rfc9229xml2.original.xml   rfc9229.xml 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd" []>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='rfc2629.xslt' ?> <!DOCTYPE rfc [
<?rfc toc="yes"?> <!ENTITY nbsp "&#160;">
<?rfc tocdepth="2"?> <!ENTITY zwsp "&#8203;">
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?> <!ENTITY nbhy "&#8209;">
<?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?> <!ENTITY wj "&#8288;">
<?rfc compact="no" ?> ]>
<rfc category="exp" docName="draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-08"
ipr="trust200902"> <rfc xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" docName="draft-ietf-babel-v4viav
<front> 6-08" number="9229" ipr="trust200902" obsoletes="" updates="" submissionType="IE
<title abbrev="IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next-hop"> TF" category="exp"
IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop in the Babel routing protocol consensus="true" xml:lang="en" tocInclude="true" tocDepth="2" symRefs="true" sor
tRefs="true" version="3">
<!-- xml2rfc v2v3 conversion 3.12.2 -->
<front>
<title abbrev="IPv4 Routes with an IPv6 Next Hop">
IPv4 Routes with an IPv6 Next Hop in the Babel Routing Protocol
</title> </title>
<author fullname="Juliusz Chroboczek" initials="J." surname="Chroboczek"> <seriesInfo name="RFC" value="9229"/>
<organization>IRIF, University of Paris</organization> <author fullname="Juliusz Chroboczek" initials="J." surname="Chroboczek">
<address> <organization>IRIF, University of Paris</organization>
<postal> <address>
<street>Case 7014</street> <postal>
<city>75205 Paris Cedex 13</city> <street>Case 7014</street>
<country>France</country> <city>Paris Cedex 13</city>
</postal> <code>75205</code>
<email>jch@irif.fr</email> <country>France</country>
</address> </postal>
</author> <email>jch@irif.fr</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="May" year="2022"/>
<area>rtg</area>
<workgroup>babel</workgroup>
<date day="24" month="February" year="2022"/> <keyword>routing</keyword>
<keyword>transition</keyword>
<keyword>IPv6 transition</keyword>
<keyword>double-stack</keyword>
<keyword>dual-stack</keyword>
<keyword>glorious IPv6-only future</keyword>
<abstract> <abstract>
<t>This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that <t>This document defines an extension to the Babel routing protocol that
allows announcing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next-hop, which allows announcing routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next hop, which
makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces that have makes it possible for IPv4 traffic to flow through interfaces that have
not been assigned an IPv4 address.</t> not been assigned an IPv4 address.</t>
</abstract> </abstract>
</front> </front>
<middle>
<middle> <section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Introduction</name>
<section title="Introduction"> <t>
The role of a routing protocol is to build a routing table, a data
structure that maps network prefixes in a given family (IPv4 or IPv6)
to next hops, which are (at least conceptually) pairs of an outgoing
interface and a neighbour's network address. For example:
</t>
<t>The role of a routing protocol is to build a routing table, a data <artwork name="" type="" align="left" alt=""><![CDATA[
structure that maps network prefixes in a given family (IPv4 or IPv6) to
next hops, pairs of an outgoing interface and a neighbour's network
address, for example:</t>
<figure><artwork><![CDATA[
destination next hop destination next hop
2001:db8:0:1::/64 eth0, fe80::1234:5678 2001:db8:0:1::/64 eth0, fe80::1234:5678
203.0.113.0/24 eth0, 192.0.2.1 203.0.113.0/24 eth0, 192.0.2.1
]]></artwork></figure> ]]></artwork>
<t>When a packet is routed according to a given routing table entry, the
<t>When a packet is routed according to a given routing table entry, the
forwarding plane typically uses a neighbour discovery protocol (the forwarding plane typically uses a neighbour discovery protocol (the
Neighbour Discovery protocol (ND) <xref target="RFC4861"/> in the case of Neighbour Discovery (ND) protocol <xref target="RFC4861" format="default"/> in t
IPv6, the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) <xref target="RFC0826"/> in he case of
IPv6 and the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) <xref target="RFC0826" format="de
fault"/> in
the case of IPv4) to map the next-hop address to a link-layer address (a the case of IPv4) to map the next-hop address to a link-layer address (a
"MAC address"), which is then used to construct the link-layer frames that "Media Access Control (MAC) address"), which is then used to construct the link- layer frames that
encapsulate forwarded packets.</t> encapsulate forwarded packets.</t>
<t>It is apparent from the description above that there is no fundamental
<t>It is apparent from the description above that there is no fundamental
reason why the destination prefix and the next-hop address should be in reason why the destination prefix and the next-hop address should be in
the same address family: there is nothing preventing an IPv6 packet from the same address family: there is nothing preventing an IPv6 packet from
being routed through a next hop with an IPv4 address (in which case the being routed through a next hop with an IPv4 address (in which case the
next hop's MAC address will be obtained using ARP), or, conversely, an next hop's MAC address will be obtained using ARP) or, conversely, an
IPv4 packet from being routed through a next hop with an IPv6 address. IPv4 packet from being routed through a next hop with an IPv6 address.
