IPv6 Universal Extension Header
draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header-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 "Expired".
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Authors | Fernando Gont , Will (Shucheng) LIU | ||
Last updated | 2014-01-30 | ||
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-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header-00
IPv6 maintenance Working Group (6man) F. Gont Internet-Draft SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Updates: 6564 (if approved) W. Liu Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: August 4, 2014 January 31, 2014 IPv6 Universal Extension Header draft-gont-6man-ipv6-universal-extension-header-00 Abstract This document analyzes a problem in the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers specified in RFC 6564, which results in forwarding nodes and middle-boxes not being able to process an IPv6 Header Chain if it contains an unrecognized IPv6 Extension Header that follows the aforementioned Uniform Format. Additionally, it specifies a new IPv6 Extension Header - the Universal Extension Header - that overcomes the aforementioned problem, and enables the extensibility of IPv6 without impairing middleboxes that need to process the entire IPv6 Header Chain. Finally, this document formally updates RFC 6564 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 August 4, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 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 Gont & Liu Expires August 4, 2014 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header January 2014 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Updating RFC 6564 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Operation of the Universal Extension Header . . . . . . . . . 4 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1. Introduction There has recently been a lot of work about IPv6 Extension Headers. Firstly, there has been research about the extent to which IPv6 Extension Headers are dropped in the public Internet [GONT-IEPG], and debate about the motivation behind such policy [I-D.taylor-v6ops-fragdrop]. Secondly, there has been a fair share of work to improve some technicalities of IPv6 Extension Headers [I-D.ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain] [RFC7045], in the hopes that they can be reliably used in the public Internet. A key challenge for IPv6 Extension Headers to be "usable" in the public Internet is that they should not impair any middle-box's ability to inspect the upper layer header (e.g., TCP source and destination ports, etc.). One of the steps in that direction has been the specification of a Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers [RFC6564], which is meant to be employed by any IPv6 Extension Headers that might be defined in the future, such that middle-boxes can still process the entire IPv6 header chain if the new extension headers employ the Uniform Format. Section 3 discusses a flaw in the Uniform Format for Extension Headers specified in [RFC6564]. Section 4 formally updates [RFC6564], specifying the new Universal Extension Header (UEH). Section 5 explains how new IPv6 would be developed with the UEH. Gont & Liu Expires August 4, 2014 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header January 2014 2. Terminology 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]. 3. Problem Statement A key problem with the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers lies on the fat that both IPv6 Extension Headers and Transport Protocols share the same namespace ("Next Header" registry/namespace). Thus, there is now way to distinguish between an unrecognized IPv6 Extension Header and an unrecognized transport protocol. For example, if a node were to receive an IPv6 packet that employs an unsupported "Next Header" value, there is no way to tell whether the next header corresponds to an Extension Header employing the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers, or a new upper-layer protocol (such as a transport protocol). Clearly, employing the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers "enables" the future extension of IPv6 and the processing of entire IPv6 header chains containing unrecognized extension headers, at the expense of preventing the deployment of new transport protocols or other upper layer protocols. 4. Updating RFC 6564 The entire Section 4 of [RFC6564] is hereby replaced as follows: New IPv6 Extension Headers MUST NOT be specified. Any IPv6 extensions that would require a new IPv6 Extension Header MUST be implemented with the Universal Extension Header specified in this document. This minimizes breakage in intermediate nodes that examine these extension headers. This document specifies a new IPv6 Extension Header: Universal Extension Header. This Extension Header is identified by the value [TBD] of [IANA-IP-PROTO]. The syntax of the Universal Extension Header is: Gont & Liu Expires August 4, 2014 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header January 2014 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 | Subtype | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | . . . Subtype Specific Data . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: Next Header 8-bit selector. Identifies the type of header immediately following the extension header. Uses the same values as the IPv4 Protocol field [IANA-IP-PROTO]. Hdr Ext Len 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the extension header in 8-octet units, not including the first 8 octets. Subtype 8-bit unsigned integer. Specifies the subtype for this extension header. It uses a new namespace managed by IANA [IANA-UEH]. Subtype Specific Data Variable length. Fields specific to this extension header/ Subtype. The Universal Extension Header specified in this document MAY appear multiple times in the same IPv6 packet. 5. Operation of the Universal Extension Header This section discusses de operation of the Universal Extension Header. The goal of the UEH is to provide for a common syntax for all future IPv6 extensions. Any future extension headers will be encoded in a UEH, and will be identified by a specific UEH Subtype assigned by IANA at the time the corresponding specification is published. The UEH thus provides for the "common syntax" required to process "unrecognized extensions", and the Subtype field identifies the specific extension being encoded in the UEH. Any "future extension Gont & Liu Expires August 4, 2014 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header January 2014 headers" would actually be new Subtypes (assigned by IANA) of the UEH. As a result, in the event an unrecognized Next Header value is encountered by a node, the node will be able to assume that such Next Header value identifies an upper-layer protocol, rather than an extension header. 6. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to create a new registry to maintain the Universal Extension Header Subtypes [IANA-UEH]. 7. Security Considerations Enabling middle-boxes such as firewalls to inspect the entire IPv6 header chain even in the presence of unrecognized extensions allows for security mechanisms to be implemented, and for proper functioning of of other middle-boxes such as load-balancers. 8. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank [TBD] for providing valuable input on earlier versions of this document. 9. Contributors C.M. Heard identified the problems related with the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers specified in [RFC6564], and participated in the brainstorming that led to this document. 10. References 10.1. Normative References [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 6564, April 2012. [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, December 2013. Gont & Liu Expires August 4, 2014 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header January 2014 10.2. Informative References [I-D.ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain] Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", draft-ietf-6man-oversized- header-chain-09 (work in progress), November 2013. [I-D.taylor-v6ops-fragdrop] Jaeggli, J., Colitti, L., Kumari, W., Vyncke, E., Kaeo, M., and T. Taylor, "Why Operators Filter Fragments and What It Implies", draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop-02 (work in progress), December 2013. [GONT-IEPG] Gont, F., "Fragmentation and Extension Header Support in the IPv6 Internet", IEPG 88, November 3, 2013. Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013, <http://www.iepg.org/2013-11-ietf88/ fgont-iepg-ietf88-ipv6-frag-and-eh.pdf>. [IANA-IP-PROTO] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers", April 2011, <http://www.iana.org/ assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml>. [IANA-UEH] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Universal Extension Header Subtypes", 2014. Authors' Addresses Fernando Gont SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Evaristo Carriego 2644 Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706 Argentina Phone: +54 11 4650 8472 Email: fgont@si6networks.com URI: http://www.si6networks.com Will (Shucheng) Liu Huawei Technologies Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 P.R. China Email: liushucheng@huawei.com Gont & Liu Expires August 4, 2014 [Page 6]