draft-ietf-anima-grasp-02.txt   draft-ietf-anima-grasp-03.txt 
Network Working Group C. Bormann Network Working Group C. Bormann
Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI Internet-Draft Universitaet Bremen TZI
Intended status: Standards Track B. Carpenter, Ed. Intended status: Standards Track B. Carpenter, Ed.
Expires: July 16, 2016 Univ. of Auckland Expires: August 27, 2016 Univ. of Auckland
B. Liu, Ed. B. Liu, Ed.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
January 13, 2016 February 24, 2016
A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP) A Generic Autonomic Signaling Protocol (GRASP)
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-02 draft-ietf-anima-grasp-03
Abstract Abstract
This document establishes requirements for a signaling protocol that This document establishes requirements for a signaling protocol that
enables autonomic devices and autonomic service agents to dynamically enables autonomic devices and autonomic service agents to dynamically
discover peers, to synchronize state with them, and to negotiate discover peers, to synchronize state with them, and to negotiate
parameter settings mutually with them. The document then defines a parameter settings mutually with them. The document then defines a
general protocol for discovery, synchronization and negotiation, general protocol for discovery, synchronization and negotiation,
while the technical objectives for specific scenarios are to be while the technical objectives for specific scenarios are to be
described in separate documents. An Appendix briefly discusses described in separate documents. An Appendix briefly discusses
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on July 16, 2016. This Internet-Draft will expire on August 27, 2016.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 2, line 27 skipping to change at page 2, line 27
2.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation 2.2. Requirements for Synchronization and Negotiation
Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Specific Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.3. Specific Technical Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. GRASP Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3. GRASP Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2. High-Level Design Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.2. High-Level Design Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms . . . . . 15 3.3. GRASP Protocol Basic Properties and Mechanisms . . . . . 15
3.3.1. Required External Security Mechanism . . . . . . . . 15 3.3.1. Required External Security Mechanism . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.3.5. Synchronization and Flooding Procedure . . . . . . . 20 3.3.5. Synchronization and Flooding Procedure . . . . . . . 20
3.4. High Level Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.4. High Level Deployment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.5. GRASP Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.5. GRASP Constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.6. Session Identifier (Session ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.6. Session Identifier (Session ID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.7. GRASP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.7. GRASP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.1. GRASP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7.1. Message Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.2. Discovery Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.7.2. GRASP Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.7.3. Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.7.3. Discovery Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7.4. Request Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.7.4. Discovery Response Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7.5. Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.7.5. Request Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.7.6. Negotiation-ending Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.7.6. Negotiation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.7.7. Confirm-waiting Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.7.7. Negotiation End Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.7.8. Synchronization Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3.7.8. Confirm Waiting Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7.9. Flood Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.7.9. Synchronization Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.7.10. No Operation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.7.10. Flood Synchronization Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.8. GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.7.11. No Operation Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.8.1. Format of GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3.8. GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.8.1. Format of GRASP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.8.2. Divert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.8.2. Divert Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.8.3. Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.8.3. Accept Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.8.4. Decline Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.8.4. Decline Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.8.5. Device Identity Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.8.5. Locator Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.8.6. Locator Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3.9. Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.9. Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3.9.1. Format of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.9.1. Format of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.9.2. Objective flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.9.2. Objective flags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.9.3. General Considerations for Objective Options . . . . 32 3.9.3. General Considerations for Objective Options . . . . 32
3.9.4. Organizing of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.9.4. Organizing of Objective Options . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.9.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options . . . . . 34 3.9.5. Experimental and Example Objective Options . . . . . 34
4. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5. CDDL Specification of GRASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6. CDDL Specification of GRASP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
9. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . . . . . 46 8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Appendix A. Open Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Appendix B. Closed Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . 45
Appendix A. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols . . . . . . 53 Appendix C. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . . 51
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Appendix D. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols . . . . . . 54
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and The success of the Internet has made IP-based networks bigger and
more complicated. Large-scale ISP and enterprise networks have more complicated. Large-scale ISP and enterprise networks have
become more and more problematic for human based management. Also, become more and more problematic for human based management. Also,
operational costs are growing quickly. Consequently, there are operational costs are growing quickly. Consequently, there are
increased requirements for autonomic behavior in the networks. increased requirements for autonomic behavior in the networks.
General aspects of autonomic networks are discussed in [RFC7575] and General aspects of autonomic networks are discussed in [RFC7575] and
[RFC7576]. [RFC7576].
skipping to change at page 4, line 7 skipping to change at page 4, line 8
Following this Introduction, Section 2 describes the requirements for Following this Introduction, Section 2 describes the requirements for
discovery, synchronization and negotiation. Negotiation is an discovery, synchronization and negotiation. Negotiation is an
iterative process, requiring multiple message exchanges forming a iterative process, requiring multiple message exchanges forming a
closed loop between the negotiating devices. State synchronization, closed loop between the negotiating devices. State synchronization,
when needed, can be regarded as a special case of negotiation, when needed, can be regarded as a special case of negotiation,
without iteration. Section 3.2 describes a behavior model for a without iteration. Section 3.2 describes a behavior model for a
protocol intended to support discovery, synchronization and protocol intended to support discovery, synchronization and
negotiation. The design of GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol negotiation. The design of GeneRic Autonomic Signaling Protocol
(GRASP) in Section 3 of this document is mainly based on this (GRASP) in Section 3 of this document is mainly based on this
behavior model. The relevant capabilities of various existing behavior model. The relevant capabilities of various existing
protocols are reviewed in Appendix A. protocols are reviewed in Appendix D.
The proposed discovery mechanism is oriented towards synchronization The proposed discovery mechanism is oriented towards synchronization
and negotiation objectives. It is based on a neighbor discovery and negotiation objectives. It is based on a neighbor discovery
process, but also supports diversion to off-link peers. Although process, but also supports diversion to off-link peers. Although
many negotiations will occur between horizontally distributed peers, many negotiations will occur between horizontally distributed peers,
many target scenarios are hierarchical networks, which is the many target scenarios are hierarchical networks, which is the
predominant structure of current large-scale managed networks. predominant structure of current large-scale managed networks.
However, when a device starts up with no pre-configuration, it has no However, when a device starts up with no pre-configuration, it has no
knowledge of the topology. The protocol itself is capable of being knowledge of the topology. The protocol itself is capable of being
used in a small and/or flat network structure such as a small office used in a small and/or flat network structure such as a small office
skipping to change at page 15, line 36 skipping to change at page 15, line 36
[RFC5246] is RECOMMENDED for this purpose, based on a local Public [RFC5246] is RECOMMENDED for this purpose, based on a local Public
Key Infrastructure (PKI) [RFC5280] managed within the autonomic Key Infrastructure (PKI) [RFC5280] managed within the autonomic
network itself. The details of such a PKI and how its boundary is network itself. The details of such a PKI and how its boundary is
established are out of scope for this document. DTLS [RFC6347] MAY established are out of scope for this document. DTLS [RFC6347] MAY
be used but since GRASP operations usually involve several messages be used but since GRASP operations usually involve several messages
this is not expected to be advantageous. this is not expected to be advantageous.
The ACP, or in its absence the local PKI, sets the boundary within The ACP, or in its absence the local PKI, sets the boundary within
which nodes are trusted as GRASP peers. A GRASP implementation MUST which nodes are trusted as GRASP peers. A GRASP implementation MUST
refuse to execute any GRASP functions except discovery if there is refuse to execute any GRASP functions except discovery if there is
neither an operational ACP nor an operational (D)TLS environment. neither an operational ACP nor an operational TLS environment.
As mentioned in Section 3.2, limited GRASP operations might be As mentioned in Section 3.2, limited GRASP operations might be
performed across an administrative domain boundary by mutual performed across an administrative domain boundary by mutual
agreement. Such operations MUST be authenticated and SHOULD be agreement. Such operations MUST be authenticated and SHOULD be
encrypted. TLS is RECOMMENDED for this purpose. encrypted. TLS is RECOMMENDED for this purpose.
Link-local multicast is used for discovery messages. Responses to Link-local multicast is used for discovery messages. Responses to
discovery messages MUST be secured, with one exception. discovery messages MUST be secured, with one exception.
The exception is that during initialisation, before a node has joined The exception is that during initialisation, before a node has joined
the applicable trust infrastructure, e.g., the applicable trust infrastructure, e.g.,
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra], or before the ACP is fully [I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra], or before the ACP is fully
established, it might be impossible to secure messages. Indeed, both established, it might be impossible to secure messages. Indeed, both
the security bootstrap process and the ACP creation process might use the security bootstrap process and the ACP creation process might use
insecure GRASP discovery and response messages. Such usage MUST be insecure GRASP discovery and response messages. Such usage MUST be
limited to the strictly necessary minimum. A full analysis of the limited to the strictly necessary minimum. A full analysis of the
initialisation process is out of scope for the present document. initialisation process is out of scope for the present document.
3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage 3.3.2. Transport Layer Usage
The protocol is capable of running over UDP or TCP, except for link- GRASP discovery and flooding messages are designed for use over link-
local multicast discovery messages, which can only run over UDP and local multicast UDP. They MUST NOT be fragmented, and therefore MUST
MUST NOT be fragmented, and therefore cannot exceed the link MTU NOT exceed the link MTU size. Nothing in principle prevents them
size. from working over some other method of sending packets to all on-link
neighbors, but this is out of scope for the present specification.
When running within a secure ACP, UDP SHOULD be used for messages not All other GRASP messages are unicast and could in principle run over
exceeding the minimum IPv6 path MTU, and TCP MUST be used for longer any transport protocol. An implementation MUST support use of TCP.
messages. In other words, IPv6 fragmentation is avoided. If a node It MAY support use of another transport protocol. However, GRASP
receives a UDP message but the reply is too long, it MUST open a TCP itself does not provide for error detection or retransmission. Use
connection to the peer for the reply. of an unreliable transport protocol is therefore NOT RECOMMENDED.
When running without an ACP, TLS SHOULD be supported and used by When running within a secure ACP on reliable infrastructure, UDP MAY
default, except for multicast discovery messages. DTLS MAY be be used for unicast messages not exceeding the minimum IPv6 path MTU;
however, TCP MUST be used for longer messages. In other words, IPv6
fragmentation is avoided. If a node receives a UDP message but the
reply is too long, it MUST open a TCP connection to the peer for the
reply. Note that when the network is under heavy load or in a fault
condition, UDP might become unreliable. Since this is when autonomic
functions are most necessary, automatic fallback to TCP MUST be
implemented. The simplest implementation is therefore to use only
TCP.
