tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 7511

first April
Pages: 8
Top     in Index     Prev     Next
in Group Index     Prev in Group     Next in Group     Group: "first April"

Scenic Routing for IPv6

 


Top       ToC       Page 1 
Independent Submission                                        M. Wilhelm
Request for Comments: 7511                                  1 April 2015
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


                        Scenic Routing for IPv6

Abstract

   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; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://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 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.

Top       Page 2 
Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Scenic Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Scenic Routing Option (SRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Routing Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Implications for Hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  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.  Although RFC 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].

Top      ToC       Page 3 
1.1.  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 in RFC 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 in RFC 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 in Section 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.

Top      ToC       Page 4 
           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.

Top      ToC       Page 5 
      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.  Implications

3.1.  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).

Top      ToC       Page 6 
   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 of RFC 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 in Section 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.

Top      ToC       Page 7 
   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.  References

7.1.  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 of RFC 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>.

Top      ToC       Page 8 
Acknowledgements

   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.org