Internet Draft I. Chen A. Lindem Category: Informational Ericsson Expires in 6 months January 26, 2014 OSPFv3 over IPv4 for IPv6 Transition Status of this Memo Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 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), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on date. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Abstract This draft defines a mechanism to use IPv4 to transport OSPFv3 I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 1] Internet Draft transition-to-ospfv3 January 26, 2014 packets, in order to facilitate transition from IPv4-only to IPv6 and dual-stack within a routing domain. Using OSPFv3 over IPv4 with the existing OSPFv3 Address Family extension simplifies transition from an OSFPv2 IPv4-only routing domain to an OSPFv3 dual-stack routing domain, and later possibly to an IPv6-only routing domain. I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 2] Internet Draft transition-to-ospfv3 January 26, 2014 Table of Contents 1. Introduction ....................................................3 2. Encapsulation in IPv4 ...........................................4 2.1. Source Address .............................................6 2.2. Destination ................................................6 2.3. Operation over Virtual Link ................................6 3. Security Considerations .........................................7 4. IANA Considerations .............................................7 5. References ......................................................7 1. Introduction To facilitate transition from IPv4 [RFC791] to IPv6 [RFC2460], dual- stack or IPv6 routing protocols should be gradually deployed. Dual- stack routing protocols, such as Border Gateway Protocol [RFC4271], have an advantage during the transition, because both IPv4 and IPv6 topologies can be transported using either IPv4 or IPv6. Some IPv4-specific and IPv6-specific routing protocols share enough similarities in their protocol packet formats and protocol signaling that it is trivial to build an initial IPv6 routing domain over IPv4, allowing IPv6 routing domains be deployed and tested before de- commissioning IPv4 and moving to an IPv6-only network. In the case of Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) interior gateway routing protocol (IGP), OSPFv2 [RFC2328] is the IGP deployed over IPv4, while OSPFv3 [RFC5340] is the IGP deployed over IPv6. OSPFv3 further supports multiple address families [RFC5838], including both the IPv6 unicast address family and the IPv4 unicast address family. Consequently, it is possible to deploy OSPFv3 over IPv4 without any changes to to either OSPFv3 or IPv4. This draft specifies how to use IPv4 packets to transport OSPFv3 packets. The mechanism takes advantage of the fact that OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 share the same IP protocol number, 89. Additionally, OSPFv2 and OSPFv3 also share the same OSPF packet header format, while the OSPF packet header has its own OSPF version number that distinguishes an OSPFv2 packet from an OSPFv3 packet. In normal operation, it is expected that the IPv4 topology within the OSPF domain will be congruent with the IPv6 topology of that OSPF domain. In such cases, it is expected that either all OSPFv3 packets will be carried over IPv4 or that all OSPFv3 packets will be carried over IPv6. If the IPv4 topology and IPv6 topology are not identical, the most likely cause (as of the date this draft was written) is that some parts of the network deployment are not yet upgraded to support both I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 3] Internet Draft transition-to-ospfv3 January 26, 2014 IPv4 and IPv6. In situations where the IPv4 deployment is a proper superset of the IPv6 deployment, it is expected that OSPFv3 packets would be carried over IPv4, until the rest of the network deployment is upgraded to support IPv6 in addition to IPv4. In situations where the IPv6 deployment is a proper superset of the IPv4 deployment, for example as IPv4 is phased out, it is expected that OSPFv3 would be carried over IPv6. Throughout this document, OSPF is used when the text applies to both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. OSPFv2 or OSPFv3 is used when the text is specific to one version of the OSPF protocol. Similarly, IP is used when the text describes either version of the Internet protocol. IPv4 or IPv6 is used when the text is specific to a single version of the protocol. 2. Encapsulation in IPv4 Unlike 6to4 encapsulation [RFC3056] that tunnels IPv6 traffic through an IPv4 network, this draft proposes that an OSPFv3 packet be directly encapsulated within an IPv4 packet as the payload, without the IPv6 packet header, as illustrated in Figure 1. In this case, the IPv4 packet has an IPv4 protocol type of 89, denoting that the payload is an OSPF packet. The payload of the IPv4 packet consists of an OSPFv3 packet, beginning with the OSPF packet header, in which the OSPF version number is 3. An OSPFv3 packet followed by a OSPF link-local signaling (LLS) extension data block [RFC5613] encapsulated in an IPv4 packet is illustrated in Figure 2. I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 4] Internet Draft transition-to-ospfv3 January 26, 2014 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ | 4 | IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Time to Live | Protocol 89 | Header Checksum | IPv4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Header | Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Destination Address | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Options | Padding | v +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ | 3 | Type | Packet length | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Router ID | OSPFv3 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Header | Area ID | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | Checksum | Instance ID | 0 | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ v | OSPFv3 Body ... | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: An IPv4 packet encapsulating an OSPFv3 packet. +---------------+ | IPv4 Header | +---------------+ | OSPFv3 Header | |...............| | | | OSPFv3 Body | | | +---------------+ | | | LLS Data | | | +---------------+ Figure 2: The IPv4 packet encapsulating an OSPFv3 packet with a trailing OSPF link-local signaling data block. I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 5] Internet Draft transition-to-ospfv3 January 26, 2014 2.1. Source Address Consistent with OSPFv2, the IPv4 source address of an OSPF protocol packet is one end of a router adjacency. For OSPFv3 over IPv4, the source address is the IPv4 unicast address of the interface transmitting the packet. 2.2. Destination Address As defined in OSPFv2, the IPv4 destination address of an OSPF protocol packet is either an IPv4 multicast address or the IPv4 unicast address of the other end of the adjacency. Two well-known link-local multicast addresses are assigned to OSPFv2, the AllSPFRouters address 224.0.0.5 and the AllDRouters address 224.0.0.6. The multicast address used depends on the OSPF packet type, the OSPF interface type, and the OSPF router's role on the multi-access networks. Thus, for an OSPFv3 over IPv4 packet to be sent to AllSPFRouters, the destination address field in the IPv4 packet should be 224.0.0.5. For an OSPFv3 over IPv4 packet to be sent to AllDRouters, the destination address field in the IPv4 packet should be 224.0.0.6. When an OSPF router sends a unicast OSPF packet over a connected interface, the destination of such an IP packet is the address assigned to the receiving interface. Thus, a unicast OSPFv3 packet carried in an IPv4 packet would specify the IPv4 unicast address of the receiving interface as the destination address. 2.3. Operation over Virtual Link When an OSPF router sends an OSPF packet over a virtual link, the receiving router is a router which is not directly connected to the sending router. Thus, the destination IP address of the IP packet must be a reachable unicast IP address of the receiving router. Because IPv6 is the presumed Internet protocol and an IPv4 destination is not routable, OSPFv3 address family extension [RFC5838] specifies that only IPv6 address family virtual links are supported. As illustrated in Figure 1, this draft proposes that an OSPFv3 packet be carried within an IPv4 packet. As a result, an IPv4 packet in which the destination field is a unicast IPv4 address assigned to the virtual router is routable, and OSPFv3 virtual links in IPv4 unicast address families can be supported and the restriction in Section 2.8 of RFC 5838 [RFC5838] can be removed. If IPv4 transport, as specified herein, is used for IPv6 address I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 6] Internet Draft transition-to-ospfv3 January 26, 2014 families, virtual links cannot be supported. Hence, it is RECOMMENDED to use the IP transport matching the address family in OSPF routing domains requiring virtual links. 3. Security Considerations As described in [RFC4552], OSPFv3 uses IPsec [RFC4301] for authentication and confidentiality. Consequently, an OSPFv3 packet carried within an IPv4 packet requires IPsec to provide authentication and confidentiality. Because IPsec is more commonly implemented and more widely available on IPv4 systems than on IPv6 systems, this use is not more problematic than use of IPsec with OSPFv3 over IPv6. Further work such as [ipsecospf] might be required for IPv4 IPsec. An optional OSPFv3 Authentication Trailer [RFC6505] also has been defined as an alternative to using IPsec. The calculation of the authentication data in the Authentication Trailer includes the source IPv6 address to protect an OSPFv3 router from Man-in-the-Middle attacks. For IPv4 encapsulation described in this draft, the IPv4 source address should be placed in the first 4 bytes of Apad followed by the hexadecimal value 0x878FE1F3 repeated (L-4)/4 times, where L is the length of hash measured in octet. The processing of the optional Authentication Trailer is confined entirely within the OSPFv3 protocol, in which each OSPFv3 router is responsible for the authentication without involvement from IPsec or any other IP layer. Consequently, except for calculation of the value Apad, transporting OSPFv3 packets using IPv4 does not change the operation of the optional OSPFv3 Authentication Trailer. At present, that Authentication Trailer has limited implementation and also limited deployment. 4. IANA Considerations No actions are required from IANA as result of the publication of this document. 5. References 5.1 Normative References [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 7] Internet Draft transition-to-ospfv3 January 26, 2014 [RFC5340] Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF for IPv6", RFC 5340, July 2008. [RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD54, RFC 2328, April 1998. [RFC5838] Lindem, A., Ed., Mirtorabi, S., Roy, A., Barnes, M., and R. Aggarwal, "Support of Address Families in OSPFv3", RFC 5838, April 2010. 5.2. Informative References [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, January 2006. [RFC3056] Carpenter, B. and K. Moore, "Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds", RFC 3056, February 2001. [RFC5613] Zinin, A., Roy, A., Nguyen, L., Friedman, B., and D. Yeung, "OSPF Link-Local Signaling", RFC 5613, August 2009. [RFC4552] Gupta, M. and N. Melam, "Authentication/Confidentiality for OSPFv3", RFC 4552, June 2006. [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005. [RFC6505] Bhatia, M., Manral, V., and A. Lindem, "Supporting Authentication Trailer for OSPFv3", RFC 6506, February 2012. [ipsecospf] Gupta, M. and Melam, M, Work in progress, "draft-gupta- ospf-ospfv2-sec-01.txt", August 2009. Authors' Addresses I. Chen Ericsson Email: ing-wher.chen@ericsson.com A. Lindem Ericsson Email: acee.lindem@ericsson.com I. Chen & A. Lindem Expires in 6 months [Page 8]