140 likes | 285 Views
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels. Joe Touch, USC/ISI Mark Townsley, Cisco. Overview. Motivation Known issues State of 2003, 4301 tunnels Questions Ways forward NB: this is not about solutions; this not WG chartering; this is about whether these are INT issues. Motivation.
E N D
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels Joe Touch, USC/ISI Mark Townsley, Cisco
Overview • Motivation • Known issues • State of 2003, 4301 tunnels • Questions • Ways forward NB: this is not about solutions; this not WG chartering; thisis about whether these are INT issues
Motivation • Tunnel use common • tunnel+MTU+ICMP in ~100 RFCs • IPsec, L2TP/PPTP • Mobile IP • L[1,2,2.5,3,3.5]VPNs • SEAL, LISP • Potential need for automation • 1300-byte MTU vs. can/should we do better • Potential need to revise/coordinate • Fragmentation handling, ICMP handling
Observation • Tunnels are L2 • We create them • Still subject to link issues,e.g., MTU discovery, signalling • Advantages vs. other L2s • Arguably easier to change • When L2 protocol matches L3, it MAY be easier to align L2 and L3 MTU discovery, signalling, etc.
Known Issues • MTU issues • MTU discovery • Fragmentation – outer or inner • Other signalling • ICMP • Performance issues • IP-ID exhaustion • Fragment size • Packing (ala GigE packet bursting)
MTU Discovery • Mechanisms • ICMP-based (RFC 1191) • Probe-based (RFC 4821, SEAL) • Impact on E2E MTU discovery • Forwarding/recomputing/validating ICMPs • Encapsulator sending advisory too-bigs • Tunnel MTU discovery • Is internal mechanism required? • See RFC 4459…
Fragmentation • Outer implies reassembly at decapsulator • Inner affects IPv4 DF, reassy at dst
Signalling – ICMP, etc. • Pop control out of tunnel? • E.g., ICMP underliverables, MTU discovery • Send tunnel status to the original src? • Push control into tunnel (ever)? • (listed for completeness)
State of 2003 Tunnels • MTU discovery • On ingress, enforce outer DF; drop/ICMP if too big • Internally, MUST support ICMP-pmtud • Fragmentation • Mostly inner-only, i.e., IPv4 • MAY fragment inner iff IPv4 and DF=0 • MUST NOT fragment outer if DF=1 is set
2003 Signalling • MAY relay ICMPs from inner to outer • SHOULD relay net/host unreach • MUST NOT relay port unreach • MUST relay too big • MUST NOT relay, SHOULD handle locally: route error, source quench • SHOULD keep soft state to assist relay
State of 4301 Tunnels • MTU discovery • IPv4/DF=1, SHOULD discard and send ICMP • IPv4/DF=0, SHOULD fragment outer, and SHOULD NOT send ICMP • IPv6 SHOULD discard and send ICMP • DF may be copy, clear, set • Fragmentation • Fragments outer only • MAY have diff SAs for inner fragments
4301 Signalling • Relay and recompute too-big • Each type/code may be blocked, as per SA • Others are relayed after validation
Fundamental Questions • Which tunnel model? • Opaque/emulation: at least as good as path • Visible: as if a new link • Which parties participate? • Only tunnel endpoints (encap/decap) • Architecturally simpler • Encap/decap/dest host • Distributes work by delaying it • Assumes work can be distributed when delayed
Status • Current version • draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-00, March 2010 • Tunnel security issues remains separate, cross-linked • Current plan: • Present to SOFTWIRE WG at this IETF • Gather additional examples • Address multipoint tunnels • Address additional issues collected • Revise and issue WG last call Sept 2010