Internet-Draft L3ND Upper-Layer Protocol Configuration February 2022
Bush & Patel Expires 21 August 2022 [Page]
Workgroup:
Network Working Group
Internet-Draft:
draft-ymbk-idr-l3nd-ulpc-01
Published:
Intended Status:
Standards Track
Expires:
Authors:
R. Bush
Arrcus & IIJ
K. Patel
Arrcus

L3ND Upper-Layer Protocol Configuration

Abstract

This document uses the Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery protocol to communicate the parameters needed to exchange inter-device Upper Layer Protocol Configuration for upper-layer protocols such as the BGP family.

Requirements Language

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

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 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 21 August 2022.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Massive Data Centers (MDCs) which use upper-layer protocols such as BGP4 and other routing protocols may use the Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery Protocol, L3ND, [I-D.ymbk-idr-l3nd] to reveal the inter-device links of the topology. It is desirable for devices to facilitate the configuration parameters of those upper layer protocols to enable more hands-free configuration. This document defines a new L3ND PDU to communicate these Upper-Layer Protocol Configuration parameters.

2. Reading and Terminology

The reader is assumed to have read Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery [I-D.ymbk-idr-l3nd]. The terminology and PDUs there are assumed here.

Familiarity with the BGP4 Protocol [RFC4271] is assumed.

3. Upper-Layer Protocol Configuration PDU

To communicate parameters required to configure peering and operation of Upper-Layer Protocols at IP layer-3 and above, e.g., BGP sessions on a link, a neutral sub-TLV based Upper-Layer Protocol PDU is defined as follows:

 0                   1                   2                   3
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Version = 0  |    Type = 8   |         Payload Length        |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                               |   ULPC Type   |   AttrCount   |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|                       Attribute List ...                      |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The Type and Payload Length are defined in [I-D.ymbk-idr-l3nd] apply to this PDU.

As the ULPC PDU may contain keying material, e.g. [RFC2385], it SHOULD BE over TLS.

Any keying material in the PDU SHOULD BE salted and hashed.

The BGP Authentication sub-TLV provides for provisioning MD5, which is a quite weak hash, horribly out of fashion, and kills puppies. But, like it or not, it has been sufficient against the kinds of attacks BGP TCP sessions have endured. So it is what BGP deployments use.

4. IANA Considerations

This document requests the IANA create a new entry in the L3DL PDU Type registry as follows:

        PDU
        Code      PDU Name
        ----      -------------------
          9       ULPC

This document requests the IANA create a registry for L3DL ULPC Type, which may range from 0 to 255. The name of the registry should be L3DL-ULPC-Type. The policy for adding to the registry is RFC Required per [RFC5226], either standards track or experimental. The initial entries should be the following:

        Value     Name
        -----     -------------------
         0      Reserved
         1      BGP
         2-255  Reserved

5. Acknowledgments

The authors thank Rob Austein and Sue Hares.

6. References

6.1. Normative References

[I-D.ymbk-idr-l3nd]
Bush, R., Housley, R., Austein, R., Hares, S., and K. Patel, "Layer-3 Neighbor Discovery", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ymbk-idr-l3nd-00, , <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ymbk-idr-l3nd-00.txt>.
[RFC2119]
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC4271]
Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4271>.
[RFC5226]
Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC8174]
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

6.2. Informative References

[RFC2385]
Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature Option", RFC 2385, DOI 10.17487/RFC2385, , <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2385>.

Authors' Addresses

Randy Bush
Arrcus & IIJ
5147 Crystal Springs
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
United States of America
Keyur Patel
Arrcus
2077 Gateway Place, Suite #400
San Jose, CA 95119
United States of America