| Rfc | 7723 |
|---|
| Title | Port Control Protocol (PCP) Anycast Addresses |
|---|
| Author | S. Kiesel, R. Penno |
|---|
| Date | January 2016 |
|---|
| Format: | TXT, HTML |
|---|
| Status: | PROPOSED STANDARD |
|---|
|
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Kiesel
Request for Comments: 7723 University of Stuttgart
Category: Standards Track R. Penno
ISSN: 2070-1721 Cisco Systems, Inc.
January 2016
Port Control Protocol (PCP) Anycast Addresses
Abstract
The Port Control Protocol (PCP) anycast addresses enable PCP clients
to transmit signaling messages to their closest PCP-aware on-path
NAT, firewall, or other middlebox without having to learn the IP
address of that middlebox via some external channel. This document
establishes one well-known IPv4 address and one well-known IPv6
address to be used as PCP anycast addresses.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7723.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. PCP Server Discovery Based on Well-Known IP Address . . . . . 3
2.1. PCP Discovery Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. PCP Discovery Server Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Registration of an IPv4 Special-Purpose Address . . . . . 5
4.2. Registration of an IPv6 Special-Purpose Address . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.1. Information Leakage through Anycast . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.2. Hijacking of PCP Messages Sent to Anycast Addresses . . . 6
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction
The Port Control Protocol (PCP) [RFC6887] provides a mechanism to
control how incoming packets are forwarded by upstream devices such
as Network Address and Protocol Translation from IPv6 Clients to IPv4
Servers (NAT64), Network Address Translation from IPv4 to IPv4
(NAT44), and IPv6 and IPv4 firewall devices. Furthermore, it
provides a mechanism to reduce application keepalive traffic
[PCP-OPTIMIZE]. The PCP base protocol document [RFC6887] specifies
the message formats used, but the address to which a client sends its
request is either assumed to be the default router (which is
appropriate in a typical single-link residential network) or has to
be configured otherwise via some external mechanism, such as a
configuration file or a DHCP option [RFC7291].
This document follows a different approach: it establishes two well-
known anycast addresses for the PCP server, one IPv4 address and one
IPv6 address. PCP clients usually send PCP requests to these well-
known addresses if no other PCP server addresses are known or after
communication attempts to such other addresses have failed. The
anycast addresses are allocated from pools of special-purpose IP
addresses (see Section 4), in accordance with Section 3.4 of
[RFC4085]. Yet, a means to disable or override these well-known
addresses (e.g., a configuration file option) should be available in
implementations.
Using an anycast address is particularly useful in larger network
topologies. For example, if the PCP-enabled NAT/firewall function is
not located on the client's default gateway but further upstream in a
Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN), sending PCP requests to the default
gateway's IP address will not have the desired effect. When using a
configuration file or the DHCP option to learn the PCP server's IP
address, this file or the DHCP server configuration must reflect the
network topology and the router and CGN configuration. This may be
cumbersome to achieve and maintain. If there is more than one
upstream CGN and traffic is routed using a dynamic routing protocol
such as OSPF, this approach may not be feasible at all, as it cannot
provide timely information regarding which CGN to interact with. In
contrast, when using the PCP anycast address, the PCP request will
travel through the network like any other packet (i.e., without any
special support from DNS, DHCP, other routers, or anything else)
until it reaches the PCP-capable device that receives it, handles it,
and sends back a reply. A further advantage of using an anycast
address instead of a DHCP option is that the anycast address can be
hard-coded into the application. There is no need for an application
programming interface that passes the PCP server's address from the
operating system's DHCP client to the application. For further
discussion of deployment considerations, see Section 3.
2. PCP Server Discovery Based on Well-Known IP Address
2.1. PCP Discovery Client Behavior
PCP clients can add the PCP anycast addresses, which are defined in
Sections 4.1 and 4.2, after the default router list (for IPv4 and
IPv6) to the list of PCP server(s) (see step 2 in Section 8.1 of
[RFC6887]). This list is processed as specified in [RFC7488].
Note: If, in some specific scenario, it was desirable to use only the
anycast address (and not the default router), this could be achieved
by putting the anycast address into the configuration file or DHCP
option.
