Link Identifier Extension to DLEPAirbus Defence & SpaceQuadrant HouseCeltic SpringsCoedkernewNewportNP10 8FZUKrick.taylor@airbus.com
Routing
Mobile Ad hoc Networks Working GroupThere exists a class of modems that wish to support the Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) but do not present a single Layer 2 network domain as required by DLEP. Such devices may be: Modems that maintain a varying link to some upstream backbone network infrastructure, where the ability to announce link state and DLEP metrics is desired, but the concept of a DLEP destination router for the backbone does not apply. Examples of such devices can include LTE modems, IEEE 802.11 stations not in ad-hoc mode, and some satellite terminals. Modems that provide Layer 3 wide area network connectivity between devices, where individual DLEP destinations do exist, but are not directly reachable by MAC address. This document introduces an optional extension to the core DLEP specification, allowing DLEP to be used between routers and modems that operate in this way. Note: This document is intended as an extension to the core DLEP specification, and readers are expected to be fully conversant with the operation of core DLEP. The Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP) describes a protocol for modems to advertise the status of wireless links between reachable destinations to attached routers. The core specification of the protocol assumes that every modem in the radio network has an attached DLEP router, and the MAC address of the DLEP interface on the router is used to identify the destination in the network for purposes of reporting the state and quality of the link to that destination. This document describes a DLEP Extension allowing modems that do not meet the strict requirement that DLEP must be implemented on a single Layer 2 domain to use DLEP to describe link state and quality to one or more destinations reachable only at Layer 3. To enable routers to take advantage of the DLEP protocol this extension adds a single enhancement to the DLEP protocol: A new Link Identifier Data Item. This Data Item replaces the use of the MAC Address Data Item whenever the DLEP destination does not have a router reachable by MAC address. By using the Link Identifier Data Item, the modem implementation can announce the link state and quality to a uniquely identified destination in the network, either logical or physical, explicitly indicating that the destination is not reachable via a single Layer 2 domain. A router can use this knowledge to influence any routing or flow-control decisions regarding traffic to this destination, understanding that such decisions apply at Layer 3. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 . To use this extension, as with all DLEP extensions, the extension MUST be announced during DLEP session initialization. A router advertises support by including the value 'Link Identitifers' (TBD1) in the Extension Data Item within the Session Intitialization Message. A modem advertises support by including the value 'Link Identitifers' (TBD1) in the Extension Data Item within the Session Intitialization Response Message. If both DLEP peers advertise support for this extension then the Link Identifier Data Item MAY be used. If a modem requires support for this extension in order to describe destinations, and the router does not advertise support, then the modem MUST NOT include a Link Identifier Data Item in any DLEP Message. However, the modem SHOULD NOT immediately terminate the DLEP session, rather it should use session-wide DLEP Data Items to announce general information about all reachable destinations via the modem. By doing this, a modem allows a router not supporting this extension to at least make a best guess at the state of any reachable network. A modem MUST NOT attempt to re-use the MAC Address Data Item to perform some kind of sleight-of-hand, assuming that the router will notice the DLEP Peer Type of the modem is special in some way. Even when the Link Identifiers extension is in use for a DLEP session, either peer MAY send and receive Messages concerning DLEP destinations that are reachable via a single Layer 2 domain, using the standard DLEP MAC Address Data Item. This allows modems that support hybrid functionality of directly connected Layer 2 peers, as well as upstream links to some kind of infrastructure, as well as multicast logical destinations. Within a single DLEP session, all identifiers used by this extension, both logical and physical, MUST be unique, and it is RECOMMENDED that they be 4 octets in length. Identifiers MUST NOT be reused, i.e. an indentifier that has been used to refer to one destination MUST NOT be recycled to refer to a different destination within the lifetime of a single DLEP session. The method for generating identifiers is a modem implementation matter and out of scope of this document. Routers MUST NOT make any assumptions about the meaning of identifiers, or how identifiers are generated. The Link Identifier Data Item MAY be used whenever a MAC Address Data Item is defined as useable in core DLEP. A single Link Identifier Data Item MUST only be used in place of a single MAC Address Data Item. A Link Identifier Data Item MUST NOT appear in the same DLEP Message as a MAC Address Data Item. TBD2 >0, 4 RECOMMENDED. Flags field, defined below. The unique identifier of the link destination. This identifier has no implicit meaning and is only used to discriminate between multiple links. The Flags field is defined as: MUST be zero. Left for future assignment. The Flags field is here because I think it might be useful, but I can't think how currently. As an extension to the core DLEP protocol, the security considerations of that protocol apply to this extension. This extension adds no additional security mechanisms or features. None of the features introduced by this extension require extra consideration by an implementation. Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to: Assign a new value (TBD1) from the Specification Required section of the DLEP Extensions Registry, named "Link Identifiers". Assign a new value (TBD2) from the Specification Required section of the DLEP Data Item Type Values Registry, named "Link Identifier". Upon approval of this document, IANA is requested to create a new DLEP registry, named "Link Identifier Flags". The following table provides initial registry values and the defined policies that should apply to the registry: Bit Description/Policy 0-7 Unassigned/Specification Required Dynamic Link Exchange Protocol (DLEP)When routing devices rely on modems to effect communications over wireless links, they need timely and accurate knowledge of the characteristics of the link (speed, state, etc.) in order to make routing decisions. In mobile or other environments where these characteristics change frequently, manual configurations or the inference of state through routing or transport protocols does not allow the router to make the best decisions. DLEP describes a new protocol for a bidirectional, event-driven communication channel between the router and the modem to facilitate communication of changing link characteristics.Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement LevelsIn many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCsMany protocols make use of identifiers consisting of constants and other well-known values. Even after a protocol has been defined and deployment has begun, new values may need to be assigned (e.g., for a new option type in DHCP, or a new encryption or authentication transform for IPsec). To ensure that such quantities have consistent values and interpretations across all implementations, their assignment must be administered by a central authority. For IETF protocols, that role is provided by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made. If IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace, IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that role. This document discusses issues that should be considered in formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in documents that place demands on IANA.This document obsoletes RFC 2434. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.