
when these mechanisms are applied to the three scenarios in
Section 3.1 a number of connectivity issues are identified:
Scenario 1:
The host has been assigned an address from each router and recognizes
both rtr1 and rtr2 as valid default routers (in the default routers
list).
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
o The source address selection policy on the host does not
deterministically resolve a source address. Ingress filtering or
filter policies will discard traffic with source addresses that
the operator did not assign.
o The host will select one of the two routers as the active default
router. No traffic is sent to the other router.
Scenario 2:
The host has been assigned two different addresses from the single
gateway router. The gateway router is the only default router on the
link.
o The source address selection policy on the host does not
deterministically resolve a source address. Ingress filtering or
filter policies will discard traffic with source addresses that
the operator did not assign.
o The gateway router does not have an autonomous mechanism for
determining which traffic should be sent to which network. If the
gateway router is implementing host functions (i.e., processing
Router Advertisement) then two valid default routers may be
recognized.
Scenario 3:
A host has two separate interfaces and on each interface a different
address is assigned. Each link has its own router.
o The host does not have enough information for determining which
traffic should be sent to which upstream routers. The host will
select one of the two routers as the active default router, and no
traffic is sent to the other router. The default address
selection rules select the address assigned to the outgoing
interface as the source address. So, if a host has an appropriate
routing table, an appropriate source address will be selected.
All scenarios:
o In network deployments utilizing local namespaces, the host may
choose to communicate with a "wrong" DNS recursive server unable
to serve a local namespace.
4. Requirements
This section describes requirements that any solution multi-address
and multi-uplink architectures need to meet.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
4.1. End-to-End transparency
One of the major design goals for IPv6 is to restore the end-to-end
transparency of the Internet. If NAT is applied to IP communication
between hosts, NAT traversal mechanism are required, to establish bi-
directional IP communication. A NAT traversal mechanism does not
need to be implemented in an application, in an environment with end-
to-end transparency. Therefore, the IPv6 multihoming solution should
strive to avoid NPTv6 to achieve end-to-end transparency.
4.2. Scalability
The solution will have to be able to manage a large number of sites/
nodes. In services for residential users, provider edge devices have
to manage thousands of sites. In such environments, sending packets
periodically to each site may affect edge system performance.
5. Problem statement and analysis
The problems described in Section 3 can be classified into these
three types:
o Wrong source address selection
o Wrong next-hop selection
o Wrong DNS server selection
This section reviews the problem statements presented above and the
proposed functional requirements to resolve the issues.
5.1. Source address selection
A multihomed IPv6 host will typically have different addresses
assigned from each service provider either on the same link
(scenarios 1 & 2) or different links (scenario 3). When the host
wishes to send a packet to any given destination, the current source
address selection rules [RFC6724] may not deterministically select
the correct source address. [RFC7078] describes the use of the
policy table [RFC6724] to resolve this problem, using a DHCPv6
mechanism for host policy table management.
Again, by employing DHCPv6, the server could restrict address
assignment (of additional prefixes) only to hosts that support policy
table management.
Scenario 1: "Host" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
Scenario 2: "Host" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Scenario 3: If "Host" support the next-hop selection solution, there
is no need to support the address selection functionality on the
host.
It is noted that the service providers (i.e., ISP and enterprise/VPN)
must also support [RFC7078].
5.2. Next-hop selection
A multihomed IPv6 host or gateway may have multiple uplinks to
different service providers. Here each router would use Router
Advertisements [RFC4861] for distributing default route/next-hop
information to the host or gateway router.
In this case, the host or gateway router may select any valid default
router from the default routers list, resulting in traffic being sent
to the wrong router and discarded by the upstream service provider.