2.2. PCP Discovery Server Behavior
PCP servers can be configured to listen on the anycast addresses for
incoming PCP requests. When a PCP server receives a PCP request
destined for an anycast address it supports, it sends the
corresponding PCP replies using that same anycast address as the
source address (see the "How UDP and TCP Use Anycasting" section of
[RFC1546] for further discussion).
3. Deployment Considerations
For general recommendations regarding operation of anycast services,
see [RFC4786]. Architectural considerations of IP anycast are
discussed in [RFC7094].
In some deployment scenarios, using PCP anycasting may have certain
limitations that can be overcome by using additional mechanisms or by
using other PCP server discovery methods instead, such as DHCP
[RFC7291] or a configuration file.
One important example is a network topology in which a network is
connected to one or more upstream network(s) via several parallel
firewalls, each individually controlled by its own PCP server. Even
if all of these PCP servers are configured for anycasting, only one
will receive the messages sent by a given client, depending on the
state of the routing tables.
As long as routing is always symmetric, i.e., all upstream and
downstream packets from/to that client are routed through this very
same firewall, communication will be possible as expected. If there
is a routing change, a PCP client using PCP anycasting might start
interacting with a different PCP server. From the PCP client's point
of view, this would be the same as a PCP server reboot and the client
could detect it by examining the Epoch field during the next PCP
response or ANNOUNCE message. The client would re-establish the
firewall rules and packet flows could resume.
If, however, routing is asymmetric, upstream packets from a client
traverse a different firewall than the downstream packets to that
client. Establishing policy rules in only one of these two firewalls
by means of PCP anycasting will not have the desired result of
allowing bidirectional connectivity. One solution approach to
overcome this problem is an implementation-specific mechanism to
synchronize state between all firewalls at the border of a network,
i.e., a PEER message sent to any of these PCP servers would establish
rules in all firewalls. Another approach would be to use a different
discovery mechanism (e.g., DHCP or a configuration file) that allows
a PCP client to acquire a list of all PCP servers controlling the
parallel firewalls and configure each of them individually.
PCP anycast as such allows a PCP client to communicate only with its
closest upstream PCP server. However, it may be used in conjunction
with the PCP proxy function [RFC7648], in order to support scenarios
with cascaded PCP-enabled NATs or firewalls.
4. IANA Considerations
4.1. Registration of an IPv4 Special-Purpose Address
IANA has assigned a single IPv4 address from the 192.0.0.0/24 prefix
and registered it in the "IANA IPv4 Special-Purpose Address Registry"
[RFC6890].
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Address Block | 192.0.0.9/32 |
| Name | Port Control Protocol Anycast |
| RFC | RFC 7723 (this document) |
| Allocation Date | October 2015 |
| Termination Date | N/A |
| Source | True |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Global | True |
| Reserved-by-Protocol | False |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
4.2. Registration of an IPv6 Special-Purpose Address
IANA has assigned a single IPv6 address from the 2001:0000::/23
prefix and registered it in the "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address
Registry" [RFC6890].
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Attribute | Value |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
| Address Block | 2001:1::1/128 |
| Name | Port Control Protocol Anycast |
| RFC | RFC 7723 (this document) |
| Allocation Date | October 2015 |
| Termination Date | N/A |
| Source | True |
| Destination | True |
| Forwardable | True |
| Global | True |
| Reserved-by-Protocol | False |
+----------------------+-------------------------------------------+
5. Security Considerations
In addition to the security considerations in [RFC6887], [RFC4786],
and [RFC7094], two further security issues are considered here.
5.1. Information Leakage through Anycast
In a network without any border gateway, NAT, or firewall that is
aware of the PCP anycast address, outgoing PCP requests could leak
out onto the external Internet, possibly revealing information about
internal devices.
Using an IANA-assigned, well-known PCP anycast address enables border
gateways to block such outgoing packets. In the default-free zone,
routers should be configured to drop such packets. Such
configuration can occur naturally via BGP messages advertising that
no route exists to said address.
Sensitive clients that do not wish to leak information about their
presence can set an IP TTL on their PCP requests that limits how far
they can travel towards the public Internet. However, methods for
choosing an appropriate TTL value, e.g., based on the assumed radius
of the trusted network domain, is beyond the scope of this document.
Before sending PCP requests with possibly privacy-sensitive
parameters (e.g., IP addresses and port numbers) to the PCP anycast
addresses, PCP clients can send an ANNOUNCE request (without
parameters; see Section 14.1 of [RFC6887]) in order to probe whether
a PCP server consumes and processes PCP requests sent to that anycast
address.
