[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: (draft-alexrn-nfsv4-ipv6) 00
Internet Engineering Task Force Alex RN, Ed.
Internet-Draft Dhawal Bhagwat, Ed.
Intended status: Standards Track Dipankar Roy
Expires: April 21, 2011 Rishikesh Barooah
NetApp
October 18, 2010
NFS operation over IPv6
draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6-00.txt
Abstract
This Internet-Draft provides the description of problems faced by NFS
and its various side band protocols, when implemented over IPv6 in
various deployment scenarios. Solutions to the various problems are
also given in the draft and are sought for approval.
Foreword
This "forward" section is an unnumbered section that is not included
in the table of contents. It is primarily used for the IESG to make
comments about the document. It can also be used for comments about
the status of the document and sometimes is used for the RFC2119
requirements language statement.
Requirements Language
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].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 21, 2011.
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6 October 2010
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. RPCBIND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. NFSv4 Callback Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Handling of link-local addresses in multi-homed hosts . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6 October 2010
1. Terminology
Host: Used to refer to the client or the server where the specific(s)
of client or the server does not matter.
IPv4: Internet Protocol Version 4.
IPv6: Internet Protocol Version 6.
NFS: Used to refer to Network File System irrespective of the
version.
NFSv2: Network File System Protocol Version 2.
NFSv3: Network File System Protocol version 3.
NFSv4: Network File System Protocol version 4.
NFSv4.1: Network File System Protocol version 4.1.
NLM: Network Lock Manager Protocol.
NSM: Network Status Monitor Protocol.
Operation: Refers to the NFS operation when its mode of request or
response is inconsequential.
2. Introduction
NFS being a application layer protocol can operate over several
network layer protocols. This draft addresses problems associated
with NFS operation over an IPv6 only network.
3. RPCBIND
NFS servers supporting IPv6 MUST support RPCBINDv3 as defined in
[RFC1833], over IPv6. Additionally, RPCBINDv4 SHOULD be supported,
as noted later in this section.
RPCBINDv3/4 protocols 'use a transport-independent format for the
transport address'. Using RPCBINDv3/4, a client can clearly
communicate to the server which transport (IPv4/v6, TCP/UDP) it is
interested in for contacting a service. The server can communicate
clearly to the client, the various transports on which a service is
available. RPCBINDv2 (aka PORTMAP) provides limited support in this
area.
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6 October 2010
RPCBINDv4 SHOULD be supported because it introduces useful procedures
--
o RPCBPROC_GETVERSADDR - to query the server for the address of a
specific version of an RPC service.
o RPCBPROC_GETADDRLIST - to query the server for a list of all
addresses / transports on which an RPC service is available.
Clients SHOULD use those procedures wherever those procedures enable
them to get the information of interest in one go, instead of making
multiple RPCBPROC_GETADDR calls.
The netid and address formats in the RPCBINDv3/4 procedures, MUST be
as per those defined for netid and universal addresses, in netid_ID
draft [netid_ID]. The implementation MUST NOT use IPv4 embedded IPv6
addresses defined in Section 2.5.5 [RFC4291], for the RPCBINDv3/4
procedures.
An NFS client SHOULD specify a proper universal address in a
RPCBPROC_GETADDR call; specifically, it SHOULD match the server's IP
address on which the client made the call.
While processing the RPCBPROC_GETADDR call, the NFS server needs to
know which local address the client is querying on; the server SHOULD
pull that address from the network layer instead (the local address
on which the RPCBPROC_GETADDR call was received; similar to what
[RFC1833] recommends for the "r_netid" parameter -
The "r_netid" field of the argument is ignored and the "r_netid" is
inferred from the network identifier of the transport on which the
request came in.)
4. NFSv4 Callback Information
In the case of NFSv4.0 procedure SETCLIENTID, the netid and address
formats in the callback information MUST be as per those defined for
netid and universal addresses, in netid_ID draft [netid_ID]. The
implementation MUST NOT use IPv4 embedded IPv6 addresses defined in
Section 2.5.5 [RFC4291].
5. Handling of link-local addresses in multi-homed hosts
[RFC4007] describes link-local IPv6 addresses.
