GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc8319

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Krishnan Request for Comments: 8319 Kaloom Updates: 4861 J. Korhonen Category: Standards Track Nordic Semiconductor ASA ISSN: 2070-1721 S. Chakrabarti

                                                               Verizon
                                                           E. Nordmark
                                                                Zededa
                                                        A. Yourtchenko
                                                                 Cisco
                                                         February 2018
      Support for Adjustable Maximum Router Lifetimes per Link

Abstract

 The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery protocol specifies the maximum time
 allowed between sending unsolicited multicast Router Advertisements
 (RAs) from a router interface as well as the maximum router lifetime.
 It also allows the limits to be overridden by documents that are
 specific to the link layer.  This document allows for overriding
 these values on a per-link basis.
 This document specifies updates to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
 Protocol (RFC 4861) to increase the maximum time allowed between
 sending unsolicited multicast RAs from a router interface as well as
 to increase the maximum router lifetime.

Status of This Memo

 This is an Internet Standards Track document.
 This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
 (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
 received public review and has been approved for publication by the
 Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
 Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8319.

Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 8319 Adjustable Router Lifetimes February 2018

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2018 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
 (https://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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
 3.  Relationship between AdvDefaultLifetime and MaxRtrAdvInterval   3
 4.  Updates to RFC 4861 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
 5.  Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
 8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
 Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 2] RFC 8319 Adjustable Router Lifetimes February 2018

1. Introduction

 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery relies on IP multicast based on the
 expectation that multicast makes efficient use of available bandwidth
 and avoids generating interrupts in the network nodes.  On some data
 link layers, multicast may not be natively supported.  On such links,
 any possible reduction of multicast traffic will be highly
 beneficial.  Unfortunately, due to the fixed protocol constants
 specified in [RFC4861], it is difficult to relax the multicast timers
 for Neighbor Discovery.  There are already clarifications specific to
 the link technology about how to tune the Neighbor Discovery Protocol
 (NDP) constants for certain systems in order to reduce excess NDP
 traffic.  For example, [RFC6459] and [RFC7066] contain such
 clarifications for 3GPP cellular links.
 This document specifies updates to the IPv6 Neighbor Discovery
 Protocol [RFC4861] to increase the maximum time allowed between
 sending unsolicited multicast RAs from a router interface as well as
 to increase the maximum router lifetime.

2. Requirements Language

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
 capitals, as shown here.

3. Relationship between AdvDefaultLifetime and MaxRtrAdvInterval

 MaxRtrAdvInterval is an upper bound on the time between which two
 successive Router Advertisement messages are sent.  Therefore, one
 might reason about the relationship between these two values in terms
 of a ratio K = AdvDefaultLifetime / MaxRtrAdvInterval, which
 expresses how many Router Advertisements are guaranteed to be sent
 before the router lifetime expires.
 Assuming unicast Solicited Router Advertisements or a perfectly
 stable network, on a theoretically perfect link with no losses, it
 would be sufficient to have K just above 1, so that the sent Router
 Advertisement refreshes the router entry just before it expires.  On
 the real links that allow for some loss, one would need to use K > 2
 in order to minimize the chances of a single Router Advertisement
 loss causing a loss of the router entry.

Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 3] RFC 8319 Adjustable Router Lifetimes February 2018

 The exact calculation will depend on the packet loss probability.  An
 example: if we take a ballpark value of 1% probability of a packet
 loss, then K = 2 will give 0.01% chance of an outage due to a packet
 loss, K = 3 will give 0.0001% chance of an outage, and so forth.  To
 reverse the numbers, with these parameters, K ~= 1 gives 99%
 reliability, K ~= 2 gives 99.99% reliability, and K ~= 3 gives
 99.9999% reliability -- which should be good enough for a lot of
 scenarios.
 In a network with higher packet loss probabilities or if higher
 reliability is desired, the K might be chosen to be even higher.  On
 the other hand, some of the data link layers provide reliable
 delivery at Layer 2, so there one might even consider using the
 "theoretical" value of K just above 1.  Since the choice of these two
 parameters does not impact interoperability per se, this document
 does not impose any specific constraints on their values other than
 providing the guidelines in this section.  Therefore, each individual
 link can optimize according to its use case.
 Also, AdvDefaultLifetime MUST be set to a value greater than or equal
 to the selected MaxRtrAdvInterval.  Otherwise, a router lifetime is
 guaranteed to expire before the new Router Advertisement has a chance
 to be sent, thereby creating an outage.