(In fact, it is even possible to store link-layer addresses directly in (In fact, it is even possible to store link-layer addresses directly in
the next-hop entry of the routing table, which is commonly done in the next-hop entry of the routing table, which is commonly done in
networks using the OSI protocol suite).</t> networks using the OSI protocol suite).</t>
<t>The case of routing IPv4 packets through an IPv6 next hop is
<t>The case of routing IPv4 packets through an IPv6 next hop is
particularly interesting, since it makes it possible to build networks particularly interesting, since it makes it possible to build networks
that have no IPv4 addresses except at the edges and still provide IPv4 that have no IPv4 addresses except at the edges and still provide IPv4
connectivity to edge hosts. In addition, since an IPv6 next hop can use connectivity to edge hosts. In addition, since an IPv6 next hop can use
a link-local address that is autonomously configured, the use of such a link-local address that is autonomously configured, the use of such
routes enables a mode of operation where the network core has no routes enables a mode of operation where the network core has no
statically assigned IP addresses of either family, which significantly statically assigned IP addresses of either family, which significantly
reduces the amount of manual configuration required. (See also reduces the amount of manual configuration required. (See also
<xref target="RFC7404"/> for a discussion of the issues involved with such <xref target="RFC7404" format="default"/> for a discussion of the issues involve d with such
an approach.)</t> an approach.)</t>
<t>We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop
<t>We call a route towards an IPv4 prefix that uses an IPv6 next hop
a "v4-via-v6" route. This document describes an extension that allows the a "v4-via-v6" route. This document describes an extension that allows the
Babel routing protocol <xref target="RFC8966"/> to announce v4-via-v6 Babel routing protocol <xref target="RFC8966" format="default"/> to announce v4- via-v6
routes across interfaces that have no IPv4 addresses assigned but are routes across interfaces that have no IPv4 addresses assigned but are
capable of forwarding IPv4 traffic. <xref target="icmp"/> describes capable of forwarding IPv4 traffic. <xref target="icmp" format="default"/> desc ribes
procedures that ensure that all routers can originate ICMPv4 packets, even procedures that ensure that all routers can originate ICMPv4 packets, even
if they have not been assigned any IPv4 addresses.</t> if they have not been assigned any IPv4 addresses.</t>
<t>The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously
<t>The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously defined extension to BGP <xref target="RFC5549" format="default"/>.</t>
defined extension to the BGP protocol <xref target="RFC5549"/>.</t> <section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Specification of Requirements</name>
<section title="Specification of Requirements"> <t>
The key words "<bcp14>MUST</bcp14>", "<bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14>",
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "<bcp14>REQUIRED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHALL NOT</bcp14>
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and ",
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 "<bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14>", "<bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14>",
<xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, "<bcp14>RECOMMENDED</bcp14>", "<bcp14>NOT RECOMMENDED</bcp14>",
they appear in all capitals, as shown here.</t> "<bcp14>MAY</bcp14>", and "<bcp14>OPTIONAL</bcp14>" in this document are to
be
</section> interpreted as described in BCP&nbsp;14 <xref target="RFC2119"/> <xref
target="RFC8174"/> when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as
</section> shown here.
