Movatterモバイル変換

Independent Submission                                        M. WilhelmRequest for Comments: 7511                                  1 April 2015Category: InformationalISSN: 2070-1721Scenic Routing for IPv6Abstract   This document specifies a new routing scheme for the current version   of the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in the spirit of "Green   IT", whereby packets will be routed to get as much fresh-air time as   possible.Status of This Memo   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is   published for informational purposes.   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by   the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet   Standard; seeSection 2 of RFC 5741.   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained athttp://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7511.Copyright Notice   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the   document authors.  All rights reserved.   This document is subject toBCP 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.Wilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 1]

RFC 7511                     Scenic Routing                 1 April 2015Table of Contents1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.1.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.  Scenic Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.1.  Scenic Routing Option (SRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.  Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.1.  Routing Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.2.  Implications for Hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53.3.  Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81.  Introduction   In times of Green IT, a lot of effort is put into reducing the energy   consumption of routers, switches, servers, hosts, etc., to preserve   our environment.  This document looks at Green IT from a different   angle and focuses on network packets being routed and switched around   the world.   Most likely, no one ever thought about the millions of packets being   disassembled into bits every second and forced through copper wires   or being shot through dark fiber lines by powerful lasers at   continuously increasing speeds.  AlthoughRFC 5841 [RFC5841] provided   some thoughts about Packet Moods and began to represent them as a TCP   option, this doesn't help the packets escape their torturous routine.   This document defines another way to deal with Green IT for traffic   and network engineers and will hopefully aid the wellbeing of a   myriad of network packets around the world.  It proposes Scenic   Routing, which incorporates the green-ness of a network path into the   routing decision.  A routing engine implementing Scenic Routing   should therefore choose paths based on Avian IP Carriers [RFC1149]   and/or wireless technologies so the packets will get out of the   miles/kilometers of dark fibers that are in the ground and get as   much fresh-air time and sunlight as possible.   As of the widely known acceptance of the current version of the   Internet Protocol (IPv6), this document only focuses on version 6 and   ignores communication still based on Vintage IP [RFC791].Wilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 2]

RFC 7511                     Scenic Routing                 1 April 20151.1.  Conventions and Terminology   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this   document are to be interpreted as described inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].   Additionally, the key words "MIGHT", "COULD", "MAY WISH TO", "WOULD   PROBABLY", "SHOULD CONSIDER", and "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" in   this document are to interpreted as described inRFC 6919 [RFC6919].2.  Scenic Routing   Scenic Routing can be enabled with a new option for IPv6 datagrams.2.1.  Scenic Routing Option (SRO)   The Scenic Routing Option (SRO) is placed in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop   Options Header that must be examined by every node along a packet's   delivery path [RFC2460].   The SRO can be included in any IPv6 datagram, but multiple SROs MUST   NOT be present in the same IPv6 datagram.  The SRO has no alignment   requirement.   If the SRO is set for a packet, every node en route from the packet   source to the packet's final destination MUST preserve the option.   The following Hop-by-Hop Option is proposed according to the   specification inSection 4.2 of RFC 2460 [RFC2460].      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                                     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                                     |  Option Type  | Option Length |     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     |   SRO Param   |                                               |     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                  Figure 1: Scenic Routing Option Layout   Option Type      8-bit identifier of the type of option.  The option identifier      0x0A (On Air) is proposed for Scenic Routing.Wilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 3]

RFC 7511                     Scenic Routing                 1 April 2015           HEX         act  chg  rest           ---         ---  ---  -----           0A           00   0   01010     Scenic Routing                   Figure 2: Scenic Routing Option Type      The highest-order two bits are set to 00 so any node not      implementing Scenic Routing will skip over this option and      continue processing the header.  The third-highest-order bit      indicates that the SRO does not change en route to the packet's      final destination.   Option Length      8-bit unsigned integer.  The length of the option in octets      (excluding the Option Type and Option Length fields).  The value      MUST be greater than 0.   SRO Param      8-bit identifier indicating Scenic Routing parameters encoded as a      bit string.                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                             | SR A W AA X Y |                             +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                   Figure 3: SRO Param Bit String Layout      The highest-order two bits (SR) define the urgency of Scenic      Routing:         00 - Scenic Routing MUST NOT be used for this packet.         01 - Scenic Routing MIGHT be used for this packet.         10 - Scenic Routing SHOULD be used for this packet.         11 - Scenic Routing MUST be used for this packet.      The following BIT (A) defines if Avian IP Carriers should be used:         0 - Don't use Avian IP Carrier links (maybe the packet is             afraid of pigeons).         1 - Avian IP Carrier links may be used.Wilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 4]

