IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-02
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 | Dr. Joseph D. Touch , Mark Townsley | ||
| Last updated | 2016-01-25 | ||
| Replaces | draft-touch-intarea-tunnels | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-02
Internet Area WG J. Touch
Internet Draft USC/ISI
Intended status: Informational M. Townsley
Expires: July 2016 Cisco
January 19, 2016
IP Tunnels in the Internet Architecture
draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-02.txt
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
Contributions published or made publicly available before November
10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
than English.
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 July 19, 2016.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 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.
Abstract
This document discusses the role of IP tunnels in the Internet
architecture. It explains their relationship to existing protocol
layers and the challenges in supporting IP tunneling based on the
equivalence of tunnels to links.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
2. Conventions used in this document..............................5
2.1. Key Words.................................................5
2.2. Terminology...............................................6
3. The Tunnel Model...............................................7
3.1. What is a tunnel?.........................................8
3.2. View from the Outside....................................10
3.3. View from the Inside.....................................10
3.4. Location of the Ingress and Egress.......................11
3.5. Implications of This Model...............................11
4. IP Tunnel Requirements........................................12
4.1. Fragmentation............................................13
4.2. MTU discovery............................................15
4.3. IP ID exhaustion.........................................16
4.4. Hop Count................................................17
4.5. Signaling................................................18
4.6. Relationship of Header Fields............................20
4.7. Congestion...............................................21
4.8. Checksums................................................21
4.9. Numbering................................................22
4.10. Multicast...............................................22
4.11. NAT / Load Balancing....................................22
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
4.12. Recursive tunnels.......................................22
5. Observations (implications)...................................23
5.1. Tunnel protocol designers................................23
5.2. Tunnel implementers......................................23
5.3. Tunnel operators.........................................23
5.4. For existing standards...................................24
5.4.1. Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE - IP in UDP in IP)...24
5.4.2. Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6....................24
5.4.3. Geneve (NVO3).......................................25
5.4.4. GRE (IP in GRE in IP)...............................25
5.4.5. IP in IP / mobile IP................................26
5.4.6. IPsec tunnel mode (IP in IPsec in IP)...............27
5.4.7. L2TP................................................28
5.4.8. L2VPN...............................................28
5.4.9. L3VPN...............................................28
5.4.10. LISP...............................................28
5.4.11. MPLS...............................................28
5.4.12. PWE................................................28
5.4.13. SEAL/AERO..........................................28
5.4.14. TRILL..............................................28
5.5. For future standards.....................................29
6. Security Considerations.......................................29
7. IANA Considerations...........................................30
8. References....................................................30
8.1. Normative References.....................................30
8.2. Informative References...................................30
9. Acknowledgments...............................................34
Appendix A. Fragmentation........................................35
A.1. Outer Fragmentation......................................35
A.2. Inner Fragmentation......................................36
APPENDIX B: Fragmentation efficiency.............................38
B.1. Selecting fragment sizes.................................38
B.2. Packing..................................................39
1. Introduction
The Internet is loosely based on the ISO seven layer stack, in which
data units traverse the stack by being wrapped inside data units one
layer down. A tunnel is a mechanism for transmitting data units
between endpoints by wrapping them as data units of the same or
higher layers, e.g., IP in IP (Figure 1) or IP in UDP (Figure 2).
+----+----+--------------+
| IP'| IP | Data |
+----+----+--------------+
Figure 1 IP inside IP
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
+----+-----+----+--------------+
| IP'| UDP | IP | Data |
+----+-----+----+--------------+
Figure 2 IP in UDP in IP in Ethernet
This document focuses on tunnels that transit IP packets, i.e., in
which an IP packet is the payload of another protocol. Tunnels
provide a virtual link that can help decouple the network topology
seen by transiting packets from the underlying physical network
[To98][RFC2473]. For example, tunnels were critical in the
development of multicast because not all routers were capable of
processing multicast packets [Er94]. Tunnels allowed multicast
packets to transit between multicast-capable routers over paths that
did not support multicast. Similar techniques have been used to
support other protocols, such as IPv6 [RFC2460].
Use of tunnels is common in the Internet. The word "tunnel" occurs in
over 100 RFCs, and is supported within numerous protocols, including:
o Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) - IP in UDP (in IP)[He15a][He15b]
o Generic IPv6 tunneling [RFC2473]
o Generic Router Encapsulation (GRE) - an encapsulation framework
allowing different messages to tunnel over a variety of tunnels,
e.g., IP in GRE in IP [RFC2473][RFC2784][RFC7588][RFC7676]
o IP in IP / mobile IP [RFC2003][RFC2473][RFC5944]
o IPsec - hides the original traffic destination [RFC4301]
o L2TP - Tunnels PPP over IP, used largely in DSL/FTTH access
networks to extend a subscriber's connection from an access line
provider to an ISP [RFC3931]
o L2VPNs - provides a link topology different from that provided by
physical links [RFC4664]
o L3VPNs - provides a network topology different from that provided
by ISPs [RFC4176]
o LISP - reduces routing table load within an enclave of routers
[RFC6830]
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
o MPLS - tunnels IP over a circuit-like path in which identifiers
are rewritten on each hop, often used for traffic provisioning
[RFC3031]
o NVO3 - tunnels for data center network sharing (which includes use
of GUE, above) [RFC7364]
o PWE3 - tunnels to emulate wire-like services over packet-switched
services [RFC3985]
o SEAL/AERO - a generic mechanism for IP in IP tunneling designed to
overcome the limitations of RFC2003 [RFC5320][Te16]
o TRILL - enables L3 routing (typically IS-IS) in an enclave of
Ethernet bridges [RFC5556][RFC6325]
The variety of tunnel mechanisms raises the question of the role of
tunnels in the Internet architecture and the potential need for these
mechanisms to have similar and predictable behavior. In particular,
the ways in which packet sizes (i.e., Maximum Transmission Unit or
MTU) mismatch and error signals (e.g., ICMP) are handled may benefit
from a coordinated approach.
It is useful to note that, regardless of the layer in which
encapsulation occurs, tunnels emulate a link. As links, they are
subject to link issues, e.g., MTU discovery, signaling, and the
potential utility of native support for broadcast and multicast
[RFC2460][RFC3819]. They have advantages over native links, being
potentially easier to reconfigure and control.
The remainder of this document describes the general principles of IP
tunneling and discusses the key considerations in the design of a
protocol that tunnels IP datagrams. It derives its conclusions from
the equivalence of tunnels and links. Note that all considerations
are in the context of existing standards and requirements.
2. Conventions used in this document
2.1. Key Words
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].
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
2.2. Terminology
This document uses the following terminology. These definitions are
given in the most general terms, but will be used primarily to
discuss IP tunnels in this document. They are presented in order from
most fundamental to those derived on earlier definitions:
o Messages: variable length data labeled with globally-unique
endpoint IDs [RFC791]
o Endpoint: a network device that sources or sinks messages labeled
from/to its IDs, also known as a host [RFC1122].
o Forwarder: a network device that relays IP messages using longest-
prefix match of destination IDs and local context, when possible,
also known as a gateway or router [RFC1812].
o Network node (node): an endpoint or forwarder. For Internet
messages (IP datagrams), these are hosts or gateways/routers,
respectively.
o Source: the origin host of a message.
o Destination: the receiving host of a message.
o Link: a communication device that transfers messages between
network devices, i.e., by which a message can traverse between
devices without being processed by a forwarder. Note that the
notion of forwarder is relative to the layer at which message
processing is considered [RFC1122][RFC1812].
o Path: a communications path by which a message can traverse
between network nodes, which may or may not involve being
processed by a forwarding node.
o Tunnel: a protocol mechanism that transits messages using
encapsulation to allow a path to appear as a link. Note that a
protocol can be used to tunnel itself (IP over IP) and that this
includes the conventional layering of the ISO stack (i.e., by this
definition, Ethernet is a tunnel for IP).
o Ingress: a network node that receives messages, encapsulates them
according to the tunnel protocol, and transmits them into the
tunnel. Note that the ingress and source can be co-located.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
o Egress: a network node that receives messages that have finished
transiting a tunnel. The egress decapsulates datagrams for further
transit to the destination. Note that the egress and destination
can be co-located.
o Tunnel transit packet: the packet arriving at a node connected to
a tunnel that enters the ingress and exits the egress, i.e., the
packet carried over the tunnel. This is sometimes known as the
"tunneled packet", i.e., the packet carried over the tunnel.
o Tunnel link packet: packets that traverse from ingress to egress,
in which resides all or part of a tunnel transit packet. This is
sometimes known as the "tunnel packet", i.e., the packet of the
tunnel itself.
o Link MTU (LMTU): the largest message that can transit a link. Note
that this need not be the native size of messages on the link.
o Reassembly MTU (RMTU): the largest message that can be reassembled
by a receiver, and is not directly related to the link or path
MTU. Sometimes also referred to as "receiver MTU".
o Path MTU (PMTU): the largest message that can transit a path.
Typically, this is the minimum of the link MTUs of the links of
the path.
o Tunnel MTU (TMTU): the largest message that can transit a tunnel.
Typically, this is limited by the egress reassembly MTU.
3. The Tunnel Model
A network architecture is an abstract description of a distributed
communications system, its components and their relationships, the
requisite properties of those components and the emergent properties
of the system that result [To03]. Such descriptions can help explain
behavior, as when the OSI seven-layer model is used as a teaching
example [Zi80]. Architectures describe capabilities - and, just as
importantly, constraints.
A network can be defined as a system of endpoints and relays
interconnected by communication paths, abstracting away issues of
naming in order to focus on message forwarding. To the extent that
the Internet has a single, coherent interpretation, its architecture
is defined by its core protocols (IP [RFC791], TCP [RFC793], UDP
[RFC768]) and messages, hosts, routers, and links [Cl88][To03], as
shown in Figure 3:
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
+------+ ------ ------ +------+
| | / \ / \ | |
| HOST |--+ ROUTER +--+ ROUTER +--| HOST |
| | \ / \ / | |
+------+ ------ ------ +------+
Figure 3 Basic Internet architecture
As a network architecture, the Internet is a system of hosts and
routers interconnected by links that exchange messages when possible.
"When possible" defines the Internet's "best effort" principle. The
limited role of routers and links represents the End-to-End Principle
[Sa84] and longest-prefix match enables hierarchical forwarding.
Although the definitions of host, router, and link seem absolute,
they are often relative as viewed within the context of one OSI
layer, each of which can be considered a distinct network
architecture. An Internet gateway is a Layer 3 router when it
transits IP datagrams but it acts as a Layer 2 host as it sources or
sinks Layer 2 messages on attached links to accomplish this transit
capability. In this way, a single device (Internet gateway) behaves
as different components (router, host) at different layers.
Even though a single device may have multiple roles - even
concurrently - at a given layer, each role is typically static and
location-independent. An Internet gateway always acts as a Layer 2
host and that behavior does not depend on where the gateway is viewed
from within Layer 2. In the context of a single layer, a device's
behavior is modeled as a single component from all viewpoints in that
layer.
3.1. What is a tunnel?
A tunnel can be modeled as a link in another network
[To98][To01][To03]. In Figure 4, a source host (Hsrc) and destination
host (Hdst) communicating over a network M in which two routers (Ra
and Rd) are connected by a tunnel.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
--_ --
+------+ / \ / \ +------+
| Hsrc |--+ Ra +---- -- -- ----+ Rd +--| Hdst |
+------+ \ / /\ / \ / \ /\ \ / +------+
-- /I \--+ Rb +--+ Rc +--/E \ --
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\/ -- -- \/
<------ Network N ------->
<------------------------ Network M ------------------------->
Figure 4 The big picture
The tunnel consists of two elements (ingress I, egress E), that lie
along a path connected by a (possibly different) network N.
Regardless of how the ingress and egress are connected, the tunnel
serves as a link to the devices it connects (here, Ra and Rb).
IP packets arriving at the ingress are encapsulated to traverse
network N. We call these packets "tunnel transit packets" because
they will now transit the tunnel inside one or more "tunnel link
packets". Tunnel link packets use the source address of the ingress
and the destination address of the egress - using whatever address is
appropriate to the Layer at which the ingress and egress operate
(Layer 2, Layer 3, Layer 4, etc.). The egress decapsulates those
messages, which then continue on network M as if emerging from a
link. To tunnel transit packets, and to the routers the tunnel
connects (Ra and Rb), the tunnel acts as a link.
The model of each component (ingress, egress) and the entire system
(tunnel) depends on the layer from which you view the tunnel. From
the perspective of the outermost hosts (Hsrc and Hdst), the tunnel
appears as a link between two routers (Ra and Rd). For routers along
the tunnel (e.g., Rb and Rc), the ingress and egress appear as the
endpoint hosts and Hsrc and Hdst are invisible.
When the tunnel network (N) is implemented using the same protocol as
the endpoint network (M), the picture looks flatter (Figure 5), as if
it were running over a single network. However, note that this
appearance is incorrect - nothing has changed. From the perspective
of the endpoints, Rb and Rc and network N don't exist and aren't
visible, and from the perspective of the tunnel, network M doesn't
exist. The fact that network N and M use the same protocol, and may
traverse the same links is irrelevant.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
--_ -- -- --
+------+ / \ /\ / \ / \ /\ / \ +------+
| Hsrc |--+ Ra +--/I \--+ Rb +--+ Rc +--/E \--+ Rd +--| Hdst |
+------+ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / +------+
-- \/ -- -- \/ --
<------ Network N ------->
<------------------------ Network M ------------------------->
Figure 5 IP in IP network picture
3.2. View from the Outside
From outside the tunnel, to network M, the entire tunnel acts as a
link (Figure 6). It may be numbered or unnumbered and the addresses
associated with the ingress and egress are irrelevant from outside.
--_ --
+------+ / \ / \ +------+
| Hsrc |--+ Ra +------------------------------+ Rd +--| Hdst |
+------+ \ / \ / +------+
-- --
<------------------------ Network M ------------------------->
Figure 6 Tunnels as viewed from the outside
A tunnel is effectively invisible to the network in which it resides,
except that it behaves exactly as a link. Consequently [RFC3819]
requirements for links supporting IP also apply to tunnels.
E.g., the IP datagram hop count (IPv4 Time-to-Live [RFC791] and IPv6
Hop Limit [RFC2460]) are decremented when traversing a router, not by
traversing a link - or thus a tunnel. Tunnels have a tunnel MTU - the
largest datagram that can transit, just as links have a corresponding
link MTU. A link MTU may not reflect the native link message sizes
(ATM AAL5 48 byte messages support a 9KB MTU) and the same is true
for a tunnel.
3.3. View from the Inside
Within network N, i.e., from inside the tunnel itself, the ingress is
a source of tunnel link packets and the egress is a sink - both are
hosts on network N (Figure 7). Consequently [RFC1122] Internet host
requirements apply to ingress and egress nodes when Network N uses IP
(and thus the ingress/egress use IP encapsulation).
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
_ -- --
/\ / \ / \ /\
/I \--+ Rb +--+ Rc +--/E \
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\/ -- -- \/
<------ Network N ------->
Figure 7 Tunnels, as viewed from within the tunnel
Viewed from within the tunnel, the outer network (M) doesn't exist.
Tunnel link packets can be fragmented by the source (ingress) and
reassembled at the destination (egress), just as at any endpoint. The
path between ingress and egress may have a path MTU but the endpoints
can exchange messages as large as can be reassembled at the
destination (egress), i.e., an egress MTU. Information about the
network - i.e., regarding MTU sizes, network reachability, etc. - are
relayed from the destination (egress) and intermediate routers back
to the source (ingress), without regard for the external network (M).
3.4. Location of the Ingress and Egress
The ingress and egress are endpoints of the tunnel and the tunnel is
a link. The ingress and egress are thus link endpoints at the network
nodes the tunnel interconnects. Such link endpoints are typically
described as "network interfaces".
Tunnel interfaces may be physical or virtual. The interface may be
implemented inside the node where the tunnel attaches, e.g., inside a
host or router. The interface may also be implemented as a "bump in
the wire" (BITW), somewhere along a link between the two nodes the
link interconnects. IP in IP tunnels are often implemented as
interfaces, where IPsec tunnels are sometimes implemented as BITW.
These implementation variations determine only whether information
available at the link endpoints (ingress/egress) can be easily shared
with the connected network nodes.
3.5. Implications of This Model
This approach highlights a few key features of a tunnel as a network
architecture construct:
o To the tunnel transit packets, tunnels turn a network (Layer 3)
path into a (Layer 2) link
o To devices the tunnel traverses, the tunnel ingress and egress act
as hosts that source and sink tunnel link packets
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
The consequences of these features are as follow:
o Like a link, a tunnel has an MTU defined by the reassembly MTU of
the receiving interface (egress).
o Path MTU discovery in the network layer (i.e., outer network M)
has no direct relation to the MTU of the hops within the link
layer of the links (or thus tunnels) that connect its components.
o Hops remain defined as the number of routers encountered on a path
or the time spent at a router [RFC1812]. Hops are not decremented
solely by the transit of a link, e.g., a packet with a hop count
of zero should successfully transit a link (and thus a tunnel)
that connects two hosts.
o The addresses of a tunnel ingress and egress correspond to link
layer addresses to the tunnel transit packet and outer network M.
Many point-to-point tunnels are unnumbered in the network in which
they reside (even though they must have addresses in the network
they transit).
o Like network interfaces, the ingress and egress are never a direct
source of ICMP messages but may provide information to their
attached host or router to generate those ICMP messages.
These observations make it much easier to determine what a tunnel
must do to transit IP packets, notably it must satisfy all
requirements expected of a link.
4. IP Tunnel Requirements
The requirements of an IP tunnel are defined by the requirements of
an IP link because both transit IP packets. A tunnel must transit the
IP MTU, i.e., 68B for IPv4 and 1280B for IPv6, and a tunnel must
support address resolution when there is more than one egress.
The requirements of the tunnel ingress and egress are defined by the
network over which they exchange messages (tunnel link packets). For
IP-over-IP, this means that the ingress MUST NOT exceed the
(fragment) Identification field uniqueness requirements [RFC6864].
These requirements remain even though tunnels have some unique
issues, including the need for additional space for encapsulation
headers and the potential for tunnel path MTU variation.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
4.1. Fragmentation
As with any link layer, the MTU of a tunnel is defined as the
receiving interface reassembly MTU, and must satisfy the requirements
of the IP packets the tunnel transits.
Note that many of the issues with tunnel fragmentation and MTU
handling were discussed in [RFC4459], but that document described a
variety of alternatives as if they were independent. This document
explains the combined approach that is necessary.
An IPv4 tunnel must transit 68 byte packets without further
fragmentation [RFC791][RFC1122] and an IPv6 tunnel must transit 1280
byte packets without further fragmentation [RFC2460]. The tunnel MTU
interacts with routers or hosts it connects the same way as would a
link MTU. In the following pseudocode, TTPsize is the size of the
tunnel transit packet, and egressRMTU is the receive MTU of the
egress. As with any link, the link MTU is defined not by the native
path of the link (the path MTU inside the tunnel) but by the egress
reassembly MTU (egressRMTU). This is because the ICMP "packet too
big" message indicates failure, not preference. There is no ICMP
message for "larger than I'd like, but I can still transit it".
These rules apply at the host/router where the tunnel is attached:
if (TTP > linkMTU) then
if (TTP can be fragmented, e.g., IPv4 DF=0) then
split TTP into fragments of TunMTU size
and send each fragment into the tunnel ingress
else
drop TTP and send ICMP "too big" to TTP source
endif
else
send TTP into the tunnel "interface" (the ingress)
endif
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
These rules apply at the tunnel ingress:
if (sizeof(TTP) <= TunnelPathMTU) then
encapsulate TTP as received and emit
else
if (TunnelPathMTU < sizeof(TTP) <= egressRMTU) then
fragment TTP into TunMTU chunks
encapsulate and emit each TTP
else
{never happens; host/router already dropped by now}
endif
endif
For IPv4 or IPv6 over IPv6, the tunnel path MTU is a minimum of 1280
minus the encapsulation header (40 bytes) with its options (TOptSz)
and the egress reassembly MTU is 1500 minus the same amount:
if (sizeof(TTP) <= (1240 - TOptSz)) then
encapsulate TTP as received and emit
else
if ((1240 - TOptSz) < sizeof(TTP) <= (1460 - TOptSz)) then
fragment TTP into (1240 - TOptSz) chunks
encapsulate and emit each TTP
else
{never happens; host/router already dropped by now}
endif
endif
This tunnel supports IPv6 transit only if TOptSize is smaller than
180 bytes, and supports IPv4 transit if TOptSize is smaller than 884
bytes. IPv6 tunnel transit packets of 1280 bytes may be guaranteed
transit the outer network (M) without needing fragmentation there but
they may require ongoing fragmentation and reassembly if the tunnel
MTU is not at least 1320 bytes.
When using IP directly over IP, the minimum egress reassembly MTU for
IPv4 is 576 bytes and for IPv6 is 1500 bytes. This means that tunnels
of IPv4-over-IPv4, IPv4-over-IPv6, and IPv6-over-IPv6 are possible
without additional requirements, but this may involve ingress
fragmentation and egress reassembly. IPv6 cannot be tunneled directly
over IPv4 without additional requirements, notably that the egress
reassembly MTU or the link path MTU are at least 1280 bytes.
Fragmentation and reassembly cannot be avoided for IPv6-over-IPv6
without similar requirements.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
When ongoing ingress fragmentation and egress reassembly would be
prohibitive or costly, larger MTUs can be supported by design and
confirmed either out-of-band (by design) or in-band (e.g., using
PLMTUD [RFC4821], as done in SEAL [RFC5320] and AERO [Te16]).
Alternately, an ingress can encapsulate packets that fit and shut
down once fragmentation is needed, but it must not continue to
forward smaller packets while dropping larger packets that are still
within required limits.