When running without an ACP, TLS MUST be supported and used by
default, except for link-local multicast messages. DTLS MAY be
supported as an alternative but the details are out of scope for this supported as an alternative but the details are out of scope for this
document. document.
For all transport protocols, the GRASP protocol listens to the GRASP For all transport protocols, the GRASP protocol listens to the GRASP
Listen Port (Section 3.5). Listen Port (Section 3.5).
3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures 3.3.3. Discovery Mechanism and Procedures
o Separated discovery and negotiation mechanisms o Separated discovery and negotiation mechanisms
Although discovery and negotiation or synchronization are Although discovery and negotiation or synchronization are
defined together in the GRASP, they are separated mechanisms. defined together in the GRASP, they are separated mechanisms.
The discovery process could run independently from the The discovery process could run independently from the
negotiation or synchronization process. Upon receiving a negotiation or synchronization process. Upon receiving a
discovery (Section 3.7.2) message, the recipient ASA should Discovery (Section 3.7.3) message, the recipient ASA should
return a message in which it either indicates itself as a return a response message in which it either indicates itself
discovery responder or diverts the initiator towards another as a discovery responder or diverts the initiator towards
more suitable ASA. another more suitable ASA.
The discovery action will normally be followed by a negotiation The discovery action will normally be followed by a negotiation
or synchronization action. The discovery results could be or synchronization action. The discovery results could be
utilized by the negotiation protocol to decide which ASA the utilized by the negotiation protocol to decide which ASA the
initiator will negotiate with. initiator will negotiate with.
It is entirely possible to use GRASP discovery without a It is entirely possible to use GRASP discovery without a
subsequent negotiation or synchronization action. In this subsequent negotiation or synchronization action. In this
case, the discovered objective is simply used as a name during case, the discovered objective is simply used as a name during
the discovery process and any subsequent operations between the the discovery process and any subsequent operations between the
skipping to change at page 17, line 16 skipping to change at page 17, line 27
Discovery starts as an on-link operation. The Divert option Discovery starts as an on-link operation. The Divert option
can tell the discovery initiator to contact an off-link ASA for can tell the discovery initiator to contact an off-link ASA for
that discovery objective. Every Discovery message is sent by a that discovery objective. Every Discovery message is sent by a
discovery initiator via UDP to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast discovery initiator via UDP to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast
address (Section 3.5). Every network device that supports the address (Section 3.5). Every network device that supports the
GRASP always listens to a well-known UDP port to capture the GRASP always listens to a well-known UDP port to capture the
discovery messages. discovery messages.
If an ASA in the neighbor device supports the requested If an ASA in the neighbor device supports the requested
discovery objective, it MAY respond with a Response message discovery objective, it MAY respond with a Discovery Response
(Section 3.7.3) with locator option(s). Otherwise, if the message (Section 3.7.4) with locator option(s). Otherwise, if
neighbor has cached information about an ASA that supports the the neighbor has cached information about an ASA that supports
requested discovery objective (usually because it discovered the requested discovery objective (usually because it
the same objective before), it SHOULD respond with a Response discovered the same objective before), it SHOULD respond with a
message with a Divert option pointing to the appropriate Discovery Response message with a Divert option pointing to the
Discovery Responder. appropriate Discovery Responder.
If no discovery response is received within a reasonable If no discovery response is received within a reasonable
timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.5), timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.5),
the Discovery message MAY be repeated, with a newly generated the Discovery message MAY be repeated, with a newly generated
Session ID (Section 3.6). An exponential backoff SHOULD be Session ID (Section 3.6). An exponential backoff SHOULD be
used for subsequent repetitions, in order to mitigate possible used for subsequent repetitions, in order to mitigate possible
denial of service attacks. denial of service attacks.
After a GRASP device successfully discovers a Discovery After a GRASP device successfully discovers a Discovery
Responder supporting a specific objective, it MUST cache this Responder supporting a specific objective, it MUST cache this
skipping to change at page 18, line 9 skipping to change at page 18, line 19
they might be deleted at any time. In this case, discovery they might be deleted at any time. In this case, discovery
will need to be repeated. If an ASA exits for any reason, its will need to be repeated. If an ASA exits for any reason, its
locator might still be cached for some time, and attempts to locator might still be cached for some time, and attempts to
connect to it will fail. ASAs need to be robust in these connect to it will fail. ASAs need to be robust in these
circumstances. circumstances.
A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
router) MUST support discovery on all interfaces. If it router) MUST support discovery on all interfaces. If it
receives a Discovery message on a given interface for a receives a Discovery message on a given interface for a
specific objective that it does not support and for which it specific objective that it does not support and for which it
has not previously discovered a Discovery Responder, it MUST has not previously cached a Discovery Responder, it MUST relay
relay the query by re-issuing a Discovery message on its other the query by re-issuing a Discovery message on its other
interfaces. The relayed message MAY have a different Session interfaces. The relayed message MUST have a new Session ID.
ID. Before this, it MUST decrement the loop count within the Before this, it MUST decrement the loop count within the
objective, and MUST NOT relay the Discovery message if the objective, and MUST NOT relay the Discovery message if the
result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it
relays discovery messages to a reasonable value, in order to relays discovery messages to a reasonable value, in order to
mitigate possible denial of service attacks. It MUST cache the mitigate possible denial of service attacks. It MUST cache the
Session ID value of each relayed discovery message and, to Session ID value of each relayed discovery message and, to
prevent loops, MUST NOT relay a Discovery message which carries prevent loops, MUST NOT relay a Discovery message which carries
such a cached Session ID. These precautions avoid discovery such a cached Session ID. These precautions avoid discovery
loops and mitigate potential overload. loops and mitigate potential overload.
This relayed discovery mechanism, with caching of the results, This relayed discovery mechanism, with caching of the results,
should be sufficient to support most network bootstrapping should be sufficient to support most network bootstrapping
scenarios. scenarios.
o A complete discovery process will start with multicast on the o A complete discovery process will start with a multicast on the
local link; a neighbor might divert it to an off-link destination, local link. On-link neighbors supporting the discovery objective
which could be a default higher-level gateway in a hierarchical will respond directly. A neighbor with multiple interfaces will
network. Then discovery would continue with a unicast to that respond with a cached discovery response if any. If not, it will
gateway; if that gateway is still not the right counterpart, it relay the discovery on its other interfaces, for example reaching
should divert to another gateway, which is in principle closer to a higher-level gateway in a hierarchical network. If a node
the right counterpart. Finally the right counterpart responds to receiving the relayed discovery supports the discovery objective,
start the negotiation or synchronization process. it will respond to the relayed discovery. If it has a cached
response, it will respond with that. If not, it will repeat the
discovery process, which thereby becomes recursive. The loop
count and timeout will ensure that the process ends.
o Rapid Mode (Discovery/Negotiation binding) o Rapid Mode (Discovery/Negotiation binding)
A Discovery message MAY include a Negotiation Objective option. A Discovery message MAY include a Negotiation Objective option.
This allows a rapid mode of negotiation described in This allows a rapid mode of negotiation described in
Section 3.3.4. A similar mechanism is defined for Section 3.3.4. A similar mechanism is defined for
synchronization in Section 3.3.5. synchronization in Section 3.3.5.
3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures 3.3.4. Negotiation Procedures
skipping to change at page 19, line 37 skipping to change at page 19, line 49
negotiations with various other ASAs, or in simultaneous negotiations negotiations with various other ASAs, or in simultaneous negotiations
about different objectives. Thus, GRASP is expected to be used in a about different objectives. Thus, GRASP is expected to be used in a
multi-threaded mode. Certain negotiation objectives may have multi-threaded mode. Certain negotiation objectives may have
restrictions on multi-threading, for example to avoid over-allocating restrictions on multi-threading, for example to avoid over-allocating
resources. resources.
Some configuration actions, for example wavelength switching in Some configuration actions, for example wavelength switching in
optical networks, might take considerable time to execute. The ASA optical networks, might take considerable time to execute. The ASA
concerned needs to allow for this by design, but GRASP does allow for concerned needs to allow for this by design, but GRASP does allow for
a peer to insert latency in a negotiation process if necessary a peer to insert latency in a negotiation process if necessary
(Section 3.7.7). (Section 3.7.8).
3.3.4.1. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Negotiation Linkage) 3.3.4.1. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Negotiation Linkage)
A Discovery message MAY include a Negotiation Objective option. In A Discovery message MAY include a Negotiation Objective option. In
this case the Discovery message also acts as a Request message to this case the Discovery message also acts as a Request Negotiation
indicate to the Discovery Responder that it could directly reply to message to indicate to the Discovery Responder that it could directly
the Discovery Initiator with a Negotiation message for rapid reply to the Discovery Initiator with a Negotiation message for rapid
processing, if it could act as the corresponding negotiation processing, if it could act as the corresponding negotiation
counterpart. However, the indication is only advisory not counterpart. However, the indication is only advisory not
prescriptive. prescriptive.
This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a
higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid negotiation function higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid negotiation function
SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY be configured on or off SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY be configured on or off
by Intent. by Intent.
3.3.5. Synchronization and Flooding Procedure 3.3.5. Synchronization and Flooding Procedure
A synchronization initiator sends a synchronization request to a A synchronization initiator sends a synchronization request to a
counterpart, including a specific synchronization objective. The counterpart, including a specific synchronization objective. The
counterpart responds with a Synchronization message (Section 3.7.8) counterpart responds with a Synchronization message (Section 3.7.9)
containing the current value of the requested synchronization containing the current value of the requested synchronization
objective. No further messages are needed. objective. No further messages are needed.
If no reply message of any kind is received within a reasonable If no reply message of any kind is received within a reasonable
timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.5), the timeout (default GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds, Section 3.5), the
synchronization request MAY be repeated, with a newly generated synchronization request MAY be repeated, with a newly generated
Session ID (Section 3.6). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for Session ID (Section 3.6). An exponential backoff SHOULD be used for
subsequent repetitions. subsequent repetitions.
3.3.5.1. Flooding 3.3.5.1. Flooding
In the case just described, the message exchange is unicast and In the case just described, the message exchange is unicast and
concerns only one synchronization objective. For large groups of concerns only one synchronization objective. For large groups of
nodes requiring the same data, synchronization flooding is available. nodes requiring the same data, synchronization flooding is available.