</t>
<section title="Protocol operation"> </section>
</section>
<t>The Babel protocol fully supports dual-stack operation: all data that <section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Protocol Operation</name>
<t>The Babel protocol fully supports dual-stack operation: all data that
represent a neighbour address or a network prefix are tagged by an Address represent a neighbour address or a network prefix are tagged by an Address
Encoding (AE), a small integer that identifies the address family (IPv4 or Encoding (AE), a small integer that identifies the address family (IPv4 or
IPv6) of the address of prefix, and describes how it is encoded. This IPv6) of the address of prefix and describes how it is encoded. This
extension defines a new AE, called v4-via-v6, which has the same format as extension defines a new AE, called "v4-via-v6", which has the same format as
the existing AE for IPv4 addresses (AE&nbsp;1). This new AE is only the existing AE for IPv4 addresses (AE 1). This new AE is only
allowed in TLVs that carry network prefixes: TLVs that carry an IPv6 allowed in TLVs that carry network prefixes: TLVs that carry an IPv6
neighbour address use one of the normal encodings for IPv6 addresses.</t> neighbour address use one of the normal encodings for IPv6 addresses.</t>
<section anchor="updates" numbered="true" toc="default">
<section title="Announcing v4-via-v6 routes" anchor="updates"> <name>Announcing v4-via-v6 Routes</name>
<t>A Babel node can use a v4-via-v6 announcement to announce an IPv4 rou
<t>A Babel node can use a v4-via-v6 announcement to announce an IPv4 route te
over an interface that has no assigned IPv4 address. In order to do so, over an interface that has no assigned IPv4 address. In order to do so,
it first establishes an IPv6 next-hop address in the usual manner (either it first establishes an IPv6 next-hop address in the usual manner (either
by sending the Babel packet over IPv6, or by including a Next Hop TLV by sending the Babel packet over IPv6, or by including a Next Hop TLV
containing an IPv6 address and using AE 2 or 3); it then sends an Update, containing an IPv6 address and using AE 2 or 3); it then sends an Update,
with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) containing the IPv4 prefix being with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) containing the IPv4 prefix being
announced.</t> announced.</t>
<t>If the outgoing interface has been assigned an IPv4 address, then, in
<t>If the outgoing interface has been assigned an IPv4 address, then, in
the interest of maximising compatibility with existing routers, the sender the interest of maximising compatibility with existing routers, the sender
SHOULD prefer an ordinary IPv4 announcement; even in that case, however, <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> prefer an ordinary IPv4 announcement; even in that case, h
it MAY send a v4-via-v6 announcement. A node SHOULD NOT send both owever,
it <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> send a v4-via-v6 announcement. A node <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</
bcp14> send both
ordinary IPv4 and v4-via-v6 announcements for the same prefix over ordinary IPv4 and v4-via-v6 announcements for the same prefix over
a single interface (if the update is sent to a multicast address) or to a single interface (if the update is sent to a multicast address) or to
a single neighbour (if sent to a unicast address), since doing that a single neighbour (if sent to a unicast address), since doing that
provides no benefit while doubling the amount of routing traffic.</t> provides no benefit while doubling the amount of routing traffic.</t>
<t>Updates with infinite metric are retractions: they indicate that
<t>Updates with infinite metric are retractions: they indicate that
a previously announced route is no longer available. Retractions do not a previously announced route is no longer available. Retractions do not
require a next hop, and there is therefore no difference between v4-via-v6 require a next hop; therefore, there is no difference between v4-via-v6
retractions and ordinary retractions. A node MAY send IPv4 retractions retractions and ordinary retractions. A node <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> send IPv4 retra
only, or it MAY send v4-via-v6 retractions on interfaces that have not ctions
only, or it <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> send v4-via-v6 retractions on interfaces that hav
e not
been assigned an IPv4 address.</t> been assigned an IPv4 address.</t>
</section>
</section> <section anchor="receiving-updates" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Receiving v4-via-v6 Routes</name>
<section title="Receiving v4-via-v6 routes" anchor="receiving-updates"> <t>Upon reception of an Update TLV with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) and
<t>Upon reception of an Update TLV with AE equal to 4 (v4-via-v6) and
finite metric, a Babel node computes the IPv6 next hop, as described in finite metric, a Babel node computes the IPv6 next hop, as described in
Section 4.6.9 of <xref target="RFC8966"/>. If no IPv6 next hop exists, <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="4.6.9"/>. I
then the Update MUST be ignored. If an IPv6 next hop exists, f no IPv6 next hop exists,
then the node MAY acquire the route being announced, as described in then the Update <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored. If an IPv6 next hop exists,
Section 3.5.3 of <xref target="RFC8966"/>; the parameters of the route are then the node <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> acquire the route being announced, as described
in
<xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="3.5.3"/>; th
e parameters of the route are
as follows: as follows:
<list style="symbols"> </t>
<t>the prefix, plen, router-id, seqno, metric MUST be computed as for an
IPv4 route, as described in Section 4.6.9 of <xref target="RFC8966"/>;</t> <ul spacing="normal">
<t>the next hop MUST be computed as for an IPv6 route, as described in <li>The prefix, plen, router-id, seqno, and metric <bcp14>MUST</bcp14>
Section 4.6.9 of <xref target="RFC8966"/>: it is taken from the last be computed as for an
IPv4 route, as described in <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionForma
t="of" section="4.6.9"/>.</li>
<li>The next hop <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be computed as for an IPv6 route,
as described in
<xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="4.6.9"/>. It
is taken from the last
preceding Next Hop TLV with an AE field equal to 2 or 3; if no such preceding Next Hop TLV with an AE field equal to 2 or 3; if no such
entry exists, and if the Update TLV has been sent in a Babel packet entry exists and if the Update TLV has been sent in a Babel packet
carried over IPv6, then the next hop is the network-layer source address carried over IPv6, then the next hop is the network-layer source address
of the packet.</t> of the packet.</li>
</list></t> </ul>
<t>An Update TLV with a v4-via-v6 AE and metric equal to infinity is
<t>An Update TLV with a v4-via-v6 AE and metric equal to infinity is
a retraction: it announces that a previously available route is being a retraction: it announces that a previously available route is being
retracted. In that case, no next hop is necessary, and the retraction is retracted. In that case, no next hop is necessary, and the retraction is
treated as described in Section 4.6.9 of <xref target="RFC8966"/>.</t> treated as described in <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="o
f" section="4.6.9"/>.</t>
<t>As usual, a node MAY ignore the update, e.g., due to filtering <t>As usual, a node <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> ignore the update, e.g., due to f
(Appendix C of <xref target="RFC8966"/>). If a node cannot install iltering
(see <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="C"/>).
