Transient Hiding of Hop-by-Hop Options
draft-eastlake-6man-hide-options-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Donald E. Eastlake 3rd | ||
Last updated | 2021-07-12 | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
Telechat date | (None) | ||
Responsible AD | (None) | ||
Send notices to | (None) |
draft-eastlake-6man-hide-options-00
INTERNET-DRAFT D. Eastlake Intended status: Proposed Standard Futurewei Technologies Expires: January 11, 2022 July 12, 2021 Transient Hiding of Hop-by-Hop Options <draft-eastlake-6man-hide-options-00.txt> Abstract There are increasing requests for a variety IPv6 hop-by-hop options but such IPv6 options and all IPv4 options, are poorly handled, particularly by high speed routers in the core Internet where packets having options are commonly discarded. This document proposes a simple method of transiently hiding such options for part of a packet's path to protect the packet from discard. Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Distribution of this document is unlimited. Comments should be sent to the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group mailing list <6man@ietf.org> or to the authors. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at https://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at https://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 1] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 Table of Contents 1. Introduction............................................3 1.1 Conventions Used in This Document......................3 2. IP Options and Option Handling Problems.................4 2.1 IPv6 Options...........................................5 2.2 IPv4 Options...........................................6 3. Overview of a Solution..................................8 3.1 Transiently Hiding IPv6 Options........................9 3.2 Transiently Hiding IPv4 Options........................9 3.3 Evolution to Greater Option Support...................10 4. IANA Considerations....................................11 5. Security Considerations................................11 Normative References......................................12 Informative References....................................12 Authors' Address..........................................14 D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 2] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 1. Introduction As discussed in [Options3] there are increasing requests for a variety IPv6 hop-by-hop options but such IPv6 options and all IPv4 options, are poorly handled, particularly by high speed routers in the core Internet where packets having options are commonly discarded. This document proposes a simple method of transiently hiding such options for part of a packet's path to protect the packet from discard. 1.1 Conventions Used in This Document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. Terms: field - an area of one or more contiguous bits within a larger structure. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 3] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 2. IP Options and Option Handling Problems This Section 2 is informational and intended to provide background information. In the early days of the Internet, much of the traffic was text, transmission speeds were slow and IP routers were commonly small general-purpose computers. Under these conditions, parsing IP headers with various options or combinations of options, handling variable length options, etc., was relatively easy. However, as the Internet increased in size, bandwidth grew including more voluminous media such as video, transmission speeds increased enormously, and latency/responsiveness requirements became much more stringent, IP routers, especially in the core of the Internet, typically became less flexible and more specialized. To be able to handle data faster and more efficiently, such core IP routers are divided into a forwarding plane and a control plane where the forwarding plan handles the usual data forwarding while the control plan handles routing control messages and other packets that the data plane cannot handle. In some IP routers, the forwarding plane is implemented with Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) that are inflexible and may need fields they examine in an IP packet header and following fields to be at a fixed offset from the beginning of the packet. Meanwhile, the control plane may be implemented through a relatively low power general purpose computer which can only handle a small number of packets per unit time. For these reasons, many IP routers do not implement many or any types of IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options or IPv4 header options except through the control plane which is relatively slow. Sending packets with such options to the control plane can overwhelm the control plane and interfere with routing control messages or other critical functions. Very often, particularly for IP routers handling a large amount of traffic, a strategy is adopted of dropping IP packets with such header options or ignoring IPv4 header options and IPv6 Hop-by-Hop header options. See [Options3] for a further discussion of these option handling problems. Further details concerning IPv6 and IPv4 options are given in the subsections below. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 4] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 2.1 IPv6 Options Figure 1 shows the IPv6 header [RFC8200]. The value of the initial 4-bit Version field indicates the IP version number and has the value 6. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Source Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | + + | | + Destination Address + | | + + | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1: IPv6 Header The value of the 8-bit Next Header field specifies the type and format of information immediately following the header. For example, a value of 17 in the Next Header field indicates that the header is immediately followed by a User Datagram Protocol (UDP) message and a value of 6 would indicate the header is followed by a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) message. In some cases, the data immediately after the IPv6 header can be a header including a Next Header field for the type of data following it and so on as shown in Figure 2. Such headers, after the initial IPv6 header and before the main payload, are called Extension Headers and can be viewed as extensions to the IPv6 header. At this time, specified extension headers include the six listed below, additional extension headers have been proposed, and likely more extension headers will be proposed and specified in the future. Specified extension headers: Hop-by-Hop Options D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 5] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 Fragment Destination Options Routing Authentication Encapsulating Security Payload In the two "options" types of extension header, the "Hop-by-Hop Options" and "Destination Options", the extension header content is further structured into options each of which, except for a one byte "pad1" option, is an 8-bit type followed by an 8-bit option length, followed by the option value. Hop-by-Hop options were initially specified to require that every router pay attention to them. While this has been relaxed in the most recent IPv6 specification, they are still frequently viewed as imposing a burden on every IP router through which they pass. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | . . . Options . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2: IPv6 Option Extension Header 2.2 IPv4 Options Figure 3 shows the IPv4 header [RFC791]. The value of the initial 4-bit Version field indicates the IP version number and has value 4. The IPv4 header has many similarities to the iPv6 header. For example, the IPv4 header 8-bit field called "Protocol" is the like the "Next Header" field in the IPv6 header and the IPv4 header 8-bit "Type of Service" field, as amended by RFCs issued after [RFC791], is the same as the IPv6 header "Traffic Class" field. But some things that are handled by header extensions for IPv6 are integrated into the more complex IPv4 header. For example, fragmentation, where an Internet Protocol packet is split into pieces that can be later combined because the packet might be too big to traverse part of its path, is indicated through an extension header for IPv6 but through fields in the main IPv4 header for IPv4. Similarly, IPv4 options are considered part of the IPv4 header and the size of the options can be D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 6] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 determined from the value of the IHL (Internet Header Length) field which gives the size of the IPv4 header in units of 4-octet words. 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Time to Live | Protocol | Header Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Options | Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 3: IPv4 Header D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 7] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 3. Overview of a Solution Figure 4 shows a very high level view of a network path between two hosts within local networks through the Internet core. (In reality there will be more levels with a local network, whether a home, office, data center, or whatever, is usually connected through one or more levels of lower tier service provider before connecting to a Tier 1 provider that connects to the default free Internet core.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - . Network 1 . . Core Internet . . . . . . +------+ +---+ +---+ . . +---+ . . |Host A|---|R10|-...-|R19|------------------|R90| . . +------+ +---+ +---+ . . +---+ . . . . | | . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ... . ..... . ....... . ....... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . ..... . Network 2 . . ... . . . | | . . +------+ +---+ +---+ . . +---+ . . |Host B|---|R20|-...-|R29|------------------|R99| . . +------+ +---+ +---+ . . +---+ . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . Figure 4: High Level View of an Internet Path There are efforts to improve and streamline handling of IPv6 Hop-by- Hop options such as in [Options1] and [Options2]. However, even if popular and even if fully deployed in some network areas, there is likely to be substantial delay before they are deployed in the Internet core. While some Internet core routers may ignore options, others discard all packets with options and, as long as there is a significant chance of such discard, options are rendered essentially useless on paths through the core. The solution in this document is to hide options before IP packets arrive at the core. This hiding is done in as easily detectable fashion so that options can be unhidden after leaving the core. IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options or IPv4 options used with this solution may not be effective in the core but the situation is an improvement over the traffic using such options being discarded. This solution requires destination support but that should be knowable in many cases such as traffic between branches of the same company or between a customer and a data center. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 8] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 To obtain more uniform handling of packets in a flow, it may be desireable to treat all packet in the flow, or all packets including and after the first with problematic options, as if they had such options in that the packet would be transformed to hide and unhide options even if there were none. 3.1 Transiently Hiding IPv6 Options IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options are hidden by replacing the zero Next Header field in the IPv6 Header by the opaque IP protocol number TBD. This is a very simple modification of one 8-bit field in a fixed location that has no effect of the size of the packet. They are unhidden by changing the opaque IP protocol number in the IPv6 header back to zero. The use of the opaque IP protocol number can defeat deeper IPv6 packet analysis that is intended to identify flows. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that, when this hiding technique is used, the IPv6 header Flow Label field be set [RFC6437] and used [RFC6438] [RFC7098]. This is a good idea anyway since IPv6 extension headers may move some fields, such as port numbers, on which flow identity might be based, so deep into a packet that they are hard to use by routers. 3.2 Transiently Hiding IPv4 Options A similar technique can be used for hiding IPv4 options but significantly more complex manipulations of the packet are required. As shown in Figure 5, the IPv4 header is made to appear to have no options by setting the IHL (Internet Header Length) field to its minimum value of 5, the Protocol field is changed to the opaque IP protocol number TBD, and the Header Checksum is adjusted to be correct for the optionless header. To be able to restore the IPv4 header, the old IHL, Protocol, and Header Checksum fields are saved in a 4-octet word inserted after the Destination Address and before any Options. The placement of the saved fields is such that their alignment within 4-octet word is the same as in the unmodified IPv4 header. The field labeled MBZ MUST be sent as zero and ignored on receipt. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 9] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| IHL=5 |Type of Service| Total Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Time to Live |Protocol=Opaque| Adjusted Header Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | MBZ |SavdIHL| Saved Protocol| Saved Header Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Options | Padding | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 5: Modified IPv4 Header These modifications increase the size of the IPv4 packet, increasing the chance that fragmentation or MTU problems could occur. For any node ignorant of the opaque IP protocol number, they will also interfere with flow determination based on the traditional 5-tuple (source and destination address, source and destination port, and IP protocol) or deep packet inspection. 3.3 Evolution to Greater Option Support This solution supports the evolution of the Internet toward more widespread support of options including the following: o As acceptable option support is more widely implemented, probably starting at lower bandwidth routers nearer the edge, the boundaries at which options are hidden or unhidden can migrate closer to the core. o If scattered core routers improve to provide acceptable option support, they can recognize the opaque protocol number and perform options, perhaps in a limited way, on packets where those options are hidden to unimproved routers. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 10] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 4. IANA Considerations IANA is request to assign a number from the "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers" registry as follows: Decimal Keyword Protocol IPv6 Ex Hdr Reference ------- ------- -------- ----------- --------- TBD Opaque Opaque [this document] 5. Security Considerations The use of the opaque IP Protocol to mask options is intended to defeat analysis of the following packet content. This would make firewalls, deep packet analysis, and the like less effective. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 11] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 Normative References [RFC791] - Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc791 [RFC2119] - Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. [RFC6437] - Amante, S., Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and J. Rajahalme, "IPv6 Flow Label Specification", RFC 6437, DOI 10.17487/RFC6437, November 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6437>. [RFC6438] - Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>. [RFC8174] - Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174> [RFC8200] - Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200 Informative References [Options1] - Li, Z., Peng, S., and G. Mishra, "Hop-by-Hop Forwarding Options Header", Internet draft-li-6man-hbh-fwd-hdr-01, February 2021, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-li-6man-hbh-fwd-hdr/ [Options2] - Hinden, R., and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options Processing Procedures", Internet draft-hinden-6man-hbh- processing-01, June 2021, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hinden-6man-hbh- processing/ [Options3] - Peng, S., Li, Z., Xie, C., and Z. Qin, "Processing of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header", Internet draft-peng-v6ops- hbh-04, June 2021, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-v6ops-hbh/ D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 12] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 [RFC7098] - Carpenter, B., Jiang, S., and W. Tarreau, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label for Load Balancing in Server Farms", RFC 7098, DOI 10.17487/RFC7098, January 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7098>. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 13] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 Authors' Address Donald E. Eastlake 3rd Futurewei Technologies 2386 Panoramic Circle Apopka, FL 32703 USA Tel: +1-508-333-2270 Email: d3e3e3@gmail.com D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 14] INTERNET-DRAFT Hiding IP Options July 2021 Copyright and IPR Provisions Copyright (c) 2021 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. The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are published by third parties, including those that are translated into other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including those that are translated into other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions. For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution. D. Eastlake Expires January 2022 [Page 15]