There may be environments where hosts operate only with auto-
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6 October 2010
configured (link-local) addresses. NFS implementations SHOULD
support link-local addresses, so they can operate in such
environments. For example, hosts booting over the network, via NFS.
However, since link-local addresses are link-scoped, they can cause
ambiguity on multi-homed hosts.
An NFS implementation on a multi-homed host MUST keep track of the
local interface (zone) when communicating with a link-local address
of another host. Alternately, such hosts can support a default zone,
which the network layer can use when no interface info is specified
explicitly. See the 'Scope Zones' section of RFC 4007 [RFC4007] for
more on (scope) zones and their implementation.
While making a callback to an address received in a NLM LOCK call or
a NFSv4 SETCLIENTID call, a server MUST specify the local interface
via which the call needs to be made (or let the default zone be
selected, if supported).
An NFS implementation on multi-homed hosts MUST also make sure that a
link-local address of any one of it's (local) interfaces is not
advertised out in any way, via any of it's other (local) interfaces.
For instance, the address list that a NFS server returns in a
RPCBPROC_GETADDRLIST response, MUST NOT contain a link-local address
any interface other than the one on which the request was received
(which will be same as the one which the response is being sent out).
6. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Mike Eisler for reviews of the
various early versions of the draft.
7. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
8. Security Considerations
All considerations from RFC 3530 Section 16 [RFC3530]
9. References
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6 October 2010
9.1. Normative References
[RFC1813] Callaghan, B., Pawlowski, B., and P. Staubach, "NFS
Version 3 Protocol Specification", RFC 1813, June 1995.
[RFC1833] Srinivasan, R., "Binding Protocols for ONC RPC Version 2",
RFC 1833, August 1995.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997,
<http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html>.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3530] Shepler, S., Callaghan, B., Robinson, D., Thurlow, R.,
Beame, C., Eisler, M., and D. Noveck, "Network File System
(NFS) version 4 Protocol", RFC 3530, April 2003.
[RFC4007] Deering, S., Haberman, B., Jinmei, T., Nordmark, E., and
B. Zill, "IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture", RFC 4007,
March 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, February 2006.
[RFC4506] Eisler, M., "XDR: External Data Representation Standard",
STD 67, RFC 4506, May 2006.
[RFC5378] Bradner, S. and J. Contreras, "Rights Contributors Provide
to the IETF Trust", BCP 78, RFC 5378, November 2008.
[RFC5531] Thurlow, R., "RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol
Specification Version 2", RFC 5531, May 2009.
[netid_ID]
Eisler, M., "IANA Considerations for RPC Net Identifiers
and Universal Address Formats",
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-netid-04 (work in progress),
December 2008.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC1094] Nowicki, B., "NFS: Network File System Protocol
specification", RFC 1094, March 1989.
[RFC2624] Shepler, S., "NFS Version 4 Design Considerations",
RFC 2624, June 1999.
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6 October 2010
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, February 2003.
[RFC3542] Stevens, W., Thomas, M., Nordmark, E., and T. Jinmei,
"Advanced Sockets Application Program Interface (API) for
IPv6", RFC 3542, May 2003.
[RFC3593] Tesink, K., "Textual Conventions for MIB Modules Using
Performance History Based on 15 Minute Intervals",
RFC 3593, September 2003.
[RFC4620] Crawford, M. and B. Haberman, "IPv6 Node Information
Queries", RFC 4620, August 2006.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Alex RN (editor)
NetApp
3rd Floor, Fair Winds Block, EGL Software Park,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560071
IN
Phone: +91-80-41843352
Email: rnalex@netapp.com
Dhawal Bhagwat (editor)
NetApp
3rd Floor, Fair Winds Block, EGL Software Park,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560071
IN
Phone: +91-80-41843134
Email: dhawal@netapp.com
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-nfsv4-ipv6 October 2010
Dipankar Roy
NetApp
3rd Floor, Fair Winds Block, EGL Software Park,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560071
IN
Phone: +91-80-41843303
Email: dipankar@netapp.com
Rishikesh Barooah
NetApp
3rd Floor, Fair Winds Block, EGL Software Park,
Bangalore, Karnataka 560071
IN
Email: rbarooah@netapp.com
Alex RN, et al. Expires April 21, 2011 [Page 8]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/