Network Working Group F. Baker Internet-Draft D. Meyer Intended status: Informational Cisco Systems Expires: February 18, 2011 August 17, 2010 Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid draft-baker-ietf-core-07 Abstract This note identifies the key protocols of the Internet Protocol Suite for use in the Smart Grid. The target audience is those people seeking guidance on how to construct an appropriate Internet Protocol Suite profile for the Smart Grid. In practice, such a profile would consist of selecting what is needed for Smart Grid deployment from the picture presented here. 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." This Internet-Draft will expire on February 18, 2011. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 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 Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. The Internet Protocol Suite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Internet Protocol Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1. Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2. Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.3. Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1.3.1. Internet Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.3.2. Lower layer networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.4. Media layers: Physical and Link . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2. Security issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.2.1. Physical security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.2. Session identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.3. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.3. Network Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.1. Domain Name System (DNS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3.2. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3. Specific protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.1. Security solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.1. Session identification, authentication, authorization, and accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.2. IP Security Architecture (IPsec) . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.3. Transport Layer Security (TLS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.1.4. Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2. Network Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2.1. IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2.1.1. Dual Stack Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2.1.2. Tunneling Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.2.1.3. Translation between IPv4 and IPv6 Networks . . . . 14 3.2.2. Internet Protocol Version 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.2.1. IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment . . . . . . 16 3.2.2.2. IPv4 Unicast Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2.2.3. IPv4 Multicast Forwarding and Routing . . . . . . 16 3.2.3. Internet Protocol Version 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2.3.1. IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment . . . . . . 17 3.2.3.2. IPv6 Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.2.4. Routing for IPv4 and IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.2.4.1. Routing Information Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.2.4.2. Open Shortest Path First . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.4.3. ISO Intermediate System to Intermediate System . . 19 3.2.4.4. Border Gateway Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.2.4.5. Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) Routing . . . . . . 20 3.2.4.6. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol . . . . . . 20 Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 3.2.4.7. Routing for Low power and Lossy Networks . . . . . 20 3.2.5. IPv6 Multicast Forwarding and Routing . . . . . . . . 20 3.2.5.1. Protocol-Independent Multicast Routing . . . . . . 21 3.2.6. Adaptation to lower layer networks and link layer protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.3. Transport Layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.1. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.2. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3.3. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) . . . . . 23 3.3.4. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) . . . . . 23 3.4. Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4.1. Domain Name System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4.2. Dynamic Host Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.5. Service and Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.5.1. Service Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.5.2. Resource Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.6. Other Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.6.1. Network Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.6.2. Session Initiation Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.6.3. Calendaring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4. A simplified view of the business architecture . . . . . . . . 27 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 1. Introduction This document provides Smart Grid designers with advice on how to best "profile" the Internet Protocol Suite (IPS) for use on with Smart Grids. It provides an overview of the IPS and the key protocols that are critical in integrating Smart Grid devices into an IP-based infrastructure. The IPS provides options for several key architectural components. For example, the IPS provides several choices for the traditional transport function between two systems: the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793], the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) [RFC4960], and the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340]. Another option is to select an encapsulation such as the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC0768] which essentially allows an application to implement its own transport service. In practice, a designer will pick a transport protocol which is appropriate to the problem being solved. The IPS is standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). IETF protocols are documented in the Request for Comment (RFC) series. Several RFCs have been written describing how the IPS should be implemented. These include: o Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers [RFC1122], o Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support [RFC1123], o Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers [RFC1812], and o IPv6 Node Requirements [RFC4294], At this writing, RFC 4294 is in the process of being updated, in [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis]. This document is intended to provide Smart Grid architects and designers with a compendium of relevant RFCs (and to some extent Internet Drafts), and is organized as an annotated list of RFCs. To that end, the remainder of this document is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the Internet Architecture and its protocol suite. Section 3 outlines the set of protocols that will be useful in Smart Grid deployment. Finally, Section 4 provides an overview of the business architecture embodied in the design and deployment of the IPS. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 2. The Internet Protocol Suite Before enumerating the list of Internet protocols relevant to Smart Grid, we discuss the layered architecture of the IPS, the functions of the various layers, and their associated protocols. 2.1. Internet Protocol Layers While Internet architecture uses the definitions and language similar to language used by the ISO Open System Interconnect Reference (ISO- OSI) Model (Figure 1), it actually predates that model. As a result, there is some skew in terminology. For example, the ISO-OSI model uses "end system" while the Internet architecture uses "host. Similarly, an "intermediate system" in the ISO-OSI model is called an "internet gateway" or "router" in Internet parlance. Notwithstanding these differences, the fundamental concepts are largely the same. +--------------------+ | Application Layer | +--------------------+ | Presentation Layer | +--------------------+ | Session Layer | +--------------------+ | Transport layer | +--------------------+ | Network Layer | +--------------------+ | Data Link Layer | +--------------------+ | Physical Layer | +--------------------+ Figure 1: The ISO OSI Reference Model The structure of the Internet reference model is shown in Figure 2. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 +---------------------------------+ |Application | | +---------------------------+ | | | Application Protocol | | | +----------+----------------+ | | | Encoding | Session Control| | | +----------+----------------+ | +---------------------------------+ |Transport | | +---------------------------+ | | | Transport layer | | | +---------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ |Network | | +---------------------------+ | | | Internet Protocol | | | +---------------------------+ | | | Lower network layers | | | +---------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ |Media layers | | +---------------------------+ | | | Data Link Layer | | | +---------------------------+ | | | Physical Layer | | | +---------------------------+ | +---------------------------------+ Figure 2: The Internet Reference Model 2.1.1. Application In the Internet model, the Application, Presentation, and Session layers are compressed into a single entity called "the application". For example, the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) [RFC1157] describes an application that encodes its data in an ASN.1 profile and engages in a session to manage a network element. The point here is that in the Internet the distinction between these layers exists but is not highlighted. Further, note that in Figure 2 these functions are not necessarily cleanly layered: the fact that an application protocol encodes its data in some way and that it manages sessions in some way doesn't imply a hierarchy between those processes. Rather, the application views encoding, session management, and a variety of other services as a tool set that it uses while doing its work. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 2.1.2. Transport The term "transport" is perhaps among the most confusing concepts in the communication architecture, to large extent because people with various backgrounds use it to refer to "the layer below that which I am interested in, which gets my data to my peer". For example, optical network engineers refer to optical fiber and associated electronics as "the transport", while web designers refer to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) [RFC2616] (an application layer protocol) as "the transport". In the Internet protocol stack, the "transport" is the lowest protocol layer that travels end-to-end unmodified, and is responsible for end-to-end data delivery services. In the Internet the transport layer is the layer above the network layer. Transport layer protocols have a single minimum requirement: the ability to multiplex several applications on one IP address. UDP [RFC0768], TCP [RFC0793], DCCP [RFC4340], SCTP [RFC4960], and NORM [RFC5740] each accomplish this using a pair of port numbers, one for the sender and one for the receiver. A port number identifies an application instance, which might be a general "listener" that peers or clients may open sessions with, or a specific correspondent with such a "listener". The session identification in an IP datagram is often called the "five-tuple", and consists of the source and destination IP addresses, the source and destination ports, and an identifier for the transport protocol in use. In addition, the responsibilities of a specific transport layer protocol typically includes the delivery of data (either as a stream of messages or a stream of bytes) in a stated sequence with stated expectations regarding delivery rate and loss. For example, TCP will reduce rate to avoid loss, while DCCP accepts some level of loss if necessary to maintain timeliness. 2.1.3. Network The main function of the network layer is to identify a remote destination and deliver data to it. In connection-oriented networks such as Multi-protocol Label Switching (MPLS) [RFC3031] or Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), a path is set up once, and data is delivered through it. In connectionless networks such as Ethernet and IP, data is delivered as datagrams. Each datagram contains both the source and destination network layer addresses, and the network is responsible for delivering it. In the Internet Protocol Suite, the Internet Protocol is the network that runs end to end. It may be encapsulated over other LAN and WAN technologies, including both IP networks and networks of other types. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 2.1.3.1. Internet Protocol IPv4 and IPv6, each of which is called the Internet Protocol, are connectionless ("datagram") architectures. They are designed as common elements that interconnect network elements across a network of lower layer networks. In addition to the basic service of identifying a datagram's source and destination, they offer services to fragment and reassemble datagrams when necessary, assist in diagnosis of network failures, and carry additional information necessary in special cases. The Internet layer provides a uniform network abstraction network that hides the differences between different network technologies. This is the layer that allows diverse networks such as Ethernet, 802.15.4, etc. to be combined into a uniform IP network. New network technologies can be introduced into the IP Protocol Suite by defining how IP is carried over those technologies, leaving the other layers of the IPS and applications that use those protocol unchanged. 2.1.3.2. Lower layer networks The network layer can recursively subdivided as needed. This may be accomplished by tunneling, in which an IP datagram is encapsulated in another IP header for delivery to a decapsulator. IP is frequently carried in Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) across the public Internet using tunneling technologies such as the Tunnel mode of IPsec, IP-in-IP, and Generic Route Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784]. In addition, IP is also frequently carried in circuit networks such as MPLS [RFC4364], GMPLS, and ATM. Finally, IP is also carried over local wireless (IEEE 802.11, 802.15.4, or 802.16) networks and switched Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) networks. 2.1.4. Media layers: Physical and Link At the lowest layer of the IP architecture, data is encoded in messages and transmitted over the physical media. While the IETF specifies algorithms for carrying IPv4 and IPv6 various media types, it rarely actually defines the media - it happily uses specifications from IEEE, ITU, and other sources. 2.2. Security issues While it is popular to complain about the security of the Internet, solutions to many Internet security problems already exist but have not been widely deployed. Internet security solutions attempt to mitigate a set of known threats at a specified cost; addressing security issues requires first a threat analysis and assessment and a set of mitigations appropriate to the threats. Since we have threats Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 at every layer, we should expect to find mitigations at every layer. 2.2.1. Physical security At the physical and data link layers, threats generally center on physical attacks on the network - the effects of backhoes, deterioration of physical media, and various kinds of environmental noise. Radio-based networks are subject to signal fade due to distance, interference, and environmental factors; it is widely noted that IEEE 802.15.4 networks frequently place a metal ground plate between the meter and the device that manages it. Fiber was at one time deployed because it was believed to be untappable; we have since learned to tap it by bending the fiber and collecting incidental light, and we have learned about backhoes. As a result, some installations encase fiber optic cable in a pressurized sheath, both to quickly identify the location of a cut and to make it more difficult to tap. While there are protocol behaviors that can detect certain classes of physical faults, such as keep-alive exchanges, physical security is generally not considered to be a protocol problem. 2.2.2. Session identification At the transport and application layers and in lower layer networks where dynamic connectivity such as ATM Switched Virtual Circuits (SVCs) or "dial" connectivity are in use, there tend to be several different classes of authentication/authorization requirements. The basic requirements that must be satisfied are: 1. Verify that peers are appropriate partners; this generally means knowing "who" they are and that they have a "need to know" or are trusted sources. 2. Verify that information that appears to be from a trusted peer is in fact from that peer. 3. Validate the content of the data exchanged; it must conform to the rules of the exchange. 4. Defend the channel against denial of service attacks. 5. Ensure the integrity of the information transported to defend against modification attacks. In other words, both the communications channel itself and message exchanges (both by knowing the source of the information and to have proof of its validity) must be secured. Three examples suffice to Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 illustrate the challenges. One common attack against a TCP session is to bombard the session with reset messages. Other attacks against TCP include the "SYN flooding" attack, in which an attacker attempts to exhaust the memory of the target by creating TCP state. Experience has shown that by including information in the transport header or a related protocol like the IPsec (Section 3.1.2) or TLS (Section 3.1.3), a host can identify legitimate messages and discard mitigate any damage that may have been caused by the attack. Another common attack involves unauthorized communication with a router or a service. For example, an unauthorized party might try to join the routing system. To protect against such attacks, an Internet Service Provider (ISP) should not accept information from new peers without verifying that the peer is who it claims to be and that the peer is authorized to carry on the exchange of information. More generally, in order to secure a communications channel, it must be possible to verify that messages putatively received from a peer were in fact received from that peer. Only once messages are verified as coming a trusted peer should a host or router engage in communications with the peer. Unfortunately, even trusted peers forward incorrect or malicious data. As a result, securing the channel is not sufficient; information exchanged through the channel must also be secured. In electronic mail and other database exchanges, it may be necessary to be able to verify the identity of the sender and the correctness of the content long after the information exchange has occurred - for example, if a contract is exchanged that is secured by digital signatures, one will wish to be able to verify those signatures at least throughout the lifetime of the contract, and probably a long time after that. 2.2.3. Confidentiality In addition to securing the communications channel and messaging, there frequently a requirement for confidentiality. Confidentiality arises at several layers, sometimes simultaneously. For example, providers of credit card transaction services want application layer privacy, which can be supplied by encrypting application data or by an encrypted transport layer. If an ISP (or other entity) wants to hide its network structure, it can to encrypt the network layer header. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 2.3. Network Infrastructure While these are not critical to the design of a specific system, they are important to running a network, and as such are surveyed here. 2.3.1. Domain Name System (DNS) The DNS' main function is translating names to numeric IP addresses. While this is not critical to running a network, certain functions are made a lot easier if numeric addresses can be replaced with mnemonic names. This facilitates renumbering of networks and generally improves the manageability and serviceability of the network. DNS has a set of security extensions called DNSSEC, which can be used to provide strong cryptographic authentication to that protocol. DNS and DNSSEC are discussed further in Section 3.4.1. 2.3.2. Network Management Network management has proven to be a difficult problem. As such, various solutions have been proposed, implemented, and deployed. Each solution has its proponents, all of whom have solid arguments for their viewpoints. The IETF has two major network management solutions for device operation: SNMP, which is ASN.1-encoded and is primarily used for monitoring of system variables and is a polled architecture, and NetConf [RFC4741], which is XML-encoded and primarily used for device configuration. Another aspect of network management is the initial provisioning and configuration of hosts, which is discussed in Section 3.4.2. Note that Smart Grid deployments may require identity authentication and authorization (as well as other provisioning and configuration) that may not be within the scope of either DHCP or Neighbor Discovery. While the IP Protocol Suite does not have specific solutions for secure provisioning and configuration, these problems have been solved using IP protocols in specifications such as DOCSIS 3.0 [SP-MULPIv3.0]. 3. Specific protocols In this section, having briefly laid out the IP architecture and some of the problems that the architecture tries to address, we introduce specific protocols that might be appropriate to various Smart Grid use cases. Use cases should be analyzed along privacy, AAA, transport and network solution dimensions. The following sections provide guidance for such analyzes. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 3.1. Security solutions As noted, a key consideration in security solutions is a good threat analysis coupled with appropriate mitigation strategies at each layer. The following sections outline the security features of the IPS. 3.1.1. Session identification, authentication, authorization, and accounting The IPS provides approaches to Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) issues. Since these different approaches have different attack surfaces and protection domains, they require some thought in application. The two major approaches to AAA taken by the IPS are the IP Security Architecture (Section 3.1.2), which protects IP datagrams, and Transport Layer Security (Section 3.1.3), which protects the information which the transport layer delivers. 3.1.2. IP Security Architecture (IPsec) The Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol (IPsec) [RFC4301] is a set of control and data protocols that are implemented between IPv4 and the chosen transport layer, or in IPv6's security extension header. It allows transport layer sessions to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. As is typical with IETF specifications, the architecture is spelled out in a number of documents which specify the specific components: the IP Authentication Header (AH) [RFC4302] Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) [RFC4303], Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) [RFC4306], Cryptographic Algorithms [RFC4307], Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for ESP and AH [RFC4835], and the use of Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) [RFC4309]. IPsec provides two modes: Transport mode and tunnel mode. In transport mode, IPsec ESP encrypts the transport layer and the application data. In tunnel mode, the source IP datagram is encrypted and encapsulated in a second IP header addressed to the intended decryptor. As might be expected, tunnel mode is frequently used for virtual private networks which need to securely transmit data across networks with unknown (or no) other security properties. In both cases, authentication, authorization, and confidentiality extend from system to system, and apply to all applications that the two systems use. 3.1.3. Transport Layer Security (TLS) Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] and Datagram Transport Layer Security [RFC4347][I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4347-bis] are mechanisms that Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 12] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 travel within the transport layer protocol data unit, meaning that they readily traverse network address translators and secure the information exchanges without securing the datagrams exchanged or the transport layer itself. Each allows client/server applications to communicate in a way that is designed to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. Authentication, authorization, and confidentiality exist for a session between specific applications. When used in conjunction with IEEE 802.1X [IEEE802.1X], EAP-TLS [RFC5216] is widely considered to offer excellent access security to a wired or wireless IEEE 802 LAN (IEEE 802.1X in conjunction with EAP-TLS is the baseline for Zigbee SEP 2.0). Note that one potential drawback of 802.1X technology is that it requires deployment of client-side certificates, which is frequently seen as a deployment barrier. 3.1.4. Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) The S/MIME [RFC2045] [RFC2046] [RFC2047] [RFC4289] [RFC2049] [RFC5750] [RFC5751] [RFC4262] specification was originally designed as an extension to SMTP Mail to provide evidence that the putative sender of an email message in fact sent it, and that the content received was in fact the content that was sent. As its name suggests, by extension this is a way of securing any object that can be exchanged, by any means, and has become one of the most common ways to secure an object. Related work includes the use of digital signatures on XML-encoded files, which has been jointly standardized by W3C and the IETF [RFC3275]. 3.2. Network Layer The IPS specifies two network layer protocols: IPv4 and IPv6. The following sections describe the IETF's coexistence and transition mechanisms for IPv4 and IPv6. Note that since IPv4 free pool (the pool of available, unallocated IPv4 addresses) is almost exhausted, the IETF recommends that new deployments use IPv6 and that IPv4 infrastructures are supported via the mechanisms described in Section 3.2.1. 3.2.1. IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Advice The IETF has specified a variety of mechanisms designed to facilitate IPv4/IPv6 coexistence. The IETF actually recommends relatively few of them: the current advice to network operators is found in Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 13] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines]. The thoughts in that document are replicated here. 3.2.1.1. Dual Stack Coexistence The simplest coexistence approach is to o provide a network that routes both IPv4 and IPv6, o ensure that servers similarly support both protocols, and o require that all new systems purchased or upgraded support both protocols. The net result is that over time all systems become protocol agnostic, and that eventually maintenance of IPv4 support becomes a business decision. This approach is described in the Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers [RFC4213]. 3.2.1.2. Tunneling Mechanism In those places in the network that support only IPv4 the simplest and most reliable approach is to provide virtual connectivity using tunnels or encapsulations. Early in the IPv6 deployment, this was often done using static tunnels. A more dynamic approach is documented in IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Infrastructures (6rd) [RFC5569]. 3.2.1.3. Translation between IPv4 and IPv6 Networks In those cases where an IPv4-only host would like to communicate with an IPv6-only host (or vice versa), protocol translation may be indicated. At first blush, protocol translation may appear trivial; on deeper inspection it turns out that protocol translation can be complicated. The most reliable approach to protocol translation is to provide application layer proxies or gateways, which natively enable application-to-application connections using both protocols and can use whichever is appropriate. For example, a web proxy might use both protocols and as a result enable an IPv4-only system to run HTTP across on IPv6-only network or to a web server that implements only IPv6. Since this approach is a service of a protocol-agnostic server, it is not the subject of standardization by the IETF. For those applications in which network layer translation is indicated, the IETF has designed a translation mechanism which is described in the following documents: Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 14] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 o Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework] o IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] o DNS extensions [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64] o IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate] o Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful] As with IPv4/IPv4 Network Address Translation, translation between IPv4 and IPv6 has limited real world applicability: any application protocol that carries IP addresses and expects them to be meaningful to both client and server or to both peers will have trouble when the addresses are transparently translated. However, for those protocols that do not, protocol translation can provide a useful network extension. Network-based translation provides for two types of services: stateless (and therefore scalable and load-sharable) translation between IPv4 and IPv6 addresses that embed an IPv4 address in them, and stateful translation similar to IPv4/IPv4 translation between IPv4 addresses. The stateless mode is straightforward to implement, but due to the embedding, requires IPv4 addresses to be allocated to an otherwise IPv6-only network, and is primarily useful for IPv4- accessible servers implemented in the IPv6 network. The stateful mode allows clients in the IPv6 network to access servers in the IPv4 network, but does not provide such service for IPv4 clients accessing IPv6 peers or servers with general addresses; it does however have the advantage that it does not require that a unique IPv4 address be embedded in the IPv6 address of hosts using this mechanism. 3.2.2. Internet Protocol Version 4 IPv4 [RFC0791] and the Internet Control Message Protocol [RFC0792] comprise the IPv4 network layer. IPv4 provides unreliable delivery of datagrams. IPv4 also provides for fragmentation and reassembly of long datagrams for transmission through networks with small Maximum Transmission Units (MTU). The MTU is the largest packet size that can be delivered across the network. In addition, the IPS provides the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [RFC0792], which is a separate protocol that enables the network to report errors and other issues to hosts that originate problematic datagrams. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 15] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 IPv4 originally supported an experimental type of service field that identified eight levels of operational precedence styled after the requirements of military telephony, plus three and later four bit flags that OSI IS-IS for IPv4 (IS-IS) [RFC1195] and OSPF Version 2 [RFC2328] interpreted as control traffic; this control traffic is assured of not being dropped when queued or upon receipt even if other traffic is being dropped.. These control bits turned out to be less useful than the designers had hoped. They were replaced by the Differentiated Services Architecture [RFC2474][RFC2475], which contains a six bit code point used to select an algorithm (a "per-hop behavior") to be applied to the datagram. 3.2.2.1. IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment IPv4 addresses are administratively assigned, usually using automated methods, and assigned using the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131]. On most interface types, neighboring equipment identify each other's addresses using Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) [RFC0826]. 3.2.2.2. IPv4 Unicast Routing Routing for the IPv4 Internet is accomplished by routing applications that exchange connectivity information and build semi-static destination routing databases. If a datagram is directed to a given destination address, the address is looked up in the routing database, and the most specific ("longest") prefix found that contains it is used to identify the next hop router, or the end system it will be delivered to. This is not generally implemented on hosts, although it can be; generally, a host sends datagrams to a router on its local network, and the router carries out the intent. IETF specified routing protocols include RIP Version 2 [RFC2453], OSI IS-IS for IPv4 [RFC1195], OSPF Version 2 [RFC2328], and BGP-4 [RFC4271]. Active research exists in mobile ad hoc routing and other routing paradigms; these result in new protocols and modified forwarding paradigms. 