💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › rfc › rfc3111.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Keywords: [--------|p], SLP, internet, protocol
Network Working Group E. Guttman
Request for Comments: 3111 Sun Microsystems
Category: Standards Track May 2001
Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6
Status of this Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document defines the Service Location Protocol Version 2's
(SLPv2) use over IPv6 networks. Since this protocol relies on UDP
and TCP, the changes to support its use over IPv6 are minor.
This document does not describe how to use SLPv1 over IPv6 networks.
There is at the time of this publication no implementation or
deployment of SLPv1 over IPv6. It is RECOMMENDED that SLPv2 be used
in general, and specifically on networks which support IPv6.
Guttman Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Eliminating support for broadcast SLP requests . . . . . 3
3. Address Specification for IPv6 Addresses in URLs . . . . 3
4. SLP multicast behavior over IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. SLPv2 Multicast Group-IDs for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. SLPv2 Scoping Rules for IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1 Joining SLPv2 Multicast Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.2 Sending SLPv2 Multicast Messages . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.3 Rules for Message Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.4 SLPv2 Agents with multiple interfaces . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.4.1 General Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2.4.2 Multihomed UA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4.3 Multihomed SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2.4.4 Multihomed DA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1. Introduction
The Service Location Protocol (SLP) provides a scalable framework for
the discovery and selection of network services. Using this
protocol, computers using IP based networks no longer need so much
static configuration of network services for network based
applications. This is especially important as computers become more
portable, and users less tolerant of or less able to fulfill the
demands of network administration.
The following are changes required to have the Service Location
Protocol work over IPv6. These changes include:
- Eliminating support for broadcast SLP requests
- Address Specification for IPv6 Addresses in URLs
- Use of IPv6 multicast addresses and IPv6 address scopes
- Restricted Propagation of Service Advertisements
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 [4].
Guttman Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
2. Eliminating support for broadcast SLP requests
Service Location over IPv4 allows broadcasts to send Service Location
request messages. IPv6 makes use of link-local multicast in place of
broadcast. Broadcast-only configuration for SLP is not supported
under IPv6. If a User Agent wishes to make a request to discover
Directory Agents or make a request of multiple Service Agents, the
User Agent must multicast the request to the appropriate multicast
address.
This change modifies the requirements described in Section 6.1 (Use
of Ports, UDP and Multicast) of the Service Location Protocol [2].
3. Address Specification for IPv6 Addresses in URLs
Whenever possible the DNS [5] name of the service should be used
rather than the numerical representation described in this section.
Service Location allows the use of the protocol without the benefit
of DNS. This is relevant when a group of systems is connected to
build a network without any previous configuration of servers to
support this network. When Service Location is used in this manner,
numerical addresses must be used to identify the location of
services.
The format of a "service:" URL is defined in [6]. This URL is an
"absolute URI" as defined by [7].
A numerical IPv6 address, such as may be used in a "service:" URL, is
specified as in [8]. The textual representation defined for literal
IPv6 addresses in [9]:
ipv6-addr = "[" num-addr "]"
num-addr = ; Text represented IPv6 address syntax is as
; specified in RFC 2373 [8], Section 2.2,
Examples:
This is a site-local scoped address, as could be used in a SLP
DAAdvert message.
service:directory-agent://[FEC0::323:A3F9:25ff:fe91:109D]
This is a link-local scoped address, as could be used by a SA to
advertise its service on a IPv6 network with no routers or DNS
service.
service:printer:ipp://[FE80::a15A:93ff:fe5D:B098]:8080/path
Guttman Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
4. SLP multicast and unicast behavior over IPv6
Section 4.1 describes how different multicast addresses are used for
transmitting and receiving SLPv2 messages over IPv6. Section 4.2
defines rules for the use of these addresses and covers scoped
address issues in general.
4.1 SLPv2 Multicast Group-IDs for IPv6
SLPv2 for IPv4 specifies only one multicast address, relative to an
Administratively Scoped Address range [11]. The reason only one
address was used is that there are only 256 relative assignments
available for this purpose. IPv6, on the other hand, has scoped
addresses and enough space for a range of assignments.
SLPv2 for IPv6 uses the following multicast group-id assignments:
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:116 SVRLOC
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:0:123 SVRLOC-DA
FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:1:1000 Service Location
-FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:1:13FF
These group-ids are combined with the scope prefix of the scope to
which the multicast message is to be sent.