RFC 7511                     Scenic Routing                 1 April 2015      The following BIT (W) defines if wireless links should be used:         0 - Don't use wireless links (maybe the packet is afraid of             radiation).         1 - Wireless links may be used.      The following two bits (AA) define the affinity for link types:         00 - No affinity.         01 - Avian IP Carriers SHOULD be preferred.         10 - Wireless links SHOULD be preferred.         11 - RESERVED      The lowest-order two bits (XY) are currently unused and reserved      for future use.3.  Implications3.1.  Routing Implications   If Scenic Routing is requested for a packet, the path with the known   longest Avian IP Carrier and/or wireless portion MUST be used.   Backbone operators who desire to be fully compliant with Scenic   Routing MAY WISH TO -- well, they SHOULD -- have separate MPLS paths   ready that provide the most fresh-air time for a given path and are   to be used when Scenic Routing is requested by a packet.  If such a   path exists, the path MUST be used in favor of any other path, even   if another path is considered cheaper according to the path costs   used regularly, without taking Scenic Routing into account.3.2.  Implications for Hosts   Host systems implementing this option of receiving packets with   Scenic Routing requested MUST honor this request and MUST activate   Scenic Routing for any packets sent back to the originating host for   the current connection.   If Scenic Routing is requested for connections of local origin, the   host MUST obey the request and route the packet(s) over a wireless   link or use Avian IP Carriers (if available and as requested within   the SRO Params).Wilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 5]

RFC 7511                     Scenic Routing                 1 April 2015   System administrators MIGHT want to configure sensible default   parameters for Scenic Routing, when Scenic Routing has been widely   adopted by operating systems.  System administrators SHOULD deploy   Scenic Routing information where applicable.3.3.  Proxy Servers   If a host is running a proxy server or any other packet-relaying   application, an application implementing Scenic Routing MUST set the   same SRO Params on the outgoing packet as seen on the incoming   packet.   Developers SHOULD CONSIDER Scenic Routing when designing and   implementing any network service.4.  Security Considerations   The security considerations ofRFC 6214 [RFC6214] apply for links   provided by Avian IP Carriers.   General security considerations of wireless communication apply for   links using wireless technologies.   As the user is able to influence where flows and packets are being   routed within the network, this MIGHT influence traffic-engineering   considerations and network operators MAY WISH TO take this into   account before enabling Scenic Routing on their devices.5.  IANA Considerations   This document defines a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option, the Scenic   Routing Option, described inSection 2.1.  If this work is   standardized, IANA is requested to assign a value from the   "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry for the purpose   of Scenic Routing.   There are no IANA actions requested at this time.6.  Related Work   As Scenic Routing is heavily dependent on network paths and routing   information, it might be worth looking at designing extensions for   popular routing protocols like BGP or OSPF to leverage the full   potential of Scenic Routing in large networks built upon lots of   wireless links and/or Avian IP Carriers.  When incorporating   information about links compatible with Scenic Routing, the routing   algorithms could easily calculate the optimal paths providing the   most fresh-air time for a packet for any given destination.Wilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 6]

RFC 7511                     Scenic Routing                 1 April 2015   This would even allow preference for wireless paths going alongside   popular or culturally important places.  This way, the packets don't   only avoid the dark fibers, but they get to see the world outside of   the Internet and are exposed to different cultures around the globe,   which may help build an understanding of cultural differences and   promote acceptance of these differences.7.  References7.1.  Normative References   [RFC1149]  Waitzman, D., "Standard for the transmission of IP              datagrams on avian carriers",RFC 1149, April 1990,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1149>.   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate              Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6              (IPv6) Specification",RFC 2460, December 1998,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.   [RFC6214]  Carpenter, B. and R. Hinden, "Adaptation ofRFC 1149 for              IPv6",RFC 6214, April 2011,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6214>.   [RFC6919]  Barnes, R., Kent, S., and E. Rescorla, "Further Key Words              for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels",RFC 6919,              April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6919>.7.2.  Informative References   [RFC5841]  Hay, R. and W. Turkal, "TCP Option to Denote Packet Mood",RFC 5841, April 2010,              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5841>.   [RFC791]   Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5,RFC 791, September              1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.Wilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 7]

RFC 7511                     Scenic Routing                 1 April 2015Acknowledgements   The author wishes to thank all those poor friends who were kindly   forced to read this document and that provided some nifty comments.Author's Address   Maximilian Wilhelm   Paderborn, NRW   Germany   Phone: +49 176 62 05 94 27   EMail: max@rfc2324.orgWilhelm                       Informational                     [Page 8]