If a node cannot install
v4-via-v6 routes, e.g., due to hardware or software limitations, then v4-via-v6 routes, e.g., due to hardware or software limitations, then
routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next hop MUST NOT be selected.</t> routes to an IPv4 prefix with an IPv6 next hop <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be select
ed.</t>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="requests" numbered="true" toc="default">
<section title="Route and seqno requests" anchor="requests"> <name>Route and Seqno Requests</name>
<t>Route and seqno requests are used to request an update for a given <t>Route and seqno requests are used to request an update for a given
prefix. Since they are not related to a specific next hop, there is no prefix. Since they are not related to a specific next hop, there is no
semantic difference between IPv4 and v4-via-v6 requests. Therefore, semantic difference between IPv4 and v4-via-v6 requests. Therefore,
a node SHOULD NOT send requests of either kind with the AE field being set a node <bcp14>SHOULD NOT</bcp14> send requests of either kind with the AE field
to 4 (v4-via-v6); instead, it SHOULD request IPv4 updates by sending being set
to 4 (v4-via-v6); instead, it <bcp14>SHOULD</bcp14> request IPv4 updates by send
ing
requests with the AE field being set to 1 (IPv4).</t> requests with the AE field being set to 1 (IPv4).</t>
<t>When receiving requests, AEs 1 (IPv4) and 4 (v4-via-v6) <bcp14>MUST</
<t>When receiving requests, AEs 1 (IPv4) and 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be treated bcp14> be treated
in the same manner: the receiver processes the request as described in in the same manner: the receiver processes the request as described in
Section 3.8 of <xref target="RFC8966"/>. If an Update is sent, then it <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="3.8"/>. If
MAY be an ordinary IPv4 announcement (AE&nbsp;=&nbsp;1) or an v4-via-v6 an Update is sent, then it
announcement (AE&nbsp;=&nbsp;4), as described in <xref target="updates"/> <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be an ordinary IPv4 announcement (AE = 1) or a v4-via-v6
above, irrespective of which AE was used in the request.</t> announcement (AE = 4), as described in <xref target="updates" format="default"/>
, irrespective of which AE was used in the request.</t>
<t>When receiving a request with AE 0 (wildcard), the receiver SHOULD send <t>When receiving a request with AE 0 (wildcard), the receiver <bcp14>SH
a full route dump, as described in Section 3.8.1.1 of <xref OULD</bcp14> send
target="RFC8966"/>. Any IPv4 routes contained in the route dump may use a full route dump, as described in <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" secti
either AE 1 (IPv4) or AE 4 (v4-via-v6), as described <xref target="updates"/> onFormat="of" section="3.8.1.1"/>. Any IPv4 routes contained in the route dump
above.</t> may use
either AE 1 (IPv4) or AE 4 (v4-via-v6), as described <xref target="updates" form
</section> at="default"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Other TLVs"> <section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Other TLVs</name>
<t>The only other TLVs defined by <xref target="RFC8966"/> that carry an <t>The only other TLVs defined by <xref target="RFC8966" format="default
AE field are Next Hop and IHU. Next Hop and IHU TLVs MUST NOT carry the "/> that carry an
AE field are Next Hop and IHU. Next Hop and IHU TLVs <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> ca
rry the
AE 4 (v4-via-v6).</t> AE 4 (v4-via-v6).</t>
</section>
</section> </section>
<section anchor="icmp" numbered="true" toc="default">
</section> <name>ICMPv4 and PMTU Discovery</name>
<t>The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP) <xref ta
<section title="ICMPv4 and PMTU discovery" anchor="icmp"> rget="RFC0792" format="default"/> is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primaril
y used to
<t>The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv4, or simply ICMP) <xref
target="RFC0792"/> is a protocol related to IPv4 that is primarily used to
carry diagnostic and debugging information. ICMPv4 packets may be carry diagnostic and debugging information. ICMPv4 packets may be
originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port originated by end hosts (e.g., the "destination unreachable, port
unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by unreachable" ICMPv4 packet), but they may also be originated by
intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination unreachable" intermediate routers (e.g., most other kinds of "destination unreachable"
