ftp.cc.uoc.gr
rfc7511
This is a purely informative rendering of an RFC that includes verified errata. This rendering may not be used as a reference.

The following 'Verified' errata have been incorporated in this document: EID 4321, EID 4322, EID 4325, EID 4333
Independent Submission                                        M. Wilhelm
Request for Comments: 7511                                  1 April 2015
Category: Informational
ISSN: 2070-1721


                        Scenic Routing for IPv6

Abstract

   This document specifies a new routing scheme for the current version
   of the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) in the spirit of "Green
   IT", whereby packets will be routed to get as much fresh-air time as
   possible.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
   Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7511.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Conventions and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Scenic Routing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Scenic Routing Option (SRO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.1.  Routing Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.2.  Implications for Hosts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  Proxy Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Related Work  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8

1.  Introduction

   In times of Green IT, a lot of effort is put into reducing the energy
   consumption of routers, switches, servers, hosts, etc., to preserve
   our environment.  This document looks at Green IT from a different
   angle and focuses on network packets being routed and switched around
   the world.

   Most likely, no one ever thought about the millions of packets being
   disassembled into bits every second and forced through copper wires
   or being shot through dark fiber lines by powerful lasers at
   continuously increasing speeds.  Although RFC 5841 [RFC5841] provided
   some thoughts about Packet Moods and began to represent them as a TCP
   option, this doesn't help the packets escape their torturous routine.

   This document defines another way to deal with Green IT for traffic 
and network engineers and will hopefully aid the wellbeing of a
myriad of network packets around the world.  It proposes Scenic
Routing, which incorporates the green-ness of a network path into the
routing decision.  A routing engine implementing Scenic Routing
should therefore choose paths based on IP over Avian Carriers with
Quality of Service [RFC2549] and/or wireless technologies so the 
packets will get out of the miles/kilometers of dark fibers that are
in the ground and get as much fresh-air time and sunlight as possible.

EID 4325 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 1

Original Text:

This document defines another way to deal with Green IT for traffic
and network engineers and will hopefully aid the wellbeing of a
myriad of network packets around the world.  It proposes Scenic
Routing, which incorporates the green-ness of a network path into the
routing decision.  A routing engine implementing Scenic Routing
should therefore choose paths based on Avian IP Carriers [RFC1149]
and/or wireless technologies so the packets will get out of the
miles/kilometers of dark fibers that are in the ground and get as
much fresh-air time and sunlight as possible.

Corrected Text:

This document defines another way to deal with Green IT for traffic
and network engineers and will hopefully aid the wellbeing of a
myriad of network packets around the world.  It proposes Scenic
Routing, which incorporates the green-ness of a network path into the
routing decision.  A routing engine implementing Scenic Routing
should therefore choose paths based on IP over Avian Carriers with
Quality of Service [RFC2549] and/or wireless technologies so the 
packets will get out of the miles/kilometers of dark fibers that are
in the ground and get as much fresh-air time and sunlight as possible.
Notes:
Although RFC2549 ("IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service") does not obsolete RFC1149, the recommendations in the former improve Scenic Routing quality considerably, contributing to a subsequently more positive result in the TCP Mood option defined in [RFC5841].
As of the widely known acceptance of the current version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6), this document only focuses on version 6 and ignores communication still based on Vintage IP [RFC791]. 1.1. Conventions and Terminology 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. Additionally, the key words "MIGHT", "COULD", "MAY WISH TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "SHOULD CONSIDER", and "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" in this document are to interpreted as described in RFC 6919 [RFC6919]. 2. Scenic Routing
EID 4333 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 2

Original Text:

      The lowest-order two bits (XY) are currently unused and reserved
      for future use.

Corrected Text:

      The lowest-order two bits (XY) are currently unused and reserved
      for a rainy day.
Notes:
Packets should be free to use spare SRO parameter bits during work hours (for bits in leu) or in their own spare time.
Scenic Routing can be enabled with a new option for IPv6 datagrams. 2.1. Scenic Routing Option (SRO) The Scenic Routing Option (SRO) is placed in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header that must be examined by every node along a packet's delivery path [RFC2460]. The SRO can be included in any IPv6 datagram, but multiple SROs MUST NOT be present in the same IPv6 datagram. The SRO has no alignment requirement. If the SRO is set for a packet, every node en route from the packet source to the packet's final destination MUST preserve the option. The following Hop-by-Hop Option is proposed according to the specification in Section 4.2 of RFC 2460 [RFC2460]. 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Option Type | Option Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SRO Param | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: Scenic Routing Option Layout Option Type 8-bit identifier of the type of option. The option identifier 0x0A (On Air) is proposed for Scenic Routing. HEX act chg rest --- --- --- ----- 0A 00 0 01010 Scenic Routing Figure 2: Scenic Routing Option Type The highest-order two bits are set to 00 so any node not implementing Scenic Routing will skip over this option and continue processing the header. The third-highest-order bit indicates that the SRO does not change en route to the packet's final destination. Option Length 8-bit unsigned integer. The length of the option in octets (excluding the Option Type and Option Length fields). The value MUST be greater than 0. SRO Param 8-bit identifier indicating Scenic Routing parameters encoded as a bit string. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | SR A W AA X Y | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: SRO Param Bit String Layout The highest-order two bits (SR) define the urgency of Scenic Routing: 00 - Scenic Routing MUST NOT be used for this packet. 01 - Scenic Routing MIGHT be used for this packet. 10 - Scenic Routing SHOULD be used for this packet. 11 - Scenic Routing MUST be used for this packet. The following BIT (A) defines if Avian IP Carriers should be used: 0 - Don't use Avian IP Carrier links (maybe the packet is afraid of avians).
EID 4321 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 2.1

Original Text:

0 - Don't use Avian IP Carrier links (maybe the packet is
    afraid of pigeons).

Corrected Text:

0 - Don't use Avian IP Carrier links (maybe the packet is
    afraid of avians).
Notes:
Neither RFC 1149 nor RFC 6214 mandates any particular species. If it is
required to specify a given species, an additional Species ID field
would be needed in the option.
1 - Avian IP Carrier links may be used. The following BIT (W) defines if wireless links should be used: 0 - Don't use wireless links (maybe the packet is afraid of radiation). 1 - Wireless links may be used. The following two bits (AA) define the affinity for link types: 00 - No affinity. 01 - Avian IP Carriers SHOULD be preferred. 10 - Wireless links SHOULD be preferred. 11 - RESERVED The lowest-order two bits (XY) are currently unused and reserved for future use. 3. Implications 3.1. Routing Implications If Scenic Routing is requested for a packet, the path with the known longest Avian IP Carrier and/or wireless portion MUST be used. Backbone operators who desire to be fully compliant with Scenic Routing MAY WISH TO -- well, they SHOULD -- have separate MPLS paths ready that provide the most fresh-air time for a given path and are to be used when Scenic Routing is requested by a packet. If such a path exists, the path MUST be used in favor of any other path, even if another path is considered cheaper according to the path costs used regularly, without taking Scenic Routing into account. 3.2. Implications for Hosts Host systems implementing this option of receiving packets with Scenic Routing requested MUST honor this request and MUST activate Scenic Routing for any packets sent back to the originating host for the current connection. If Scenic Routing is requested for connections of local origin, the host MUST obey the request and route the packet(s) over a wireless link or use Avian IP Carriers (if available and as requested within the SRO Params). System administrators MIGHT want to configure sensible default parameters for Scenic Routing, when Scenic Routing has been widely adopted by operating systems. System administrators SHOULD deploy Scenic Routing information where applicable. 3.3. Proxy Servers If a host is running a proxy server or any other packet-relaying application, an application implementing Scenic Routing MUST set the same SRO Params on the outgoing packet as seen on the incoming packet. Developers SHOULD CONSIDER Scenic Routing when designing and implementing any network service. 4. Security Considerations
EID 4322 (Verified) is as follows:

Section: 4

Original Text:

None

Corrected Text:

Additional security considerations of overexposure to solar 
radiation, or buffer-bloat in culturally important places, 
leading to excessive delayed packets, directly attributed
to forgetting sunscreen, excessive adult beverages, etc, 
WILL result in a decreased reliability.

There are no actions requested at this time.
Notes:
None
The security considerations of RFC 6214 [RFC6214] apply for links provided by Avian IP Carriers. General security considerations of wireless communication apply for links using wireless technologies. As the user is able to influence where flows and packets are being routed within the network, this MIGHT influence traffic-engineering considerations and network operators MAY WISH TO take this into account before enabling Scenic Routing on their devices. 5. IANA Considerations This document defines a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option, the Scenic Routing Option, described in Section 2.1. If this work is standardized, IANA is requested to assign a value from the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry for the purpose of Scenic Routing. There are no IANA actions requested at this time. 6. Related Work As Scenic Routing is heavily dependent on network paths and routing information, it might be worth looking at designing extensions for popular routing protocols like BGP or OSPF to leverage the full potential of Scenic Routing in large networks built upon lots of wireless links and/or Avian IP Carriers. When incorporating information about links compatible with Scenic Routing, the routing algorithms could easily calculate the optimal paths providing the most fresh-air time for a packet for any given destination. This would even allow preference for wireless paths going alongside popular or culturally important places. This way, the packets don't only avoid the dark fibers, but they get to see the world outside of the Internet and are exposed to different cultures around the globe, which may help build an understanding of cultural differences and promote acceptance of these differences. 7. References 7.1. Normative References [RFC1149] Waitzman, D., "Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on avian carriers", RFC 1149, April 1990, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1149>. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>. [RFC6214] Carpenter, B. and R. Hinden, "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6", RFC 6214, April 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6214>. [RFC6919] Barnes, R., Kent, S., and E. Rescorla, "Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 6919, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6919>. 7.2. Informative References [RFC5841] Hay, R. and W. Turkal, "TCP Option to Denote Packet Mood", RFC 5841, April 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5841>. [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank all those poor friends who were kindly forced to read this document and that provided some nifty comments. Author's Address Maximilian Wilhelm Paderborn, NRW Germany Phone: +49 176 62 05 94 27 EMail: max@rfc2324.org