For this, a flooding initiator MAY send an unsolicited Flood message For this, a flooding initiator MAY send an unsolicited Flood
containing one or more Synchronization Objective option(s), if and Synchronization message containing one or more Synchronization
only if the specification of those objectives permits it. This is Objective option(s), if and only if the specification of those
sent as a multicast message to the ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast objectives permits it. This is sent as a multicast message to the
address (Section 3.5). To ensure that flooding does not result in a ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (Section 3.5). To ensure that
loop, the originator of the Flood message MUST set the loop count in flooding does not result in a loop, the originator of the Flood
the objectives to a suitable value (the default is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). Synchronization message MUST set the loop count in the objectives to
In this case a suitable mechanism is needed to avoid excessive a suitable value (the default is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). In this case a
multicast traffic. This mechanism MUST be defined as part of the suitable mechanism is needed to avoid excessive multicast traffic.
specification of the synchronization objective(s) concerned. It This mechanism MUST be defined as part of the specification of the
might be a simple rate limit or a more complex mechanism such as the synchronization objective(s) concerned. It might be a simple rate
Trickle algorithm [RFC6206]. limit or a more complex mechanism such as the Trickle algorithm
[RFC6206].
A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a A GRASP device with multiple link-layer interfaces (typically a
router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all interfaces. If router) MUST support synchronization flooding on all interfaces. If
it receives a multicast Flood message on a given interface, it MUST it receives a multicast Flood Synchronization message on a given
relay it by re-issuing a Flood message on its other interfaces. The interface, it MUST relay it by re-issuing a Flood Synchronization
relayed message MAY have a different Session ID. Before this, it message on its other interfaces. The relayed message MUST have a new
MUST decrement the loop count within the objective, and MUST NOT Session ID. Before this, it MUST decrement the loop count within the
relay the Flood message if the result is zero. Also, it MUST limit objective, and MUST NOT relay the Flood Synchronization message if
the total rate at which it relays Flood messages to a reasonable the result is zero. Also, it MUST limit the total rate at which it
value, in order to mitigate possible denial of service attacks. It relays Flood Synchronization messages to a reasonable value, in order
MUST cache the Session ID value of each relayed Flood message and, to to mitigate possible denial of service attacks. It MUST cache the
prevent loops, MUST NOT relay a Flood message which carries such a Session ID value of each relayed Flood Synchronization message and,
cached Session ID. These precautions avoid synchronization loops and to prevent loops, MUST NOT relay a Flood Synchronization message
mitigate potential overload. which carries such a cached Session ID. These precautions avoid
synchronization loops and mitigate potential overload.
Note that this mechanism is unreliable in the case of sleeping nodes. Note that this mechanism is unreliable in the case of sleeping nodes.
Sleeping nodes that require an objective subject to flooding SHOULD Sleeping nodes that require an objective subject to flooding SHOULD
periodically request unicast synchronization for that objective. periodically request unicast synchronization for that objective.
The multicast messages for synchronization flooding are subject to The multicast messages for synchronization flooding are subject to
the security rules in Section 3.3.1. In practice this means that the security rules in Section 3.3.1. In practice this means that
they MUST NOT be transmitted and MUST be ignored on receipt unless they MUST NOT be transmitted and MUST be ignored on receipt unless
there is an operational ACP. there is an operational ACP. However, because of the security
weakness of link-local multicast (Section 4), synchronization
objectives that are flooded SHOULD NOT contain unencrypted sensitive
information and SHOULD be validated by the recipient ASA.
3.3.5.2. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Synchronization Linkage) 3.3.5.2. Rapid Mode (Discovery/Synchronization Linkage)
A Discovery message MAY include a Synchronization Objective option. A Discovery message MAY include a Synchronization Objective option.
In this case the Discovery message also acts as a Request message to In this case the Discovery message also acts as a Request
indicate to the Discovery Responder that it could directly reply to Synchronization message to indicate to the Discovery Responder that
the Discovery Initiator with a Synchronization message Section 3.7.8 it could directly reply to the Discovery Initiator with a
with synchronization data for rapid processing, if the discovery Synchronization message Section 3.7.9 with synchronization data for
target supports the corresponding synchronization objective. rapid processing, if the discovery target supports the corresponding
However, the indication is only advisory not prescriptive. synchronization objective. However, the indication is only advisory
not prescriptive.
This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a This rapid mode could reduce the interactions between nodes so that a
higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid synchronization higher efficiency could be achieved. This rapid synchronization
function SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY be configured on function SHOULD be configured off by default and MAY be configured on
or off by Intent. or off by Intent.
3.4. High Level Deployment Model 3.4. High Level Deployment Model
It is expected that a GRASP implementation will reside in an It is expected that a GRASP implementation will reside in an
autonomic node that also contains both the appropriate security autonomic node that also contains both the appropriate security
skipping to change at page 22, line 28 skipping to change at page 22, line 47
o GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT (6) o GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT (6)
The default loop count used to determine that a negotiation has The default loop count used to determine that a negotiation has
failed to complete, and to avoid looping messages. failed to complete, and to avoid looping messages.
3.6. Session Identifier (Session ID) 3.6. Session Identifier (Session ID)
This is an up to 24-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple This is an up to 24-bit opaque value used to distinguish multiple
sessions between the same two devices. A new Session ID MUST be sessions between the same two devices. A new Session ID MUST be
generated by the initiator for every new Discovery, Flood or Request generated by the initiator for every new Discovery, Flood
message. All responses and follow-up messages in the same discovery, Synchronization or Request message. All responses and follow-up
synchronization or negotiation procedure MUST carry the same Session messages in the same discovery, synchronization or negotiation
ID. procedure MUST carry the same Session ID.
The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally. It The Session ID SHOULD have a very low collision rate locally. It
MUST be generated by a pseudo-random algorithm using a locally MUST be generated by a pseudo-random algorithm using a locally
generated seed which is unlikely to be used by any other device in generated seed which is unlikely to be used by any other device in
the same network [RFC4086]. the same network [RFC4086].
However, there is a finite probability that two nodes might generate However, there is a finite probability that two nodes might generate
the same Session ID value. For that reason, when a Session ID is the same Session ID value. For that reason, when a Session ID is
communicated via GRASP, the receiving node MUST tag it with the communicated via GRASP, the receiving node MUST tag it with the
initiator's IP address to allow disambiguation. Multicast GRASP initiator's IP address to allow disambiguation. Multicast GRASP
messages and their responses, which may be relayed between links, messages, which may be relayed between links, therefore require a new
therefore include a field that carries the initiator's global IP Session ID each time they are relayed.
address.
3.7. GRASP Messages 3.7. GRASP Messages
3.7.1. Message Overview
This section defines the GRASP message format and message types. This section defines the GRASP message format and message types.
Message types not listed here are reserved for future use. Message types not listed here are reserved for future use.
3.7.1. GRASP Message Format The messages currently defined are:
Discovery and Discovery Response.
Request Negotiation, Negotiation, Confirm Waiting and Negotiation
End.
Request Synchronization, Synchronization, and Flood
Synchronization.
No Operation.
3.7.2. GRASP Message Format
GRASP messages share an identical header format and a variable format GRASP messages share an identical header format and a variable format
area for options. GRASP message headers and options are transmitted area for options. GRASP message headers and options are transmitted
in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049]. In this in Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) [RFC7049]. In this
specification, they are described using CBOR data definition language specification, they are described using CBOR data definition language
(CDDL) [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]. Fragmentary CDDL is (CDDL) [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]. Fragmentary CDDL is
used to describe each item in this section. A complete and normative used to describe each item in this section. A complete and normative
CDDL specification of GRASP is given in Section 6, including CDDL specification of GRASP is given in Section 5, including
constants such as message types. constants such as message types.
Every GRASP message, except the No Operation message, carries a Every GRASP message, except the No Operation message, carries a
Session ID (Section 3.6). Options are then presented serially in the Session ID (Section 3.6). Options are then presented serially in the
options field. options field.
In fragmentary CDDL, every GRASP message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, every GRASP message follows the pattern:
grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, +grasp-option] message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, +grasp-option]
MESSAGE_TYPE = 1..255 MESSAGE_TYPE = 1..255
session-id = 0..16777215 ;up to 24 bits session-id = 0..16777215 ;up to 24 bits
grasp-option = any grasp-option = any
The MESSAGE_TYPE indicates the type of the message and thus defines The MESSAGE_TYPE indicates the type of the message and thus defines
the expected options. Any options received that are not consistent the expected options. Any options received that are not consistent
with the MESSAGE_TYPE SHOULD be silently discarded. with the MESSAGE_TYPE SHOULD be silently discarded.
The No Operation (noop) message is described in Section 3.7.10. The No Operation (noop) message is described in Section 3.7.11.
The various MESSAGE_TYPE values are defined in Section 6. The various MESSAGE_TYPE values are defined in Section 5.
All other message elements are described below and formally defined All other message elements are described below and formally defined
in Section 6. in Section 5.
3.7.2. Discovery Message 3.7.3. Discovery Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery message follows the pattern:
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective] discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, objective]
A discovery initiator sends a Discovery message to initiate a A discovery initiator sends a Discovery message to initiate a
discovery process for a particular objective option. discovery process for a particular objective option.
The discovery initiator sends the Discovery messages to the link- The discovery initiator sends the Discovery messages to the link-
local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address for discovery, and stores local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address for discovery, and stores
the discovery results (including responding discovery objectives and the discovery results (including responding discovery objectives and
corresponding unicast addresses, FQDNs or URIs). corresponding unicast addresses, FQDNs or URIs).
The 'initiator' field in the message is a globally unique IP address
of the initiator, for the sole purpose of disambiguating the Session
ID in other nodes. If for some reason the initiator does not have a
globally unique IP address, it MUST use a link-local address for this
purpose that is highly likely to be unique, for example using
[RFC7217].
A Discovery message MUST include exactly one of the following: A Discovery message MUST include exactly one of the following:
o a discovery objective option (Section 3.9.1). Its loop count MUST o a discovery objective option (Section 3.9.1). Its loop count MUST
be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops (default be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops (default
value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
o a negotiation objective option (Section 3.9.1). This is used both o a negotiation objective option (Section 3.9.1). This is used both
for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery
target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiatior with target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiatior with
a Negotiation message for rapid processing, if it could act as the a Negotiation message for rapid processing, if it could act as the
corresponding negotiation counterpart. The sender of such a corresponding negotiation counterpart. The sender of such a
Discovery message MUST initialize a negotiation timer and loop Discovery message MUST initialize a negotiation timer and loop
count in the same way as a Request message (Section 3.7.4). count in the same way as a Request Negotiation message
(Section 3.7.5).
o a synchronization objective option (Section 3.9.1). This is used o a synchronization objective option (Section 3.9.1). This is used
both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery both for the purpose of discovery and to indicate to the discovery
target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiator with target that it MAY directly reply to the discovery initiator with
a Synchronization message for rapid processing, if it could act as a Synchronization message for rapid processing, if it could act as
the corresponding synchronization counterpart. Its loop count the corresponding synchronization counterpart. Its loop count
MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent discovery loops
(default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT). (default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
3.7.3. Response Message 3.7.4. Discovery Response Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Response message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Discovery Response message follows the
pattern:
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator, response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id,
(+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective)] (+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective)]
A node which receives a Discovery message SHOULD send a Response A node which receives a Discovery message SHOULD send a Discovery
message if and only if it can respond to the discovery. It MUST Response message if and only if it can respond to the discovery. It
contain the same Session ID and initiator as the Discovery message. MAY include a copy of the discovery objective from the Discovery
It MAY include a copy of the discovery objective from the Discovery
message. message.
If the responding node supports the discovery objective of the If the responding node supports the discovery objective of the
discovery, it MUST include at least one kind of locator option discovery, it MUST include at least one kind of locator option
(Section 3.8.6) to indicate its own location. A sequence of multiple (Section 3.8.5) to indicate its own location. A sequence of multiple
kinds of locator options (e.g. IP address option + FQDN option) is kinds of locator options (e.g. IP address option and FQDN option) is
also valid. also valid.
If the responding node itself does not support the discovery If the responding node itself does not support the discovery
objective, but it knows the locator of the discovery objective, then objective, but it knows the locator of the discovery objective, then
it SHOULD respond to the discovery message with a divert option it SHOULD respond to the discovery message with a divert option
(Section 3.8.2) embedding a locator option or a combination of (Section 3.8.2) embedding a locator option or a combination of
multiple kinds of locator options which indicate the locator(s) of multiple kinds of locator options which indicate the locator(s) of
the discovery objective. the discovery objective.
3.7.4. Request Message 3.7.5. Request Messages
In fragmentary CDDL, a Request message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, Request Negotiation and Request Synchronization
messages follow the patterns:
request-message = [M_REQUEST, session-id, objective] request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective]
A negotiation or synchronization requesting node sends the Request request-synchronization-message = [M_REQ_SYN, session-id, objective]
message to the unicast address (directly stored or resolved from an
FQDN) of the negotiation or synchronization counterpart (selected
from the discovery results).
A request message MUST include the relevant objective option, with A negotiation or synchronization requesting node sends the
the requested value in the case of negotiation. appropriate Request message to the unicast address (directly stored
or resolved from an FQDN) of the negotiation or synchronization
counterpart (selected from the discovery results).
When an initiator sends a Request message, it MUST initialize a A Request message MUST include the relevant objective option. In the
negotiation timer for the new negotiation thread with the value case of Request Negotiation, the objective option MUST include the
GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. Unless this timeout is modified by a requested value.
Confirm-waiting message (Section 3.7.7), the initiator will consider
that the negotiation has failed when the timer expires. When an initiator sends a Request Negotiation message, it MUST
initialize a negotiation timer for the new negotiation thread with
the value GRASP_DEF_TIMEOUT milliseconds. Unless this timeout is
modified by a Confirm Waiting message (Section 3.7.8), the initiator
will consider that the negotiation has failed when the timer expires.
When an initiator sends a Request message, it MUST initialize the When an initiator sends a Request message, it MUST initialize the
loop count of the objective option with a value defined in the loop count of the objective option with a value defined in the
specification of the option or, if no such value is specified, with specification of the option or, if no such value is specified, with
GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT. GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
If a node receives a Request message for an objective for which no If a node receives a Request message for an objective for which no
ASA is currently listening, it MUST immediately close the relevant ASA is currently listening, it MUST immediately close the relevant
socket to indicate this to the initiator. socket to indicate this to the initiator.
3.7.5. Negotiation Message 3.7.6. Negotiation Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation message follows the pattern:
discovery-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective] discovery-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
A negotiation counterpart sends a Negotiation message in response to A negotiation counterpart sends a Negotiation message in response to
a Request message, a Negotiation message, or a Discovery message in a Request Negotiation message, a Negotiation message, or a Discovery
Rapid Mode. A negotiation process MAY include multiple steps. message in Rapid Mode. A negotiation process MAY include multiple
steps.
The Negotiation message MUST include the relevant Negotiation The Negotiation message MUST include the relevant Negotiation
Objective option, with its value updated according to progress in the Objective option, with its value updated according to progress in the
negotiation. The sender MUST decrement the loop count by 1. If the negotiation. The sender MUST decrement the loop count by 1. If the
loop count becomes zero the message MUST NOT be sent. In this case loop count becomes zero the message MUST NOT be sent. In this case
the negotiation session has failed and will time out. the negotiation session has failed and will time out.
3.7.6. Negotiation-ending Message 3.7.7. Negotiation End Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation-ending message follows the In fragmentary CDDL, a Negotiation End message follows the pattern:
pattern:
end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option] end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option]
A negotiation counterpart sends an Negotiation-ending message to A negotiation counterpart sends an Negotiation End message to close
close the negotiation. It MUST contain either an accept or a decline the negotiation. It MUST contain either an accept or a decline
option, defined in Section 3.8.3 and Section 3.8.4. It could be sent option, defined in Section 3.8.3 and Section 3.8.4. It could be sent
either by the requesting node or the responding node. either by the requesting node or the responding node.
3.7.7. Confirm-waiting Message 3.7.8. Confirm Waiting Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Confirm-waiting message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Confirm Waiting message follows the pattern:
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time] wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time]
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
A responding node sends a Confirm-waiting message to ask the A responding node sends a Confirm Waiting message to ask the
requesting node to wait for a further negotiation response. It might requesting node to wait for a further negotiation response. It might
be that the local process needs more time or that the negotiation be that the local process needs more time or that the negotiation
depends on another triggered negotiation. This message MUST NOT depends on another triggered negotiation. This message MUST NOT
include any other options. When received, the waiting time value include any other options. When received, the waiting time value
overwrites and restarts the current negotiation timer overwrites and restarts the current negotiation timer
(Section 3.7.4). (Section 3.7.5).
The responding node SHOULD send a Negotiation, Negotiation-Ending or The responding node SHOULD send a Negotiation, Negotiation End or
another Confirm-waiting message before the negotiation timer expires. another Confirm Waiting message before the negotiation timer expires.
If not, the initiator MUST abandon or restart the negotiation If not, the initiator MUST abandon or restart the negotiation
procedure, to avoid an indefinite wait. procedure, to avoid an indefinite wait.
3.7.8. Synchronization Message 3.7.9. Synchronization Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Synchronization message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Synchronization message follows the pattern:
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective] synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
A node which receives a synchronization Request, or a Discovery A node which receives a Request Synchronization, or a Discovery
message in Rapid Mode, sends back a unicast Synchronization message message in Rapid Mode, sends back a unicast Synchronization message
with the synchronization data, in the form of a GRASP Option for the with the synchronization data, in the form of a GRASP Option for the
specific synchronization objective present in the Request. specific synchronization objective present in the Request
Synchronization.
3.7.9. Flood Message 3.7.10. Flood Synchronization Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a Flood message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a Flood Synchronization message follows the
pattern:
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, +objective] flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, +objective]
A node MAY initiate flooding by sending an unsolicited Flood Message A node MAY initiate flooding by sending an unsolicited Flood
with synchronization data. This MAY be sent to the link-local Synchronization Message with synchronization data. This MAY be sent
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address, in accordance with the rules in to the link-local ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address, in accordance
Section 3.3.5. The initiator address is provided as described for with the rules in Section 3.3.5. The synchronization data will be in
Discovery messages. The synchronization data will be in the form of the form of GRASP Option(s) for specific synchronization
GRASP Option(s) for specific synchronization objective(s). The loop objective(s). The loop count(s) MUST be set to a suitable value to
count(s) MUST be set to a suitable value to prevent flood loops prevent flood loops (default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
(default value is GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT).
A node that receives a Flood message SHOULD cache the received A node that receives a Flood Synchronization message SHOULD cache the
objectives for use by local ASAs. received objectives for use by local ASAs.
3.7.10. No Operation Message 3.7.11. No Operation Message
In fragmentary CDDL, a No Operation message follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, a No Operation message follows the pattern:
noop-message = [M_NOOP] noop-message = [M_NOOP]
This message MAY be sent by an implementation that for practical This message MAY be sent by an implementation that for practical
reasons needs to activate a socket. It MUST be silently ignored by a reasons needs to activate a socket. It MUST be silently ignored by a
recipient. recipient.
3.8. GRASP Options 3.8. GRASP Options
This section defines the GRASP options for the negotiation and This section defines the GRASP options for the negotiation and
synchronization protocol signaling. Additional options may be synchronization protocol signaling. Additional options may be
defined in the future. defined in the future.
3.8.1. Format of GRASP Options 3.8.1. Format of GRASP Options
GRASP options are CBOR objects that MUST start with an unsigned GRASP options are CBOR objects that MUST start with an unsigned
integer identifying the specific option type carried in this option. integer identifying the specific option type carried in this option.
These option types are formally defined in Section 6. Apart from These option types are formally defined in Section 5. Apart from
that the only format requirement is that each option MUST be a well- that the only format requirement is that each option MUST be a well-
formed CBOR object. In general a CBOR array format is RECOMMENDED to formed CBOR object. In general a CBOR array format is RECOMMENDED to
limit overhead. limit overhead.
GRASP options are usually scoped by using encapsulation. However, GRASP options are usually scoped by using encapsulation. However,
this is not a requirement this is not a requirement
3.8.2. Divert Option 3.8.2. Divert Option
The Divert option is used to redirect a GRASP request to another The Divert option is used to redirect a GRASP request to another
node, which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation or node, which may be more appropriate for the intended negotiation or
synchronization. It may redirect to an entity that is known as a synchronization. It may redirect to an entity that is known as a
specific negotiation or synchronization counterpart (on-link or off- specific negotiation or synchronization counterpart (on-link or off-
link) or a default gateway. The divert option MUST only be link) or a default gateway. The divert option MUST only be
encapsulated in Response messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be encapsulated in Discovery Response messages. If found elsewhere, it
silently ignored. SHOULD be silently ignored.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Divert option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Divert option follows the pattern:
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option] divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
The embedded Locator Option(s) (Section 3.8.6) point to diverted The embedded Locator Option(s) (Section 3.8.5) point to diverted
destination target(s) in response to a Discovery message. destination target(s) in response to a Discovery message.
3.8.3. Accept Option 3.8.3. Accept Option
The accept option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart The accept option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
that the proposed negotiation content is accepted. that the proposed negotiation content is accepted.
The accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending The accept option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Accept option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Accept option follows the pattern:
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT] accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
3.8.4. Decline Option 3.8.4. Decline Option
The decline option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart The decline option is used to indicate to the negotiation counterpart
the proposed negotiation content is declined and end the negotiation the proposed negotiation content is declined and end the negotiation
process. process.
The decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation-ending The decline option MUST only be encapsulated in Negotiation End
messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored. messages. If found elsewhere, it SHOULD be silently ignored.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Decline option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the Decline option follows the pattern:
decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason] decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason]
reason = text ;optional error message reason = text ;optional error message
Note: there are scenarios where a negotiation counterpart wants to Note: there are scenarios where a negotiation counterpart wants to
decline the proposed negotiation content and continue the negotiation decline the proposed negotiation content and continue the negotiation
process. For these scenarios, the negotiation counterpart SHOULD use process. For these scenarios, the negotiation counterpart SHOULD use
a Negotiate message, with either an objective option that contains a a Negotiate message, with either an objective option that contains a
data field set to indicate a meaningless initial value, or a specific data field set to indicate a meaningless initial value, or a specific
objective option that provides further conditions for convergence. objective option that provides further conditions for convergence.
3.8.5. Device Identity Option 3.8.5. Locator Options
The Device Identity option carries the identities of the sender and
of the domain(s) that it belongs to.
In fragmentary CDDL, the Device Identity option follows the pattern:
option-device-id = [O_DEVICE_ID, bytes]
The option contains a variable-length field containing the device
identity and one or more domain identities. The format is not yet
defined.
Note: Currently this option is an unused placeholder. It might be
removed or modified.
3.8.6. Locator Options
These locator options are used to present reachability information These locator options are used to present reachability information
for an ASA, a device or an interface. They are Locator IPv4 Address for an ASA, a device or an interface. They are Locator IPv4 Address
Option, Locator IPv6 Address Option, Locator FQDN (Fully Qualified Option, Locator IPv6 Address Option, Locator FQDN (Fully Qualified
Domain Name) Option and Uniform Resource Identifier Option. Domain Name) Option and Uniform Resource Identifier Option.
Note: It is assumed that all locators are in scope throughout the Note: It is assumed that all locators are in scope throughout the
GRASP domain. GRASP is not intended to work across disjoint GRASP domain. GRASP is not intended to work across disjoint
addressing or naming realms. addressing or naming realms.
3.8.6.1. Locator IPv4 address option 3.8.5.1. Locator IPv4 address option
In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv4 address option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv4 address option follows the pattern:
ipv4-locator-option = bytes .size 4 ipv4-locator-option = bytes .size 4
The content of this option is a binary IPv4 address. The content of this option is a binary IPv4 address.
Note: If an operator has internal network address translation for Note: If an operator has internal network address translation for
IPv4, this option MUST NOT be used within the Divert option. IPv4, this option MUST NOT be used within the Divert option.
3.8.6.2. Locator IPv6 address option 3.8.5.2. Locator IPv6 address option
In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv6 address option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the IPv6 address option follows the pattern:
ipv6-locator-option = bytes .size 16 ipv6-locator-option = bytes .size 16
The content of this option is a binary IPv6 address. The content of this option is a binary IPv6 address.
Note 1: The IPv6 address MUST normally have global scope. Note 1: The IPv6 address MUST normally have global scope.
Exceptionally, during node bootstrap, a link-local address MAY be Exceptionally, during node bootstrap, a link-local address MAY be
used for specific objectives only. used for specific objectives only.
Note 2: A link-local IPv6 address MUST NOT be used when this option Note 2: A link-local IPv6 address MUST NOT be used when this option
is included in a Divert option. is included in a Divert option.
3.8.6.3. Locator FQDN option 3.8.5.3. Locator FQDN option
In fragmentary CDDL, the FQDN option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the FQDN option follows the pattern:
fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text] fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text]
The content of this option is the Fully Qualified Domain Name of the The content of this option is the Fully Qualified Domain Name of the
target. target.
Note 1: Any FQDN which might not be valid throughout the network in Note 1: Any FQDN which might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST NOT be used question, such as a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST NOT be used
when this option is used within the Divert option. when this option is used within the Divert option.
Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option. Note 2: Normal GRASP operations are not expected to use this option.
It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external It is intended for special purposes such as discovering external
services. services.
3.8.6.4. Locator URI option 3.8.5.4. Locator URI option
In fragmentary CDDL, the URI option follows the pattern: In fragmentary CDDL, the URI option follows the pattern:
uri-locator-option = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text] uri-locator-option = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text]
The content of this option is the Uniform Resource Identifier of the The content of this option is the Uniform Resource Identifier of the
target [RFC3986]. target [RFC3986].
Note 1: Any URI which might not be valid throughout the network in Note 1: Any URI which might not be valid throughout the network in
question, such as one based on a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST question, such as one based on a Multicast DNS name [RFC6762], MUST
skipping to change at page 31, line 14 skipping to change at page 31, line 33
objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?any] objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?any]
objective-name = text objective-name = text
loop-count = 0..255 loop-count = 0..255
All objectives are identified by a unique name which is a case- All objectives are identified by a unique name which is a case-
sensitive UTF-8 string. sensitive UTF-8 string.
The names of generic objectives MUST NOT include a colon (":") and The names of generic objectives MUST NOT include a colon (":") and
MUST be registered with IANA (Section 7). MUST be registered with IANA (Section 6).
The names of privately defined objectives MUST include at least one The names of privately defined objectives MUST include at least one
colon (":"). The string preceding the last colon in the name MUST be colon (":"). The string preceding the last colon in the name MUST be
globally unique and in some way identify the entity or person globally unique and in some way identify the entity or person
defining the objective. The following three methods MAY be used to defining the objective. The following three methods MAY be used to
create such a globally unique string: create such a globally unique string:
1. The unique string is a decimal number representing a registered 1. The unique string is a decimal number representing a registered
32 bit Private Enterprise Number (PEN) [I-D.liang-iana-pen] that 32 bit Private Enterprise Number (PEN) [I-D.liang-iana-pen] that
uniquely identifies the enterprise defining the objective. uniquely identifies the enterprise defining the objective.
skipping to change at page 31, line 39 skipping to change at page 32, line 12
3. The unique string is an email address that uniquely identifies 3. The unique string is an email address that uniquely identifies
the entity or person defining the objective. the entity or person defining the objective.
The GRASP protocol treats the objective name as an opaque string. The GRASP protocol treats the objective name as an opaque string.
For example, "EX1", "411:EX1", "example.com:EX1", "example.org:EX1 For example, "EX1", "411:EX1", "example.com:EX1", "example.org:EX1
and "user@example.org:EX1" would be five different objectives. and "user@example.org:EX1" would be five different objectives.
The 'objective-flags' field is described below. The 'objective-flags' field is described below.
The 'loop-count' field is used for terminating negotiation as The 'loop-count' field is used for terminating negotiation as
described in Section 3.7.5. It is also used for terminating described in Section 3.7.6. It is also used for terminating
discovery as described in Section 3.3.3, and for terminating flooding discovery as described in Section 3.3.3, and for terminating flooding
as described in Section 3.3.5.1. as described in Section 3.3.5.1.
The 'any' field is to express the actual value of a negotiation or The 'any' field is to express the actual value of a negotiation or
synchronization objective. Its format is defined in the synchronization objective. Its format is defined in the
specification of the objective and may be a single value or a data specification of the objective and may be a single value or a data
structure of any kind. It is optional because it is optional in a structure of any kind. It is optional because it is optional in a
Discovery or Response message. Discovery or Discovery Response message.
3.9.2. Objective flags 3.9.2. Objective flags
An objective may be relevant for discovery only, for discovery and An objective may be relevant for discovery only, for discovery and
negotiation, or for discovery and synchronization. This is expressed negotiation, or for discovery and synchronization. This is expressed
in the objective by logical flags: in the objective by logical flags:
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &( objective-flag = &(
F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery only F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery only
skipping to change at page 32, line 31 skipping to change at page 32, line 48
As long as privately defined Objective Options obey the rules above, As long as privately defined Objective Options obey the rules above,
this document does not restrict their choice of name, but the entity this document does not restrict their choice of name, but the entity
or person concerned SHOULD publish the names in use. or person concerned SHOULD publish the names in use.
All Objective Options MUST respect the CBOR patterns defined above as All Objective Options MUST respect the CBOR patterns defined above as
"objective" and MUST replace the "any" field with a valid CBOR data "objective" and MUST replace the "any" field with a valid CBOR data
definition for the relevant use case and application. definition for the relevant use case and application.
An Objective Option that contains no additional fields beyond its An Objective Option that contains no additional fields beyond its
"loop-count" can only be a discovery objective and MUST only be used "loop-count" can only be a discovery objective and MUST only be used
in Discovery and Response messages. in Discovery and Discovery Response messages.
The Negotiation Objective Options contain negotiation objectives, The Negotiation Objective Options contain negotiation objectives,
which vary according to different functions/services. They MUST be which vary according to different functions/services. They MUST be
carried by Discovery, Request or Negotiation Messages only. The carried by Discovery, Request Negotiation or Negotiation messages
negotiation initiator MUST set the initial "loop-count" to a value only. The negotiation initiator MUST set the initial "loop-count" to
specified in the specification of the objective or, if no such value a value specified in the specification of the objective or, if no
is specified, to GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT. such value is specified, to GRASP_DEF_LOOPCT.
For most scenarios, there should be initial values in the negotiation For most scenarios, there should be initial values in the negotiation
requests. Consequently, the Negotiation Objective options MUST requests. Consequently, the Negotiation Objective options MUST
always be completely presented in a Request message, or in a always be completely presented in a Request Negotiation message, or
Discovery message in rapid mode. If there is no initial value, the in a Discovery message in rapid mode. If there is no initial value,
bits in the value field SHOULD all be set to indicate a meaningless the bits in the value field SHOULD all be set to indicate a
value, unless this is inappropriate for the specific negotiation meaningless value, unless this is inappropriate for the specific
objective. negotiation objective.
Synchronization Objective Options are similar, but MUST be carried by Synchronization Objective Options are similar, but MUST be carried by
Discovery, Request, Response or Flood messages only. They include Discovery, Discovery Response, Request Synchronization, or Flood
value fields only in Response or Flood messages. Synchronization messages only. They include value fields only in
Synchronization or Flood Synchronization messages.
3.9.4. Organizing of Objective Options 3.9.4. Organizing of Objective Options
Generic objective options MUST be specified in documents available to Generic objective options MUST be specified in documents available to
the public and SHOULD be designed to use either the negotiation or the public and SHOULD be designed to use either the negotiation or
the synchronization mechanism described above. the synchronization mechanism described above.
