Infight Removal of IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Routing Headers
draft-herbert-eh-inflight-removal-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".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Tom Herbert | ||
| Last updated | 2023-08-22 | ||
| 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-herbert-eh-inflight-removal-00
Network Working Group T. Herbert
Internet-Draft SiPanda
Intended status: Experimental 22 August 2023
Expires: 23 February 2024
Infight Removal of IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Routing Headers
draft-herbert-eh-inflight-removal-00
Abstract
This document specifies an experimental method to allow intermediate
nodes to remove IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Headers or Routing Headers
from packets in flight. The goal is to reduce the probability of
packets being dropped, because they contain these extension headers,
without impacting functionality.
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 https://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 23 February 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2023 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 (https://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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Hop-by-Hop Options drop rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Router Header domain firewall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Removing extension headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.1. Removal by egress routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3.2. Removal by ingress routers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Alternatives to Extension Header removal . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.1. Host routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4.2. Probing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.3. IPinIP Encapsulation from source . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4.4. IPinIP Encapsulation from egress router . . . . . . . 7
3. Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.1. Reflection of Hop-by-Hop Options . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. End host processing of Routing Headers . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. ICMP errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. Removing a Hop-by-Hop Options Header . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.2. Removing a Routing Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.3. Removing both Hop-by-Hop Options and a Routing Headers . 15
6. Implementation Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. Copying the IPv6 Header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2. Scatter/gather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction
This document specifies an experimental protocol to allow
intermediate nodes to remove IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Headers or
Routing Headers from packets in flight.
Current data suggests that there are very high drop rates, nearing
100%, for packets with Hop-by-Hop Options sent over the Internet.
The goal of this protocol is to reduce the probability of the packet
being dropped by a downstream node without reducing functionality,
thereby improving the viability and usability for sending Hop-by-Hop
Options.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
A secondary goal is to allow removal of Hop-by-Hop Options Headers or
Routing Headers when packets egress a limited domain, such as a
segment routing domain, in order to limit exposure of data to only
those nodes that legitimately need to process it.
1.1. 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 [RFC2119].
2. Motivation
This section provides the motivations for allowing intermediate nodes
to remove Hop-by-Hop Options or Routing Headers from packets.
2.1. Hop-by-Hop Options drop rate
Current measurements indicate that packets with Hop-by-Hop Extension
Headers have high drop rates when sent over the Internet. From
[APNIC-EH]:
The HBH option was experiencing an average packet drop rate of
99.5% across all HBH option sizes
The reported drops rates for Hop-by-Hop Options are greater than that
of packets with Destination Options Headers or Fragment Headers. A
possible explanation for this difference is that Hop-by-Hop Options
are intended to be processed by intermediate nodes in a network, and
hence a network operator may be motivated to drop packets with Hop-
by-Hop options entering their network from untrusted sources to
protect their network infrastructure. This is mentioned in [RFC9098]
as a reason that packets containing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options are
dropped:
The Hop-by-Hop Options header has been particularly challenging
since, in most circumstances, the corresponding packet is punted
to the control plane for processing. As a result, many operators
drop IPv6 packets containing this extension header [RFC7872].
[RFC6192] provides advice regarding protection of a router's
control plane.
Given that there doesn't seem to be a easy fix to make Hop-by-Hop
Options work over the Internet, the commonly proposed alternative is
to limit use of Hop-by-Hop Options to limited domains [RFC8799]. It
can be noted that Hop-by-Hop Options are only useful when at least
some of nodes in the path process them, and a network operator would
likely only deploy routers that process Hop-by-Hop Options if they
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
perceived Hop-by-Hop Options provide some value. An example of such
an option is FAST [I-D.herbert-fast] which allows the network
infrastructure to provide fine grained QoS and monetize network
services on a per packet basis. If a network supports value add
services that use Hop-by-Hop Options, it stands to reason that if
packets with Hop-by-Hop Options wouldn't be dropped while their
within the limited domain of the network operator.
If a destination is not within the limited domain, a source might
still desire to use Hop-by-Hop Options to affect packet processing in
the part of the path that is within the limited domain. In this
case, a packet might be created with Hop-by-Hop Options, the packet
traverses the local network to an egress router, and at the egress
router the packet is forwarded outside of the limited domain without
Hop-by-Hop Options.
2.2. Router Header domain firewall
When a host sends a packet with a Routing Header, for example a
Segment Routing Header, the intermediate destinations are considered
to be in the same limited domain; for example, in Segment Routing all
of the intermediate destinations in the Segment Routing Header must
be in the same segment routing domain.
The final destination of a Routing Header might not be in the routing
domain. It may, in fact, be outside of the limited domain. An
example use case of this would be if routing was used to route the
packet to an egress router of the domain. The egress router would be
the penultimate destination in the segment list such that the
Segments Left field is set to zero and all downstream nodes would
ignore the Routing Header. In this case, the packets can forwarded
beyond the limited domain without a routing header and no impact on
behavior.
2.3. Removing extension headers
2.3.1. Removal by egress routers
To contain the Hop-by-Hop Options and Routing Header to their limited
domain, this specification proposes that egress routers could remove
the extension headers from packets before forwarding them beyond the
limited domain.
Hop-by-Hop Options would be removed by an egress router in order to
increase the likelihood that packets sent with Hop-by-Hop Options are
successfully delivered. The assumption is that the Hop-by-Hop
Options are most likely not useful beyond the limited domain. Option
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
reflection to affect processing in the reverse direction of a flow,
such as defined in FAST [I-D.herbert-fast], is one case where it
would be useful to send outside of a limited domain (discussed
below).
A Routing Header would be removed at an egress router when its being
used to route a packet from a host beyond the limited domain. Note
that when the penultimate destination processes the routing header,
it sets the final Destination Address and Segments Left to zero, so
at that point the Routing Header can be removed without impacting
downstream processing of the packet.
2.3.2. Removal by ingress routers
Hop-by-Hop Options could be removed from packets by ingress routers
as an alternative to the current practice of dropping the packets
with Hop-by-Hop Options. In this case, the network operator doesn't
process Hop-by-Hop Options, or it only processes Hop-by-Hop Options
from source hosts in the local domain that it trusts. Removing Hop-
by-Hop Options instead of dropping them allows packets to be
delivered without loss of functionality or risk to the network
infrastructure.
2.4. Alternatives to Extension Header removal
This section discusses some of the alternatives to extension header
removal that have been proposed.
2.4.1. Host routing
It is conceivable that a host network stack could maintain routes to
destinations or networks with an indication that the destination is
within the limited domain. So when a packet is being created, the
routing table could be consulted to determine if it's safe to send
packets with Hop-by-Hop Options to the destination.
The main drawback of this approach is that it requires significant
changes to the host networking stack: in the routing infrastructure,
the APIs presented to the application trying to set Hop-by-Hop
Options, and probably applications themselves. Additionally, in all
but trivial network topologies, it won't be obvious just given an
address whether the destination is in the same limited domain as the
host. In some simpler topologies, might be possible to configure
hosts with all the network prefixes that belong to the limited
domain, however for a more complex topology hosts may need to
participate in a routing protocol or a discovery protocol with the
network.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
2.4.2. Probing
Capabilities probing has been successfully employed in other contexts
such as "Happy Eyeballs" for IPv6. Probing could similarly be used
to determine the viability of Hop-by-Hop Options to a destination.
In this case, a host could probe each destination to determine if
Hop-by-Hop Options are viable. The advantage of this method is that
it requires no special assistance from the network.
The main drawback of this approach is the complexity in the host
stack and applications. Probing assumes bidirectional
communications, state needs to be maintained for each desintion or
flow, procedures need to be specified for probing, backoff, and
continuous probing in the case of a route changes that might affect
the disposition of packet with Hop-by-Hop Options in the network.
Additionally, the implementation for probing would be different for
UDP and TCP: probing in the UDP case would most likely need support
in the application and userspace libraries, probing for TCP would
likely need to be supported in the kernel itself.
2.4.3. IPinIP Encapsulation from source
In order to use Hop-by-Hop Options in the part of the path in a
limited domain, a source host may encapsulate the packet in an IPinIP
encapsulation [RFC2473]. The outer IPv6 header would contain the
Hop-by-Hop Options header and the destination would be the address of
an egress router for the limited domain. At the egress router, the
packet would be decapsulated and the packet can be forwarded without
Hop-by-Hop Options.
The main problem to this approach is that the sending host would need
to known the correct Destination Address to set in the encapsulating
header; that is, the host would need to know the address of the
correct egress router for the packet. That information is not
available to hosts and might not even be available to intermediate
nodes including the first hop router. In a complex, multi-homed,
network topology that might support mobile hosts, the only way to
determine the current egress router for a packet may be to actually
route through the network to the external destination address.
If the network did maintain the association between destinations and
the egress router, then conceptually it could share that information
with hosts using a routing protocol or discovery protocol. This
information could be saved in an augmented routing table on the host
similar to that described in the "Host routing" section.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
If the network provides the addresses of egress routers that is
potentially divulging network topology information to the hosts and
could be considered a security risk.
Conceivably, a host could be configured with a single anycast address
to be used as Destination Address of the egress routier when
encapsulating. If the host routing table includes limited domain
information, as described in the Host Routing section, then this
would be sufficient to route packets to an egress router. In this
case though, the anycast address represents a default router which
might not be the same one had the packet been routed based on its
final destination-- this could be suboptimal routing or cause out-of-
order packets if not all packets of a flow are encapsulated.
This solution is complex from a host implementation point of view.
An IPinIP encapsulation adds at least forty bytes of overhead to the
packet, which reduces the effective MTU for the application and
requires special end host processing that may be prohibitive on low
end devices. Even if an anycast address is configured, a host stack
will need to maintain routing information to determine when packets
need to be encapsulated. Furthermore, setting the Hop-by-Hop Options
is be done by the application without regard to whether the packet is
being encapsulated. When a packet is sent and it needs to
encapsulated, the host stack will need to remove the Hop-by-Hop
Options from the original packet and set them in the encapsulating
IPv6 headers.
2.4.4. IPinIP Encapsulation from egress router
Another solution using IPinIP encapsulation would be for an egress
router to encapsulate a packet containing Hop-by-Hop Options in
IPinIP. The outer IPv6 header contains no Hop-by-Hop Options and the
inner IPv6 header contains the options. The Destination Address in
the outer and inner IP headers are the same.
This solution is not robust since the encapsulation increases packet
size and reduces the Path MTU seen by the sender which can cause
systematic packet drops. For example, suppose a host sends a packet
with minimum MTU size of 1,280, and an egress router encapsulates the
packet so that its length increase to 1,320 bytes. If a downstream
router has link MTU of 1,280 then the packet will be dropped since
its length exceeds the link MTU. Since the host sent a minimum MTU
sized packet, it cannot fallback to a smaller MTU using PLMTUD hence
there is no recovery. Note the encapsulation is being done when
packet egress a domain there is no expectation that all the potential
paths outside of the domain have a large enough MTU to accommodate
encapsulation.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
Sending encapsulated packets into the Internet requires that they can
successfully transit the Internet. IPinIP encapsulation number could
be filtered by some networks (similar to how networks can block
packets with Hop-by-Hop Options header. Using a UDP encapsulation,
such as VXLAN, might have better success than IPinIP.
All potential receivers would need to do decapsulation. This could
be modeled as an anonymous encapsulation. Currently, this is not
enabled on commodity host stacks, and would be a major change in
deployment.
Packets to a destination may undergo network address translation such
that the outer addresses might not match the inner addresses of an
encapsulation. If a flow contains a mix of encapsulated and non-
encapsulated packets then the destination may view that a packet in
different flows. In order to prevent this, a router could
encapsulate all packets, but that would be very costly for what is
currently a narrow use case.
3. Considerations
3.1. Reflection of Hop-by-Hop Options
Some Hop-by-Hop options are designed to be reflected by a remote host
back to the sender. IOAM Loopback [RFC9332] is used to report
measurements on the forward path of a sender, the Minimum Path MTU
Hop-by-Hop Option [RFC9268] returns the path MTU in the forward path
to a sender, and FAST [I-D.herbert-fast] allows tickets to be
reflected to affect packet processing in the return path of a flow.
Note that Hop-by-Hop Options reflection is not guaranteed and hence
is an opportunistic mechanism; it cannot be assumed that options will
always be reflected.
In the case that an intermediate node removes Hop-by-Hop Options,
reflection won't happen since the destination host does not see the
Hop-by-Hop option to be reflected. In order to preserve the benefits
of reflection, intermediate nodes should only remove Hop-by-Hops that
might include options to be reflected as a last resort to prevent the
packets being dropped by a downstream node.
3.2. End host processing of Routing Headers
Per [RFC8200], "If Segments Left is zero, the node must ignore the
Routing header and proceed to process the next header in the packet".
Effectively, this means once the last segment has been processed and
the final destination is set then the routing header carries no
useful information to any downstream nodes, so removal of the
extension header doesn't affect the how the packet is processed.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
A possible exception is that the destination host may elect to
validate the Routing Header. For instance, the end host may validate
the HMAC TLV in a Segment Routing Header. Since routing header are
most likely used only in limited domains, which is an explicit
requirement in Segment Routing, the network nodes processing the
routing header should know if the final destination participates is
required to validate the routing header-- if it's not then the header
can be removed.
3.3. ICMP errors
When an ICMP error message is sent for a packet with removed
extension headers, the packet headers in the ICMP data will be
different then what the host sent. Operationally, this should not be
an issue since a sender doesn't normally need to correlate packet
with Hop-by-Hop options that were originally sent and the host stack
doesn't usually maintain sufficient state to make a precise
correlation.
It is possible that a packet may be dropped because it does not have
an expected Hop-by-Hop Options, such as a firewall ticket. In this
case, the ICMP error does contain relevant information that can be
logged and used for debugging.
4. Requirements
An intermediate node MAY remove a Hop-by-Hop Options extension header
from a packet if the following conditions are met:
* The packet does not contain an Authentication Header. If the
packet contains and Authentication Header then the Hop-by-Hop
Options Extension Header MUST NOT be removed
* The Payload Length of the packet is non-zero and the Hop-by-Hop
options does not include a Jumbo Payload Option (if the packet
contains a Jumbo Payload option then the Payload Length should be
zero)
An intermediate node MAY remove a Routing Header extension header
from a packet if the following conditions are met:
* The Destination Address has been set to the address of the final
destination and the Segments Left field is zero
* The packet does not contain an Authentication Header
* There are no extension headers the precede the Routing Header in
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
the packet. An exception is if the Routing Header immediately
follow a Hop-by-Hop Options extension header that is also being
removed
* The final destination is not required to process or validate the
Routing Header
* The routing header does not contain options (segment routing TLVs
for instance), or the destination host doesn't need to process or
validate the options.
5. Procedures
This section describes the procedures for removing a Hop-by-Hop
Options Header, removing a Routing Header, and removing a Hop-by-Hop
Options Header and Routing Header at the same time.
