Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]

INFORMATIONAL
Network Working Group                                         R. HousleyRequest for Comments: 3378                              RSA LaboratoriesCategory: Informational                                    S. Hollenbeck                                                          VeriSign, Inc.                                                          September 2002EtherIP: Tunneling Ethernet Frames in IP DatagramsStatus of this Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Abstract   This document describes the EtherIP, an early tunneling protocol, to   provide informational and historical context for the assignment of IP   protocol 97.  EtherIP tunnels Ethernet and IEEE 802.3 media access   control frames in IP datagrams so that non-IP traffic can traverse an   IP internet.  The protocol is very lightweight, and it does not   provide protection against infinite loops.1. Introduction   EtherIP was first designed and developed in 1991.  This document was   written to document the protocol for informational purposes and to   provide historical context for the assignment of IP protocol 97 by   IANA.   The IETF Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions (L2TPEXT) Working   Group and IETF Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Working   Group are developing protocols that overcome the deficiencies of   EtherIP.  In general, the standards track protocols produced by these   IETF working groups should be used instead of EtherIP.   The EtherIP protocol is used to tunnel Ethernet [DIX] and IEEE 802.3   [CSMA/CD] media access control (MAC) frames (including IEEE 802.1Q   [VLAN] datagrams) across an IP internet.  Tunneling is usually   performed when the layer three protocol carried in the MAC frames is   not IP or when encryption obscures the layer three protocol control   information needed for routing.  EtherIP may be implemented in an end   station to enable tunneling for that single station, or it may be   implemented in a bridge-like station to enable tunneling for multiple   stations connected to a particular local area network (LAN) segment.Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 2002   EtherIP may be used to enable communications between stations that   implement Ethernet or IEEE 802.3 with a layer three protocol other   than IP.  For example, two stations connected to different Ethernet   LANs using the Xerox Network Systems Internetwork Datagram Protocol   (IDP) [XNS] could employ EtherIP to enable communications across the   Internet.   EtherIP may be used to enable communications between stations that   encrypt the Ethernet or IEEE 802.3 payload.  Regardless of the layer   three protocol used, encryption obscures the layer three protocol   control information, making routing impossible.  For example, two   stations connected to different Ethernet LANs using IEEE 802.10b   [SDE] could employ EtherIP to enable encrypted communications across   the Internet.   EtherIP may be implemented in a single station to provide tunneling   of Ethernet or IEEE 802.3 frames for either of the reasons stated   above.  Such implementations require processing rules to determine   which MAC frames to tunnel and which MAC frames to ignore.  Most   often, these processing rules are based on the destination address or   the EtherType.   EtherIP may be implemented in a bridge-like station to provide   tunneling services for all stations connected to a particular LAN   segment.  Such implementations promiscuously listen to all of the   traffic on the LAN segment, then apply processing rules to determine   which MAC frames to tunnel and which MAC frames to ignore.  MAC   frames that require tunneling are encapsulated with EtherIP and IP,   then transmitted to the local IP router for delivery to the bridge-   like station serving the remote LAN.  Most often, these processing   rules are based on the source address, the destination address, or   the EtherType.  Care in establishing these rules must be exercised to   ensure that the same MAC frame does not get transmitted endlessly   between several bridge-like stations, especially when broadcast or   multicast destination MAC addresses are used as selection criteria.   Infinite loops can result if the topology is not restricted to a   tree, but the construction of the tree is left to the human that is   configuring the bridge-like stations.1.1. Conventions Used In This Document   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 in [RFC2119].Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 20022. Protocol Format   EtherIP segments are sent and received as internet datagrams.  An   Internet Protocol (IP) header carries several information fields,   including an identifier for the next level protocol.  An EtherIP   header follows the internet header, providing information specific to   the EtherIP protocol.   Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) [RFC791] defines an 8-bit field   called "Protocol" to identify the next level protocol.  The value of   this field MUST be set to 97 decimal (141 octal, 61 hex) to identify   an EtherIP datagram.   EtherIP datagrams contain a 16-bit header and a variable-length   encapsulated Ethernet or IEEE 802.3 frame that immediately follows IP   fields.        +-----------------------+-----------------------------+        |      |                |                             |        |  IP  | EtherIP Header | Encapsulated Ethernet Frame |        |      |                |                             |        +-----------------------+-----------------------------+                  Figure 1: EtherIP Datagram Description   The 16-bit EtherIP header field consists of two parts: a 4-bit   version field that identifies the EtherIP protocol version and a   12-bit field reserved for future use.  The value of the version field   MUST be 3 (three, '0011' binary).  The value of the reserved field   MUST be 0 (zero).  Earlier versions of this protocol used an 8-bit   header field.  The Xerox Ethernet Tunnel (XET) employed the 8-bit   header.  The 16-bit header field provides memory alignment advantages   in some implementation environments.   In summary, the EtherIP Header has two fields:      Bits 0-3:  Protocol version      Bits 4-15: Reserved for future use        0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12  13  14  15     +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+     |               |                                               |     |    VERSION    |                   RESERVED                    |     |               |                                               |     +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+                 Figure 2: EtherIP Header Format (in bits)Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 2002   The encapsulated Ethernet frame field contains a complete Ethernet or   IEEE 802.3 frame of any type less the frame check sequence (FCS)   value.  The IP checksum does not provide integrity protection for the   Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 frame, so some higher-layer protocol encapsulated   by the Ethernet/IEEE 802.3 frame is expected to provide the integrity   protection.3. Sending Procedures   This section describes the processing to encapsulate an Ethernet or   IEEE 802.3 MAC frame in an EtherIP datagram.  First, the   implementation determines whether the MAC frame requires tunneling.   Then, if tunneling is required, the MAC frame is processed according   to the steps provided in this section.  Stations processing VLAN   datagrams MAY need to examine the VLAN header to make appropriate   tunneling decisions.   An end station that implements EtherIP may tunnel some traffic, but   not all traffic.  Thus, the first step in processing a MAC frame is   to determine if the frame needs to be tunneled or not.  If the   recipient station is connected to the same LAN as the source station,   then tunneling is not needed.  If the network connecting the stations   can route the layer three protocol, then tunneling is not needed.   Other environment specific criteria MAY also be applied.  If   tunneling is not needed, skip all EtherIP processing and perform   normal data link layer processing to transmit the MAC frame.   Otherwise, follow the steps described below.   A bridge-like station promiscuously listens to all of the MAC frames   on the LAN.  Each MAC frame read from the LAN is examined to   determine if it needs to be tunneled.  If the recipient station is   connected to the same LAN as the source station, then tunneling is   not needed.  If the destination MAC address is a router serving the   LAN, then tunneling is not needed.  Other environment specific   criteria MAY also be applied.  If tunneling is not needed, then   discard the MAC frame.  Otherwise, follow the steps described below.   The EtherIP encapsulation process is as follows:   1. Prepend the 16-bit EtherIP header to the MAC frame.  The EtherIP      Version field MUST be set to 3 (three), and the EtherIP Reserved      field MUST be set to 0 (zero).  The MAC frame MUST NOT include the      FCS.   2. Determine the destination IP address of the remote EtherIP      station.  This address is usually determined from the destination      MAC address.Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 2002   3. Encapsulate the EtherIP datagram in an IP datagram with the      destination IP address determined in the previous step, and the      IPv4 Protocol field MUST be set to 97 (decimal).   4. Transmit the resulting IP datagram to the remote EtherIP station      via the IP router serving the LAN.4. Receiving Procedures   This section describes the processing to decapsulate an Ethernet or   IEEE 802.3 MAC frame from an EtherIP datagram.   Since a bridge-like station promiscuously listens to all of the MAC   frames on the LAN, it may need to separate the MAC frames that   encapsulate IP datagrams addressed to it from MAC frames that are   candidates for decapsulation.  The process for identifying MAC frames   that are candidates for decapsulation is as follows:   1. Perform normal data link layer processing to receive a suspected      EtherIP datagram.   2. If the recipient station is connected to the same LAN as the      source station, then ignore the frame.  In most environments,      frames with a source MAC address other than the IP router serving      the LAN are ignored.   3. If the network connecting the stations can route the layer three      protocol, then decapsulation is not needed, and the frame is      ignored.   4. Ignore frames that do not contain an IP datagram.   5. Examine the IPv4 protocol field to confirm that the value of the      field is 97 (decimal).  If not, ignore the frame.   