path: root/doc/rfc/rfc2336.txt

Network Working Group                                         J. Luciani
Request for Comments: 2336                                  Bay Networks
Category: Informational                                        July 1998




            Classical IP and ARP over ATM to NHRP Transition


Status of this Memo

   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
   memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes methods and procedures for the graceful
   transition from an ATMARP LIS[1] to an NHRP LIS[2] network model over
   ATM.

1. Introduction

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
   document, are to be interpreted as described in [6].

   ATMARP defines an initial application of classical IP and ARP in an
   ATM network environment configured as a LIS[1].  ATMARP only
   considers application of ATM as a direct replacement for the "wires"
   and local LAN segments connecting IP end-stations and routers
   operating in the "classical" LAN-based paradigm.

   The NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP) allows a source station
   (a host or router), wishing to communicate over a Non-Broadcast,
   Multi-Access (NBMA) subnetwork, to determine the internetworking
   layer addresses and NBMA addresses of suitable "NBMA next hops"
   toward a destination station. If the destination is connected to the
   NBMA subnetwork and direct communication is administratively allowed,
   then the NBMA next hop is the destination station itself.  Otherwise,
   the NBMA next hop is the egress router from the NBMA subnetwork that
   is "nearest" to the destination station.  For the purposes of this
   document, the NBMA network is of type ATM.



Luciani                      Informational                      [Page 1]
^L
RFC 2336         Classical IP and ARP over ATM to NHRP         July 1998


   It is reasonable to expect that ATMARP Clients and NHRP Clients will
   initially coexist within a LIS.  Thus, it is necessary to define a
   graceful transition, including a period of coexistance, from the use
   of ATMARP to the use of NHRP for address resolution in the LIS
   [1][2]. In short, NHSs will be required to respond to ATMARP Client
   queries in a fashion which will permit continued use of the ATMARP
   Client within the LIS during the ATMARP to NHRP transition period.
   Note that this document places no protocol requirements upon
   ATMARP[1] servers.

   For the following, it will be assumed that the reader is familiar
   with the terminology as described in [1][2][3].

2. Service Requirements

   If NHRP is to be used in a LIS then only NHSs will be used in the
   LIS; that is, there will not be a mixture of NHSs and ATMARP servers
   within the same LIS.  Since ATMARP servers will not be able to
   understand NHCs and since, as described below, NHSs will respond to
   ATMARP Clients, this is a reasonable simplifying restriction.

   This document will only address SVC based environments and will not
   address PVC environments.  This document will refer only to ATM AAL5
   as the NBMA and IP as the protocol layer since ATMARP only addresses
   these protocols.

2.1 NHRP Server Requirements

   If NHRP Servers (NHS) are to be deployed in a LIS which contains both
   ATMARP Clients and NHRP Clients then NHSs MUST respond to
   ATMARP_Requests sent by ATMARP Clients in the same fashion that an
   ATMARP Server would respond as described in [1].  To do this, the NHS
   MUST first recognize the LLC/SNAP ATMARP code point with LLC=0xAA-
   AA-03, OUI=0x00-00-00, and ethertype=0x08-06.  Further, the NHS MUST
   recognize the packet formats described in Section 8.7 of [1].
   However, since this document does not extend to PVC environments,

   NHSs MUST only receive/respond to values of ar$op of 1,2,10
   (Decimal).  If an NHS receives an ATMARP message with ar$op values
   other than those previously noted then the NHS MUST discard the
   packet and MUST NOT take any further action.

   When an NHS receives a valid (as defined in the previous paragraph)
   ATMARP_Request packet, the NHS MUST follow the rules described in
   Section 8.4 of [1] with the following additional processing:






Luciani                      Informational                      [Page 2]
^L
RFC 2336         Classical IP and ARP over ATM to NHRP         July 1998


     1) When an ATMARP_Request causes a new table entry in the NHS for
        an ATMARP Client, that table entry MUST be marked as being of
        type "ATMARP" so that it can be differentiated from an NHRP
        sourced entry.