4. Updates to RFC 4861

 This document updates Sections 4.2 and 6.2.1 of [RFC4861] to change
 the following router configuration variables.
 In Section 4.2, inside the paragraph that defines Router Lifetime,
 change 9000 to 65535 seconds.
 In Section 6.2.1, inside the paragraph that defines
 MaxRtrAdvInterval, change 1800 to 65535 seconds.
 In Section 6.2.1, inside the paragraph that defines
 AdvDefaultLifetime, change 9000 to 65535 seconds.
 As explained in Section 3, the probability of packet loss must be
 considered when choosing the relationship between MaxRtrAdvInterval
 and AdvDefaultLifetime.

Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 4] RFC 8319 Adjustable Router Lifetimes February 2018

5. Host Behavior

 Legacy hosts on a link with updated routers may have issues with a
 Router Lifetime of more than 9000 seconds.  In the few
 implementations we have tested with general-purpose operating
 systems, there does not seem to be any issue with setting this field
 to more than 9000, but there might be implementations that
 incorrectly reject such RAs (since RFC 4861 requires receivers to
 handle any value).

6. Security Considerations

 On a link where Router Advertisements are few and far between, the
 detrimental effects of a rogue router that sends an unsolicited RA
 are greatly increased.  These rogue RAs can be prevented by using
 approaches like RA-Guard [RFC6105] and SEcure Neighbor Discovery
 (SEND) [RFC3971].

7. IANA Considerations

 This document has no IANA actions.

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
            Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
 [RFC4861]  Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
            "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
 [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in
            RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 5] RFC 8319 Adjustable Router Lifetimes February 2018

8.2. Informative References

 [RFC3971]  Arkko, J., Ed., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander,
            "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC3971, March 2005,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3971>.
 [RFC6105]  Levy-Abegnoli, E., Van de Velde, G., Popoviciu, C., and J.
            Mohacsi, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Guard", RFC 6105,
            DOI 10.17487/RFC6105, February 2011,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6105>.
 [RFC6459]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
            T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
            Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
            RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
            <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
 [RFC7066]  Korhonen, J., Ed., Arkko, J., Ed., Savolainen, T., and S.
            Krishnan, "IPv6 for Third Generation Partnership Project
            (3GPP) Cellular Hosts", RFC 7066, DOI 10.17487/RFC7066,
            November 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7066>.

Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to thank the members of the 6MAN efficient ND
 design team for their comments that led to the creation of this
 document.  The authors would also like to thank Lorenzo Colitti, Erik
 Kline, Jeena Rachel John, Brian Carpenter, Tim Chown, Fernando Gont,
 Warren Kumari, and Adam Roach for their comments and suggestions that
 improved this document.

Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 6] RFC 8319 Adjustable Router Lifetimes February 2018

Authors' Addresses

 Suresh Krishnan
 Kaloom
 335 Rue Peel
 Montreal, QC
 Canada
 Email: suresh@kaloom.com
 Jouni Korhonen
 Nordic Semiconductor ASA
 Metsanneidonkuja 10
 02130 Espoo
 Finland
 Email: jouni.nospam@gmail.com
 Samita Chakrabarti
 Verizon
 United States of America
 Email: samita.chakrabarti@verizon.com
 Erik Nordmark
 Zededa
 Santa Clara, CA
 United States of America
 Email: nordmark@acm.org
 Andrew Yourtchenko
 Cisco
 6b de Kleetlaan
 Diegem  1831
 Belgium
 Email: ayourtch@cisco.com

Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 7]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc8319.txt · Last modified: 2018/02/23 01:22 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki