1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
|
<pre>Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) S. Krishnan
Request for Comments: 7559 Ericsson
Updates: <a href="./rfc4861">4861</a> D. Anipko
Category: Standards Track Unaffiliated
ISSN: 2070-1721 D. Thaler
Microsoft
May 2015
<span class="h1">Packet-Loss Resiliency for Router Solicitations</span>
Abstract
When an interface on a host is initialized, the host transmits Router
Solicitations in order to minimize the amount of time it needs to
wait until the next unsolicited multicast Router Advertisement is
received. In certain scenarios, these Router Solicitations
transmitted by the host might be lost. This document specifies a
mechanism for hosts to cope with the loss of the initial Router
Solicitations.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in <a href="./rfc5741#section-2">Section 2 of RFC 5741</a>.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7559</a>.
<span class="grey">Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 1]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-2" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7559">RFC 7559</a> Resilient RS Retransmission May 2015</span>
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp78">BCP 78</a> and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(<a href="http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info">http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info</a>) 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
<a href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-2">2</a>
<a href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2">2</a>. Proposed Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Stopping the Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-3">3</a>
<a href="#section-3">3</a>. Configuring the Use of Retransmissions . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-4">4</a>. Known Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-4">4</a>
<a href="#section-6">6</a>. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
<a href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-5">5</a>
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <a href="#page-6">6</a>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-1" href="#section-1">1</a>. Introduction</span>
As specified in [<a href="./rfc4861" title=""Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)"">RFC4861</a>], when an interface on a host is
initialized, in order to obtain Router Advertisements quickly, a host
transmits up to MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS (3) Router Solicitation (RS)
messages, each separated by at least RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL (4)
seconds. In certain scenarios, these Router Solicitations
transmitted by the host might be lost. For example, the host is
connected to a bridged residential gateway over Ethernet or Wi-Fi.
LAN connectivity is achieved at interface initialization, but the
upstream WAN connectivity is not active yet. In this case, the host
just gives up after the initial RS retransmits.
Once the initial RSs are lost, the host gives up and assumes that
there are no routers on the link as specified in <a href="./rfc4861#section-6.3.7">Section 6.3.7 of
[RFC4861]</a>. The host will not have any form of Internet connectivity
until the next unsolicited multicast Router Advertisement is
received. These Router Advertisements are transmitted at most
<span class="grey">Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 2]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-3" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7559">RFC 7559</a> Resilient RS Retransmission May 2015</span>
MaxRtrAdvInterval seconds apart (maximum value 1800 seconds). Thus,
in the worst-case scenario a host would be without any connectivity
for 30 minutes. This delay may be unacceptable in some scenarios.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-1.1" href="#section-1.1">1.1</a>. Conventions Used in This Document</span>
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 [<a href="./rfc2119" title=""Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"">RFC2119</a>].
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-2" href="#section-2">2</a>. Proposed Algorithm</span>
To achieve resiliency to packet loss, the host needs to continue
retransmitting the Router Solicitations until it receives a Router
Advertisement, or until it is willing to accept that no router
exists. If the host continues retransmitting the RSs at
RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL second intervals, it may cause excessive
network traffic if a large number of such hosts exists. To achieve
resiliency while keeping the aggregate network traffic low, the host
can use some form of exponential backoff algorithm to retransmit the
RSs.
Hosts complying to this specification MUST use the exponential
backoff algorithm for retransmits that is described in <a href="./rfc3315#section-14">Section 14 of
[RFC3315]</a> in order to continuously retransmit the Router
Solicitations until a Router Advertisement is received. The hosts
SHOULD use the following variables as input to the retransmission
algorithm:
IRT (Initial Retransmission Time): 4 seconds
MRT (Maximum Retransmission Time): 3600 seconds
MRC (Maximum Retransmission Count): 0
MRD (Maximum Retransmission Duration): 0
The initial value IRT was chosen to be in line with the current
retransmission interval (RTR_SOLICITATION_INTERVAL) that is specified
by [<a href="./rfc4861" title=""Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)"">RFC4861</a>], and the maximum retransmission time MRT was chosen to
be in line with the new value of SOL_MAX_RT as specified by
[<a href="./rfc7083" title=""Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT"">RFC7083</a>]. This is to ensure that the short-term behavior of the RSs
is similar to what is experienced in current networks, and that
longer-term persistent retransmission behavior trends towards being
similar to that of DHCPv6 [<a href="./rfc3315" title=""Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)"">RFC3315</a>] [<a href="./rfc7083" title=""Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT"">RFC7083</a>].
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-2.1" href="#section-2.1">2.1</a>. Stopping the Retransmissions</span>
On multicast-capable links, the hosts following this specification
SHOULD stop retransmitting the RSs when Router Discovery is
successful (i.e., an RA with a non-zero Router Lifetime that results
<span class="grey">Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 3]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-4" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7559">RFC 7559</a> Resilient RS Retransmission May 2015</span>
in a default route is received). If an RA is received from a router
and it does not result in a default route (i.e., Router Lifetime is
zero), the host MUST continue retransmitting the RSs.
On non-multicast links, the hosts following this specification MUST
continue retransmitting the RSs even after an RA that results in a
default route is received. This is required because, in such links,
sending an RA can only be triggered by an RS. Please note that such
links have special mechanisms for sending RSs as well. For example,
the mechanism specified in <a href="#section-8.3.4">Section 8.3.4</a> of the Intra-Site Automatic
Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP) [<a href="./rfc5214" title=""Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)"">RFC5214</a>] unicasts the RSs to
specific routers.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-3" href="#section-3">3</a>. Configuring the Use of Retransmissions</span>
Implementations of this specification are encouraged to provide a
configuration option to enable or disable potentially infinite RS
retransmissions. If a configuration option is provided, it MUST
enable RS retransmissions by default. Providing an option to enable/
disable retransmissions on a per-interface basis allows network
operators to configure RS behavior in the most applicable way for
each connected link.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-4" href="#section-4">4</a>. Known Limitations</span>
When an IPv6-capable host attaches to a network that does not have
IPv6 enabled, it transmits 3 (MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS) Router
Solicitations as specified in [<a href="./rfc4861" title=""Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)"">RFC4861</a>]. If it receives no Router
Advertisements, it assumes that there are no routers present on the
link and it ceases to send further RSs. With the mechanism specified
in this document, the host will continue to retransmit RSs
indefinitely at the rate of approximately 1 RS per hour. It is
unclear how to differentiate between such a network with no IPv6
routers and a link where an IPv6 router is temporarily unreachable
but could become reachable in the future.
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-5" href="#section-5">5</a>. Security Considerations</span>
This document does not present any additional security issues beyond
those discussed in [<a href="./rfc4861" title=""Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)"">RFC4861</a>] and those RFCs that update [<a href="./rfc4861" title=""Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)"">RFC4861</a>].
<span class="grey">Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 4]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-5" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7559">RFC 7559</a> Resilient RS Retransmission May 2015</span>
<span class="h2"><a class="selflink" id="section-6" href="#section-6">6</a>. References</span>
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.1" href="#section-6.1">6.1</a>. Normative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC2119">RFC2119</a>] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp14">BCP 14</a>, <a href="./rfc2119">RFC 2119</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC3315">RFC3315</a>] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", <a href="./rfc3315">RFC 3315</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC4861">RFC4861</a>] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", <a href="./rfc4861">RFC 4861</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861</a>>.
[<a id="ref-RFC7083">RFC7083</a>] Droms, R., "Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT
and INF_MAX_RT", <a href="./rfc7083">RFC 7083</a>, DOI 10.17487/RFC7083, November
2013, <<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7083">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7083</a>>.
<span class="h3"><a class="selflink" id="section-6.2" href="#section-6.2">6.2</a>. Informative References</span>
[<a id="ref-RFC5214">RFC5214</a>] Templin, F., Gleeson, T., and D. Thaler, "Intra-Site
Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)", <a href="./rfc5214">RFC 5214</a>,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5214, March 2008,
<<a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5214">http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5214</a>>.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Steve Baillargeon, Erik Kline, Andrew
Yourtchenko, Ole Troan, Erik Nordmark, Lorenzo Colitti, Thomas
Narten, Ran Atkinson, Allison Mankin, Les Ginsberg, Brian Carpenter,
Barry Leiba, Brian Haberman, Spencer Dawkins, Alia Atlas, Stephen
Farrell, and Mehmet Ersue for their reviews and suggestions that made
this document better.
<span class="grey">Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 5]</span></pre>
<hr class='noprint'/><!--NewPage--><pre class='newpage'><span id="page-6" ></span>
<span class="grey"><a href="./rfc7559">RFC 7559</a> Resilient RS Retransmission May 2015</span>
Authors' Addresses
Suresh Krishnan
Ericsson
8400 Decarie Blvd.
Town of Mount Royal, QC
Canada
Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871
EMail: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
Dmitry Anipko
Unaffiliated
Phone: +1 425 442 6356
EMail: dmitry.anipko@gmail.com
Dave Thaler
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA
United States
EMail: dthaler@microsoft.com
Krishnan, et al. Standards Track [Page 6]
</pre>
|
