Tech-invite3GPPspecsSIPRFCs
898887868584838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626160595857565554535251504948474645444342414039383736353433323130292827262524232221201918171615141312111009080706050403020100

in Index   Prev   Next

RFC 4311

IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing

Pages: 5
Proposed Standard
Updates:  2461

ToP   noToC   RFC4311 - Page 1
Network Working Group                                          R. Hinden
Request for Comments: 4311                                         Nokia
Updates: 2461                                                  D. Thaler
Category: Standards Track                                      Microsoft
                                                           November 2005

                    IPv6 Host-to-Router Load Sharing

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
   Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
   improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
   Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
   and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

The original IPv6 conceptual sending algorithm does not do load sharing among equivalent IPv6 routers, and suggests schemes that can be problematic in practice. This document updates the conceptual sending algorithm in RFC 2461 so that traffic to different destinations can be distributed among routers in an efficient fashion.

1. Introduction

In the conceptual sending algorithm in [ND] and in the optional extension in [ROUTERSEL], a next hop is chosen when no destination cache entry exists for an off-link destination or when communication through an existing router is failing. Normally, a router is selected the first time traffic is sent to a specific destination IP address. Subsequent traffic to the same destination address continues to use the same router unless there is some reason to change to a different router (e.g., a redirect message is received, or the router is found to be unreachable). In addition, as described in [ADDRSEL], the choice of next hop may also affect the choice of source address, and hence indirectly (and to a lesser extent) may affect the router used for inbound traffic as well.
ToP   noToC   RFC4311 - Page 2
   In both the base sending algorithm and in the optional extension,
   sometimes a host has a choice of multiple equivalent routers for a
   destination.  That is, all other factors are equal and a host must
   break a tie via some implementation-specific means.

   It is often desirable when there is more than one equivalent router
   that hosts distribute their outgoing traffic among these routers.
   This shares the load among multiple routers and provides better
   performance for the host's traffic.

   On the other hand, load sharing can be undesirable in situations
   where sufficient capacity is available through a single router and
   the traffic patterns could be more predictable by using a single
   router; in particular, this helps to diagnose connectivity problems
   beyond the first-hop routers.

   [ND] does not require any particular behavior in this respect.  It
   specifies that an implementation may always choose the same router
   (e.g., the first in the list) or may cycle through the routers in a
   round-robin manner.  Both of these suggestions are problematic.

   Clearly, always choosing the same router does not provide load
   sharing.  Some problems with load sharing using naive tie-breaking
   techniques such as round-robin and random are discussed in
   [MULTIPATH].  While the destination cache provides some stability
   since the determination is not per packet, cache evictions or
   timeouts can still result in unstable or unpredictable paths over
   time, lowering the performance and making it harder to diagnose
   problems.  Round-robin selection may also result in synchronization
   issues among hosts, where in the worst case the load is concentrated
   on one router at a time.

   In the remainder of this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT",
   "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as
   described in [RFC2119].

2. Load Sharing

When a host chooses from multiple equivalent routers, it SHOULD support choosing using some method that distributes load for different destinations among the equivalent routers rather than always choosing the same router (e.g., the first in the list). This memo takes no stance on whether the support for load sharing should be turned on or off by default. Furthermore, a host that does attempt to distribute load among routers SHOULD use a hash-based scheme that takes (at least) the destination IP address into account, such as those described in [MULTIPATH], for choosing a router to use.
ToP   noToC   RFC4311 - Page 3
   Note that traffic for a given destination address will use the same
   router as long as the Destination Cache Entry for the destination
   address is not deleted.  With a hash-based scheme, traffic for a
   given destination address will use the same router over time even if
   the Destination Cache Entry is deleted, as long as the list of
   equivalent routers remains the same.

3. Security Considerations

As mentioned in [MULTIPATH], when next-hop selection is predictable, an application can synthesize traffic that will all hash the same, making it possible to launch a denial-of-service attack against the load-sharing algorithm, and overload a particular router. This can even be done by a remote application that can cause a host to respond to a given destination address. A special case of this is when the same (single) next-hop is always selected, such as in the algorithm allowed by [ND]. Introducing hashing can make such an attack more difficult; the more unpredictable the hash is, the harder it becomes to conduct a denial-of-service attack against any single router. However, a malicious local application can bypass the algorithm for its own traffic by using mechanisms such as raw sockets, and remote attackers can still overload the routers directly. Hence, the mechanisms discussed herein have no significant incremental impact on Internet infrastructure security.

4. Acknowledgements

The authors of this document would like to thank Erik Nordmark, Brian Haberman, Steve Deering, Aron Silverton, Christian Huitema, and Pekka Savola.
ToP   noToC   RFC4311 - Page 4

5. Normative References

[ND] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [ADDRSEL] Draves, R., "Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 3484, February 2003. [ROUTERSEL] Draves, R. and D. Thaler, "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes", RFC 4191, November 2005.

6. Informative References

[MULTIPATH] Thaler, D. and C. Hopps, "Multipath Issues in Unicast and Multicast Next-Hop Selection", RFC 2991, November 2000.

Authors' Addresses

Robert Hinden Nokia 313 Fairchild Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 Phone: +1 650 625-2004 EMail: bob.hinden@nokia.com Dave Thaler Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: +1 425 703 8835 EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com
ToP   noToC   RFC4311 - Page 5
Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
   ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.