Internet DRAFT - draft-linkova-6man-grand
draft-linkova-6man-grand
IPv6 Maintenance J. Linkova
Internet-Draft Google
Updates: 4861 (if approved) November 26, 2019
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 29, 2020
Gratuitous Neighbor Discovery: Creating Neighbor Cache Entries on First-
Hop Routers
draft-linkova-6man-grand-01
Abstract
Neighbor Discovery (RFC4861) is used by IPv6 nodes to determine the
link-layer addresses of neighboring nodes as well as to discover and
maintain reachability information. This document updates [RFC4861]
to allow routers to proactively create a Neighbor Cache entry when a
new IPv6 address is assigned to a host. It also updates [RFC4862]
and recommends hosts to send unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements upon
assigning a new IPv6 address. The proposed change will minimize the
delay and packet loss when a host initiate connections to off-link
destination from a new IPv6 address.
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 https://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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 29, 2020.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Proposed Changes to Neighbor Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Hosts Sending Gratuitous Neighbor Advertisements . . . . 4
2.2. Routers Creating Cache Entries Upon Receiving Unsolicited
Neighbor Advertisements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Avoiding Disruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Neighbor Cache Entry Exists in Any State Other That
INCOMPLETE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2. Neighbor Cache Entry Does Not Exist . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. Neighbor Cache Entry is in INCOMPLETE state . . . . . . . 6
4. Modifications to RFC-Mandated Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Modification to RFC4861 Neighbor Discovery for IP version
6 (IPv6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.1. Modification to the section 7.2.5 . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1.2. Modification to the section 7.2.6 . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
The Neighbor Discovery state machine defined in [RFC4861] implies
that communications between IPv6 nodes are in most cases bi-
directional and if a host A is trying to communicate to its neighbor,
host B, the return traffic flows could be expected. So when the host
A starts the address resolution process, the target host would also
create an entry for the host A address in its neighbor cache. That
entry will be used for sending the return traffic to the host A.
However when a host sends traffic to off-link destinations the
different scenario is observed. After receiving a Router
Advertisement the host populates its neighbor cache with the default
router IPv6 and link-layer addresses and is able to send traffic to
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
off-link destinations. At the same time the router does not have any
cache entries for the host global addresses yet and only starts
address resolution upon receiving the first packet of the return
traffic flow. While waiting for the resolution to complete routers
only keep a very small number of packets in the queue (as recommended
in [RFC4861] Section 7.2.2. All subsequent packets arriving before
the resolution process finishes are likely to be dropped. It might
cause user-visible packet loss and performance degradation
The detailed problem statement and various solution approaches could
be found in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init]. This document summarized
the proposed neighbor discovery updates to address the issue.
1.1. 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.
1.2. Terminology
ND: Neighbor Discovery, [RFC4861].
SLAAC: IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration, [RFC4862].
NS: Neighbor Solicitation, [RFC4861].
NA: Neighbor Advertisement, [RFC4861].
RS: Router Solicitation, [RFC4861].
RA: Router Advertisement, [RFC4861].
LLA: Link-Layer Address.
SLLA: Source link-layer Address, an option in the ND packets
containing the link-layer address of the sender of the packet
([RFC4861]).
TLLA: Target link-layer Address, an option in the ND packets
containing the link-layer address of the target ([RFC4861]).
GUA: Global Unicast Address ([RFC4291]).
DAD: Duplicate Address Detection, [RFC4862].
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
Optimistic DAD: a modification of DAD, [RFC4429].
2. Proposed Changes to Neighbor Discovery
The following changes are proposed to minimize the delay in creating
new entries in a router neighbor cache
o A host SHOULD send unsolicited NAs upon assigning a new IPv6
address to its interface.
o A router SHOULD create a new cache entry upon receiving an
unsolicited NA from a host.
The following sections discuss these changes in more detail.
2.1. Hosts Sending Gratuitous Neighbor Advertisements
The section 7.2.6 of [RFC4861] discusses using unsolicited Neighbor
Advertisement to inform node neighbors of the new link-layer address
quickly. The same mechanism could be used to notify the host
neighbors about the new network-layer address as well: the host can
send gratuitous unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements upon assigning a
new global IPv6 address to its interface.
To minimize the potential disruption in case of duplicate addresses
the host SHOULD NOT set the Override flag for a preferred address and
MUST NOT set the Override flag if the address is in Optimistic
[RFC4429] state.