Other environment specific criteria MAY also be applied.   Upon reception of an IPv4 datagram with the Protocol field set to 97   (decimal), the MAC frame is processed as follows:   1. Examine the 16-bit EtherIP header.  Confirm that the value of the      version field is 3 (three), and that the value of the Reserved      field is 0 (zero).  Frames with other values MUST be discarded.   2. Extract the encapsulated MAC frame from the EtherIP datagram.      Note that the extracted frame MUST NOT include a FCS value.Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 2002   3. Perform normal data link layer processing to transmit the      extracted MAC frame to the destination station on the LAN.  The      FCS MUST be calculated and appended to the frame as part of the      data link layer transmission processing.5. IANA Considerations   IANA has assigned IP protocol value 97 (decimal) for EtherIP.  No   further action or review is required.6. Security Considerations   EtherIP can be used to enable the transfer of encrypted Ethernet or   IEEE 802.3 frame payloads.  In this regard, EtherIP can improve   security.  However, if a firewall permits EtherIP traffic to pass in   and out of a protected enclave, arbitrary communications are enabled.   Therefore, if a firewall is configured to permit communication using   EtherIP, then additional checking of each frame is probably necessary   to ensure that the security policy that the firewall is installed to   enforce is not violated.   Further, the addition of EtherIP can expose a particular environment   to additional security threats.  Assumptions that might be   appropriate when all communicating nodes are attached to one Ethernet   segment or switch may no longer hold when nodes are attached to   different Ethernet segments or switches are bridged together with   EtherIP.  It is outside the scope of this specification, which   documents an existing practice, to fully analyze and review the risks   of Ethernet tunneling.  The IETF Pseudo-wire Emulation Working Group   is doing work in this area, and this group is expected to provide   information about general layering as well as specific Ethernet over   IP documents.  An example should make the concern clear.  A number of   IETF standards employ relatively weak security mechanisms when   communicating nodes are expected to be connected to the same local   area network.  The Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol [RFC2338] is   one instance.  The relatively weak security mechanisms represent a   greater vulnerability in an emulated Ethernet.  One solution is to   protect the IP datagrams that carry EtherIP with IPsec [RFC2401].   The IETF Pseudo-wire Emulation Working Group may document other   security mechanisms as well.Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 20027. Acknowledgements   This document describes a protocol that was originally designed and   implemented by Xerox Special Information Systems in 1991 and 1992.   An earlier version of the protocol was provided as part of the Xerox   Ethernet Tunnel (XET).8. References   [CSMA/CD] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers:             "Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection             (CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications",             ANSI/IEEE Std 802.3-1985, 1985.   [DIX]     Digital Equipment Corporation, Intel Corporation, and Xerox             Corporation: "The Ethernet -- A Local Area Network: Data             Link Layer and Physical Layer (Version 2.0)", November             1982.   [RFC791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5,RFC 791, September             1981.   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate             Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.   [RFC2338] Knight, S., Weaver, D., Whipple, D., Hinden, R., Mitzel,             D., Hunt, P., Higginson, P., Shand, M. and A. Lindem,             "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol",RFC 2338, April 1998.   [RFC2401] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the             Internet Protocol",RFC 2401, November 1998.   [SDE]     Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers:             "Interoperable LAN/MAN Security (SILS) Secure Data Exchange             (SDE) (Clause 2)", IEEE Std 802.10b-1992, 1992.   [XNS]     Xerox Corporation: "Internet Transport Protocols", XSIS             028112, December 1981.   [VLAN]    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: "IEEE             Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Virtual             Bridge Local Area Networks", ANSI/IEEE Std 802.1Q-1998,             1998.Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 20029. Authors' Addresses   Russell Housley   RSA Laboratories   918 Spring Knoll Drive   Herndon, VA 20170   USA   EMail: rhousley@rsasecurity.com   Scott Hollenbeck   VeriSign, Inc.   21345 Ridgetop Circle   Dulles, VA 20166-6503   USA   EMail: shollenbeck@verisign.comHousley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 8]

RFC 3378                        EtherIP                   September 200210. Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than   English.   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Housley & Hollenbeck         Informational                      [Page 9]

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp