RFC 7511
Scenic Routing for IPv6
Scenic Routing for IPv6 🦋
Okay bestie, let's start with the title block 📋. This is RFC 7511, titled Scenic Routing for IPv6. It's an Independent Submission written by M. Wilhelm and dated 1 April 2015 🌸. The category is Informational, and the ISSN is 2070-1721 ✨.
Abstract ✨
Okay so this doc specifies a brand new routing scheme for the current version of the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) 🌈. It's inspired by the whole "Green IT" movement, and the goal is that packets get routed so they get as much fresh-air time as possible 🍃. Literally a spa day for packets 💅.
Status of This Memo 📜
This doc is not an Internet Standards Track spec 🙅♀️. It's published for informational purposes only 🎀.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, made independently of any other RFC stream 🦋. The RFC Editor picked to publish it at their discretion, and they make zero statement about its value for implementation or deployment 🤷♀️. Docs the RFC Editor approves for publication are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard, see Section 2 of RFC 5741 💜.
Info about the current status of this doc, any errata, and how to give feedback can be found 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 doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) as in effect on the date of publication 📚. Please review these carefully, because they describe your rights and restrictions regarding this doc 🫶.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81. Introduction 🌍
In times of Green IT, a LOT of effort goes into cutting the energy use of routers, switches, servers, hosts, and so on, all to save our planet 🌱. This doc looks at Green IT from a totally different angle, focusing on the network packets that get routed and switched around the world 🧚.
Honestly, nobody has ever stopped to think about the millions of packets being chopped into bits every second and forced through copper wires, or getting zapped down dark fiber lines by powerful lasers at ever-increasing speeds ⚡. RFC 5841 [RFC5841] did share some thoughts about Packet Moods and started representing them as a TCP option, but ngl, that doesn't actually help the packets escape their torturous routine 😭.
This doc defines another way to handle Green IT for traffic and network engineers, and it'll hopefully boost the wellbeing of a myriad of network packets everywhere 💖. It proposes Scenic Routing, which folds the green-ness of a network path into the routing decision 🦋. So a routing engine implementing Scenic Routing should choose paths based on Avian IP Carriers [RFC1149] and/or wireless technologies, so the packets can escape the miles or kilometers of dark fiber buried in the ground and soak up as much fresh air and sunlight as possible ☀️🍓.
Since the current version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6) has basically become the accepted standard, this doc 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 doc are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119] 🎀.
Also, the key words "MIGHT", "COULD", "MAY WISH TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "SHOULD CONSIDER", and "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" in this doc are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919 [RFC6919] 🙈.
2. Scenic Routing 🌸
Scenic Routing can be turned on with a new option for IPv6 datagrams 🌈.
2.1. Scenic Routing Option (SRO) 🦋
The Scenic Routing Option (SRO) lives in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header, which every node along a packet's delivery path has to examine [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] 🧁. Here's the layout:
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 🏷️
This is an 8-bit identifier for the type of option. The option identifier 0x0A (On Air) is proposed for Scenic Routing 📡.
HEX act chg rest
--- --- --- -----
0A 00 0 01010 Scenic RoutingFigure 2: Scenic Routing Option Type 🎟️
The highest-order two bits are set to 00, so any node that isn't implementing Scenic Routing will skip over this option and keep processing the header 🏃♀️. The third-highest-order bit says the SRO does not change en route to the packet's final destination 🔒.
Option Length 📏
This is an 8-bit unsigned integer. It's the length of the option in octets, not counting the Option Type and Option Length fields. The value MUST be greater than 0 🔢.
SRO Param 🎛️
This is an 8-bit identifier that indicates 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 how urgent Scenic Routing is 🚨:
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) decides whether Avian IP Carriers should be used 🐦:
0- Don't use Avian IP Carrier links (maybe the packet is afraid of pigeons 💀).1- Avian IP Carrier links may be used. 🕊️
The following BIT (W) decides whether 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) set 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 want to be fully compliant with Scenic Routing MAY WISH TO -- well, they SHOULD -- have separate MPLS paths ready. Those paths should give the most fresh-air time for a given path and get used whenever a packet requests Scenic Routing 🌷. If such a path exists, it MUST be used in favor of any other path, even if another path is cheaper according to the regular path costs, the ones that don't take Scenic Routing into account at all 💸.
3.2. Implications for Hosts 🖥️
Host systems that implement receiving packets with Scenic Routing requested MUST honor that request, and they 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 they're available and requested within the SRO Params) 🐦📶.
System administrators MIGHT want to configure sensible default parameters for Scenic Routing once it's widely adopted by operating systems 🛠️. System administrators SHOULD deploy Scenic Routing information wherever it applies 📣.
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 it saw on the incoming packet 🔄.
Developers SHOULD CONSIDER Scenic Routing when designing and implementing any network service 💡.
4. Security Considerations 🔐
The security considerations of RFC 6214 [RFC6214] apply to links provided by Avian IP Carriers 🐧.
The general security considerations of wireless communication apply to links using wireless technologies 📡.
Here's the spicy part 🌶️: since the user can influence where flows and packets get routed within the network, this MIGHT influence traffic-engineering considerations. Network operators MAY WISH TO take this into account before turning on Scenic Routing on their devices ⚠️.
5. IANA Considerations 📋
This doc 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 🌍
Scenic Routing depends heavily on network paths and routing information, so it might be worth designing extensions for popular routing protocols like BGP or OSPF 🛤️. That would let large networks built on tons of wireless links and/or Avian IP Carriers unlock the full potential of Scenic Routing 🚀. When information about Scenic Routing-compatible links gets built into the routing protocols, the routing algorithms could easily calculate the optimal paths, the ones with the most fresh-air time for a packet, for any given destination 🧮.
This would even let you prefer wireless paths that run alongside popular or culturally important places 🗽. That way the packets don't just avoid the dark fibers, they get to see the world outside the Internet and experience different cultures around the globe 🌏. Which, honestly, might help people understand cultural differences and become more accepting of them 🫶🌈.
7. References 📚
7.1. Normative References ✨
okay so the normative references are the ones this doc literally can't function without 🫶 here's the full list, bestie:
[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>.RFC 1149 is the pigeon one 🐦 (IP over avian carriers, yes really), and RFC 6214 is its IPv6 glow-up 🦋. RFC 2119 and RFC 6919 are the key-word rulebooks, so they're the ones telling you how MUST and friends are supposed to hit 💅
7.2. Informative References 🌸
these ones are just good background reading, not required to get the vibe:
[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>.RFC 791 is the OG IPv4 spec, and RFC 5841 is the TCP option for telling the world your packet's mood 🥹 (yes, that's a real thing).
Acknowledgements 🎀
The author wishes to thank all those poor friends who were kindly forced to read this document and that provided some nifty comments. 😭 Honestly the bar for this one is "survived the read," and they did it 🫶
Author's Address 💜
Maximilian Wilhelm Paderborn, NRW Germany
Phone: +49 176 62 05 94 27 EMail: max@rfc2324.org
📦 where this page comes from
- ietf: rfc7511 2015-04
- 💖 girlified by claude-haiku-5-5 on : a language model's rewrite of the original, under its terms