--- 1/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-01.txt 2017-10-11 01:13:11.423542988 -0700 +++ 2/draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02.txt 2017-10-11 01:13:11.455543855 -0700 @@ -1,89 +1,92 @@ Network Working Group A. Morton Internet-Draft AT&T Labs Updates: 2330 (if approved) J. Fabini Intended status: Informational TU Wien -Expires: September 7, 2017 N. Elkins +Expires: April 13, 2018 N. Elkins Inside Products, Inc. M. Ackermann Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan V. Hegde Consultant - March 6, 2017 + October 10, 2017 - IPv6 Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework - draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-01 + IPv6, IPv4 and Coexistence Updates for IPPM's Active Metric Framework + draft-ietf-ippm-2330-ipv6-02 Abstract This memo updates the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework RFC 2330 with new considerations for measurement methodology and testing. It updates the definition of standard-formed packets in RFC 2330 to - include IPv6 packets and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, + include IPv6 packets, deprecates the definition of minimum standard- + formed packet, and augments distinguishing aspects of packets, referred to as Type-P for test packets in RFC 2330. This memo identifies that IPv4-IPv6 co-existence can challenge measurements within the scope of the IPPM Framework. Exemplary use cases include, but are not limited to IPv4-IPv6 translation, NAT, protocol - encapsulation, or IPv6 header compression. + encapsulation, IPv6 header compression, or use of IPv6 over Low-Power + Wireless Area Networks (6LoWPAN). Requirements Language The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 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/. + Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." - This Internet-Draft will expire on September 7, 2017. + + This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2018. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2017 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 + (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Packets of Type-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Standard-Formed Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 7 + 5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques . . . . 8 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 - 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 + 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 + 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 + Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Introduction The IETF IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) working group first created a framework for metric development in [RFC2330]. This framework has stood the test of time and enabled development of many fundamental metrics. It has been updated in the area of metric composition [RFC5835], and in several areas related to active stream measurement of modern networks with reactive properties [RFC7312]. @@ -251,26 +254,56 @@ o Either the packet does not contain IP Extension Headers, or it contains the correct number and type of headers as specified in the packet, and the headers appear in the standard-conforming order (Next Header). o All parameters used in the header and Extension Headers are found in the IANA Registry of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters, partly specified in [RFC7045]. - Compressed IPv6 headers must be compliant with [RFC4494], as updated - by [RFC6282], in order to be declared "standard-formed". + Two mechanisms must be addressed in the context of standard-formed + packets, namely IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN, + [RFC4494]) and Robust Header Compression (ROHC, [RFC3095]). IPv6 + over Low-Power Wireless Area Networks (6LowPAN), as defined in + [RFC4494] and updated by [RFC6282] with header compression and + [RFC6775] with neighbor discovery optimizations proposes solutions + for using IPv6 in resource-constrained environments. An adaptation + layer enables the transfer IPv6 packets over networks having a MTU + smaller than the minimum IPv6 MTU. Fragmentation and re-assembly of + IPv6 packets, as well as the resulting state that must be stored in + intermediate nodes, poses substantial challenges to measurements. + Likewise, ROHC operates stateful in compressing headers on subpaths, + storing state in intermediate hosts. The modification of measurement + packets' Type-P by ROHC and 6LowPAN, as well as requirements with + respect to the concept of standard-formed packets for these two + protocols requires substantial work. Because of these reasons we + consider ROHC and 6LowPAN packets to be out of the scope of this + document. The topic of IPv6 Extension Headers brings current controversies into - focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. The following additional - considerations apply when IPv6 Extension Headers are present: + focus as noted by [RFC6564] and [RFC7045]. However, measurement use + cases in the context of the IPPM framework like in-situ OAM in + enterprise environments or IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics + (PDM) Destination Option measurements [RFC8250] can benefit from + inspection, modification, addition or deletion of IPv6 extension + headers in hosts along the measurement path. + + As a particular use case, hosts on the path may store sending and + intermediate timestamps into dedicated extension headers to support + measurements, monitoring, auditing, or reproducibility in critical + environments. [RFC8250] endorses the use and manipulation of IPv6 + extension headers for measurement purposes, consistent with other + approved IETF specifications. + + The following additional considerations apply when IPv6 Extension + Headers are present: o Extension Header inspection: Some intermediate nodes may inspect Extension Headers or the entire IPv6 packet while in transit. In exceptional cases, they may drop the packet or route via a sub- optimal path, and measurements may be unreliable or unrepeatable. The packet (if it arrives) may be standard-formed, with a corresponding Type-P. o Extension Header modification: In Hop-by-Hop headers, some TLV encoded options may be permitted to change at intermediate nodes @@ -285,47 +318,43 @@ o A change in packet length (from the corresponding packet observed at the Source) or header modification is a significant factor in Internet measurement, and requires a new Type-P to be reported. We further require that if a packet is described as having a "length of B octets", then 0 <= B <= 65535; and if B is the payload length in octets, then B <= (65535-IP header size in octets, including any Extension Headers). The jumbograms defined in [RFC2675] are not covered by this length analysis. In practice, the path MTU will restrict the length of standard-formed packets that can successfully - traverse the path. + traverse the path. Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD, [RFC1191] and + [RFC1981]) or Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLMTUD, + [RFC4821]) is recommended to prevent fragmentation or ICMP error + messages as a result of IPv6 extension header manipulation. So, for example, one might imagine defining an IP connectivity metric as "IP-type-P-connectivity for standard-formed packets with the IP Diffserv field set to 0", or, more succinctly, "IP-type- P-connectivity with the IP Diffserv Field set to 0", since standard- formed is already implied by convention. Changing the contents of a field, such as the Diffserv Code Point, ECN bits, or Flow Label may have a profound affect on packet handling during transit, but does - not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. - - A particular type of standard-formed packet often useful to consider - is the "minimal IP packet from A to B" - this is an IP packet with - the following properties: - - + It is standard-formed. - - + Its data payload is 0 octets. - - + It contains no options or Extension Headers. - - (Note that we do not define its protocol field, as different values - may lead to different treatment by the network.) + not affect a packet's status as standard-formed. Likewise, the + addition, modification, or deletion of extension headers may change + the handling of packets in transit hosts. - When defining IP metrics we keep in mind that no packet smaller or - simpler than this can be transmitted over a correctly operating IP - network. + [RFC2330] defines the "minimal IP packet from A to B" as a particular + type of standard-formed packet often useful to consider. When + defining IP metrics no packet smaller or simpler than this can be + transmitted over a correctly operating IP network. However, the + concept of the minimal IP packet has not been used in the meantime + and its practical use is limited. This is why this memo deprecates + the concept of the "minimal IP packet from A to B". 5. NAT, IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Compression Techniques This memo adds the key considerations for utilizing IPv6 in two critical conventions of the IPPM Framework, namely packets of Type-P and standard-formed packets. The need for co-existence of IPv4 and IPv6 has originated transitioning standards like the Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation in [RFC6144] or IP/ICMP Translation Algorithms in [RFC6145] and [RFC7757]. @@ -419,124 +449,155 @@ Baker discussed many of the interesting aspects of IPv6 with the co- authors, leading to a more solid first draft: thank you both. Thanks to Bill Jouris for an editorial pass through the pre-00 text. 9. References 9.1. Normative References [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, - . + . + + [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, + DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, + . + + [RFC1981] McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery + for IP version 6", RFC 1981, DOI 10.17487/RFC1981, August + 1996, . [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, - . + . [RFC2330] Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis, "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, DOI 10.17487/RFC2330, May 1998, - . + . [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, - December 1998, . + December 1998, . [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, - . + . [RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers", BCP 37, RFC 2780, DOI 10.17487/RFC2780, March 2000, - . + . + + [RFC3095] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H., + Hannu, H., Jonsson, L-E., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, + K., Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K., + Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header + Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, + ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, DOI 10.17487/RFC3095, + July 2001, . [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, - . + . [RFC4494] Song, JH., Poovendran, R., and J. Lee, "The AES-CMAC-96 Algorithm and Its Use with IPsec", RFC 4494, DOI 10.17487/RFC4494, June 2006, - . + . [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, - . + . + + [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU + Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, + . [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, - . + . [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, - . + . [RFC5644] Stephan, E., Liang, L., and A. Morton, "IP Performance Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast", RFC 5644, DOI 10.17487/RFC5644, October 2009, - . + . [RFC5835] Morton, A., Ed. and S. Van den Berghe, Ed., "Framework for Metric Composition", RFC 5835, DOI 10.17487/RFC5835, April - 2010, . + 2010, . [RFC6144] Baker, F., Li, X., Bao, C., and K. Yin, "Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation", RFC 6144, DOI 10.17487/RFC6144, - April 2011, . + April 2011, . [RFC6145] Li, X., Bao, C., and F. Baker, "IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm", RFC 6145, DOI 10.17487/RFC6145, April 2011, - . + . [RFC6282] Hui, J., Ed. and P. Thubert, "Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks", RFC 6282, DOI 10.17487/RFC6282, September 2011, - . + . [RFC6437] Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, - . + . [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012, - . + . + + [RFC6775] Shelby, Z., Ed., Chakrabarti, S., Nordmark, E., and C. + Bormann, "Neighbor Discovery Optimization for IPv6 over + Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs)", + RFC 6775, DOI 10.17487/RFC6775, November 2012, + . [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013, - . + . [RFC7312] Fabini, J. and A. Morton, "Advanced Stream and Sampling Framework for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)", RFC 7312, DOI 10.17487/RFC7312, August 2014, - . + . [RFC7757] Anderson, T. and A. Leiva Popper, "Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation", RFC 7757, DOI 10.17487/RFC7757, February 2016, - . + . + + [RFC8250] Elkins, N., Hamilton, R., and M. Ackermann, "IPv6 + Performance and Diagnostic Metrics (PDM) Destination + Option", RFC 8250, DOI 10.17487/RFC8250, September 2017, + . 9.2. Informative References [RFC7594] Eardley, P., Morton, A., Bagnulo, M., Burbridge, T., Aitken, P., and A. Akhter, "A Framework for Large-Scale Measurement of Broadband Performance (LMAP)", RFC 7594, DOI 10.17487/RFC7594, September 2015, - . + . Authors' Addresses Al Morton AT&T Labs 200 Laurel Avenue South Middletown, NJ 07748 USA Phone: +1 732 420 1571