As the main purpose of sending unsolicited NAs upon configuring a new
address is to proactively create a Neighbor Cache entry on the first-
hop routers, the gratuitous NAs SHOULD be sent to all-routers
multicast address (ff02::2). Limiting the recipients to routers only
would help reduce the multicast noise level.
2.2. Routers Creating Cache Entries Upon Receiving Unsolicited Neighbor
Advertisements
The section 7.2.5 of [RFC4861] states: "When a valid Neighbor
Advertisement is received (either solicited or unsolicited), the
Neighbor Cache is searched for the target's entry. If no entry
exists, the advertisement SHOULD be silently discarded. There is no
need to create an entry if none exists, since the recipient has
apparently not initiated any communication with the target".
The reasoning behind dropping unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements
("the recipient has apparently not initiated any communication with
the target") is valid for onlink host-to-host communication but, as
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
discussed in [I-D.ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init] does not really apply for
the scenario when the host is announcing its address to routers.
Therefore it would be beneficial to allow routers creating new
entries upon receiving an unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement.
This document suggests that routers SHOULD create a new Neighbor
Cache entry when receive an unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement.
3. Avoiding Disruption
If hosts following the recommendations in this document are using the
DAD mechanism defined in [RFC4862], they would send unsolicited NA as
soon as the address changes the state from tentative to preferred
(after its uniqueness has been verified). However hosts willing to
minimize network stack configuration delays might be using optimistic
addresses, which means there is a possibility of the address not
being unique on the link. The section 2.2 of [RFC4429] discusses
measures to ensure that ND packets from the optimistic address do not
override any existing neighbor cache entries as it would cause
traffic interruption of the rightful address owner in case of address
conflict. As hosts willing to speed up their network stack
configuration are most likely to be affected by the problem outlined
in this document it seems reasonable for such hosts to advertise
their optimistic GUAs by sending unsolicited NAs. The main question
to consider is the potential risk of overriding the cache entry for
the rightful address owner if the optimistic address happens to be
duplicated.
3.1. Neighbor Cache Entry Exists in Any State Other That INCOMPLETE
If the router Neighbor Cache entry for the target address already
exists in any state other than INCOMPLETE, then as per section 7.2.5
of [RFC4861] an unsolicited NA with the Override flag cleared would
change the entry state from REACHABLE to STALE but would not update
the entry in any other way. Therefore even if the host sends an
unsolicited NA from the its Optimistic address the router cache entry
would not be updated with the new Link-Layer address and no impact to
the traffic for the rightful address owner is expected.
3.2. Neighbor Cache Entry Does Not Exist
If there is no entry then it would be created/updated with the
supplied LLA and its state set to STALE. In that case as soon as the
entry is used for sending traffic to the host, the entry state will
be changed to DELAY and the Neighbor Unreachability Detection would
be started and the rightful owner LLA will be entered in the cache.
So in the scenario when the rightful owner does not use the address
for communication then it might be a short (a few seconds) period of
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
time when the data packets sent from the outside could reach the host
with the optimistic address. However it seems likely that hosts
using Optimistic DAD would start sending/receiving traffic right
away, so the first return packet would trigger the NUD process and
rewrite the cache.
3.3. Neighbor Cache Entry is in INCOMPLETE state
Another corner case is the INCOMPLETE cache entry for the address.
If the host sends an unsolicited NA from the Optimistic address it
would update the entry with the host LLA and set the entry to the
STALE state. As the INCOMPLETE entry means that the router has
started the ND process for the address and the multicast NS has been
sent, the rightful owner is expected to reply with solicited NA with
the Override flag set. Upon receiving a solicited NA with the
Override flag the cache entry will be updated with the TLLA supplied
and (as the NA has the Solicited flag set), the entry state will be
set to REACHABLE. IT would would recover the cache entry and set the
LLA to the one of the rightful owner. The only potential impact
would be for packets arriving to the router after the unsolicited NA
from the host but before the rightful owner responded with the
solicited NA. Those packets would be sent to the host with the
optimistic address instead of its rightful owner. However those
packets would have been dropped anyway as until the solicited NA is
received the router can not send the traffic.
4. Modifications to RFC-Mandated Behavior
All normative text in this memo is contained in this section.
4.1. Modification to RFC4861 Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)
4.1.1. Modification to the section 7.2.5
This document proposes the following changes to the section 7.2.5 of
[RFC4861]:
------------------------------------------------------------------
OLD TEXT:
When a valid Neighbor Advertisement is received (either solicited or
unsolicited), the Neighbor Cache is searched for the target's entry.
