v6ops J. Palet Martinez
Internet-Draft Consulintel, S.L.
Intended status: Standards Track July 3, 2017
Expires: January 4, 2018

Reporting of Happy Eyeballs v2 Failures


This document describes an extension to Happy Eyeballs in order to report IPv6 failures that force the fall-back to IPv4.

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/.

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 January 4, 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 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

Happy Eyeballs ([RFC6555]) provides a way for improving user-visible delay when IPv6 connectivity is performing worst than the IPv4 one.

However, this hides the possible IPv6 connectivity issues to the operator because users don't notice anything broken, so they aren't reporting it to their providers.

The goal of this document is to specify an extension of HE, in order to use existing protocols for providing a reporting to the operator, which can be used to setup alarms and trigger further investigation so to improve.

2. Using Syslog

In order to simplify the reporting of the HE failures, syslog ([RFC5424]) over UDP ([RFC5426]), MUST be used, by means of the default port (514) with IPv6-only.

The intend is to make this reporting very simple, so no choice of alternative ports or transport protocols is offered.

Operators willing to use this reporting MUST configure at least one syslog collector at the IPv6 prefix formed as:

Network-Specific Prefix::

The Network-Specific Prefix (NSP) MUST be chosen by the operator from its RIR allocated IPv6 addressing space.

Additional collectors can be made available by using anycast at the NSP + prefix

3. Discovery of the syslog collector NSP

The same mechanism described by RFC7050 ([RFC7050]) should be used to define the address of the syslog collector(s).

Because the collectors will be using an IPv6 address with the 32 low order bits from the reserved range, this will not be in conflict with any public addresses used in Internet, so this mechanism is compatible with the expected usage of the NSP for NAT64.

4. HE behaviour on failure detection

This section will specify the exact behaviour of HE in order to initiate the reporting and the specific format/parameters of the HE failure message to be sent to the syslog collector.

A preliminary consideration is to include, in addition to the syslog required parameters, the timeouts detected, the failed destination address and the source prefix from where the destination has failed.


5. Privacy Considerations

The goal is to provide the operator information about the failures detected by HE, without requiring specific users traffic information. Towards this, it will be sufficient to provide to the syslog collector details about the failed destination address and source prefix. So privacy issues regarding identification of a specific device or user are avoided.


6. Security Considerations

This document does not have any specific security considerations.

7. IANA Considerations

IANA is requested to reserve, which was previously released by ([RFC7526]) for this RFC.

8. Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the inputs of TBD ...

9. Normative References

[RFC5424] Gerhards, R., "The Syslog Protocol", RFC 5424, DOI 10.17487/RFC5424, March 2009.
[RFC5426] Okmianski, A., "Transmission of Syslog Messages over UDP", RFC 5426, DOI 10.17487/RFC5426, March 2009.
[RFC6555] Wing, D. and A. Yourtchenko, "Happy Eyeballs: Success with Dual-Stack Hosts", RFC 6555, DOI 10.17487/RFC6555, April 2012.
[RFC7050] Savolainen, T., Korhonen, J. and D. Wing, "Discovery of the IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis", RFC 7050, DOI 10.17487/RFC7050, November 2013.
[RFC7526] Troan, O. and B. Carpenter, "Deprecating the Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers", BCP 196, RFC 7526, DOI 10.17487/RFC7526, May 2015.

Author's Address

Jordi Palet Martinez Consulintel, S.L. Molino de la Navata, 75 La Navata - Galapagar, Madrid 28420 Spain EMail: jordi.palet@consulintel.es URI: http://www.consulintel.es/