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:  [email protected]










































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]