Using the above scenarios as an example, whenever the host wishes to
reach a destination in network 2 and there is no connectivity between
networks 1 and 2 (as is the case for a walled-garden or closed
service), the host or gateway router does not know whether to forward
traffic to rtr1 or rtr2 to reach a destination in network 2. The
host or gateway router may choose rtr1 as the default router, and
traffic fails to reach the destination server. The host or gateway
router requires route information for each upstream service provider,
but the use of a routing protocol between the gateway and the two
routers causes both configuration and scaling issues. For IPv4
hosts, the gateway router is often pre-configured with static route
information or uses of Classless Static Route Options [RFC3442] for
DHCPv4. Extensions to Router Advertisements through Default Router
Preference and More-Specific Routes [RFC4191] provides for link-
specific preferences but does not address per-host configuration in a
multi-access topology because of its reliance on Router
Advertisements.
Scenario 1: "Host" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Scenario 2: "GW rtr" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Scenario 3: "Host" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
5.3. DNS recursive name server selection
A multihomed IPv6 host or gateway router may be provided multiple DNS
recursive name servers through DHCPv6 [RFC3646] or RA [RFC6106].
When the host or gateway router sends a DNS query, it would normally
choose one of the available DNS recursive name servers for the query.
In the IPv6 gateway router scenario, the Broadband Forum [TR124]
requires that the query be sent to all DNS recursive name servers,
and the gateway waits for the first reply. In IPv6, given our use of
specific destination-based policy for both routing and source address
selection, it is desirable to extend a policy-based concept to DNS
recursive name server selection. Doing so can minimize DNS recursive
name server load and avoid issues where DNS recursive name servers in
different networks have connectivity issues, or the DNS recursive
name server are not publicly accessible. In the worst case, a DNS
query for a name from a local namespace may not be resolved correctly
if sent towards a DNS server not aware of said local namespace,
resulting in a lack of connectivity.
It is not an issue of Domain Name System model itself, but an IPv6
multihomed host or gateway router should have the ability to select
appropriate DNS recursive name servers for each service based on the
domain space for the destination, and each service should provide
rules specific to that network. [RFC6731] proposes a solution for
distributing DNS server selection policy using a DHCPv6 option.
Scenario 1: "Host" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Scenario 2: "GW rtr" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Scenario 3: "Host" needs to support the solution for this problem.
It is noted that the service providers (i.e., ISP and enterprise/VPN)
must also support [RFC6731].
6. Implementation approach
As mentioned in Section 5, in the multi-prefix environment, we have
three problems; source address selection, next-hop selection, and DNS
recursive name server selection. In this section, possible solutions
for each problem are introduced and evaluated against the
requirements in Section 4.
6.1. Source address selection
The problems of address selection in multi-prefix environments are
summarized in [RFC5220]. When solutions are examined against the
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
requirements in Section 4, the proactive approaches, such as the
policy table distribution mechanism and the routing hints mechanism,
are more appropriate in that they can propagate the network
administrator's policy directly. The policy distribution mechanism
has an advantage with regard to the host's protocol stack impact and
the static nature of the assumed target network environment.
6.2. Next-hop selection
As for the source address selection problem, both a policy-based
approach and a non policy-based approach are possible with regard to
the next-hop selection problem. Because of the same requirements,
the policy propagation-based solution mechanism, whatever the policy,
should be more appropriate.
Routing information is a typical example of policy related to next-
hop selection. If we assume source address-based routing at hosts or
intermediate routers, pairs of source prefixes and next-hops can be
another example of next-hop selection policy.
The routing information-based approach has a clear advantage in
implementation and is already commonly used.
The existing proposed or standardized routing information
distribution mechanisms are routing protocols, such as RIPng and
OSPFv3, the RA extension option defined in [RFC4191], and the [TR069]
standardized at BBF.
The RA-based mechanism doesn't handle distribution of per-host
routing information easily. Dynamic routing protocols are not
typically used between residential users and ISPs, because of their
scalability and security implications. The DHCPv6 mechanism does not
have these problems and has the advantage of its relaying
functionality. It is commonly used and is thus easy to deploy.