packets).</t> packets).</t>
<t>Some protocols deployed in the Internet rely on ICMPv4 packets sent by
<t>Some protocols deployed in the Internet rely on ICMPv4 packets sent by intermediate routers. Most notably, Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) <xref target="RF
intermediate routers. Most notably, path MTU Discovery (PMTUd) <xref C1191" format="default"/> is an algorithm executed by end hosts to discover the
target="RFC1191"/> is an algorithm executed by end hosts to discover the
maximum packet size that a route is able to carry. While there exist maximum packet size that a route is able to carry. While there exist
variants of PMTUd that are purely end-to-end <xref target="RFC4821"/>, the variants of PMTUD that are purely end-to-end <xref target="RFC4821" format="defa ult"/>, the
variant most commonly deployed in the Internet has a hard dependency on variant most commonly deployed in the Internet has a hard dependency on
ICMPv4 packets originated by intermediate routers: if intermediate routers ICMPv4 packets originated by intermediate routers: if intermediate routers
are unable to send ICMPv4 packets, PMTUd may lead to persistent are unable to send ICMPv4 packets, PMTUD may lead to persistent
blackholing of IPv4 traffic.</t> blackholing of IPv4 traffic.</t>
<t>Due to this kind of dependency, every Babel router that is able to
<t>Due to this kind of dependency, every Babel router that is able to forward IPv4 traffic <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be able originate ICMPv4 traffic. Sinc
forward IPv4 traffic MUST be able originate ICMPv4 traffic. Since the e the
extension described in this document enables routers to forward IPv4 extension described in this document enables routers to forward IPv4
traffic received over an interface that has not been assigned an IPv4 traffic received over an interface that has not been assigned an IPv4
address, a router implementing this extension MUST be able to originate address, a router implementing this extension <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be able to ori ginate
ICMPv4 packets even when the outgoing interface has not been assigned an ICMPv4 packets even when the outgoing interface has not been assigned an
IPv4 address.</t> IPv4 address.</t>
<t>In such a situation, if a Babel router has an interface that has been
<t>In such a situation, if a Babel router has an interface that has been assigned an IPv4 address (other than a loopback address) or if an IPv4
assigned an IPv4 address (other than the loopback address), or if an IPv4
address has been assigned to the router itself (to the "loopback address has been assigned to the router itself (to the "loopback
interface"), then that IPv4 address may be used as the source of interface"), then that IPv4 address may be used as the source of
originated ICMPv4 packets. If no IPv4 address is available, a Babel originated ICMPv4 packets. If no IPv4 address is available, a Babel
router could use the experimental mechanism described in Requirement router could use the experimental mechanism described in Requirement
R-22&nbsp;of Section&nbsp;4.8 <xref target="RFC7600"/>, which consists of R-22 of <xref target="RFC7600" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="4.8" />, which consists of
using the dummy address 192.0.0.8 as the source address of originated using the dummy address 192.0.0.8 as the source address of originated
ICMPv4 packets. Note however that using the same address on multiple ICMPv4 packets. Note, however, that using the same address on multiple
routers may hamper debugging and fault isolation, e.g., when using the routers may hamper debugging and fault isolation, e.g., when using the
"traceroute" utility.</t> "traceroute" utility.</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Protocol Encoding</name>
<t>This extension defines the v4-via-v6 AE, whose value is 4. This AE is
solely used to tag network prefixes and <bcp14>MUST NOT</bcp14> be used to tag n
eighbour
addresses, e.g., in Next Hop or IHU TLVs.</t>
<t>This extension defines no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.</t>
<section anchor="prefix-encoding" numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Prefix Encoding</name>
</section> <t>Network prefixes tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6) <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be e
ncoded and
<section title="Protocol encoding">
<t>This extension defines the v4-via-v6 AE, whose value is 4. This AE is
solely used to tag network prefixes, and MUST NOT be used to tag neighbour