As noted earlier, one negotiation objective is handled by each GRASP As noted earlier, one negotiation objective is handled by each GRASP
negotiation thread. Therefore, a negotiation objective, which is negotiation thread. Therefore, a negotiation objective, which is
based on a specific function or action, SHOULD be organized as a based on a specific function or action, SHOULD be organized as a
skipping to change at page 34, line 28 skipping to change at page 34, line 44
The names "EX0" through "EX9" have been reserved for experimental The names "EX0" through "EX9" have been reserved for experimental
options. Multiple names have been assigned because a single options. Multiple names have been assigned because a single
experiment may use multiple options simultaneously. These experiment may use multiple options simultaneously. These
experimental options are highly likely to have different meanings experimental options are highly likely to have different meanings
when used for different experiments. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be when used for different experiments. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT be
used without an explicit human decision and SHOULD NOT be used in used without an explicit human decision and SHOULD NOT be used in
unmanaged networks such as home networks. unmanaged networks such as home networks.
These names are also RECOMMENDED for use in documentation examples. These names are also RECOMMENDED for use in documentation examples.
4. Open Issues 4. Security Considerations
RFC Editor: This section should be deleted except for any items not It is obvious that a successful attack on negotiation-enabled nodes
marked as resolved, which should be retained and renumbered. would be extremely harmful, as such nodes might end up with a
completely undesirable configuration that would also adversely affect
their peers. GRASP nodes and messages therefore require full
protection.
There are various unresolved design questions that are worthy of more - Authentication
work in the near future, as listed below (statically numbered in A cryptographically authenticated identity for each device is
historical order for reference purposes, with the resolved issues needed in an autonomic network. It is not safe to assume that a
retained for reference): large network is physically secured against interference or that
all personnel are trustworthy. Each autonomic node MUST be
capable of proving its identity and authenticating its messages.
GRASP relies on a separate external certificate-based security
mechanism to support authentication, data integrity protection,
and anti-replay protection.
Since GRASP is intended to be deployed in a single administrative
domain operating its own trust anchor and CA, there is no need for
a trusted public third party. In a network requiring "air gap"
security, such a dependency would be unacceptable.
If GRASP is used temporarily without an external security
mechanism, for example during system bootstrap (Section 3.3.1),
the Session ID (Section 3.6) will act as a nonce to provide
limited protection against third parties injecting responses. A
full analysis of the secure bootstrap process is out of scope for
the present document.
- Authorization and Roles
The GRASP protocol is agnostic about the role of individual ASAs
and about which objectives a particular ASA is authorized to
support. It SHOULD apply obvious precautions such as allowing
only one ASA in a given node to modify a given objective, but
otherwise authorization is out of scope.
- Privacy and confidentiality
Generally speaking, no personal information is expected to be
involved in the signaling protocol, so there should be no direct
impact on personal privacy. Nevertheless, traffic flow paths,
VPNs, etc. could be negotiated, which could be of interest for
traffic analysis. Also, operators generally want to conceal
details of their network topology and traffic density from
outsiders. Therefore, since insider attacks cannot be excluded in
a large network, the security mechanism for the protocol MUST
provide message confidentiality. This is why Section 3.3.1
requires either an ACP or the use of TLS.
- Link-local multicast security
GRASP has no reasonable alternative to using link-local multicast
for Discovery or Flood Synchronization messages and these messages
are sent in clear and with no authentication. They are therefore
available to on-link eavesdroppers, and could be forged by on-link
attackers. In the case of Discovery, the Discovery Responses are
unicast and will therefore be protected (Section 3.3.1), and an
untrusted forger will not be able to receive responses. In the
case of Flood Synchronization, an on-link eavesdropper will be
able to receive the flooded objectives but there is no response
message to consider. Some precautions for Flood Synchronization
messages are suggested in Section 3.3.5.1.
- DoS Attack Protection
GRASP discovery partly relies on insecure link-local multicast.
Since routers participating in GRASP sometimes relay discovery
messages from one link to another, this could be a vector for
denial of service attacks. Relevant mitigations are specified in
Section 3.3.3. Additionally, it is of great importance that
firewalls prevent any GRASP messages from entering the domain from
an untrusted source.
- Security during bootstrap and discovery
A node cannot authenticate GRASP traffic from other nodes until it
has identified the trust anchor and can validate certificates for
other nodes. Also, until it has succesfully enrolled
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] it cannot assume that
other nodes are able to authenticate its own traffic. Therefore,
GRASP discovery during the bootstrap phase for a new device will
inevitably be insecure and GRASP synchronization and negotiation
will be impossible until enrollment is complete.
- Security of discovered locators
When GRASP discovery returns an IP address, it MUST be that of a
node within the secure environment (Section 3.3.1). If it returns
an FQDN or a URI, the ASA that receives it MUST NOT assume that
the target of the locator is within the secure environment.
5. CDDL Specification of GRASP
<CODE BEGINS>
grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, *grasp-option]
MESSAGE_TYPE = 0..255
session-id = 0..16777215 ;up to 24 bits
grasp-option = any
message /= discovery-message
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, objective]
message /= response-message ;response to Discovery
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id,
(+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective]
message /= synch-message ;response to Synchronization request
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
message /= flood-message
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, +objective]
message /= request-negotiation-message
request-negotiation-message = [M_REQ_NEG, session-id, objective]
message /= request-synchronization-message
request-synchronization-message = [M_REQ_SYN, session-id, objective]
message /= negotiation-message
negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
message /= end-message
end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option ]
message /= wait-message
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time]
noop-message = [M_NOOP]
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason]
reason = text ;optional error message
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
locator-option /= ipv4-locator-option
ipv4-locator-option = bytes .size 4
; this is simpler than [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, bytes .size 4]
locator-option /= ipv6-locator-option
ipv6-locator-option = bytes .size 16
locator-option /= fqdn-locator-option
fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text]
locator-option /= uri-locator-option
uri-locator-option = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text]
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &(
F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery only
F_NEG: 1 ; valid for discovery and negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2) ; valid for discovery and synchronization
objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?any]
objective-name = text ;see specification for uniqueness rules
loop-count = 0..255
; Constants for message types and option types
M_NOOP = 0
M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQ_NEG = 3
M_REQ_SYN = 4
M_NEGOTIATE = 5
M_END = 6
M_WAIT = 7
M_SYNCH = 8
M_FLOOD = 9
O_DIVERT = 100
O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 103
O_URI_LOCATOR = 104
<CODE ENDS>
6. IANA Considerations
This document defines the General Discovery and Negotiation Protocol
(GRASP).
Section 3.5 explains the following link-local multicast addresses,
which IANA is requested to assign for use by GRASP:
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv6): (TBD1). Assigned in
the IPv6 Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses registry.
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv4): (TBD2). Assigned in
the IPv4 Multicast Local Network Control Block.
Section 3.5 explains the following UDP and TCP port, which IANA is
requested to assign for use by GRASP:
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT: (TBD3)
The IANA is requested to create a GRASP Parameter Registry including
two registry tables. These are the GRASP Messages and Options
Table and the GRASP Objective Names Table.
GRASP Messages and Options Table. The values in this table are names
paired with decimal integers. Future values MUST be assigned using
the Standards Action policy defined by [RFC5226]. The following
initial values are assigned by this document:
M_NOOP = 0
M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQUEST = 3
M_NEGOTIATE = 4
M_END = 5
M_WAIT = 6
O_DIVERT = 100
O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 103
O_URI_LOCATOR = 104
O_DEVICE_ID = 105
GRASP Objective Names Table. The values in this table are UTF-8
strings. Future values MUST be assigned using the Specification
Required policy defined by [RFC5226]. The following initial values
are assigned by this document:
EX0
EX1
EX2
EX3
EX4
EX5
EX6
EX7
EX8
EX9
7. Acknowledgements
A major contribution to the original version of this document was
made by Sheng Jiang.
Valuable comments were received from Michael Behringer, Jeferson
Campos Nobre, Laurent Ciavaglia, Zongpeng Du, Yu Fu, Joel Halpern,
Zhenbin Li, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Pierre Peloso, Reshad Rahman,
Michael Richardson, Markus Stenberg, Rene Struik, Dacheng Zhang, and
other participants in the NMRG research group and the ANIMA working
group.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]
Vigano, C. and H. Birkholz, "CBOR data definition language
(CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR data
structures", draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl-07 (work
in progress), October 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
8.2. Informative References
[I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model]
Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L.,
Liu, B., Jeff, J., and J. Strassner, "A Reference Model
for Autonomic Networking", draft-behringer-anima-
reference-model-04 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp]
Behringer, M., Chaparadza, R., Petre, R., Li, X., and H.
Mahkonen, "IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)",
draft-chaparadza-intarea-igcp-00 (work in progress), July
2011.
[I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity]
Eckert, T. and M. Behringer, "Using Autonomic Control
Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM", draft-
eckert-anima-stable-connectivity-02 (work in progress),
October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
Autonomic Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-
control-plane-01 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., and S.
Bjarnason, "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-
ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 (work in progress),
October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]
Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-12 (work in progress),
November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-hncp]
Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10 (work in
progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09 (work in
progress), December 2015.
[I-D.liang-iana-pen]
Liang, P., Melnikov, A., and D. Conrad, "Private
Enterprise Number (PEN) practices and Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) registration considerations",
draft-liang-iana-pen-06 (work in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp]
Stenberg, M., "Autonomic Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", draft-stenberg-anima-adncp-00 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2608] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day,
"Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2608, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2608>.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations
for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 62, RFC 3416, DOI 10.17487/RFC3416, December 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3416>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5971] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
Signalling Transport", RFC 5971, DOI 10.17487/RFC5971,
October 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5971>.
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7558] Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M., and D. Migault,
"Requirements for Scalable DNS-Based Service Discovery
(DNS-SD) / Multicast DNS (mDNS) Extensions", RFC 7558,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7558, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7558>.
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
[RFC7576] Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap
Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7576>.
Appendix A. Open Issues
o 7. Cross-check against other ANIMA WG documents for consistency
and gaps.
o 43. Rapid mode synchronization and negotiation is currently
limited to a single objective for simplicity of design and
implementation. A future consideration is to allow multiple
objectives in rapid mode for greater efficiency.
o 48. Should the Appendix "Capability Analysis of Current
Protocols" be deleted before RFC publication?