[TR069], mentioned above, is a possible solution mechanism for
routing information distribution to customer-premises equipment
(CPE). It assumes, however, IP reachability to the Auto
Configuration Server (ACS) is established. Therefore, if the CPE
requires routing information to reach the ACS, [TR069] cannot be used
to distribute this information.
6.3. DNS recursive name server selection
Note: Split-horizon DNS is discussed in this section. Split-
horizon DNS is known to cause problems with applications to allow
information leakage. The discussion of split-horizon DNS is not
condoning its use, but rather acknowledging that split-horizon DNS
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
is used and that its use is another justification for network
address translation. The goal of this document is to encourage
building solutions which do not need network address translation.
Two solutions appear possible: make split-horizon DNS work better
(which is discussed below) or meet network administrator's
requirements without split-horizon DNS (which is out of scope of
this document).
As in the above two problems, a policy-based approach and a non
policy-based approach are possible. In a non policy-based approach,
a host or a home gateway router is assumed to send DNS queries to
several DNS recursive name servers at once or to select one of the
available servers.
In the non policy-based approach, by making a query to a DNS
recursive name server in a different service provider to that which
hosts the service, a user could be directed to unexpected IP address
or receive an invalid response, and thus cannot connect to the
service provider's private and legitimate service. For example, some
DNS recursive name servers reply with different answers depending on
the source address of the DNS query, which is sometimes called split-
horizon. When the host mistakenly makes a query to a different
provider's DNS recursive name server to resolve a FQDN of another
provider's private service, and the DNS recursive name server adopts
the split-horizon configuration, the queried server returns an IP
address of the non-private side of the service. Another problem with
this approach is that it causes unnecessary DNS traffic to the DNS
recursive name servers that are visible to the users.
The alternative of a policy-based approach is documented in
[RFC6731], where several pairs of DNS recursive name server addresses
and DNS domain suffixes are defined as part of a policy and conveyed
to hosts in a new DHCP option. In an environment where there is a
home gateway router, that router can act as a DNS recursive name
server, interpret this option and distribute DNS queries to the
appropriate DNS servers according to the policy.
6.4. Other algorithms available in RFCs
The authors of this document are aware of a variety of other
algorithms and architectures, such as shim6 [RFC5533] and HIP
[RFC5206], that may be useful in this environment. At this writing,
there is not enough operational experience on which to base a
recommendation. Should such operational experience become available,
this document may be updated in the future.
7. Considerations for MHMP deployment
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
This section describes considerations to mitigate possible problem in
a network which implements MHMP described in Section 6.
7.1. Non-MHMP host consideration
In a typical IPv4 multihomed network deployment, IPv4 NAPT is
practically used and it can eventually avoid assigning multiple
addresses to the hosts and solve the next-hop selection problem. In
a similar fashion, NPTv6 can be used as a last resort for IPv6
multihomed network deployments where one needs to assign a single
IPv6 address to a non-MHMP host.
__________
/ \
+---/ Internet \
gateway router | \ /
+------+ +---------------------+ | \__________/
| | | | | WAN1 +--+
| host |-----|LAN| Router |--------|
| | | | |NAT|WAN2+--+
+------+ +---------------------+ | __________
| / \
+---/ ASP \
\ /
\__________/
Figure 5: Legacy Host
The gateway router also has to support the two features, next-hop
selection and DNS server selection, shown in Section 6.
The implementation and issues of NPTv6 are out of the scope of this
document. They may be covered by another document under discussion
[RFC6296].
7.2. Co-existence considerations
To allow the co-existence of non-MHMP hosts and MHMP hosts (i.e.
hosts supporting multi-prefix with the enhancements for the source
address selection), GW-rtr may need to treat those hosts separately.