5.1. Removing a Hop-by-Hop Options Header
The procedures for removing a Hop-by-Hop Options Header are:
1. Save the value in the Next Header field of the Hop-by-Hop Options
extension header in a temporary variable
2. Determine the length of the Hop-by-Hop header and save in a
temporary variable. This is equal to the value of the Hdr Ext
Len field time eight plus eight
3. Determine the offset of the first byte in the following the Hop-
by-Hop Options Header. This is equal to the forty plus the
length of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header derived in step 2
4. Copy the IPv6 header with length, forty bytes, to the offset
derived in set 3 minus forty. Reset the starting offset of the
packet to be the offset of the copied IPv6 header
5. Set the Next Header field in the copied IPv6 header to the value
saved in step 1
6. Subtract the length of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header, determined
in step 2, from the Payload Length in the copied IPv6 header.
Set the result as the Payload Length in the copied IPv6 header
An example of removing Hop-by-Hop Options Header is shown in the
diagrams below.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
The diagram below illustrates shows an example TCP/IPv6 packet with a
Hop-by-Hop Options Header; the Payload Length is 1200 bytes and the
length of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header is sixty-four bytes.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length = 1200 | Next Hdr = 0 | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hdr = 6 | EH Len = 7 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
. .
. Options .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. TCP packet and payload .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The diagram below illustrates the packet after the Hop-by-Hop Options
Header has been removed. Note that the Payload Length is now 1,136
bytes which is the original payload length minus the length of the
Hop-by-Hop Options Header that was removed.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length = 1136 | Next Hdr = 6 | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. TCP packet and payload .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.2. Removing a Routing Header
The procedures for removing a Routing Header are:
1. Save the value in the Next Header field of the Routing Header in
a temporary variable
2. Determine the length of the Routing Header and save in a
temporary variable. This is equal to the value of the Hdr Ext
Len field time eight plus eight
3. Determine the offset of the first byte in the following the
Routing Header. This is equal to the forty plus the length of
the Hop-by-Hop Options header derived in step 2
4. Copy the IPv6 header with length, forty bytes, to the offset
derived in set 3 minus forty. Reset the starting offset of the
packet to be the offset of the copied IPv6 header
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
5. Set the Next Header field in the copied IPv6 header to the value
saved in step 1
6. Subtract the length of the Routing Header, determined in step 2,
from the Payload Length in the copied IPv6 header. Set the
result as the Payload Length in the copied IPv6 header
An example of removing Routing Header is shown in the diagrams below.
The diagram below illustrates shows an example TCP/IPv6 packet with a
Routing Header; the Payload Length is 1400 bytes and the length of
the Routing Header is 160 bytes. The Segments Left field is set to
zero so that the Routing Header may be removed.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length = 1400 | Next Hdr = 43| Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hdr = 6 | EH Len = 19 | Routing Type | Segs Left = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. type-specific data .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. TCP packet and payload .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The diagram below illustrates the packet after the Routing Header has
been removed. Note that the Payload Length is now 1,240 bytes which
is the original payload length minus the length of the Routing Header
that was removed.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length = 1240 | Next Hdr = 6 | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. TCP packet and payload .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
5.3. Removing both Hop-by-Hop Options and a Routing Headers
The procedures for removing both a Hop-by-Hop Options Header and a
Routing Header are:
1. Save the value in the Next Header field of the Routing Header
extension header in a temporary variable
2. Determine the length of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and save in
a temporary variable. This is equal to the value of the Hdr Ext
Len field time eight plus eight
3. Determine the length of the Routing Header and save in a
temporary variable. This is equal to the value of the Hdr Ext
Len field time eight plus eight
4. Determine the offset of the first byte in the packet following
the Routing Header. This is equal to the forty plus the length
of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header derived in step 2 plus the
length of the Routing Header derived in step 3
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
5. Copy the IPv6 header with length, forty bytes, to the offset
derived in set 3 minus forty. Reset the starting offset of the
packet to be the offset of the copied IPv6 header
6. Set the Next Header field in the copied IPv6 header to the value
saved in step 1
7. Subtract the length of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header plus the
length of the Routing Header (values determined in step 2 and
step 3) from the Payload Length in the copied IPv6 header. Set
the result as the Payload Length in the copied IPv6 header
An example of removing a Hop-by-Hop Options Header a Routing Header
is shown in the diagrams below.
