-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
Copy pathdraft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04.txt
1288 lines (831 loc) · 49.4 KB
/
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
Internet Engineering Task Force O. Troan, Ed.
Internet-Draft Cisco
Intended status: Informational D. Miles
Expires: August 24, 2012 Alcatel-Lucent
S. Matsushima
Softbank Telecom
T. Okimoto
NTT West
D. Wing
Cisco
February 21, 2012
IPv6 Multihoming without Network Address Translation
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-04
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 24, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 24, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. IPv6 multihomed network scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Classification of network scenarios for multihomed host . 6
3.2. Multihomed network environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. End-to-End transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Problem statement and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Source address selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Next-hop selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. DNS recursive name server selection . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Implementation approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. Source address selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.2. Next-hop selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.3. DNS recursive name server selection . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.4. Other algorithms available in RFCs . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Considerations for MHMP deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Non-MHMP host consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.2. Co-existence considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.3. Policy collision consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
10. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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.
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
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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.
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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
+------+ ___________
| | / \
+---| rtr1 |=====/ network \
| | | \ 1 /
+------+ | +------+ \___________/
| | |
| hosts|-----+
| | |
+------+ | +------+ ___________
| | | / \
+---| 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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
+------+ ___________
+-----+ | | / \
| |=======| 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
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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
+------+ +------+ ___________
| | | | / \
| |-----| 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.
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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
+------+ ___________
| | / \
+---| 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).
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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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.
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
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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 [RFC3484] may not deterministically select
the correct source address.
[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations] describes the use of the
policy table [RFC3484] to resolve this problem, but there is no
mechanism defined to disseminate the policy table information to a
host. A proposal is in [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-opt] to provide 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.
Scenario 2: "Host" needs to support the solution for this problem.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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 [I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-opt].
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. A DHCPv6 option, such as that in
[I-D.ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option], is preferred for host-specific
configuration. By employing a DHCPv6 solution, a DHCPv6 server could
restrict address assignment (of additional prefixes) only to hosts
that support more advanced next-hop and address selection
requirements.
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 [I-D.ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option].
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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. [I-D.ietf-mif-dns-server-selection]
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 [I-D.ietf-mif-dns-server-selection].
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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
6.1. Source address selection
Possible solutions and their evaluation are summarized in
[I-D.ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations]. When those solutions are
examined against the 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], the DHCPv6
route information option proposed in
[I-D.ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option], 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.
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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
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
[I-D.ietf-mif-dns-server-selection], 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
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
[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
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
Troan, et al. Expires August 24, 2012 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Multihoming without NAT February 2012
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.
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