An idea for how to achieve this, is that GW-rtr identifies the hosts,
and then assigns a single prefix to non-MHMP hosts and assigns
multiple prefixes to MHMP hosts. In this case, GW-rtr can perform
IPv6 NAT only for the traffic from non-MHMP hosts if its source
address is not appropriate.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
Another idea is that GW-rtr assigns multiple prefixes to both hosts,
and performs IPv6 NAT for traffic from non-MHMP hosts if its source
address is not appropriate.
In scenario 1 and 3, the non-MHMP hosts can be placed behind the NAT
box. In this case, the non-MHMP host can access the service through
the NAT box.
The implementation of identifying non-MHMP hosts and NAT policy is
outside the scope of this document.
7.3. Policy collision consideration
When multiple policy distributors exist, a policy receiver may not
follow one or each of the received policy. In particular, when a
policy conflicts with another policy, a policy receiver cannot
implement each of the policy. To solve or mitigate this issue, it is
required that prioritization rule to align these policies along
preference on a trusted interface. Another solution is to preclude
the functionality of multiple policy acceptance at the receiver side.
In this case, a policy distributor should cooperate with other policy
distributors, and a single representative provider should distribute
a merged policy.
This document does not presume specific recommendations for resolving
policy collision. It is expected to the implementation to decide how
to resolve the conflicts. If they are not resolved consistently by
different implementations, that could affect interoperability and
security trust boundaries. Future work will be expected to address
the need for consistent policy resolution to avoid interoperability
and security trust boundary issues.
8. Security Considerations
In today's multi-homed IPv4 networks, it is difficult to resolve or
coordinate conflicts between the two upstream networks. This problem
persists with IPv6, no matter if the hosts use IPv6 provider-
dependent or provider-independent addresses.
This document requires that the solutions for MHMP should have policy
providing functions. New security threats can be introduced
depending on what kind and what form of the policy. The threats can
be categorized in two parts: the policy receiver side and the policy
distributor side.
A policy receiver may receive an evil policy from a policy
distributor. A policy distributor should expect some hosts in its
network do not follow the distributed policy. At the time of
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
writing, there are no known methods to resolve conflicts between the
host's own policy (policy receiver) and the policies of upstream
providers (policy provider). As this document is analyzing the
problem space, rather than proposing a solution, we note the
following problems:
Threats related to the policy distributor side:
Service provider should expect the existence of hosts that will
not obey the received policy. A possible solutions is to
ingress-filter those packets that do not match the distributed
policy and drop them. About the route selection, packet
forwarding or redirection can be another possible solution.
About the source address selection, IPv6 NAT can be another
possible solution.
Administrators of different networks might need to control
policies (and nodes' behaviors) independently of other
administrators. It means that the need to have access controls
for such cross-administrative policy access. Administrators
must control only nodes that are part of their own networks, or
some administrators must control only nodes that are part of
their own networks, while others are authorized to control
nodes across administrative boundaries. To be success to
cross-administrative policy-control, per-user authorization
might be required with existing AAA and network management
standards.
Threats related to the policy receiver side:
For policy receiver side, who should be trusted to accept
policies is a fundamental issue. How is the trust established,
and how can the network element be assured that it can
established that trust before the network is fully configured.
If a policy receiver trusts untrusted network, it will cause
that distributing unwanted and unauthorized policy that
described below.
A policy receiver are exposed to the threats of unauthorized
policy, which can lead to session hijack, falsification, DoS,
wiretapping and phishing. Unauthorized policy here means a
policy distributed from an entity that does not have rights to
do so. Usually, only a site administrator and a network
service provider have rights to distribute these policies just
as well as IP address assignment and DNS server address
notification. Regarding source address selection, unauthorized
policy can expose an IP address that will not usually be
exposed to an external server, which can be a privacy problem.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
To solve or mitigate this problem of unauthorized policy, one
approach is limiting on use of these policy distribution
mechanisms, as described in the section 4.4 of [RFC6731]. For
example, a policy should be preferred or accepted when the
policy is verified its integrity and delivered across a secure,
trusted channel such as 3G connection in cellular services.