The diagram below illustrates an example TCP/IPv6 packet with both a
Hop-by-Hop Options Header and a Routing Header; the Payload Length is
1,300 bytes, the length of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header is sixty-
four bytes, the length of the Routing Header is 160 bytes. The
Segments Left field is set to zero so that the Routing Header may be
removed.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length = 1300 | Next Hdr = 0 | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hdr = 43 | EH Len = 7 | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| |
. .
. Options .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Hdr = 6 | EH Len = 19 | Routing Type | Segs Left = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. type-specific data .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. TCP packet and payload .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
The diagram below illustrates the packet after the Hop-by-Hop Options
Header and the Routing Header have been removed. Note that the
Payload Length is now 1,076 bytes which is the original payload
length minus the length of the Hop-by-Hop Options Header and the
Routing Header that were removed.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length = 1076 | Next Hdr = 6 | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
. .
. TCP packet and payload .
. .
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
6. Implementation Considerations
Removal of extension headers must be efficient and considered a "fast
path" operation in a router [I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing]. The most
computationally complex part of removing extension headers is moving
the IPv6 header. There are two methods to move the bits of the IPv6
header: memory copy and scatter/gather.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
6.1. Copying the IPv6 Header
Extension header removal can be accomplished by performing a data
copy of the IPv4 header (forty bytes) to the offset after the
extension header being removed minus forty bytes. Since the number
of bytes being moved is relatively small and fits within a typical
cacheline, the data copy is amenable to efficient implementation in
hardware or software. Once the copy completes, the pointer to the
packet is advanced by the length of data removed. Note that an
implemenation may choose to move the link layer header as well.
6.2. Scatter/gather
Scatter/gather allows a packet to be constructed from a list of
memory buffers where each buffer has a data pointer and length. To
use scatter/gather for externsion header removal, a receiver might
employ header/data split to store the packet as two buffers in
memory: the first buffer contains the link layer and IPv6 headers,
and the second buffer contains the data following the IPv6 header.
Removing an extension headers entails advancing the pointer to the
second buffer by the length of the extension header being removed.
7. Security Considerations
This specification does not introduce any new security concerns,
8. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations in this specification.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[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>.
9.2. Informative References
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
[APNIC-EH] Huston, G., "IPv6 extension headers revisited", October
2022, <https://blog.apnic.net/2022/10/13/ipv6-extension-
headers-revisited>.
[I-D.herbert-fast]
Herbert, T., "Firewall and Service Tickets (FAST)", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-herbert-fast-06, 4
August 2023, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
herbert-fast-06>.
[I-D.ietf-6man-hbh-processing]
Hinden, R. M. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options
Processing Procedures", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-6man-hbh-processing-09, 4 July 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-
hbh-processing-09>.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC6192] Dugal, D., Pignataro, C., and R. Dunn, "Protecting the
Router Control Plane", RFC 6192, DOI 10.17487/RFC6192,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6192>.
[RFC7872] Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
"Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7872, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872>.
[RFC8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.
[RFC9098] Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston,
G., and W. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets
with Extension Headers", RFC 9098, DOI 10.17487/RFC9098,
September 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9098>.
[RFC9268] Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-
by-Hop Option", RFC 9268, DOI 10.17487/RFC9268, August
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9268>.
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Inflight-EH-Removal August 2023
[RFC9332] De Schepper, K., Briscoe, B., Ed., and G. White, "Dual-
Queue Coupled Active Queue Management (AQM) for Low
Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S)",
RFC 9332, DOI 10.17487/RFC9332, January 2023,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9332>.
Author's Address
Tom Herbert
SiPanda
Santa Clara, CA,
United States of America
Email: tom@herbertland.com
Herbert Expires 23 February 2024 [Page 21]