If no entry exists, the advertisement SHOULD be silently discarded.
There is no need to create an entry if none exists, since the
recipient has apparently not initiated any communication with the
target.
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
NEW TEXT:
When a valid Neighbor Advertisement is received (either solicited or
unsolicited), the Neighbor Cache is searched for the target's entry.
If no entry exists, hosts SHOULD silently discard the advertisement.
There is no need to create an entry if none exists, since the
recipient has apparently not initiated any communication with the
target. Routers SHOULD create a new entry for the target address
with the link-layer address set to the Target link-layer address
option (if supplied). The entry its reachability state MUST also be
set to STALE. If the received Neighbor Advertisement does not
contain the Target link-layer address option the advertisement SHOULD
be silently discarded.
------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.2. Modification to the section 7.2.6
This document proposes the following changes to the section 7.2.6 of
[RFC4861]:
OLD TEXT:
In such cases, a node MAY send up to MAX_NEIGHBOR_ADVERTISEMENT
unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement messages to the all-nodes
multicast address. These advertisements MUST be separated by at
least RetransTimer seconds.
NEW TEXT:
In such cases, a node MAY send up to MAX_NEIGHBOR_ADVERTISEMENT
unsolicited Neighbor Advertisement messages to the all-nodes
multicast address. These advertisements MUST be separated by at
least RetransTimer seconds.
A host may also wish to notify its first-hop routers when it
configures a new global IPv6 address so the routers can proactively
populate their neighbor caches with the corresponding entries. In
such cases a host SHOULD send up to MAX_NEIGHBOR_ADVERTISEMENT
Neighbor Advertisement messages. If the address is preferred then
the Override flag SHOULD NOT be set. If the address is in the
Optimistic state then the Override flag MUST NOT be set. The
destination address SHOULD be set to the all-routers multicast
address. These advertisements MUST be separated by at least
RetransTimer seconds. The first advertisement SHOULD be sent as soon
as one of the following events happens:
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
o if Optimistic DAD [RFC4429] is used: a new Optimistic GUA is
assigned to the host interface.
o if Optimistic DAD is not used: a GUA changes the state from
tentative to preferred.
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. IANA Considerations
This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters.
6. Security Considerations
One of the potential attack vectors to consider is a cache spoofing
when the attacker might try to install a cache entry for the victim's
IPv6 address and the attacker's Link-Layer address. However it
should be noted that this document does not propose any changes for
the scenario when the ND cache for the given IPv6 address already
exists. Therefore it is not possible for the attacker to override
any existing cache entry.
A malicious host could attempt to exhaust the neighbor cache on the
router by creating a large number of STALE entries. However this
attack vector is not new and this document does not increase the risk
of such an attack: the attacker could do it, for example, by sending
a NS or RS packet with SLLAO included. All recommendations from
[RFC6583] still apply.
Announcing a new address to all-routers multicast address may inform
an on-link attacker about IPv6 addresses assigned to the host.
However hiding information about the specific IPv6 address should not
be considered a security measure as it falls into 'Security through
obscurity' category. If peer-to-peer onlink communications are not
desirable they should be prevented by proper layer2 security
mechanisms. Therefore the risk of allowing hosts to send unsolicited
Neighbor Advertisements to all-routers multicast address is low.
7. Acknowledgements
Thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order) for their
comments, review and feedback: Lorenzo Colitti, Tatuya Jinmei, Erik
Kline, Warren Kumari, Erik Nordmark, Michael Richardson, Dave Thaler,
Pascal Thubert, Loganaden Velvindron, Eric Vyncke.
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
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>.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, DOI 10.17487/RFC4291, February
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4291>.
[RFC4429] Moore, N., "Optimistic Duplicate Address Detection (DAD)
for IPv6", RFC 4429, DOI 10.17487/RFC4429, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4429>.
[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>.
[RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless
Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4862, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4862>.
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-init]
Linkova, J., "Neighbor Cache Entries on First-Hop Routers:
Operational Considerations", draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-cache-
init-00 (work in progress), October 2019.
[RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6", RFC 4941, DOI 10.17487/RFC4941, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4941>.
[RFC6583] Gashinsky, I., Jaeggli, J., and W. Kumari, "Operational
Neighbor Discovery Problems", RFC 6583,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6583, March 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6583>.
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Gratuitous ND November 2019
Author's Address
Jen Linkova
Google
1 Darling Island Rd
Pyrmont, NSW 2009
AU
Email: furry@google.com
Linkova Expires May 29, 2020 [Page 10]