5.2. Hijacking of PCP Messages Sent to Anycast Addresses
The anycast addresses are treated by normal host operating systems as
normal unicast addresses, i.e., packets destined for an anycast
address are sent to the default router for processing and forwarding.
Hijacking such packets in the first network segment would effectively
require the attacker to impersonate the default router, e.g., by
means of ARP spoofing in an Ethernet network. Once an anycast
message is forwarded closer to the core network, routing will likely
become subject to dynamic routing protocols such as OSPF or BGP.
Anycast messages could be hijacked by announcing counterfeited
messages in these routing protocols. When analyzing the risk and
possible consequences of such attacks in a given network scenario,
the probable impacts on PCP signaling need to be put into proportion
with probable impacts on other protocols such as the actual
application protocols.
In addition to following best current practices in first-hop security
and routing-protocol security, PCP authentication [RFC7652] may be
useful in some scenarios. However, the effort needed for a proper
setup of this authentication mechanism (e.g., installing the right
shared secrets or cryptographic keys on all involved systems) may
thwart the goal of fully automatic configuration by using PCP
anycast. Therefore, this approach may be less suitable for scenarios
with high trust between the operator of the PCP-controlled middlebox
and all users (e.g., a residential gateway used only by family
members) or in scenarios in which there is rather limited trust that
the middlebox will behave correctly (e.g., the Wi-Fi in an airport
lounge). In contrast, this scheme may be highly useful in scenarios
with many users and a trusted network operator, such as a large
corporate network or a university campus network, which uses several
parallel NATs or firewalls to connect to the Internet. Therefore, a
thorough analysis of the benefits and costs of using PCP
authentication in a given network scenario is recommended.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC6890] Cotton, M., Vegoda, L., Bonica, R., Ed., and B. Haberman,
"Special-Purpose IP Address Registries", BCP 153,
RFC 6890, DOI 10.17487/RFC6890, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6890>.
[RFC7488] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., Patil, P., and T.
Reddy, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Server Selection",
RFC 7488, DOI 10.17487/RFC7488, March 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7488>.
6.2. Informative References
[PCP-OPTIMIZE]
Reddy, T., Patil, P., Isomaki, M., and D. Wing,
"Optimizing NAT and Firewall Keepalives Using Port Control
Protocol (PCP)", Work in Progress,
draft-ietf-pcp-optimize-keepalives-06, May 2015.
[RFC1546] Partridge, C., Mendez, T., and W. Milliken, "Host
Anycasting Service", RFC 1546, DOI 10.17487/RFC1546,
November 1993, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1546>.
[RFC4085] Plonka, D., "Embedding Globally-Routable Internet
Addresses Considered Harmful", BCP 105, RFC 4085,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4085, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4085>.
[RFC4786] Abley, J. and K. Lindqvist, "Operation of Anycast
Services", BCP 126, RFC 4786, DOI 10.17487/RFC4786,
December 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4786>.
[RFC7094] McPherson, D., Oran, D., Thaler, D., and E. Osterweil,
"Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast", RFC 7094,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7094, January 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7094>.
[RFC7291] Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and D. Wing, "DHCP Options for
the Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 7291,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7291, July 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7291>.
[RFC7648] Perreault, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., Wing, D., and S.
Cheshire, "Port Control Protocol (PCP) Proxy Function",
RFC 7648, DOI 10.17487/RFC7648, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7648>.
[RFC7652] Cullen, M., Hartman, S., Zhang, D., and T. Reddy, "Port
Control Protocol (PCP) Authentication Mechanism",
RFC 7652, DOI 10.17487/RFC7652, September 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7652>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the members of the PCP working group
for contributions and feedback, in particular, Mohamed Boucadair,
Charles Eckel, Simon Perreault, Tirumaleswar Reddy, Markus Stenberg,
Dave Thaler, and Dan Wing.
Authors' Addresses
Sebastian Kiesel
University of Stuttgart Information Center
Networks and Communication Systems Department
Allmandring 30
Stuttgart 70550
Germany
Email: ietf-pcp@skiesel.de
Reinaldo Penno
Cisco Systems, Inc.
170 West Tasman Drive
San Jose, California 95134
United States
Email: repenno@cisco.com