3.2.2.3. IPv4 Multicast Forwarding and Routing IPv4 was originally specified as a unicast (point to point) protocol, and was extended to support multicast in [RFC1112]. This uses the Internet Group Management Protocol [RFC3376][RFC4604] to enable applications to join multicast groups, and for most applications uses Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] for routing and delivery of multicast messages. An experiment carried out in IPv4 that is not part of the core Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 16] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Internet architecture but may be of interest in the Smart Grid is the development of so-called "Reliable Multicast". This is "so-called" because it is not "reliable" in the strict sense of the word - it is perhaps better described as "enhanced reliability". A best effort network by definition can lose traffic, duplicate it, or reorder it, something as true for multicast as for unicast. Research in "Reliable Multicast" technology intends to improve the probability of delivery of multicast traffic. In that research, the IETF imposed guidelines [RFC2357] on the research community regarding what was desirable. Important results from that research include a number of papers and several proprietary protocols including some that have been used in support of business operations. RFCs in the area include The Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) in Reliable Multicast [RFC3453], the Negative- acknowledgment (NACK)-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Protocol [RFC5740], and the Selectively Reliable Multicast Protocol (SRMP) [RFC4410]. These are considered experimental. 3.2.3. Internet Protocol Version 6 IPv6 [RFC2460], with the Internet Control Message Protocol "v6" [RFC4443], constitutes the next generation protocol for the Internet. IPv6 provides for transmission of datagrams from source to destination hosts, which are identified by fixed length addresses. IPv6 also provides for fragmentation and reassembly of long datagrams by the originating host, if necessary, for transmission through "small packet" networks. ICMPv6, which is a separate protocol implemented along with IPv6, enables the network to report errors and other issues to hosts that originate problematic datagrams. IPv6 adopted the Differentiated Services Architecture [RFC2474][RFC2475], which contains a six bit code point used to select an algorithm (a "per-hop behavior") to be applied to the datagram. The IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks [RFC4919] RFC and the Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc] addresses IPv6 header compression and subnet architecture in at least some sensor networks, and may be appropriate to the Smart Grid Advanced Metering Infrastructure or other sensor domains. 3.2.3.1. IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment An IPv6 Address [RFC4291] may be administratively assigned using DHCPv6 [RFC3315] in a manner similar to the way IPv4 addresses are. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 17] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 In addition, IPv6 addresses may also be autoconfigured. Autoconfiguation enables various different models of network management which may be advantageous in various use cases. Autoconfiguration procedures are defined in [RFC4862] and [RFC4941]. IPv6 neighbors identify each other's addresses using either Neighbor Discovery (ND) [RFC4861] or SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971]. 3.2.3.2. IPv6 Routing Routing for the IPv6 Internet is accomplished by routing applications that exchange connectivity information and build semi-static destination routing databases. If a datagram is directed to a given destination address, the address is looked up in the routing database, and the most specific ("longest") prefix found that contains it is used to identify the next hop router, or the end system it will be delivered to. Routing is not generally implemented on hosts (although it can be); generally, a host sends datagrams to a router on its local network, and the router carries out the intent. IETF specified routing protocols include RIP for IPv6 [RFC2080], IS-IS for IPv6 [RFC5308], OSPF for IPv6 [RFC5340], and BGP-4 for IPv6 [RFC2545]. Active research exists in mobile ad hoc routing, routing in low power networks (sensors and smart grids) and other routing paradigms; these result in new protocols and modified forwarding paradigms. 3.2.4. Routing for IPv4 and IPv6 3.2.4.1. Routing Information Protocol The prototypical routing protocol used in the Internet has probably been the Routing Information Protocol [RFC1058]. People that use it today tend to deploy RIPng for IPv6 [RFC2080] and RIP Version 2 [RFC2453]. Briefly, RIP is a distance vector routing protocol that is based on a distributed variant of the widely known Bellman-Ford algorithm. In distance vector routing protocols, each router announces the contents of its route table to neighboring routers, which integrate the results with their route tables and re-announce them to others. It has been characterized as "routing by rumor", and suffers many of the ills we find in human gossip - propagating stale or incorrect information in certain failure scenarios, and being in cases unresponsive to changes in topology. [RFC1058] provides guidance to algorithm designers to mitigate these issues. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 18] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 3.2.4.2. Open Shortest Path First The Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) routing protocol is one of the more widely used protocols in the Internet. OSPF is a based on Dijkstra's well known shortest path first (SPF) algorithm. It is implemented as OSPF Version 2 [RFC2328] for IPv4, OSPF for IPv6 [RFC5340] for IPv6, and the Support of Address Families in OSPFv3 [RFC5838] to enable [RFC5340] to route both IPv4 and IPv6. The advantage of any SPF-based protocol (i.e., OSPF and IS-IS) is primarily that every router in the network constructs its view of the network from first hand knowledge rather than the "gossip" that distance vector protocols propagate. As such, the topology is quickly and easily changed by simply announcing the change. The disadvantage of SPF-based protocols is that each router must store a first-person statement of the connectivity of each router in the domain. 3.2.4.3. ISO Intermediate System to Intermediate System The Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) routing protocol is one of the more widely used protocols in the Internet. IS-IS is also based on Dijkstra's SPF algorithm. It was originally specified as ISO DP 10589 for the routing of CLNS, and extended for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments [RFC1195], and more recently for routing of IPv6 [RFC5308]. As with OSPF, the positives of any SPF-based protocol and specifically IS-IS are primarily that the network is described as a lattice of routers with connectivity to subnets and isolated hosts. It's topology is quickly and easily changed by simply announcing the change, without the issues of "routing by rumor", since every host within the routing domain has a first-person statement of the connectivity of each router in the domain. The negatives are a corollary: each router must store a first-person statement of the connectivity of each router in the domain. 3.2.4.4. Border Gateway Protocol The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) [RFC4271] is widely used in the IPv4 Internet to exchange routes between administrative entities - service providers, their peers, their upstream networks, and their customers - while applying specific policy. Multi-protocol Extensions [RFC4760] to BGP allow BGP to carry IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing [RFC2545], multicast reachability information, and VPN information, among others. Considerations that apply with BGP deal with the flexibility and Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 19] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 complexity of the policies that must be defined. Flexibility is a good thing; in a network that is not run by professionals, the complexity is burdensome. 3.2.4.5. Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) Routing The Mobile Ad Hoc Working Group of the IETF developed, among other protocols, the Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing [RFC3561]. This protocol captured the minds of some in the embedded devices industry, but experiences issues in wireless networks such as 802.15.4 and 802.11's Ad Hoc mode. As a result, it is in the process of being updatedDynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) Routing [I-D.ietf-manet-dymo]. AODV and DYMO are essentially reactive routing protocols designed for mobile ad hoc networks, and usable in other forms of ad hoc networks. They provide connectivity between a device within a distributed subnet and a few devices (including perhaps a gateway or router to another subnet) without tracking connectivity to other devices. In essence, routing is calculated and discovered upon need, and a host or router need only maintain the routes that currently work and are needed. 3.2.4.6. Optimized Link State Routing Protocol The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR) [RFC3626] is a proactive routing protocol designed for mobile ad hoc networks, and can be used in other forms of ad hoc networks. It provides arbitrary connectivity between device within a distributed subnet. As with protocols designed for wired networks, routing is calculated and maintained whenever changes are detected, and maintained in each router's tables. The set of nodes that operate as routers within the subnet, however, are fairly fluid, and dependent on this instantaneous topology of the subnet. 3.2.4.7. Routing for Low power and Lossy Networks The RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] xxx 3.2.5. IPv6 Multicast Forwarding and Routing IPv6 specifies both unicast and multicast datagram exchange. This uses the Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol (MLDv2) [RFC2710] [RFC3590] [RFC3810] [RFC4604] to enable applications to join multicast groups, and for most applications uses Source-Specific Multicast [RFC4607] for routing and delivery of multicast messages. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 20] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 The mechanisms experimentally developed for reliable multicast in IPv4, discussed in Section 3.2.2.3, can be used in IPv6 as well. 3.2.5.1. Protocol-Independent Multicast Routing xxx Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised) [RFC3973] xxx Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised) [RFC4601] xxx Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) [RFC3569] xxx Source-Specific Protocol Independent Multicast [RFC4608] xxx Authentication and Confidentiality in Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Link-Local Messages [RFC5796] xxx 3.2.6. Adaptation to lower layer networks and link layer protocols In general, the layered architecture of the Internet enables the IPS to run over any appropriate layer two architecture. The ability to change the link or physical layer without having to rethink the network layer, transports, or applications has been a great benefit in the Internet. Examples of link layer adaptation technology include: Ethernet/IEEE 802.3: IPv4 has run on each link layer environment that uses the Ethernet header (which is to say 10 and 100 MBPS wired Ethernet, 1 and 10 GBPS wired Ethernet, and the various versions of IEEE 802.11) using [RFC0894]. IPv6 does the same using [RFC2464]. PPP: The IETF has defined a serial line protocol, the Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) [RFC1661], that uses HDLC (bit-synchronous or byte synchronous) framing. The IPv4 adaptation specification is [RFC1332], and the IPv6 adaptation specification is [RFC5072]. Current use of this protocol is in traditional serial lines, authentication exchanges in DSL networks using PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE) [RFC2516], and in the Digital Signaling Hierarchy (generally referred to as Packet-on-SONET/SDH) using PPP over SONET/SDH [RFC2615]. IEEE 802.15.4: The adaptation specification for IPv6 transmission over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks is [RFC4944]. Numerous other adaptation specifications exist, including ATM, Frame Relay, X.25, other standardized and proprietary LAN technologies, and others. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 21] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 3.3. Transport Layer This section outlines the functionality of UDP, TCP, SCTP, and DCCP. UDP and TCP are best known and most widely used in the Internet today, while SCTP and DCCP are newer protocols that built for specific purposes. Other transport protocols can be built when required. 3.3.1. User Datagram Protocol (UDP) The User Datagram Protocol [RFC0768] and the Lightweight User Datagram Protocol [RFC3828] are properly not "transport" protocols in the sense of "a set of rules governing the exchange or transmission of data electronically between devices". They are labels that provide for multiplexing of applications directly on the IP layer, with transport functionality embedded in the application. Many exchange designs have been built using UDP, and many of them have not worked all that well. As a result, the use of UDP really should be treated as designing a new transport. Advice on the use of UDP in new applications can be found in Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers [RFC5405]. Datagram Transport Layer Security [RFC5238] can be used to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery for applications that run over UDP. Alternatively, UDP can run over IPsec. 3.3.2. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) TCP [RFC0793] is the predominant transport protocol in use in the Internet. It is "reliable", as the term is used in protocol design: it delivers data to its peer and provides acknowledgement to the sender, or it dies trying. It has extensions for Congestion Control [RFC5681] and Explicit Congestion Notification [RFC3168]. The user interface for TCP is a byte stream interface - an application using TCP might "write" to it several times only to have the data compacted into a common segment and delivered as such to its peer. For message-stream interfaces, we generally use the ISO Transport Service on TCP [RFC1006][RFC2126] in the application. Transport Layer Security [RFC5246] can be used to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. Alternatively, TCP can run over IPsec. Additionally, [RFC4987] discusses mechanisms similar to SCTP and DCCP's "cookie" approach that may be used to secure TCP sessions against flooding attacks. Finally, note that TCP has been the subject of ongoing research and Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 22] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 development since it was written. The End to End research group has published a Roadmap for TCP Specification Documents [RFC4614] to capture this history, to guide TCP implementors, and provide context for TCP researchers. 3.3.3. Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) SCTP [RFC4960] is a more recent reliable transport protocol that can be imagined as a TCP-like context containing multiple separate and independent message streams (as opposed to TCP's byte streams). The design of SCTP includes appropriate congestion avoidance behavior and resistance to flooding and masquerade attacks. As it uses a message stream interface as opposed to TCP's byte stream interface, it may also be more appropriate for the ISO Transport Service than RFC 1006/ 2126. SCTP offers several delivery options. The basic service is sequential non-duplicated delivery of messages within a stream, for each stream in use. Since streams are independent, one stream may pause due to head of line blocking while another stream in the same session continues to deliver data. In addition, SCTP provides a mechanism for bypassing the sequenced delivery service. User messages sent using this mechanism are delivered to the SCTP user as soon as they are received. SCTP implements a simple "cookie" mechanism intended to limit the effectiveness of flooding attacks by mutual authentication. This demonstrates that the application is connected to the same peer, but does not identify the peer. Mechanisms also exist for Dynamic Address Reconfiguration [RFC5061], enabling peers to change addresses during the session and yet retain connectivity. Transport Layer Security [RFC3436] can be used to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. Alternatively, SCTP can run over IPsec. 3.3.4. Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) DCCP [RFC4340] is an "unreliable" transport protocol (e.g., one that does not guarantee message delivery) that provides bidirectional unicast connections of congestion-controlled unreliable datagrams. DCCP is suitable for applications that transfer fairly large amounts of data and that can benefit from control over the tradeoff between timeliness and reliability. DCCP implements a simple "cookie" mechanism intended to limit the effectiveness of flooding attacks by mutual authentication. This demonstrates that the application is connected to the same peer, but does not identify the peer. Datagram Transport Layer Security [RFC5238] can be used to prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 23] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 forgery. Alternatively, DCCP can run over IPsec. 3.4. Infrastructure 3.4.1. Domain Name System In order to facilitate network management and operations, the Internet Community has defined the Domain Name System (DNS) [RFC1034][RFC1035]. Names are hierarchical: a name like example.com is found registered with a .com registrar, and within the associated network other names like baldur.cincinatti.example.com can be defined, with obvious hierarchy. Security extensions, which all a registry to sign the records it contains and as a result demonstrate their authenticity, are defined by the DNS Security Extensions [RFC4033][RFC4034][RFC4035]. Devices can also optionally update their own DNS record. For example, a sensor that is using Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862] to create an address might want to associate it with a name using DNS Dynamic Update [RFC2136] or DNS Secure Dynamic Update [RFC3007]. 3.4.2. Dynamic Host Configuration As discussed in Section 3.2.2 and Section 3.2.3, IPv6 address assignment can be accomplished using either autoconfiguration, DHCP [RFC2131] or DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. The best argument for the use of autoconfiguration is a large number of systems that require little more than a random number as an address; the argument for DHCP is administrative control. There are other parameters that may need to be allocated to hosts which require administrative configuration; examples include the addresses of DNS servers, keys for Secure DNS and Network Time servers. 3.5. Service and Resource Discovery Service and resource discovery are among the most important protocols for constrained resource self-organizing networks. These include various sensor networks as well as the Home Area Networks (HANs), Building Area Networks (BANs) and Field Area Networks (FANs) envisioned by Smart Grid architects. 3.5.1. Service Discovery Service discovery protocols are designed for the automatic configuration and detection of devices, and the services offered by Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 24] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 the discovered devices. In many cases service discovery is performed by so-called "constrained resource" devices (i.e., those with limited processing power, memory, and power resources). In general, service discovery is concerned with the assignment of network addresses (perhaps via Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]), resolution and distribution of hostnames via multicast DNS [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] and the automatic location of network services via DHCP (Section 3.4.2), the DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD) [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] (part of Apple's Bonjour technology), and the Service Location Protocol (SLP) [RFC2608]. 3.5.2. Resource Discovery Resource Discovery is concerned with the discovery resources offered by end-points and is extremely important in machine-to-machine closed-loop applications (i.e., those with no humans in the loop). The goals of resource discover protocols include: Simplicity of creation and maintenance of resources Commonly understood semantics Conformance to existing and emerging standards International scope and applicability Extensibility Interoperability among collections and indexing systems The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [I-D.ietf-core-coap] is being developed in IETF with these goals in mind. In particular, CoAP is designed for use in constrained resource networks and for machine-to-machine applications such as smart energy and building automation. It provides a RESTful transfer protocol, a built-in resource discovery protocol, and includes web concepts such as URIs and content-types. CoAP provides both unicast and multicast resource discovery and includes the ability to filter on attributes of resource descriptions. Finally, CoAP resource discovery can also be used to discovery HTTP resources. For simplicity, CoAP makes the assumption that all CoAP servers listen on the default CoAP port or otherwise have been configured or discovered using some general service discovery mechanism such as DNS Service Discovery (DNS-SD) [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd]. Resource discovery in CoAP is accomplished through the use of well- Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 25] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 known resources which describe the links offered by a CoAP server. CoAP defines a well-known URI for discovery: "/.well-known/r" [RFC5785]. For example, the query [GET /.well-known/r] returns a list of links (representing resources) available from the queried CoAP server. A query such as [GET /.well-known/r?n=Voltage] returns the resources with the name Voltage. 