addresses, e.g. in Next Hop or IHU TLVs.</t>
<t>This extension defines no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.</t>
<section title="Prefix encoding" anchor="prefix-encoding">
<t>Network prefixes tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6) MUST be encoded and
decoded just like prefixes tagged with AE 1 (IPv4), as described in decoded just like prefixes tagged with AE 1 (IPv4), as described in
Section&nbsp;4.3.1 of <xref target="RFC8966"/>.</t> <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="4.1.5"/>.</t >
<t>A new compression state for AE 4 (v4-via-v6) distinct from that of AE <t>A new compression state for AE 4 (v4-via-v6) distinct from that of AE
1 (IPv4) is introduced, and MUST be used for address compression of 1 (IPv4) is introduced and <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be used for address compression o
prefixes tagged with AE 4, as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.9 of f
<xref target="RFC8966"/></t> prefixes tagged with AE 4, as described in Sections <xref target="RFC8966" secti
onFormat="bare" section="4.5"/> and <xref target="RFC8966" sectionFormat="bare"
</section> section="4.6.9"/> of
<xref target="RFC8966" format="default"/></t>
<section title="Changes to existing TLVs"> </section>
<t>The following TLVs MAY be tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6): <section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Changes to Existing TLVs</name>
<t>The following TLVs <bcp14>MAY</bcp14> be tagged with AE 4 (v4-via-v6)
:
<list style="symbols">
<t>Update (Type&nbsp;=&nbsp;8)</t>
<t>Route Request (Type&nbsp;=&nbsp;9)</t>
<t>Seqno Request (Type&nbsp;=&nbsp;10)</t>
</list>
</t> </t>
<ul spacing="normal">
<t>As AE 4 (v4-via-v6) is suitable only for network prefixes, IHU <li>Update (Type = 8)</li>
(Type&nbsp;=&nbsp;5) and Next-Hop (Type&nbsp;=&nbsp;7) TLVs are never sent <li>Route Request (Type = 9)</li>
with AE 4. Such (incorrect) TLVs MUST be ignored upon reception.</t> <li>Seqno Request (Type = 10)</li>
</ul>
<section title="Update"> <t>As AE 4 (v4-via-v6) is suitable only for network prefixes, IHU
(Type = 5) and Next Hop (Type = 7) TLVs are never sent
<t>An Update (Type = 8) TLV with AE 4 is constructed as described in with AE 4. Such (incorrect) TLVs <bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be ignored upon reception.
Section&nbsp;4.6.9 of <xref target="RFC8966"/> for AE 1 (IPv4), with the </t>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Update</name>
<t>An Update (Type = 8) TLV with AE 4 (v4-via-v6) is constructed as de
scribed in
<xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="4.6.9"/> for
AE 1 (IPv4), with the
following specificities: following specificities:
<list style="symbols">
<t>Prefix. The Prefix field is constructed according to
<xref target="prefix-encoding"/> above.</t>
<t>Next Hop. The next hop is built and prased as described in
<xref target="updates"/> and <xref target="receiving-updates"/> above.</t>
</list>
</t> </t>
</section> <ul spacing="normal">
<li>The Prefix field is constructed according to
<section title="Requests"> <xref target="prefix-encoding" format="default"/>.</li>
<t>When tagged with the AE 4, Route Request and Seqno Request updates
MUST be constructed and decoded as described in Section&nbsp;4.6 of
<xref target="RFC8966"/>, and the network prefixes contained within them
decoded as described in <xref target="prefix-encoding"/> above (see also
<xref target="requests"/>).</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Backwards compatibility"> <li>The Next Hop field is built and parsed as described in Sections
<xref target="updates" format="counter"/> and <xref target="receiving-updates" f
ormat="counter"/>.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Requests</name>
<t>This protocol extension adds no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.</t> <t>When tagged with the AE 4 (v4-via-v6), Route Request and Seqno Reque
st TLVs
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be constructed and decoded as described in
<xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="4.6"/>, and
the network prefixes contained within them
<bcp14>MUST</bcp14> be decoded as described in <xref target="prefix-encoding" fo
rmat="default"/> (see also
<xref target="requests" format="default"/>).</t>
</section>
</section>
</section>
<t>This protocol extension uses a new AE. As discussed in Appendix&nbsp;D of <section numbered="true" toc="default">
<xref target="RFC8966"/> and specified in the same document, implementations <name>Backwards Compatibility</name>
<t>This protocol extension adds no new TLVs or sub-TLVs.</t>
