Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers
draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-05
The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 4727.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Bill Fenner | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2006-06-15) | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | Proposed Standard | ||
| Formats | |||
| Reviews | |||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 4727 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-05
Network Working Group B. Fenner
Internet-Draft AT&T Labs - Research
Expires: December 16, 2006 June 14, 2006
Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4, ICMPv6, UDP and TCP Headers
draft-fenner-iana-exp-2780-05
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on December 16, 2006.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
When experimenting with or extending protocols, it is often necessary
to use some sort of protocol number or constant in order to actually
test or experiment with the new function, even when testing in a
closed environment. This document reserves some ranges of numbers
for experimentation purposes in specific protocols where the need to
support experimentation has been identified, and describes the
numbers that have already been reserved by other documents.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
1. Introduction
[RFC3692] recommends assigning option numbers for experiments and
testing. This document requests [[anchor2: documents --(when
assigned)]] such assignments for the number spaces whose IANA
considerations are documented in [RFC2780]. This document generally
follows the form of [RFC2780].
When using these values, carefully consider the advice in Sections 1
and 1.1 of [RFC3692]. It is not appropriate to simply select one of
these values and hard code it into a system.
Note: while [RFC3692] says that it may not be necessary to allocate
values for UDP and TCP ports, sections 6 and 7.1 explicitly reserve
ports for this purpose to avoid any possible conflict.
2. Fields in the IPv4 header
The IPv4 header [RFC0791] contains the following fields that carry
values assigned by the IANA: Version, Type of Service, Protocol,
Source Address, Destination Address, and Option Type.
2.1. IP Version field in the IPv4 header
The Version field in IPv4 packets is always 4.
2.2. IPv4 Type of Service field
[RFC2474] defines Pool 2 (all code points xxxx11, where 'x' refers to
either '0' or '1') as Experimental / Local Use, so no additional code
points should be needed. The ECN field [RFC3168] has no free code
points to assign.
2.3. IPv4 Protocol field
[RFC3692] allocates two experimental code points (253 and 254) for
the IPv4 Protocol field.
2.4. IPv4 Source and Destination addresses
2.4.1. IPv4 Unicast
No experimental IPv4 addresses are defined. For certain experiments,
the address ranges set aside for Private Internets in [RFC1918] may
be useful. It is not appropriate to use other special-purpose IPv4
addresses [RFC3330] for experimentation.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
At the time of this writing, some Internet Registries have policies
allowing experimental assignments from number spaces that they
control. Depending on the experiment, the registry, and their
policy, this may be an appropriate path to pursue.
2.4.2. IPv4 Multicast
The globally routable group 224.0.1.20 is set aside for
experimentation. For certain experiments, the administratively
scoped multicast groups defined in [RFC2365] may be useful. This
document assigns a single link-local scoped group, 224.0.0.TBD, and a
single scope-relative group, TBD.
2.5. IPv4 Option Type field
This document assigns a single option number, with all defined values
of the "copy" and "class" fields, resulting in four distinct option
type codes. See Section 8 for the assigned values.
3. Fields in the IPv6 header
The IPv6 header [RFC2460] contains the following fields that carry
values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces: Version, Traffic
Class, Next Header, Source and Destination Address. In addition, the
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options extension headers
include an Option Type field with values assigned from an IANA-
managed name space. The IPv6 Routing Header contains a Type field
for which there is not currently an explicit IANA assignment policy.
3.1. IP Version field in the IPv6 header
The Version field in IPv6 packets is always 6.
3.2. IPv6 Traffic Class field
[RFC2474] defines Pool 2 (all code points xxxx11, where 'x' refers to
either '0' or '1') as Experimental / Local Use, so no additional code
points should be needed. The ECN field [RFC3168] has no free code
points to assign.
3.3. IPv6 Next Header field
[RFC3692] allocates two experimental code points (253 and 254) for
the IPv6 Next Header field.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
3.4. IPv6 Source and Destination Addresses
3.4.1. IPv6 Unicast Addresses
[RFC2928] defines a set of IPv6 addresses for testing and
experimental usage:
The block of Sub-TLA IDs assigned to the IANA (i.e., 2001:
0000::/29 - 2001:01F8::/29) is for assignment for testing and
experimental usage to support activities such as the 6bone, and
for new approaches like exchanges.
However, at this writing, there are no RFC3692-style experimental
IPv6 addresses assigned. [I-D.huston-ipv6-iana-specials] creates an
IANA registry which may in the future contain such assignments. For
certain experiments, Unique Local Addresses [RFC4193] may be useful.
It is not appropriate to use addresses in the documentation prefix
[RFC3849] for experimentation.
At the time of this writing, some Internet Registries have policies
allowing experimental assignments from number spaces that they
control. Depending on the experiment, the registry, and their
policy, this may be an appropriate path to pursue.
3.4.2. IPv6 Multicast Addresses
The group FF0X::114 is set aside for experimentation at all scope
levels. Smaller scopes may be particularly useful for
experimentation, since they are defined not to leak out of a given
defined boundary which can be set to be the boundary of the
experiment. For certain experiments, other multicast addresses with
the T (non-permanently-assigned or "transient" address) bit [RFC4291]
set may be useful.
3.5. IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option Fields
This document assigns a single option type, with all possible values
of the "act" and "chg" fields, resulting in eight distinct option
type codes. See Section 8 for the assigned values.
3.6. IPv6 Routing Header Routing Type
This document assigns two values for the Routing Type field in the
IPv6 Routing Header, TBDY and TBDZ.
4. Fields in the IPv4 ICMP header
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
This document assigns two ICMPv4 type numbers, TBD3 and TBD4. ICMPv4
code values are allocated per-type, so it's not feasible to assign
experimental values in this document.
5. Fields in the IPv6 ICMP header
[I-D.ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3] includes experimental ICMPv6 type values
for Informational (200, 201) and Error (100, 101) message types.
ICMPv6 code values are allocated per-type, so it's not feasible to
assign experimental values in this document.
5.1. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Fields
The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery header [RFC2461] contains the following
fields that carry values assigned from IANA-managed name spaces:
Type, Code and Option Type.
5.1.1. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Type
The Neighbor Discovery Type field is the same as the ICMPv6 Type
field. See Section 5 for those code points.
5.1.2. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Code
The ICMPv6 Code field is not used in IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, so no
experimental code points are necessary.
5.1.3. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Type
This document assigns two IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Types, TBD1
and TBD2.
6. Fields in the UDP header
Two system ports, TBD5 and TBD6, have been reserved for
experimentation for UDP and TCP.
7. Fields in the TCP header
7.1. TCP Source and Destination Port fields
Two system ports, TBD5 and TBD6, have been reserved for
experimentation for UDP and TCP.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
7.2. Reserved Bits in TCP Header
There are not enough reserved bits to allocate any for
experimentation.
7.3. TCP Option Kind field
Two TCP options, TBD7 and TBD8, have been reserved for
experimentation with TCP Options.
8. IANA Considerations
The new assignments are summarized below.
IPv4 Multicast Addresses (multicast-addresses (224.0.0/24) Local
Network Control Block section) (Section 2.4.2)
Group Address Name
------------- ----------------------------
224.0.0.TBD RFC3692-style Experiment (*)
IPv4 Multicast Addresses (multicast-addresses relative addresses
section) (Section 2.4.2)
Relative Description
-------- ----------------------------
TBD RFC3692-style Experiment (*)
IPv4 Option Numbers (ipv4-parameters initial section) (Section 2.5)
Copy Class Number Value
---- ----- ------ -------
0 0 ? ??_30_
0 2 ? ??_94_
1 0 ? ??_158_
1 2 ? ??_222_
[all '?' are the same, suggest ? = 11110; '??' calculated from other
values]
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
IPv6 Option Types (ipv6-parameters section 5.b.) (Section 3.5)
HEX act chg rest
------------ --- --- -----
0x??_[0x1e]_ 00 0 ?????
0x??_[0x3e]_ 00 1 ?????
0x??_[0x5e]_ 01 0 ?????
0x??_[0x7e]_ 01 1 ?????
0x??_[0x9e]_ 10 0 ?????
0x??_[0xbe]_ 10 1 ?????
0x??_[0xde]_ 11 0 ?????
0x??_[0xfe]_ 11 1 ?????
[suggest ????? = 11110]
Could be represented in registry as:
b BINARY
HEX act chg rest
--- --- --- -----
...
1E,3E,5E,7E, [x = don't care]
9E,BE,DE,FE xx x ????? RFC3692-style Experiment (*) [ref-to-this-doc]
IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Option Formats (icmpv6-parameters)
(Section 5.1.3)
Type Description
---- ------------------------------
TBD1 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
TBD2 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
IPv6 Routing Header Routing Types (ipv6-parameters section 5.c.)
(Section 3.6)
+------+--------------------------------+
| Type | Description |
+------+--------------------------------+
| TBDY | RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*) |
| TBDZ | RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*) |
+------+--------------------------------+
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
ICMPv4 Type Numbers (icmp-parameters) (Section 4)
Type Name
---- ------------------------------
TBD3 RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
TBD4 RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
System Port Numbers (port-numbers) (Sections 6 and 7.1)
Keyword Decimal Description
------- -------- ------------------------------
exp1 TBD5/udp RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
exp1 TBD5/tcp RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
exp2 TBD6/udp RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
exp2 TBD6/tcp RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
TCP Option Numbers (tcp-parameters) ( Section 7.3)
Kind Length Meaning
---- ------ ------------------------------
TBD7 N RFC3692-style Experiment 1 (*)
TBD8 N RFC3692-style Experiment 2 (*)
Each of these registrations should be accompanied by the following
footnote:
* It is only appropriate to use these values in explicitly-
configured experiments; they MUST NOT be shipped as defaults in
implementations. See RFC 3692 for details.
9. Security Considerations
Security analyzers such as firewalls and network intrusion detection
monitors often rely on unambiguous interpretations of the fields
described in this memo. As new values for the fields are assigned,
existing security analyzers that do not understand the new values may
fail, resulting in either loss of connectivity if the analyzer
declines to forward the unrecognized traffic, or loss of security if
it does forward the traffic and the new values are used as part of an
attack. Assigning known values for experiments can allow such
analyzers to take a known action for explicitly experimental traffic.
Because the experimental IPv4 options defined in Section 2.5 are not
included in the IPsec AH [RFC4302] calculations, it is not possible
for one to authenticate their use. Experimenters ought to keep this
in mind when designing their experiments. Users of the experimental
IPv6 options defined in Section 3.5 can choose whether or not the
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
option is included in the AH calculations by choosing the value of
the "chg" field.
When experimental code points are deployed within an administratively
self-contained network domain, the network administrators should
ensure that each code point is used consistently to avoid
interference between experiments. When experimental code points are
used in traffic that crosses multiple administrative domains, the
experimenters should assume that there is a risk of the same code
points being used simultaneously by other experiments and thus that
there is a possibility that the experiments will interfere.
Particular attention should be given to security threats that such
interference might create.
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3]
Conta, A., "Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for
the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification",
draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-07 (work in progress), I-D
Status iesg, IETF Datatracker State RFC Ed Queue, Intended
Status Draft Standard, Responsible AD Margaret Wasserman,
RFC-Editor Queue State RFC-EDITOR, July 2005.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, STD 5, Updated
by RFC1349, Current Status STANDARD, September 1981.
[RFC1918] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., J. de Groot,
G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
Internets", RFC 1918, BCP 5, Current Status BEST CURRENT
PRACTICE, February 1996.
[RFC2365] Meyer, D., "Administratively Scoped IP Multicast",
RFC 2365, BCP 23, Current Status BEST CURRENT PRACTICE,
July 1998.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, Current Status DRAFT
STANDARD, December 1998.
[RFC2461] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., and W. Simpson, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, Updated
by RFC4311, Current Status DRAFT STANDARD, December 1998.
[RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, Updated
by RFC3168, Updated by RFC3260, Current Status PROPOSED
STANDARD, December 1998.
[RFC2780] Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
RFC 2780, BCP 37, Was Internet-Draft
draft-bradner-iana-allocation-05, Current Status BEST
CURRENT PRACTICE, March 2000.
[RFC2928] Hinden, R., Deering, S., Fink, R., and T. Hain, "Initial
IPv6 Sub-TLA ID Assignments", RFC 2928, Was Internet-
Draft draft-ietf-ipngwg-iana-tla-03, Current
Status INFORMATIONAL, September 2000.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, Was Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-04,
Current Status PROPOSED STANDARD, September 2001.
[RFC3330] "Special-Use IPv4 Addresses", RFC 3330, Was Internet-
Draft draft-iana-special-ipv4-05, Current
Status INFORMATIONAL, September 2002.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful", RFC 3692, BCP 82, Was Internet-Draft
draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-05, Current
Status BEST CURRENT PRACTICE, January 2004.
[RFC3849] Huston, G., Lord, A., and P. Smith, "IPv6 Address Prefix
Reserved for Documentation", RFC 3849, Was Internet-Draft
draft-huston-ipv6-documentation-prefix-03, Current
Status INFORMATIONAL, July 2004.
[RFC4193] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses", RFC 4193, Was Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-09, Current
Status PROPOSED STANDARD, October 2005.
[RFC4291] Hinden, R. and S. Deering, "IP Version 6 Addressing
Architecture", RFC 4291, Was Internet-Draft
draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-04, Current Status DRAFT
STANDARD, February 2006.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, Was
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ipsec-rfc2402bis-10, Current
Status PROPOSED STANDARD, December 2005.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
10.2. Informative References
[I-D.huston-ipv6-iana-specials]
Huston, G., "Administration of the IANA Special Purpose
Address Block", draft-huston-ipv6-iana-specials-01 (work
in progress), I-D Status iesg, IETF Datatracker State AD
Evaluation, Intended Status Informational, Responsible
AD David Kessens, December 2005.
Appendix A. Change History
(To be removed before publication)
A.1. Changes from -01
o Added refs to 3849 and 3330 for things not to use in unicast
addresses.
o Updated ULA ref to be 4193.
o Changed multiple "TBD1+TBD2" to TBD1 through TBD8
o Added IPv6 multicast addresses with T bit.
o Added footnote to be included in all IANA registrations.
o Added link-local and scope-relative v4 multicast addresses
A.2. Changes from -02
o Added IPsec AH discussion in security considerations
o Added mention of the IPv6 special use unicast address block.
o Added IPv6 Routing Header TBDY and TBDZ
o Point out that even though RFC3692 gives UDP/TCP ports as an
example where reserving values isn't necessary, we do anyway since
it allows avoiding conflicts.
A.3. Changes from -03
o Moved mention of reserving UDP/TCP ports to introduction, to avoid
inconsistency of mentioning it in Section 6 and not Section 7.1.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
A.4. Changes from -04
o Mention that registries are possible places to get unicast
addresses.
o Fixed title of Informative References section.
o Fixed some speling errurs.
o Changed titles of sections 2.1 and 3.1.
o Moved Section 5.1 to a more sensible place under Section 5.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
Author's Address
Bill Fenner
AT&T Labs - Research
75 Willow Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
USA
Phone: +1 650 330-7893
Email: fenner@research.att.com
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Experimental Values June 2006
Intellectual Property Statement
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006). This document is subject
to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Fenner Expires December 16, 2006 [Page 14]