The proposed solutions are based on DHCP, so the limitation of
local site communication, which is often used in WiFi access
services, should be another solution or mitigation for this
problem. About DNS server selection issue, DNSSEC can be
another solution. About source address selection, the ingress
filter at the network service provider router can be a
solution.
Another threat is the leakage of the policy and privacy issues
resulting from that. Especially when each client is
distributed its own policy from the network service provider,
the policy can give a hint of which service the client
subscribes. Encryption of communication channel, separation of
communication channel per host can be solutions for this
problem.
The security threats related to IPv6 multihoming are described in
[RFC4218].
9. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
10. Contributors
The following people contributed to this document: Akiko Hattori,
Arifumi Matsumoto, Frank Brockners, Fred Baker, Tomohiro Fujisaki,
Jun-ya Kato, Shigeru Akiyama, Seiichi Morikawa, Mark Townsley,
Wojciech Dec, Yasuo Kashimura, Yuji Yamazaki. This document has
greatly benefited from inputs by Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, and
Teemu Savolainen.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC4191] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and
More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
September 2007.
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
[RFC6296] Wasserman, M. and F. Baker, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix
Translation", RFC 6296, June 2011.
[RFC6724] Thaler, D., Draves, R., Matsumoto, A., and T. Chown,
"Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6)", RFC 6724, September 2012.
[RFC6731] Savolainen, T., Kato, J., and T. Lemon, "Improved
Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced
Nodes", RFC 6731, December 2012.
[RFC7078] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., and T. Chown, "Distributing
Address Selection Policy Using DHCPv6", RFC 7078, January
2014.
11.2. Informative References
[RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network
Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January
2001.
[RFC3442] Lemon, T., Cheshire, S., and B. Volz, "The Classless
Static Route Option for Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol (DHCP) version 4", RFC 3442, December 2002.
[RFC3582] Abley, J., Black, B., and V. Gill, "Goals for IPv6 Site-
Multihoming Architectures", RFC 3582, August 2003.
[RFC3646] Droms, R., "DNS Configuration options for Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3646,
December 2003.
[RFC4116] Abley, J., Lindqvist, K., Davies, E., Black, B., and V.
Gill, "IPv4 Multihoming Practices and Limitations", RFC
4116, July 2005.
[RFC4218] Nordmark, E. and T. Li, "Threats Relating to IPv6
Multihoming Solutions", RFC 4218, October 2005.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC
4960, September 2007.
[RFC5206] Nikander, P., Henderson, T., Vogt, C., and J. Arkko, "End-
Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity
Protocol", RFC 5206, April 2008.
[RFC5220] Matsumoto, A., Fujisaki, T., Hiromi, R., and K. Kanayama,
"Problem Statement for Default Address Selection in Multi-
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
Prefix Environments: Operational Issues of RFC 3484
Default Rules", RFC 5220, July 2008.
[RFC5533] Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, June 2009.
[RFC6106] Jeong, J., Park, S., Beloeil, L., and S. Madanapalli,
"IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration",
RFC 6106, November 2010.
[TR069] The BroadBand Forum, "TR-069, CPE WAN Management Protocol
v1.1, Version: Issue 1 Amendment 2", December 2007.
[TR124] The BroadBand Forum, "TR-124i2, Functional Requirements
for Broadband Residential Gateway Devices (work in
progress)", May 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Ole Troan (editor)
Cisco
Oslo
Norway
Email: ot@cisco.com
David Miles
Alcatel-Lucent
Melbourne
Australia
Email: david.miles@alcatel-lucent.com
Satoru Matsushima
Softbank Telecom
Tokyo
Japan
Email: satoru.matsushima@g.softbank.co.jp
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2014
Tadahisa Okimoto
NTT West
Osaka
Japan
Email: t.okimoto@west.ntt.co.jp
Dan Wing
Cisco
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose
USA
Email: dwing@cisco.com
Troan, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 21]