The SVRLOC group-id is used for the following messages: Service Type
Request and Attribute Request messages.
The SVRLOC-DA group-id is used for multicast Service Requests for the
"service:directory-agent" service type. Also, DAs send unsolicited
DA Advert messages to the SVRLOC-DA multicast group-id.
All other multicast Service Request messages are sent to the
appropriate Service Location multicast group-id. SAs join the groups
which correspond to the Service Types of the services they advertise.
The group-id is determined using the algorithm provided in SLPv1 [3].
The Service Type string used in the SrvRqst is hashed to a value from
0-1023. This determines the offset into the FF0X::1:1000-13FF range.
The hash algorithm is defined as follows:
An unsigned 32 bit value V is initialized to 0. Each byte of the
Service Type UTF-8 [12] encoded string value is considered
consecutively. The current value V is multiplied by 33, then the
value of the current string byte is added. Each byte in the Service
Type string is processed in this manner. The result is contained in
the low order 10 bits of V. For example, the following code
implements this algorithm:
Guttman Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
unsigned long slp_hash(const char *pc, unsigned int len) {
unsigned long h = 0;
while (len-- != 0) {
h *= 33;
h += *pc++;
}
return (0x3FF & h); /* round to a range of 0-1023 */
}
4.2 SLPv2 Scoping Rules for IPv6
IPv6 provides different scopes for interface address configuration
and multicast addresses. A SLPv2 Agent might discover services that
it cannot use or not discover services which it could use unless
rules are given to prevent this.
Say a SLPv2 UA, for example, could request a service using site-local
scope multicast and obtain a service: URL containing a link-local
literal address. If the service referred to were not on the same
link as the SLPv2 UA, the service could not be reached.
4.2.1 Joining SLPv2 Multicast Groups
A SLPv2 Agent MAY send a multicast message using any scope which it
is allowed to (see section 4.2.2). A SA and a DA MUST join all
groups to which a SLPv2 Agent may send a message. This ensures that
the SA or DA will be able to receive all multicast messages.
Specifically, a SLPv2 Agent MUST NOT join a multicast group which has
greater scope for an interface than it is configured with for use
with unicast. For example, an interface which is only configured
with a link-local address joins groups in scopes with FF01 and FF02.
If the interface is configured with a site-local or global address,
the scope of all multicast groups joined can be no greater than scope
FF05. In this case, SLPv2 SAs and DAs MUST join multicast groups in
all the following scopes: FF01 - FF05.
A DA MUST join the SVRLOC-DA group to receive SrvRqst messages
requesting DAAdverts.
A SA MUST join the SVRLOC-DA group to receive DAAdvert messages.
A SA MUST join the groups from the Service Location range of group-
ids to receive SrvRqst messages. The SA only joins those groups
corresponding to services it advertises. For example, a service
agent which responds to requests for "service:service-agent" (used
for SA discovery), would join groups with the group-id derived from
the hash function defined in section 4.1:
Guttman Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
group-id to join = slp_hash("service:service-agent") + base address
= 0x01d8 + FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:1:1000
= FF0X:0:0:0:0:0:1:11d8
The SA MAY join the SVRLOC group in order to receive SrvTypeRqst and
AttrRqst messages; these features are OPTIONAL for the SA to
implement.
A UA MAY join the SVRLOC-DA group at any or all of these scopes in
order to receive DAAdvert messages.
4.2.2 Sending SLPv2 Multicast Messages
The maximum scope for a SLPv2 multicast message is site-local (FF05).
Multicast SLPv2 messages are sent using a particular scope. An SLPv2
agent MUST issue this request using a source address with a scope no
less than the scope of the multicast group.
This prevents, for example, a site-local multicast message being sent
from a link-local source address.
A SLPv2 UA with an interface configured with at least one global
address could multicast a SrvRqst to any scope up to and including
site-local, for instance.
4.2.3 Rules for Message Processing
SLPv2 SAs and DAs MUST determine which scope a service: URL address
is in. This may be possible by examining the URL if it contains a
numerical IPv6 address. If the URL contains a host name, the SA or
DA MUST resolve that name to a set of addresses.
A SLPv2 SA or DA MUST NOT respond to a SrvRqst with a service: URL
for a service with an address scope less than the request's source
address scope. The rules are given in Figure 1, below.
Guttman Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
Request Source Address Scope
+------------+------------+---------+
| Link-Local | Site-Local | Global |
+-------------+------------+------------+---------+
Service | Link-Local | Respond | Drop | Drop |
Address +-------------+------------+------------+---------+
Scope | Site-Local | Respond | Respond | Drop |
+-------------+------------+------------+---------+
| Global | Respond | Respond | Respond |
+-------------+------------+------------+---------+
Figure 1: Out-of-Scope Rules
This prevents UAs from being able discover service: URLs for services
which cannot be accessed.
4.2.4 SLPv2 Agents with multiple interfaces
A scope zone, or a simply a zone, is a connected region of topology
of a given scope. For example, the set of links connected by routers
within a particular site, and the interfaces attached to those links,
comprise a single zone of site-local scope. To understand the
distinction between scopes and zones, observe that the topological
regions within two different sites are considered to be two DIFFERENT
zones, but of the SAME scope.
A host which has multiple interfaces attached to different links is
by definition is attached to two link-local zones. A host may also
be attached to multiple zones of other scopes.
A SLPv2 Agent MUST NOT propagate service advertisements from one zone
to another. Another way of saying this is a SLPv2 SA or DA MUST NOT
respond to a request from one zone with service information
associated with a service in a different zone.
The specific implication of these rules is discussed in the sections
which follow.
4.2.4.1 General rules
Service Locations (in SrvReg, SrvRply, AttrRst, SAAdvert or DAAdvert
messages) whose locations are literal addresses MUST only be sent to
SLP agents located on the same zone.
For example, a service: URL containing a link-local address on link A
may be sent in a SLPv2 message on link A, to a link-local destination
address only.
Guttman Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
Each interface of a multihomed device is potentially on a separate
link. It is often difficult to determine whether two interfaces are
connected to the same link. For that reason a prudent implementation
strategy is to not issue SLP messages containing link-local service
locations except on the interface where the service is known to
reside.
4.2.4.2 Multihomed UA
+----+ +----+ +----+
| SA |--------| UA |--------| DA |
+----+ Link 1 +----+ Link 2 +----+
(Zone 1) (Zone 2)
Figure 2: Multihomed UA
In Figure 2 the UA is multihomed. The UA can issue a service request
in Zone 1 and discover services on the SA or in Zone 2 and discover
services advertised by the DA. For example, if the request is issued
from a link-local source address, the SA will only reply with a
service available on link 1, the DA only with a service available on
link 2.
The UA MUST use active discovery to detect DAs before issuing
multicast requests, as per SLPv2 [2]. The UA MUST issue requests
using increasing multicast scopes starting at FF01 and increasing to
a maximum scope of FF05, to solicit DAAdvertisements. Note the
restrictions in Section 4.2.2.
If the UA is unable to discover any DAs using multicast discovery, it
may issue site-local scope (FF05) or less multicast requests. (Note
that the source address of the request must be of at least the scope
of the multicast, as described in section 4.2.2.)
If the UA wishes to discover all services, it must issue requests
into both Zone 1 and 2.
4.2.4.3 Multihomed SA
+----+ +----+ +----+
| UA |--------| SA |--------| DA |
+----+ Link 1 +----+ Link 2 +----+
(Zone 1) (Zone 2)
Figure 3: Multihomed SA
Guttman Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
In Figure 3, the SA is multihomed. The SA may receive a request from
the UA on Link 1 (Zone 1). The SA MUST NOT return service
information for services offered on a different zone as a request.
For example, the UA could discover services offered in Zone 1 not
Zone 2.
The SA may receive a DAAdvert on Link 2 (Zone 2). The SA MUST NOT
send a service registration to the DA for a service which is present
in Zone 1. The SA MUST register a service with the DA which is
present in Zone 2.
The SA MUST NOT include an address in a SAAdvert message which is
sent on a zone where the address is not valid. For example, the SA
MUST NOT send a SAAdvert onto link 2, if the SAADvert contains a
service: URL with a literal link-local scoped IPv6 address for Link
1.