<t>This protocol extension uses a new AE. As discussed in
<xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sectionFormat="of" section="D"/> and spe
cified in the same document, implementations
that do not understand the present extension will silently ignore the various that do not understand the present extension will silently ignore the various
TLVs that use this new AE. As a result, incompatible versions will ignore TLVs that use this new AE. As a result, incompatible versions will ignore
v4-via-v6 routes. They will also ignore requests with AE 4, which, as v4-via-v6 routes. They will also ignore requests with AE 4 (v4-via-v6), which,
stated in <xref target="requests"/>, are not recommended.</t> as
stated in <xref target="requests" format="default"/>, are not recommended.</t>
<t>Using a new AE introduces a new compression state, used to parse the <t>Using a new AE introduces a new compression state, which is used to
network prefixes. As this compression state is separate from other AEs' parse the network prefixes. As this compression state is separate from
states, it will not interfere with the compression state of unextended the states of other AEs, it will not interfere with the compression
nodes.</t> state of unextended nodes.</t>
<t>This extension reuses the next-hop state from AEs 2 and 3 (IPv6) but
<t>This extension reuses the next-hop state from AEs 2 and 3 (IPv6), but makes no changes to the way in which it is updated. Therefore, it causes
makes no changes to the way in which it is updated, and therefore causes
no compatibility issues.</t> no compatibility issues.</t>
<t>As mentioned in <xref target="updates" format="default"/>, ordinary IPv
<t>As mentioned in <xref target="updates"/>, ordinary IPv4 announcements 4 announcements
are preferred to v4-via-v6 announcements when the outgoing interface has are preferred to v4-via-v6 announcements when the outgoing interface has
an assigned IPv4 address; doing otherwise would prevent routers that do an assigned IPv4 address; doing otherwise would prevent routers that do
not implement this extension from learning the route being announced.</t> not implement this extension from learning the route being announced.</t>
</section>
</section> <section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>IANA Considerations</name>
<section title="IANA Considerations"> <t>IANA has allocated value 4 in the "Babel Address Encodings" registry as
<t>IANA has allocated value 4 in the "Babel Address Encodings" registry as
follows:</t> follows:</t>
<table align="center">
<texttable> <thead>
<ttcol>AE</ttcol><ttcol>Name</ttcol><ttcol>Reference</ttcol> <tr>
<c>4</c><c>v4-via-v6</c><c>(this document)</c> <th align="left">AE</th>
</texttable> <th align="left">Name</th>
<th align="left">Reference</th>
</section> </tr>
</thead>
<section title="Security Considerations"> <tbody>
<tr>
<t>The extension defined in this document does not fundamentally change <td align="left">4</td>
<td align="left">v4-via-v6</td>
<td align="left">RFC 9229</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
<name>Security Considerations</name>
<t>The extension defined in this document does not fundamentally change
the security properties of the Babel protocol. However, by allowing IPv4 the security properties of the Babel protocol. However, by allowing IPv4
routes to be propagated across routers that have not been assigned IPv4 routes to be propagated across routers that have not been assigned IPv4
addresses, it might invalidate the assumptions made by network addresses, it might invalidate the assumptions made by network
administrators, which could conceivably lead to security issues.</t> administrators, which could conceivably lead to security issues.</t>
<t>For example, if an island of IPv4-only hosts is separated from the IPv4
<t>For example, if an island of IPv4-only hosts is separated from the IPv4
Internet by routers that have not been assigned IPv4 addresses, a network Internet by routers that have not been assigned IPv4 addresses, a network
administrator might reasonably assume that the IPv4-only hosts are administrator might reasonably assume that the IPv4-only hosts are
unreachable from the IPv4 Internet. This assumption is broken if the unreachable from the IPv4 Internet. This assumption is broken if the
intermediary routers implement the extension described in this document, intermediary routers implement the extension described in this document,
which might expose the IPv4-only hosts to traffic from the IPv4 Internet. which might expose the IPv4-only hosts to traffic from the IPv4 Internet.