Appendix B. Closed Issues [RFC Editor: Please remove]
o 1. UDP vs TCP: For now, this specification suggests UDP and TCP o 1. UDP vs TCP: For now, this specification suggests UDP and TCP
as message transport mechanisms. This is not clarified yet. UDP as message transport mechanisms. This is not clarified yet. UDP
is good for short conversations, is necessary for multicast is good for short conversations, is necessary for multicast
discovery, and generally fits the discovery and divert scenarios discovery, and generally fits the discovery and divert scenarios
well. However, it will cause problems with large messages. TCP well. However, it will cause problems with large messages. TCP
is good for stable and long sessions, with a little bit of time is good for stable and long sessions, with a little bit of time
consumption during the session establishment stage. If messages consumption during the session establishment stage. If messages
exceed a reasonable MTU, a TCP mode will be required in any case. exceed a reasonable MTU, a TCP mode will be required in any case.
This question may be affected by the security discussion. This question may be affected by the security discussion.
skipping to change at page 36, line 22 skipping to change at page 46, line 37
node starts up, performs discovery, and conducts negotiation and node starts up, performs discovery, and conducts negotiation and
synchronisation for a sample use case would help readers to synchronisation for a sample use case would help readers to
understand the applicability of this specification. Maybe it understand the applicability of this specification. Maybe it
should be an artificial use case or maybe a simple real one, based should be an artificial use case or maybe a simple real one, based
on a conceptual API. However, the authors have not yet decided on a conceptual API. However, the authors have not yet decided
whether to have a separate document or have it in the protocol whether to have a separate document or have it in the protocol
document. document.
RESOLVED: recommend a separate document. RESOLVED: recommend a separate document.
o 7. Cross-check against other ANIMA WG documents for consistency
and gaps.
o 8. Consideration of ADNCP proposal. o 8. Consideration of ADNCP proposal.
RESOLVED by adding optional use of DNCP for flooding-type RESOLVED by adding optional use of DNCP for flooding-type
synchronization. synchronization.
o 9. Clarify how a GDNP instance knows whether it is running inside o 9. Clarify how a GDNP instance knows whether it is running inside
the ACP. (Sheng) the ACP. (Sheng)
RESOLVED by improved text. RESOLVED by improved text.
skipping to change at page 38, line 45 skipping to change at page 49, line 9
etc.) etc.)
RESOLVED: Done, later renamed as URI. RESOLVED: Done, later renamed as URI.
o 27. Security of Flood multicasts (Section 3.3.5.1). o 27. Security of Flood multicasts (Section 3.3.5.1).
RESOLVED: added text. RESOLVED: added text.
o 28. Does ACP support secure link-local multicast? o 28. Does ACP support secure link-local multicast?
RESOLVED by new text in the Security Considerations.
o 29. PEN is used to distinguish vendor options. Would it be o 29. PEN is used to distinguish vendor options. Would it be
better to use a domain name? Anything unique will do. better to use a domain name? Anything unique will do.
RESOLVED: Simplified this by removing PEN field and changing RESOLVED: Simplified this by removing PEN field and changing
naming rules for objectives. naming rules for objectives.
o 30. Does response to discovery require randomized delays to o 30. Does response to discovery require randomized delays to
mitigate amplification attacks? mitigate amplification attacks?
RESOLVED: WG feedback is that it's unnecessary. RESOLVED: WG feedback is that it's unnecessary.
skipping to change at page 40, line 26 skipping to change at page 50, line 37
simply pass the discovery results to the ASA so that it can open simply pass the discovery results to the ASA so that it can open
its own socket? its own socket?
RESOLVED: Both would be possible, but (b) is preferred. RESOLVED: Both would be possible, but (b) is preferred.
o 42. Do we need a feature whereby an ASA can bypass the ACP and o 42. Do we need a feature whereby an ASA can bypass the ACP and
use the data plane for efficiency/throughput? This would require use the data plane for efficiency/throughput? This would require
discovery to return non-ACP addresses and would evade ACP discovery to return non-ACP addresses and would evade ACP
security. security.
o 43. Rapid mode synchronization and negotiation is currently RESOLVED: This is considered out of scope for GRASP, but a comment
limited to a single objective for simplicity of design and has been added in security considerations.
implementation. A future consideration is to allow multiple
objectives in rapid mode for greater efficiency.
o 44. In requirement T9, the words that encryption "may not be o 44. In requirement T9, the words that encryption "may not be
required in all deployments" were removed. Is that OK?. required in all deployments" were removed. Is that OK?.
RESOLVED: No objections.
o 45. Device Identity Option is unused. Can we remove it o 45. Device Identity Option is unused. Can we remove it
completely?. completely?.
RESOLVED: No objections. Done.
o 46. The 'initiator' field in DISCOVER, RESPONSE and FLOOD o 46. The 'initiator' field in DISCOVER, RESPONSE and FLOOD
messages is intended to assist in loop prevention. However, we messages is intended to assist in loop prevention. However, we
also have the loop count for that. It would be simpler to remove also have the loop count for that. Also, if we create a new
the initiator, making message parsing more uniform. Is that OK? Session ID each time a DISCOVER or FLOOD is relayed, that ID can
be disambiguated by recipients. It would be simpler to remove the
initiator from the messages, making parsing more uniform. Is that
OK?
RESOLVED: Yes. Done.
o 47. REQUEST is a dual purpose message (request negotiation or o 47. REQUEST is a dual purpose message (request negotiation or
request synchronization). Would it be better to split this into request synchronization). Would it be better to split this into
two different messages (and adjust various message names two different messages (and adjust various message names
accordingly)? accordingly)?
5. Security Considerations RESOLVED: Yes. Done.
It is obvious that a successful attack on negotiation-enabled nodes
would be extremely harmful, as such nodes might end up with a
completely undesirable configuration that would also adversely affect
their peers. GRASP nodes and messages therefore require full
protection.
- Authentication
A cryptographically authenticated identity for each device is
needed in an autonomic network. It is not safe to assume that a
large network is physically secured against interference or that
all personnel are trustworthy. Each autonomic node MUST be
capable of proving its identity and authenticating its messages.
GRASP relies on a separate external certificate-based security
mechanism to support authentication, data integrity protection,
and anti-replay protection.
Since GRASP is intended to be deployed in a single administrative
domain operating its own trust anchor and CA, there is no need for
a trusted public third party. In a network requiring "air gap"
security, such a dependency would be unacceptable.
If GRASP is used temporarily without an external security
mechanism, for example during system bootstrap (Section 3.3.1),
the Session ID (Section 3.6) will act as a nonce to provide
limited protection against third parties injecting responses. A
full analysis of the secure bootstrap process is out of scope for
the present document.
- Authorization and Roles
The GRASP protocol is agnostic about the role of individual ASAs
and about which objectives a particular ASA is authorized to
support. It SHOULD apply obvious precautions such as allowing
only one ASA in a given node to modify a given objective, but
otherwise authorization is out of scope.
- Privacy and confidentiality
Generally speaking, no personal information is expected to be
involved in the signaling protocol, so there should be no direct
impact on personal privacy. Nevertheless, traffic flow paths,
VPNs, etc. could be negotiated, which could be of interest for
traffic analysis. Also, operators generally want to conceal
details of their network topology and traffic density from
outsiders. Therefore, since insider attacks cannot be excluded in
a large network, the security mechanism for the protocol MUST
provide message confidentiality.
- DoS Attack Protection
GRASP discovery partly relies on insecure link-local multicast.
Since routers participating in GRASP sometimes relay discovery
messages from one link to another, this could be a vector for
denial of service attacks. Relevant mitigations are specified in
Section 3.3.3. Additionally, it is of great importance that
firewalls prevent any GRASP messages from entering the domain from
an untrusted source.
- Security during bootstrap and discovery
A node cannot authenticate GRASP traffic from other nodes until it
has identified the trust anchor and can validate certificates for
other nodes. Also, until it has succesfully enrolled
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra] it cannot assume that
other nodes are able to authenticate its own traffic. Therefore,
GRASP discovery during the bootstrap phase for a new device will
inevitably be insecure and GRASP synchronization and negotiation
will be impossible until enrollment is complete.
6. CDDL Specification of GRASP
<CODE BEGINS>
grasp-message = (message .within message-structure) / noop-message
message-structure = [MESSAGE_TYPE, session-id, +grasp-option]
MESSAGE_TYPE = 0..255
session-id = 0..16777215 ;up to 24 bits
grasp-option = any
message /= discovery-message
discovery-message = [M_DISCOVERY, session-id, initiator, objective]
message /= response-message ;response to Discovery
response-message = [M_RESPONSE, session-id, initiator,
(+locator-option // divert-option), ?objective]
message /= synch-message ;response to Synchronization request
synch-message = [M_SYNCH, session-id, objective]
message /= flood-message
flood-message = [M_FLOOD, session-id, initiator, +objective]
message /= request-message
request-message = [M_REQUEST, session-id, objective]
message /= negotiation-message
negotiation-message = [M_NEGOTIATE, session-id, objective]
message /= end-message
end-message = [M_END, session-id, accept-option / decline-option ]
message /= wait-message
wait-message = [M_WAIT, session-id, waiting-time]
noop-message = [M_NOOP]
divert-option = [O_DIVERT, +locator-option]
accept-option = [O_ACCEPT]
decline-option = [O_DECLINE, ?reason]
reason = text ;optional error message
waiting-time = 0..4294967295 ; in milliseconds
option-device-id = [O_DEVICE_ID, bytes]
locator-option /= ipv4-locator-option
ipv4-locator-option = bytes .size 4
; this is simpler than [O_IPv4_LOCATOR, bytes .size 4]
locator-option /= ipv6-locator-option
ipv6-locator-option = bytes .size 16
locator-option /= fqdn-locator-option
fqdn-locator-option = [O_FQDN_LOCATOR, text]
locator-option /= uri-locator-option
uri-locator-option = [O_URI_LOCATOR, text]
initiator = ipv4-locator-option / ipv6-locator-option
objective-flags = uint .bits objective-flag
objective-flag = &(
F_DISC: 0 ; valid for discovery only
F_NEG: 1 ; valid for discovery and negotiation
F_SYNCH: 2 ; valid for discovery and synchronization
)
objective = [objective-name, objective-flags, loop-count, ?any]
objective-name = text ;see specification for uniqueness rules
loop-count = 0..255
; Constants for message types and option types
M_NOOP = 0
M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQUEST = 3
M_NEGOTIATE = 4
M_END = 5
M_WAIT = 6
M_SYNCH = 7
M_FLOOD = 8
O_DIVERT = 100
O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 103
O_URI_LOCATOR = 104
O_DEVICE_ID = 105
<CODE ENDS>
7. IANA Considerations
This document defines the General Discovery and Negotiation Protocol
(GRASP).