     2) An ATMARP_Request MUST NOT cause an ATMARP_Reply to be sent if
        that ATMARP_Request contains an off-LIS protocol address.  This
        should never happen because the IP stack on the requesting
        machine should automatically send the packet to the default
        router.  If this does occur then the ATMARP_Request MUST cause
        an ATMARP_NAK to be sent to the originator.

   In [1], an ATMARP_Request packet also serves as a
   registraion/registration-update packet which would cause a server to
   add an entry to a server's cache or to update a previously existing
   entry.  When an NHS receives an ATMARP_Request which causes the
   creation of a new cache entry in the NHS or updates an existing entry
   then that cache entry will have a holding time of 20 minutes (this is
   the default value in [1]).

   An NHS receiving an NHRP Resolution Request MUST NOT send a positive
   NHRP Resolution Reply for a station which registered via ATMARP if
   the station sending the NHRP Resolution Request is outside the LIS of
   the station which registered itself via ATMARP.  This is because the
   station which registered via ATMARP is almost certainly not prepared
   to accept a cut-through.   When this occurs, the replying NHS must
   send NHRP Resolution Reply which contains a CIE code of "4 -
   Administratively Prohibited" as described in [2].  This type of reply
   does not preclude the station sending the NHRP Resolution Request
   from sending its data packets along the routed path but it does
   preclude that station from setting up a cut-through VC.

2.2 Multi-server environments

   Since NHRP servers may work in a multi-server environment on a per
   LIS basis during the transition, it is necessary to know how cache
   synchronization occurs. These rules may be found in [5].

3. Security Considerations

   Not all of the security issues relating to IP over ATM are clearly
   understood at this time, due to the fluid state of ATM
   specifications, newness of the technology, and other factors.








Luciani                      Informational                      [Page 3]
^L
RFC 2336         Classical IP and ARP over ATM to NHRP         July 1998


   It is believed that ATM and IP facilities for authenticated call
   management, authenticated end-to-end communications, and data
   encryption will be needed in globally connected ATM networks.  Such
   future security facilities and their use by IP networks are beyond
   the scope of this memo.

   There are known security issues relating to host impersonation via
   the address resolution protocols used in the Internet [4].  No
   special security mechanisms have been added to ATMARP.  While NHRP
   supplies some mechanisms for authentication, ATMARP does not.  Since
   any security mechanism is only as good as its weakest link, it should
   be assumed that when NHRP and ATMARP exist with a given LIS, the
   security of a combination is only as good as that supplied by ATMARP.

References

   [1] Laubach, M. and J. Halpern, "Classical IP and ARP over ATM", RFC
   2225, April 1998.

   [2] Luciani, J., Katz, D., Piscitello, D., Cole, B. and N. Doraswamy,
   "NBMA Next Hop Resolution Protocol (NHRP)", RFC 2332, April 1998.

   [3] Luciani, J., Armitage, G., Halpern, J. and N. Doraswamy, "Server
   Cache Synchronization Protocol (SCSP)", RFC 2334, April 1998.

   [4] Security Problems in the TCP/IP Protocol Suite, Bellovin, ACM
   Computer Communications Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 32-48, 1989.

   [5] Luciani, J., "A Distributed NHRP Service Using SCSP", RFC 2335,
   April 1998.

   [6] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
   Levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.

Acknowledgments

   Thanks to Andy Malis for his input on this draft.

Author's Addresses

   James V. Luciani
   Bay Networks
   3 Federal Street
   Mail Stop: BL3-03
   Billerica, MA 01821
   Phone:  +1 978 916 4734
   Email:  luciani@baynetworks.com




Luciani                      Informational                      [Page 4]
^L
RFC 2336         Classical IP and ARP over ATM to NHRP         July 1998


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1998).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
























Luciani                      Informational                      [Page 5]
^L