3.6. Other Applications There are several applications that are widely used but are not properly thought of as infrastructure. 3.6.1. Network Time The Network Time Protocol was originally designed by Dave Mills of the University of Delaware and CSNET, for the purpose of implementing a temporal metric in the Fuzzball Routing Protocol and generally coordinating time experiments. The current versions of the time protocol are the Network Time Protocol [RFC5905]. NTP is currently being updated in [RFC5905]. 3.6.2. Session Initiation Protocol The Session Initiation Protocol [RFC3261][RFC3265][RFC3853][RFC4320][RFC4916][RFC5393][RFC5621] is an application layer control (signaling) protocol for creating, modifying and terminating multimedia sessions on the Internet, meant to be more scalable than H.323. Multimedia sessions can be voice, video, instant messaging, shared data, and/or subscriptions of events. SIP can run on top of TCP, UDP, SCTP, or TLS over TCP. SIP is independent of the transport layer, and independent of the underlying IPv4/v6 version. In fact, the transport protocol used can change as the SIP message traverses SIP entities from source to destination. SIP itself does not choose whether a session is voice or video, the SDP: Session Description Protocol [RFC4566] is intended for that purpose and to identify the actual endpoints' IP addresses. Within the SDP, which is transported by SIP, codecs are offered and accepted (or not), the port number and IP address is decided for where each endpoint wants to receive their Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) [RFC3550] packets. This part is critical to understand because of the affect on NATs. Unless a NAT (with or without a firewall) is designed to be SDP aware (i.e., looking into each packet far enough to discover what the IP address and port number is for this particular session - and resetting it based on the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT [RFC5389], the session established by SIP will not Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 26] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 result in RTP packets being sent to the proper endpoint (in SIP called a user agent, or UA). It should be noted that SIP messaging has no issues with NATs, it is just the UA's inability to generally learn about the presence of the NATs that prevent the RTP packets from being received by the UA establishing the session. 3.6.3. Calendaring Internet calendaring, as implemented in Apple iCal, Microsoft Outlook and Entourage, and Google Calendar, is specified in Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar) [RFC5545] and is in the process of being updated to an XML schema in iCalendar XML Representation [I-D.daboo-et-al-icalendar-in-xml] Several protocols exist to carry calendar events, including iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP) [RFC5546], the Message-Based Interoperability Protocol (iMIP) [RFC2447] , and open source work on the Atom Publishing Protocol [RFC5023]. 4. A simplified view of the business architecture The Internet is a network of networks in which networks are interconnected in specific ways and are independently operated. It is important to note that the underlying Internet architecture puts no restrictions on the ways that networks are interconnected; interconnection is a business decision. As such, the Internet interconnection architecture can be thought of as a "business structure" for the Internet. Central to the Internet business structure are the networks that provide connectivity to other networks, called "Transit Networks". These networks sell bulk bandwidth and routing services to each other and to other networks as customers. Around the periphery of the transit network are companies, schools, and other networks that provide services directly to individuals. These might generally be divided into "Enterprise Networks" and "Access Networks"; Enterprise networks provide "free" connectivity to their own employees or members, and also provide them a set of services including electronic mail, web services, and so on. Access Networks sell broadband connectivity (DSL, Cable Modem, 802.11 wireless or 3GPP wireless), or "dial" services including PSTN dial-up and ISDN, to subscribers. The subscribers are typically either residential or small office/home office (SOHO) customers. Residential customers are generally entirely dependent on their access provider for all services, while a SOHO buys some services from the access provider and may provide others for itself. Networks that sell transit services to nobody else - SOHO, residential, and enterprise networks - are generally refereed to as "edge networks"; Transit Networks are considered to be Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 27] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 part of the "core" of the Internet, and access networks are between the two. This general structure is depicted in Figure 3. ------ ------ / \ / \ /--\ / \ / \ |SOHO|---+ Access | |Enterprise| \--/ | Service | | Network | /--\ | Provider| | | |Home|---+ | ------ | | \--/ \ +---+ +---+ / \ / / \ \ / ------ | Transit | ------ | Service | | Provider | | | \ / \ / ------ Figure 3: Conceptual model of Internet businesses A specific example is shown in a traceroute from a home to a nearby school. Internet connectivity in Figure 4 passes through o The home network, o Cox Communications, an Access Network using Cable Modem technology, o TransitRail, a commodity peering service for research and education (R&E) networks, o Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California (CENIC), a transit provider for educational networks, and o the University of California at Santa Barbara, which in this context might be viewed as an access network for its students and faculty or as an enterprise network. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 28] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 fred% traceroute www.ucsb.edu traceroute to web.ucsb.edu (128.111.24.41), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 fred-vpn (10.32.244.217) 1.560 ms 1.108 ms 1.133 ms 2 wsip-98-173-193-1.sb.sd.cox.net (98.173.193.1) 12.540 ms ... 3 68.6.13.101 ... 4 68.6.13.129 ... 5 langbbr01-as0.r2.la.cox.net ... 6 calren46-cust.lsanca01.transitrail.net ... 7 dc-lax-core1--lax-peer1-ge.cenic.net ... 8 dc-lax-agg1--lax-core1-ge.cenic.net ... 9 dc-ucsb--dc-lax-dc2.cenic.net ... 10 r2--r1--1.commserv.ucsb.edu ... 11 574-c--r2--2.commserv.ucsb.edu ... 12 * * * Figure 4: Traceroute from residential customer to educational institution Another specific example could be shown in a traceroute from the home through a Virtual Private Network (VPN tunnel) from the home, crossing Cox Cable (an Access Network) and Pacific Bell (a Transit Network), and terminating in Cisco Systems (an Enterprise Network); a traceroute of the path doesn't show that as it is invisible within the VPN and the contents of the VPN are invisible, due to encryption, to the networks on the path. Instead, the traceroute in Figure 5 is entirely within Cisco's internal network. fred% traceroute irp-view13 traceroute to irp-view13.cisco.com (171.70.120.60), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 fred-vpn (10.32.244.217) 2.560 ms 1.100 ms 1.198 ms 2 **** 3 sjc24-00a-gw2-ge2-2 (10.34.251.137) 26.298 ms... 4 sjc23-a5-gw2-g2-1 (10.34.250.78) 25.214 ms ... 5 sjc20-a5-gw1 (10.32.136.21) 23.205 ms ... 6 sjc12-abb4-gw1-t2-7 (10.32.0.189) 46.028 ms ... 7 sjc5-sbb4-gw1-ten8-2 (171.*.*.*) 26.700 ms ... 8 sjc12-dc5-gw2-ten3-1 ... 9 sjc5-dc4-gw1-ten8-1 ... 10 irp-view13 ... Figure 5: Traceroute across VPN Note that in both cases, the home network uses private address space [RFC1918] while other networks generally use public address space, and that three middleware technologies are in use here. These are Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 29] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 the use of a firewall, a Network Address Translator (NAT), and a Virtual Private Network (VPN). Firewalls are generally sold as and considered by many to be a security technology. This is based on the fact that a firewall imposes a border between two administrative domains. Typically a firewall will be deployed between a residential, SOHO, or enterprise network and its access or transit provider. In its essence, a firewall is a data diode, imposing a policy on what sessions may pass between a protected domain and the rest of the Internet. Simple policies generally permit sessions to be originated from the protected network but not from the outside; more complex policies may permit additional sessions from the outside, as electronic mail to a mail server or a web session to a web server, and may prevent certain applications from global access even though they are originated from the inside. Note that the effectiveness of firewalls remains controversial. While network managers often insist on deploying firewalls as they impose a boundary, others point out that their value as a security solution is debatable. This is because most attacks come from behind the firewall. In addition, firewalls do not protect against application layer attacks such as viruses carried in email. Thus as a security solution firewalls are justified as a defense in depth. That is, while an end system must in the end be responsible for its own security, a firewall can inhibit or prevent certain kinds of attacks, for example the consumption of CPU time on a critical server. Key documents describing firewall technology and the issues it poses include: o IP Multicast and Firewalls [RFC2588] o Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance [RFC2647] o Behavior of and Requirements for Internet Firewalls [RFC2979] o Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance [RFC3511] o Mobile IPv6 and Firewalls: Problem Statement [RFC4487] o NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol Communication [RFC5207] Network Address Translation is a technology that was developed in response to ISP behaviors in the mid-1990's; when [RFC1918] was published, many ISPs started handing out single or small numbers of Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 30] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 addresses, and edge networks were forced to translate. In time, this became considered a good thing, or at least not a bad thing; it amplified the public address space, and it was sold as if it were a firewall. It of course is not; while traditional dynamic NATs only translate between internal and external session address/aport tuples during the detected duration of the session, that session state may exist in the network much longer than it exists on the end system, and as a result constitutes an attack vector. The design, value, and limitations of network address translation are described in: o IP Network Address Translator Terminology and Considerations [RFC2663] o Traditional IP Network Address Translator [RFC3022] o Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator [RFC3027] o Network Address Translator Friendly Application Design Guidelines [RFC3235] o IAB Considerations for Network Address Translation [RFC3424] o IPsec-Network Address Translation Compatibility Requirements [RFC3715] o Network Address Translation Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP [RFC4787] o State of Peer-to-Peer Communication across Network Address Translators [RFC5128] o IP Multicast Requirements for a Network Address Translator and a Network Address Port Translator [RFC5135] Virtual Private Networks come in many forms; what they have in common is that they are generally tunneled over the internet backbone, so that as in Figure 5, connectivity appears to be entirely within the edge network although it is in fact across a service provider's network. Examples include IPsec tunnel-mode encrypted tunnels, IP- in-IP or GRE tunnels and MPLS LSPs [RFC3031][RFC3032]. . 5. IANA Considerations This memo asks the IANA for no new parameters. Note to RFC Editor: This section will have served its purpose if it Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 31] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 correctly tells IANA that no new assignments or registries are required, or if those assignments or registries are created during the RFC publication process. From the author"s perspective, it may therefore be removed upon publication as an RFC at the RFC Editor's discretion. 6. Security Considerations Security is addressed in some detail in Section 2.2 and Section 3.1. 7. Acknowledgements Review comments were made by Andrew Yourtchenko, Ashok Narayanan, Bernie Volz, Chris Lonvick, Dave McGrew, Dave Oran, David Su, Hemant Singh, James Polk, John Meylor, Joseph Salowey, Julien Abeille, Kerry Lynn, Magnus Westerlund, Murtaza Chiba, Paul Duffy, Paul Hoffman, Ralph Droms, Russ White, Sheila Frankel, and Toerless Eckert. Dave McGrew, Vint Cerf, and Ralph Droms suggested text. 8. References 8.1. Normative References [RFC1122] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989. [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989. [RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", RFC 1812, June 1995. [RFC4294] Loughney, J., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294, April 2006. 8.2. Informative References [I-D.arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines] Arkko, J. and F. Baker, "Guidelines for Using IPv6 Transition Mechanisms", draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines-03 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 32] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Discovery", draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd-06 (work in progress), March 2010. [I-D.cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns-11 (work in progress), March 2010. [I-D.daboo-et-al-icalendar-in-xml] Daboo, C., Douglass, M., and S. Lees, "xCal: The XML format for iCalendar", draft-daboo-et-al-icalendar-in-xml-05 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-6lowpan-hc] Hui, J. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams in 6LoWPAN Networks", draft-ietf-6lowpan-hc-08 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis", draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-behave-address-format] Bao, C., Huitema, C., Bagnulo, M., Boucadair, M., and X. Li, "IPv6 Addressing of IPv4/IPv6 Translators", draft-ietf-behave-address-format-10 (work in progress), August 2010. [I-D.ietf-behave-dns64] Bagnulo, M., Sullivan, A., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "DNS64: DNS extensions for Network Address Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", draft-ietf-behave-dns64-10 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-framework] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10 (work in progress), August 2010. [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-21 (work in progress), August 2010. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 33] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 [I-D.ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful] Bagnulo, M., Matthews, P., and I. Beijnum, "Stateful NAT64: Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4 Servers", draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-12 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-core-coap] Shelby, Z., Frank, B., and D. Sturek, "Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", draft-ietf-core-coap-01 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-manet-dymo] Chakeres, I. and C. Perkins, "Dynamic MANET On-demand (DYMO) Routing", draft-ietf-manet-dymo-21 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-roll-rpl] Winter, T., Thubert, P., and R. Team, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks", draft-ietf-roll-rpl-11 (work in progress), July 2010. [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4347-bis] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Security version 1.2", draft-ietf-tls-rfc4347-bis-04 (work in progress), July 2010. [IEEE802.1X] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks - Port based Network Access Control", IEEE Standard 802.1X-2010, February 2010. [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768, August 1980. [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC 792, September 1981. [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793, September 1981. [RFC0826] Plummer, D., "Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or converting network protocol addresses to 48.bit Ethernet address for transmission on Ethernet hardware", STD 37, Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 34] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 RFC 826, November 1982. [RFC0894] Hornig, C., "Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams over Ethernet networks", STD 41, RFC 894, April 1984. [RFC1006] Rose, M. and D. Cass, "ISO transport services on top of the TCP: Version 3", STD 35, RFC 1006, May 1987. [RFC1034] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - concepts and facilities", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987. [RFC1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987. [RFC1058] Hedrick, C., "Routing Information Protocol", RFC 1058, June 1988. [RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5, RFC 1112, August 1989. [RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin, "Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC 1157, May 1990. [RFC1195] Callon, R., "Use of OSI IS-IS for routing in TCP/IP and dual environments", RFC 1195, December 1990. [RFC1332] McGregor, G., "The PPP Internet Protocol Control Protocol (IPCP)", RFC 1332, May 1992. [RFC1661] Simpson, W., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)", STD 51, RFC 1661, July 1994. [RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996. [RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996. [RFC2046] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types", RFC 2046, November 1996. [RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text", RFC 2047, November 1996. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 35] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 [RFC2049] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples", RFC 2049, November 1996. [RFC2080] Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for IPv6", RFC 2080, January 1997. [RFC2126] Pouffary, Y. and A. Young, "ISO Transport Service on top of TCP (ITOT)", RFC 2126, March 1997. [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, March 1997. [RFC2136] Vixie, P., Thomson, S., Rekhter, Y., and J. Bound, "Dynamic Updates in the Domain Name System (DNS UPDATE)", RFC 2136, April 1997. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC2357] Mankin, A., Romanov, A., Bradner, S., and V. Paxson, "IETF Criteria for Evaluating Reliable Multicast Transport and Application Protocols", RFC 2357, June 1998. [RFC2447] Dawson, F., Mansour, S., and S. Silverberg, "iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability Protocol (iMIP)", RFC 2447, November 1998. [RFC2453] Malkin, G., "RIP Version 2", STD 56, RFC 2453, November 1998. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC2464] Crawford, M., "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks", RFC 2464, December 1998. [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998. [RFC2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z., and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475, December 1998. [RFC2516] Mamakos, L., Lidl, K., Evarts, J., Carrel, D., Simone, D., and R. Wheeler, "A Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)", RFC 2516, February 1999. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 36] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 [RFC2545] Marques, P. and F. Dupont, "Use of BGP-4 Multiprotocol Extensions for IPv6 Inter-Domain Routing", RFC 2545, March 1999. [RFC2588] Finlayson, R., "IP Multicast and Firewalls", RFC 2588, May 1999. [RFC2608] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day, "Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999. [RFC2615] Malis, A. and W. Simpson, "PPP over SONET/SDH", RFC 2615, June 1999. [RFC2616] Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999. [RFC2647] Newman, D., "Benchmarking Terminology for Firewall Performance", RFC 2647, August 1999. [RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations", RFC 2663, August 1999. [RFC2710] Deering, S., Fenner, W., and B. Haberman, "Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) for IPv6", RFC 2710, October 1999. [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March 2000. [RFC2979] Freed, N., "Behavior of and Requirements for Internet Firewalls", RFC 2979, October 2000. [RFC3007] Wellington, B., "Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update", RFC 3007, November 2000. [RFC3022] Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January 2001. [RFC3027] Holdrege, M. and P. Srisuresh, "Protocol Complications with the IP Network Address Translator", RFC 3027, January 2001. [RFC3031] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 37] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001. [RFC3032] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001. [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, September 2001. [RFC3235] Senie, D., "Network Address Translator (NAT)-Friendly Application Design Guidelines", RFC 3235, January 2002. [RFC3261] Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E. Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261, June 2002. [RFC3265] Roach, A., "Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event Notification", RFC 3265, June 2002. [RFC3275] Eastlake, D., Reagle, J., and D. Solo, "(Extensible Markup Language) XML-Signature Syntax and Processing", RFC 3275, March 2002. [RFC3315] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. [RFC3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A. Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3", RFC 3376, October 2002. [RFC3424] Daigle, L. and IAB, "IAB Considerations for UNilateral Self-Address Fixing (UNSAF) Across Network Address Translation", RFC 3424, November 2002. [RFC3436] Jungmaier, A., Rescorla, E., and M. Tuexen, "Transport Layer Security over Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 3436, December 2002. [RFC3453] Luby, M., Vicisano, L., Gemmell, J., Rizzo, L., Handley, M., and J. Crowcroft, "The Use of Forward Error Correction (FEC) in Reliable Multicast", RFC 3453, December 2002. [RFC3511] Hickman, B., Newman, D., Tadjudin, S., and T. Martin, "Benchmarking Methodology for Firewall Performance", RFC 3511, April 2003. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 38] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 [RFC3550] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick, R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP: A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", STD 64, RFC 3550, July 2003. [RFC3561] Perkins, C., Belding-Royer, E., and S. Das, "Ad hoc On- Demand Distance Vector (AODV) Routing", RFC 3561, July 2003. [RFC3569] Bhattacharyya, S., "An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast (SSM)", RFC 3569, July 2003. [RFC3590] Haberman, B., "Source Address Selection for the Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Protocol", RFC 3590, September 2003. [RFC3626] Clausen, T. and P. Jacquet, "Optimized Link State Routing Protocol (OLSR)", RFC 3626, October 2003. [RFC3715] Aboba, B. and W. Dixon, "IPsec-Network Address Translation (NAT) Compatibility Requirements", RFC 3715, March 2004. [RFC3810] Vida, R. and L. Costa, "Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810, June 2004. [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., and G. Fairhurst, "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, July 2004. [RFC3853] Peterson, J., "S/MIME Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Requirement for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3853, July 2004. [RFC3971] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Zill, B., and P. Nikander, "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", RFC 3971, March 2005. [RFC3973] Adams, A., Nicholas, J., and W. Siadak, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 3973, January 2005. [RFC4033] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements", RFC 4033, March 2005. [RFC4034] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Rose, "Resource Records for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4034, March 2005. [RFC4035] Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 39] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security Extensions", RFC 4035, March 2005. [RFC4213] Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005. [RFC4262] Santesson, S., "X.509 Certificate Extension for Secure/ Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Capabilities", RFC 4262, December 2005. [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Li, T., and S. Hares, "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC4289] Freed, N. and J. Klensin, "Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Four: Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 4289, December 2005. [RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006. [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. [RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December 2005. [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4303, December 2005. [RFC4306] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 4306, December 2005. [RFC4307] Schiller, J., "Cryptographic Algorithms for Use in the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 4307, December 2005. [RFC4309] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CCM Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 4309, December 2005. [RFC4320] Sparks, R., "Actions Addressing Identified Issues with the Session Initiation Protocol's (SIP) Non-INVITE Transaction", RFC 4320, January 2006. [RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. [RFC4347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 40] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Security", RFC 4347, April 2006. [RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006. [RFC4410] Pullen, M., Zhao, F., and D. Cohen, "Selectively Reliable Multicast Protocol (SRMP)", RFC 4410, February 2006. [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. [RFC4487] Le, F., Faccin, S., Patil, B., and H. Tschofenig, "Mobile IPv6 and Firewalls: Problem Statement", RFC 4487, May 2006. [RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006. [RFC4601] Fenner, B., Handley, M., Holbrook, H., and I. Kouvelas, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): Protocol Specification (Revised)", RFC 4601, August 2006. [RFC4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source- Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, August 2006. [RFC4607] Holbrook, H. and B. Cain, "Source-Specific Multicast for IP", RFC 4607, August 2006. [RFC4608] Meyer, D., Rockell, R., and G. Shepherd, "Source-Specific Protocol Independent Multicast in 232/8", BCP 120, RFC 4608, August 2006. [RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 4614, September 2006. [RFC4741] Enns, R., "NETCONF Configuration Protocol", RFC 4741, December 2006. [RFC4760] Bates, T., Chandra, R., Katz, D., and Y. Rekhter, "Multiprotocol Extensions for BGP-4", RFC 4760, January 2007. [RFC4787] Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127, Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 41] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 RFC 4787, January 2007. [RFC4835] Manral, V., "Cryptographic Algorithm Implementation Requirements for Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) and Authentication Header (AH)", RFC 4835, April 2007. [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, September 2007. [RFC4862] Thomson, S., Narten, T., and T. Jinmei, "IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007. [RFC4916] Elwell, J., "Connected Identity in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 4916, June 2007. [RFC4919] Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., and C. Schumacher, "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals", RFC 4919, August 2007. [RFC4941] Narten, T., Draves, R., and S. Krishnan, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 4941, September 2007. [RFC4944] Montenegro, G., Kushalnagar, N., Hui, J., and D. Culler, "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks", RFC 4944, September 2007. [RFC4960] Stewart, R., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007. [RFC4987] Eddy, W., "TCP SYN Flooding Attacks and Common Mitigations", RFC 4987, August 2007. [RFC5023] Gregorio, J. and B. de hOra, "The Atom Publishing Protocol", RFC 5023, October 2007. [RFC5061] Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Tuexen, M., Maruyama, S., and M. Kozuka, "Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) Dynamic Address Reconfiguration", RFC 5061, September 2007. [RFC5072] S.Varada, Haskins, D., and E. Allen, "IP Version 6 over PPP", RFC 5072, September 2007. [RFC5128] Srisuresh, P., Ford, B., and D. Kegel, "State of Peer-to- Peer (P2P) Communication across Network Address Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 42] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Translators (NATs)", RFC 5128, March 2008. [RFC5135] Wing, D. and T. Eckert, "IP Multicast Requirements for a Network Address Translator (NAT) and a Network Address Port Translator (NAPT)", BCP 135, RFC 5135, February 2008. [RFC5207] Stiemerling, M., Quittek, J., and L. Eggert, "NAT and Firewall Traversal Issues of Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Communication", RFC 5207, April 2008. [RFC5216] Simon, D., Aboba, B., and R. Hurst, "The EAP-TLS Authentication Protocol", RFC 5216, March 2008. [RFC5238] Phelan, T., "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) over the Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 5238, May 2008. [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008. [RFC5308] Hopps, C., "Routing IPv6 with IS-IS", RFC 5308, October 2008. [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. [RFC5389] Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing, "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389, October 2008. [RFC5393] Sparks, R., Lawrence, S., Hawrylyshen, A., and B. Campen, "Addressing an Amplification Vulnerability in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Forking Proxies", RFC 5393, December 2008. [RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for Application Designers", BCP 145, RFC 5405, November 2008. [RFC5545] Desruisseaux, B., "Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)", RFC 5545, September 2009. [RFC5546] Daboo, C., "iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP)", RFC 5546, December 2009. [RFC5569] Despres, R., "IPv6 Rapid Deployment on IPv4 Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 43] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Infrastructures (6rd)", RFC 5569, January 2010. [RFC5621] Camarillo, G., "Message Body Handling in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5621, September 2009. [RFC5681] Allman, M., Paxson, V., and E. Blanton, "TCP Congestion Control", RFC 5681, September 2009. [RFC5740] Adamson, B., Bormann, C., Handley, M., and J. Macker, "NACK-Oriented Reliable Multicast (NORM) Transport Protocol", RFC 5740, November 2009. [RFC5750] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Certificate Handling", RFC 5750, January 2010. [RFC5751] Ramsdell, B. and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 3.2 Message Specification", RFC 5751, January 2010. [RFC5785] Nottingham, M. and E. Hammer-Lahav, "Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs)", RFC 5785, April 2010. [RFC5796] Atwood, W., Islam, S., and M. Siami, "Authentication and Confidentiality in Protocol Independent Multicast Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) Link-Local Messages", RFC 5796, March 2010. [RFC5838] Lindem, A., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", RFC 5838, April 2010. [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms Specification", RFC 5905, June 2010. [SP-MULPIv3.0] CableLabs, "DOCSIS 3.0 MAC and Upper Layer Protocols Interface Specification, CM-SP-MULPIv3.0-I10-090529", May 2009. Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 44] Internet-Draft Internet Protocols for the Smart Grid August 2010 Authors' Addresses Fred Baker Cisco Systems Santa Barbara, California 93117 USA Email: fred@cisco.com David Meyer Cisco Systems Eugene, Oregon 97403 USA Email: dmm@cisco.com Baker & Meyer Expires February 18, 2011 [Page 45]