If this is undesirable, the flow of IPv4 traffic must be restricted by the If this is undesirable, the flow of IPv4 traffic must be restricted by the
use of suitable filtering rules (Appendix C of <xref target="RFC8966"/>) use of suitable filtering rules (see <xref target="RFC8966" format="default" sec tionFormat="of" section="C"/>)
together with matching packet filters in the data plane.</t> together with matching packet filters in the data plane.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
</section> <references>
<name>References</name>
<section title="Acknowledgments"> <references>
<name>Normative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.2119.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8174.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.8966.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.0792.xml"/>
</references>
<references>
<name>Informative References</name>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.0826.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.4861.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.5549.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.1191.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.4821.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7600.xml"/>
<xi:include href="https://xml2rfc.ietf.org/public/rfc/bibxml/reference.R
FC.7404.xml"/>
</references>
</references>
<t>This protocol extension was originally designed, described and <section numbered="false" toc="default">
implemented in collaboration with Theophile Bastian. Margaret Cullen <name>Acknowledgments</name>
<t>This protocol extension was originally designed, described, and
implemented in collaboration with <contact fullname="Theophile Bastian"/>. <con
tact fullname="Margaret Cullen"/>
pointed out the issues with ICMP and helped coin the phrase "v4-via-v6". pointed out the issues with ICMP and helped coin the phrase "v4-via-v6".
The author is also indebted to Donald Eastlake, Toke Hoiland-Jorgensen, The author is also indebted to <contact fullname="Donald Eastlake"/>, <contact f
David Schinazi, and Donald Sharp.</t> ullname="Toke Høiland-Jørgensen"/>,
<contact fullname="David Schinazi"/>, and <contact fullname="Donald Sharp"/>.</t
</section> >
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2119"><front>
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner"/>
<date year="1997" month="March"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8174"><front>
<title>Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words</title>
<author initials="B." surname="Leiba" fullname="B. Leiba"/>
<date year="2017" month="May"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8174"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8174"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC8966" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8966">
<front>
<title>The Babel Routing Protocol</title>
<author initials="J." surname="Chroboczek" fullname="J. Chroboczek"/>
<author initials="D." surname="Schinazi" fullname="D. Schinazi"/>
<date year="2021" month="January"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="8966"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC8966"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC0792" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792">
<front>
<title>Internet Control Message Protocol</title>
<author initials="J." surname="Postel" fullname="J. Postel"/>
<date year="1981" month="September"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="STD" value="5"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="792"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC0792"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="RFC0826"><front>
<title>An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or Converting Network
Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Address for Transmission on Ethernet
Hardware</title>
<author initials="D." surname="Plummer" fullname="D. Plummer"/>
<date year="1982" month="November"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="STD" value="37"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="826"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC0826"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4861"><front>
<title>Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)</title>
<author initials="T." surname="Narten" fullname="T. Narten"/>
<author initials="E." surname="Nordmark" fullname="E. Nordmark"/>
<author initials="W." surname="Simpson" fullname="W. Simpson"/>
<author initials="H." surname="Soliman" fullname="H. Soliman"/>
<date year="2007" month="September"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4861"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4861"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5549">
<front>
<title>
Advertising IPv4 Network Layer Reachability Information with an IPv6 Next Hop
</title>
<author initials="F." surname="Le Faucheur" fullname="F. Le Faucheur"/>
<author initials="E." surname="Rosen" fullname="E. Rosen"/>
<date year="2009" month="May"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5549"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC5549"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC1191" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191">
<front>
<title>Path MTU discovery</title>
<author initials="J.C." surname="Mogul" fullname="J.C. Mogul"/>
<author initials="S.E." surname="Deering" fullname="S.E. Deering"/>
<date year="1990" month="November"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="1191"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC1191"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4821" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821">
<front>
<title>Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Mathis" fullname="M. Mathis"/>
<author initials="J." surname="Heffner" fullname="J. Heffner"/>
<date year="2007" month="March"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4821"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC4821"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC7600" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7600">
<front>
<title>IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - A Stateless Solution (4rd)</title>
<author initials="R." surname="Despres" fullname="R. Despres"/>
<author initials="S." surname="Jiang" fullname="S. Jiang" role="editor"/>
<author initials="R." surname="Penno" fullname="R. Penno"/>
<author initials="Y." surname="Lee" fullname="Y. Lee"/>
<author initials="G." surname="Chen" fullname="G. Chen"/>
<author initials="M." surname="Chen" fullname="M. Chen"/>
<date year="2015" month="July"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7600"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7600"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC7404" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7404">
<front>
<title>Using Only Link-Local Addressing inside an IPv6 Network</title>
<author initials="M." surname="Behringer" fullname="M. Behringer"/>
<author initials="E." surname="Vyncke" fullname="E. Vyncke"/>
<date year="2014" month="November"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7404"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC7404"/>
</reference>
</references> </back>
</back>
</rfc> </rfc>
 End of changes. 66 change blocks. 
403 lines changed or deleted 340 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/