[v6ops] Fwd: WG Review: Source Packet Routing in Networking (spring)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 15 October 2013 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09DB411E8140; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YOhZvioF8Z3J; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF9911E80E3; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 006DC880D1; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 102520116.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFCB130003; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <525D74F2.7050202@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:01:38 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, v6ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <20131015164653.2118.61260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131015164653.2118.61260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20131015164653.2118.61260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8qQ5o9WqOmwiKlskmpSnrOFEpA9sNWBkj"
Subject: [v6ops] Fwd: WG Review: Source Packet Routing in Networking (spring)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 17:02:10 -0000

All,
     I know some of you will get this twice, but I want to make sure the
v6 community is fully aware of this proposed WG.  Specifically, you
should notice that they are proposing to work on source routing in IPv6.
 Please review the charter and provide your comments to the *IESG*.

Regards,
Brian


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: WG Review: Source Packet Routing in Networking (spring)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:46:53 -0700
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: spring WG <status@ietf.org>

A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Routing Area. The IESG
has not made any determination yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is provided for informational purposes only. Please send
your comments to the IESG mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by 2013-10-22.

Source Packet Routing in Networking (spring)
------------------------------------------------
Current Status: Proposed WG

Assigned Area Director:
  Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>

Mailing list
  Address: status@ietf.org
  To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/status
  Archive:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/status/current/maillist.html

Charter:

The ability for a node to specify a forwarding path, other
than the normal shortest path, that a particular packet
will traverse, benefits a number of network functions,
for example:

o    Some types of network virtualization, including multi-
     topology networks and the partitioning of network
     resources for VPNs
o    Network path and node protection such as fast re-route
o    Network programmability
o    New OAM techniques
o    Simplification and reduction of network signalling
     components
o    Load balancing and traffic engineering

Source-based routing mechanisms have previously been
specified for network protocols, but have not seen
widespread adoption other than in MPLS traffic engineering.
These applications may require greater flexibility and
per packet source imposed routing than can be achieved
through the use of the previously defined methods.

The SPRING working group will define procedures that
will allow a node to steer a packet along an explicit
route using information attached to the packet and
without the need for per-path state information to be
held at transit nodes. Full explicit control (through loose
or strict path specification) can be achieved in a network
comprising only SPRING nodes, however SPRING must
inter-operate through loose routing in existing networks
and may find it advantageous to use loose routing for
for other network applications.

The initial data planes that will be considered are MPLS
and IPv6.

There is an assumed trust model such that any node
imposing an explicit route on a packet is assumed to
be allowed to do so, however administrative and trust
boundaries may strip explicit routes from a packet.
For each data plane technology that SPRING specifies,
a security analysis must be provided showing how protection
is provided against an attacker disrupting the network by
for example, maliciously injecting SPRING packets.
There are a number of serious security concerns with
source routing at the IP layer [RFC 5095].  As a part
of its work, the working group will define the new
IPv6-based routing header in way that blind attacks
are never possible, i.e., attackers will be unable to
send source routed packets that get successfully
processed, without being part of the negotiation for
setting up the source routes or being able to eavesdrop
legitimate source routed packets. In some networks
this base level security may be complemented with
other mechanisms, such as packet filtering,  cryptographic
security, etc.

Initial work will focus on SPRING within in a single AS,
however design decisions must not preclude operation
of SPRING across AS boundaries.

SPRING should support both centralised and distributed
path computation.

The SPRING WG should provide OAM and the
management needed to manage  SPRING enabled networks.
The SPRING protocol itself may also be used as a tool for OAM
in SPRING enabled networks.

SPRING should avoid modification to existing data
planes that would make them incompatible with
existing deployments. Where possible, existing control
and management plane protocols must be used within existing
architectures to implement the SPRING function. Any
modification of or extension to existing architectures,
data planes, or control or management plane protocols
must be carried out in the working groups responsible
for the architecture, data plane, or control or
management plane protocol being modified and in
co-ordination with this working group, but may be
done in this working group after agreement with
all the relevant WG chairs and responsible Area Directors.

The SPRING working group is chartered for the following
list of items:

o Identification and evaluation of use cases for SPRING.
   These use cases must include a definition of the
   data plane for the environment in which they are to be
   deployed.

o Definition of requirements and/or any new data plane
   encodings and procedures, required to implement
   the use cases. Such procedures must include the
   necessary security considerations.

o Definition of requirements and/or any new control plane
   mechanism needed to enable the use cases.

o Definition of requirements and/or management  plane
   mechanism needed to manage and operate a
   SPRING enabled network.

The SPRING working group will not work on any
mechanisms for use in networks that forward IPv4 packets.

[ Following to be replaced by milestones before final review]
The working group will develop the following documents:

o One or more documents describing SPRING use cases.

o Specification of a high-level abstract architecture for
   SPRING and requirements for modifications to existing
   architecture to support SPRING use cases.

o Specification of any required new procedures to support
   SPRING use cases.

o One or more data plane extension requirements documents,
   including documenting the impact on existing deployments
   of the existing data plane.

o One or more control protocol extensions requirements
   documents.

o Publish SPRING management requirements document.

o Specify the OAM mechanisms needed to support SPRING.

o Document inter-working and co-existence between the
   new procedures and the existing signalling and routing
   protocols.

o Inter-operability reports pertaining to the implementation
   of extensions supporting SPRING.


Milestones:

TBD