The SA performs active DA discovery, as described in SLPv2 [2]. The
SA MUST issue requests using multicast scope FF02 to solicit
DAAdvertisements. If the SA has a site-local or global source
address, it MUST reissue the request with increasing scopes up to a
maximum scope of FF05. Active DA discovery must be attempted in both
Zone 1 and 2. This ensures that the SA will discover as many DAs in
its scope as possible.
4.2.4.4 Multihomed DA
+----+ +----+ +----+
| UA |--------| DA |--------| SA |
+----+ Link 1 +----+ Link 2 +----+
(Zone 1) (Zone 2)
Figure 4: Multihomed DA
In Figure 4, the DA is multihomed. The DA MUST keep track of which
interface registrations were made on. The DA MUST prevent a
registration from the SA which contains a service information valid
in one zone from being discovered in another zone. For example,
services registered by the SA in Zone 2 would not be discoverable by
the UA in Zone 1.
Care must be taken when issuing DAAdverts. The DA must respond to
active DA discovery requests using the same scope as the request.
For instance, if the SA issues a SrvRqst message for service type
"service:directory" from a link-local source address, the DA MUST
respond with a link-local (link 2) source address.
Guttman Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
The DA MUST multicast unsolicited DAAdverts on each interface using
link-local and site-local source addresses, unless it is only
configured with a link-local address. In that case, the DA MUST
issue DAAdverts with link-local scope only.
The DA URL MUST contain the address of the greatest scope the DA is
configured with in the zone. For instance, if the DA is configured
with a link-local, site-local and global address in Zone 2, it would
use the global address in the DA URL (as a literal IPv6 address).
5. IANA Considerations
The IPv6 multicast group-id range FF05::1:1000 - FF05::1:13FF was
previously assigned by IANA in RFC 2375 for use by SLP [10].
This document defines how the range of addresses FF0X::1:1000 -
FF0X::1:13FF is used. IANA has assigned this range of addresses for
use by Service Location Protocol.
This document fully defines the multicast addresses that this
protocol will use. There is no requirement for the IANA to establish
a registry to assign additional addresses.
6. Security Considerations
User Agents and Directory Agents MAY ignore all unauthenticated
Service Location messages when a valid IPSec association exists.
Service Agents and Directory Agents MUST be able to use the IP
Authentication and IP Encapsulating Security Payload for issuing and
processing Service Location messages whenever an appropriate IPSec
Security Association exists [13].
SLP allows digital signatures to be produced to allow the
verification of the contents of messages. There is nothing in the
Modifications for IPv6 document which weakens or strengthens this
technique.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Dan Harrington, Jim Wood and Alain Durand, Thomas Narten,
Dave Thaler and Erik Nordmark for their reviews of this document.
John Veizades contributed to the original version of this document.
The hash function is modified from a code fragment attributed to
Chris Torek. Text on Scope Zones is taken from writing by Steve
Deering, Brian Haberman and Brian Zill.
Guttman Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
References
[1] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Version 3", BCP
9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[2] Guttman, E., Perkins, C., Veizades, J. and M. Day, "Service
Location Protocol, Version 2", RFC 2608, June 1999.
[3] Veizades, J., Guttman, E., Perkins, C. and S. Kaplan, "Service
Location Protocol", RFC 2165, June 1997.
[4] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[5] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Concepts and Facilities", STD
13, RFC 1034, November 1987.
Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
Specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.
[6] Guttman, E., Perkins, C. and J. Kempf, "Service Templates and
URLs", RFC 2609, July 1999.
[7] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R. and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource
Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax", RFC 2396, August 1998.
[8] Hinden, R. and B. Carpenter, "Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses
in URL's", RFC 2732, December 1999.
[9] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 2373, July 1998.
[10] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IPv6 Multicast Address Assignments",
RFC 2375, July 1997.
[11] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast", RFC 2365,
July 1998.
[12] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", RFC
2279, January 1998.
[13] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 2401, November 1998.
Guttman Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
Author's Address
Erik Guttman
Sun Microsystems
Eichhoelzelstr. 7
74915 Waibstadt, Germany
Phone: +49 7263 911701
EMail: Erik.Guttman@germany.sun.com
Guttman Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 3111 Service Location Protocol Modifications for IPv6 May 2001
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Guttman Standards Track [Page 13]