Section 3.5 explains the following link-local multicast addresses,
which IANA is requested to assign for use by GRASP:
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv6): (TBD1). Assigned in
the IPv6 Link-Local Scope Multicast Addresses registry.
ALL_GRASP_NEIGHBOR multicast address (IPv4): (TBD2). Assigned in
the IPv4 Multicast Local Network Control Block.
Section 3.5 explains the following UDP and TCP port, which IANA is
requested to assign for use by GRASP:
GRASP_LISTEN_PORT: (TBD3)
The IANA is requested to create a GRASP Parameter Registry including
two registry tables. These are the GRASP Messages and Options
Table and the GRASP Objective Names Table.
GRASP Messages and Options Table. The values in this table are names
paired with decimal integers. Future values MUST be assigned using
the Standards Action policy defined by [RFC5226]. The following
initial values are assigned by this document:
M_NOOP = 0
M_DISCOVERY = 1
M_RESPONSE = 2
M_REQUEST = 3
M_NEGOTIATE = 4
M_END = 5
M_WAIT = 6
O_DIVERT = 100 Appendix C. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]
O_ACCEPT = 101
O_DECLINE = 102
O_FQDN_LOCATOR = 103
O_URI_LOCATOR = 104
O_DEVICE_ID = 105
GRASP Objective Names Table. The values in this table are UTF-8 draft-ietf-anima-grasp-03, 2016-02-24:
strings. Future values MUST be assigned using the Specification
Required policy defined by [RFC5226]. The following initial values
are assigned by this document:
EX0 Protocol change: Removed initiator field from certain messages and
EX1 adjusted relaying requirement to simplify loop detection. Also
EX2 clarified narrative explanation of discovery relaying.
EX3
EX4
EX5
EX6
EX7
EX8
EX9
8. Acknowledgements Protocol change: Split Request message into two (Request Negotiation
and Request Synchronization) and updated other message names for
clarity.
A major contribution to the original version of this document was Protocol change: Dropped unused Device ID option.
made by Sheng Jiang.
Valuable comments were received from Michael Behringer, Jeferson Further clarified text on transport layer usage.
Campos Nobre, Laurent Ciavaglia, Zongpeng Du, Yu Fu, Joel Halpern,
Zhenbin Li, Dimitri Papadimitriou, Pierre Peloso, Reshad Rahman,
Michael Richardson, Markus Stenberg, Rene Struik, Dacheng Zhang, and
other participants in the NMRG research group and the ANIMA working
group.
This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629]. New text about multicast insecurity in Security Considerations.
9. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] Various other clarifications and editorial fixes, including moving
some material to Appendix.
draft-ietf-anima-grasp-02, 2016-01-13: draft-ietf-anima-grasp-02, 2016-01-13:
Resolved numerous issues according to WG discussions. Resolved numerous issues according to WG discussions.
Renumbered requirements, added D9. Renumbered requirements, added D9.
Protocol change: only allow one objective in rapid mode. Protocol change: only allow one objective in rapid mode.
Protocol change: added optional error string to DECLINE option. Protocol change: added optional error string to DECLINE option.
skipping to change at page 48, line 43 skipping to change at page 54, line 26
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-01, restructured the logical flow draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-01, restructured the logical flow
of the document, updated to describe synchronization completely, add of the document, updated to describe synchronization completely, add
unsolicited responses, numerous corrections and clarifications, unsolicited responses, numerous corrections and clarifications,
expanded future work list, 2015-01-06. expanded future work list, 2015-01-06.
draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-00, combination of draft-jiang- draft-carpenter-anima-gdn-protocol-00, combination of draft-jiang-
config-negotiation-ps-03 and draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol- config-negotiation-ps-03 and draft-jiang-config-negotiation-protocol-
02, 2014-10-08. 02, 2014-10-08.
10. References Appendix D. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl]
Vigano, C. and H. Birkholz, "CBOR data definition language
(CDDL): a notational convention to express CBOR data
structures", draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl-07 (work
in progress), October 2015.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC4086] Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.
[RFC6347] Rescorla, E. and N. Modadugu, "Datagram Transport Layer
Security Version 1.2", RFC 6347, DOI 10.17487/RFC6347,
January 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6347>.
[RFC7049] Bormann, C. and P. Hoffman, "Concise Binary Object
Representation (CBOR)", RFC 7049, DOI 10.17487/RFC7049,
October 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7049>.
[RFC7217] Gont, F., "A Method for Generating Semantically Opaque
Interface Identifiers with IPv6 Stateless Address
Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)", RFC 7217,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7217, April 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7217>.
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.behringer-anima-reference-model]
Behringer, M., Carpenter, B., Eckert, T., Ciavaglia, L.,
Liu, B., Jeff, J., and J. Strassner, "A Reference Model
for Autonomic Networking", draft-behringer-anima-
reference-model-04 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.chaparadza-intarea-igcp]
Behringer, M., Chaparadza, R., Petre, R., Li, X., and H.
Mahkonen, "IP based Generic Control Protocol (IGCP)",
draft-chaparadza-intarea-igcp-00 (work in progress), July
2011.
[I-D.eckert-anima-stable-connectivity]
Eckert, T. and M. Behringer, "Using Autonomic Control
Plane for Stable Connectivity of Network OAM", draft-
eckert-anima-stable-connectivity-02 (work in progress),
October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-autonomic-control-plane]
Behringer, M., Bjarnason, S., BL, B., and T. Eckert, "An
Autonomic Control Plane", draft-ietf-anima-autonomic-
control-plane-01 (work in progress), October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra]
Pritikin, M., Richardson, M., Behringer, M., and S.
Bjarnason, "Bootstrapping Key Infrastructures", draft-
ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-01 (work in progress),
October 2015.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-dncp]
Stenberg, M. and S. Barth, "Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-12 (work in progress),
November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-homenet-hncp]
Stenberg, M., Barth, S., and P. Pfister, "Home Networking
Control Protocol", draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-10 (work in
progress), November 2015.
[I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf]
Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "RESTCONF
Protocol", draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-09 (work in
progress), December 2015.
[I-D.liang-iana-pen]
Liang, P., Melnikov, A., and D. Conrad, "Private
Enterprise Number (PEN) practices and Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) registration considerations",
draft-liang-iana-pen-06 (work in progress), July 2015.
[I-D.stenberg-anima-adncp]
Stenberg, M., "Autonomic Distributed Node Consensus
Protocol", draft-stenberg-anima-adncp-00 (work in
progress), March 2015.
[RFC2205] Braden, R., Ed., Zhang, L., Berson, S., Herzog, S., and S.
Jamin, "Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) -- Version 1
Functional Specification", RFC 2205, DOI 10.17487/RFC2205,
September 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2205>.
[RFC2608] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J., and M. Day,
"Service Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2608, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2608>.
[RFC2629] Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.
[RFC2865] Rigney, C., Willens, S., Rubens, A., and W. Simpson,
"Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)",
RFC 2865, DOI 10.17487/RFC2865, June 2000,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2865>.
[RFC3209] Awduche, D., Berger, L., Gan, D., Li, T., Srinivasan, V.,
and G. Swallow, "RSVP-TE: Extensions to RSVP for LSP
Tunnels", RFC 3209, DOI 10.17487/RFC3209, December 2001,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3209>.
[RFC3315] Droms, R., Ed., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins,
C., and M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, DOI 10.17487/RFC3315, July
2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3315>.
[RFC3416] Presuhn, R., Ed., "Version 2 of the Protocol Operations
for the Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)",
STD 62, RFC 3416, DOI 10.17487/RFC3416, December 2002,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3416>.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman,
"Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4861>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5971] Schulzrinne, H. and R. Hancock, "GIST: General Internet
Signalling Transport", RFC 5971, DOI 10.17487/RFC5971,
October 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5971>.
[RFC6206] Levis, P., Clausen, T., Hui, J., Gnawali, O., and J. Ko,
"The Trickle Algorithm", RFC 6206, DOI 10.17487/RFC6206,
March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6206>.
[RFC6241] Enns, R., Ed., Bjorklund, M., Ed., Schoenwaelder, J., Ed.,
and A. Bierman, Ed., "Network Configuration Protocol
(NETCONF)", RFC 6241, DOI 10.17487/RFC6241, June 2011,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6241>.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Ed., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
Ed., "Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6733, October 2012,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6733>.
[RFC6762] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "Multicast DNS", RFC 6762,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6762, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6762>.
[RFC6763] Cheshire, S. and M. Krochmal, "DNS-Based Service
Discovery", RFC 6763, DOI 10.17487/RFC6763, February 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6763>.
[RFC6887] Wing, D., Ed., Cheshire, S., Boucadair, M., Penno, R., and
P. Selkirk, "Port Control Protocol (PCP)", RFC 6887,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6887, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6887>.
[RFC7228] Bormann, C., Ersue, M., and A. Keranen, "Terminology for
Constrained-Node Networks", RFC 7228,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7228, May 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7228>.
[RFC7558] Lynn, K., Cheshire, S., Blanchet, M., and D. Migault,
"Requirements for Scalable DNS-Based Service Discovery
(DNS-SD) / Multicast DNS (mDNS) Extensions", RFC 7558,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7558, July 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7558>.
[RFC7575] Behringer, M., Pritikin, M., Bjarnason, S., Clemm, A.,
Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and L. Ciavaglia, "Autonomic
Networking: Definitions and Design Goals", RFC 7575,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7575, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7575>.
[RFC7576] Jiang, S., Carpenter, B., and M. Behringer, "General Gap
Analysis for Autonomic Networking", RFC 7576,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7576, June 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7576>.
Appendix A. Capability Analysis of Current Protocols
This appendix discusses various existing protocols with properties This appendix discusses various existing protocols with properties
related to the above negotiation and synchronisation requirements. related to the above negotiation and synchronisation requirements.
The purpose is to evaluate whether any existing protocol, or a simple The purpose is to evaluate whether any existing protocol, or a simple
combination of existing protocols, can meet those requirements. combination of existing protocols, can meet those requirements.
Numerous protocols include some form of discovery, but these all Numerous protocols include some form of discovery, but these all
appear to be very specific in their applicability. Service Location appear to be very specific in their applicability. Service Location
Protocol (SLP) [RFC2608] provides service discovery for managed Protocol (SLP) [RFC2608] provides service discovery for managed
networks, but requires configuration of its own servers. DNS-SD networks, but requires configuration of its own servers. DNS-SD
 End of changes. 103 change blocks. 
682 lines changed or deleted 751 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/