4.2. MTU discovery
MTU discovery enables a network path to support a larger path MTU and
egress MTU than it can assume from the protocol over which it
operates. There are two ways in which MTU discovery interact with
tunnels: the MTU of the path over the tunnel and the MTU of the
tunnel itself.
A tunnel has two different MTU values: the largest payload that can
traverse from ingress to egress without further fragmentation (the
tunnel path MTU) and the largest payload that can traverse from
ingress to egress. The latter is defined by the egress reassembly
MTU, not the tunnel path MTU, and is the tunnel MTU.
The path MTU over the tunnel is limited by the tunnel MTU (the egress
reassembly MTU) but not the tunnel path MTU. There is temptation to
optimize tunnel traversal so that packets are not fragmented between
ingress and egress, i.e., to tune the network path MTU to the tunnel
link MTU. This is hazardous for many reasons:
o The tunnel is capable of transiting packets as large as the egress
reassembly MTU, which is always at least as large as the tunnel
path MTU and typically is larger.
o ICMP has only one type of error message regarding large packets -
"too big", i.e., too large to transit. There is no optimization
message of "bigger than I'd like, but I can deal with if needed".
o IP tunnels often involve some level of recursion, i.e.,
encapsulation over itself [RFC4459].
Recursive tunneling occurs whenever a protocol ends up encapsulated
in itself. This happens directly, as when IPv4 is encapsulated in
IPv4, or indirectly, as when IP is encapsulated in UDP which then is
a payload inside IP. It can involve many layers of encapsulation
because a tunnel provider isn't always aware of whether the packets
it transits are already tunneled.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
Recursion is impossible when the tunnel transit packets are limited
to that of the native size of the tunnel path MTU. Arriving tunnel
transit packets have a minimum supported size (1280 for IPv6) and the
tunnel path MTU has the same size; there would be no room for the
additional encapsulation headers. The result would be an IPv6 tunnel
that cannot satisfy IPv6 transit requirements.
It is more appropriate to require the tunnel to satisfy IP transit
requirements and enforce that requirement at design time or during
operation (the latter using PLMTUD [RFC4821]). Conventional path MTU
discovery (PMTUD) relies existing endpoint ICMP processing of
explicit negative feedback from routers along the path via "message
to big" ICMP packets in the reverse direction of the tunnel
[RFC1191]. This technique is susceptible to the "black hole"
phenomenon, in which the ICMP messages never return to the source due
to policy-based filtering [RFC2923]. PLMTUD requires a separate,
direct control channel from the egress to the ingress that provides
positive feedback; the direct channel is not blocked by policy
filters and the positive feedback ensures fail-safe operation if
feedback messages are lost [RFC4821].
4.3. IP ID exhaustion
In IPv4, the IP Identification (ID) field is a 16-bit value that is
unique for every packet for a given source address, destination
address, and protocol, such that it does not repeat within the
Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL) [RFC791][RFC1122]. Although the ID
field was originally intended for fragmentation and reassembly, it
can also be used to detect and discard duplicate packets, e.g., at
congested routers (see Sec. 3.2.1.5 of [RFC1122]). For this reason,
and because IPv4 packets can be fragmented anywhere along a path, all
packets between a source and destination of a given protocol must
have unique ID values over a period of an MSL, which is typically
interpreted as two minutes (120 seconds). These requirements have
recently been somewhat relaxed in recognition of the primary use of
this field for reassembly and the need to handle only fragment
misordering at the receiver [RFC6864].
The uniqueness of the IP ID is a known problem for high speed
devices, because it limits the speed of a single protocol between two
endpoints [RFC4963]. Although this suggests that the uniqueness of
the IP ID is moot, tunnels exacerbate this condition. A tunnel often
aggregates traffic from a number of different source and destination
addresses, of different protocols, and encapsulates them in a header
with the same ingress and egress addresses, all using a single
encapsulation protocol. The result is one of the following:
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
1. The IP ID rules are enforced, and the tunnel throughput is
severely limited.
2. The IP ID rules are enforced, and the tunnel consumes large
numbers of ingress/egress IP addresses solely to ensure ID
uniqueness.
3. The IP ID rules are ignored.
The last case is the most obvious solution, because it corresponds to
how endpoints currently behave. Fortunately, fragmentation is
somewhat rare in the current Internet at large, but it can be common
along a tunnel. Fragments that repeat the IP ID risk being
reassembled incorrectly, especially when fragments are reordered or
lost. Reassembly errors are not always detected by other protocol
layers (see Sec. 4.8), and even when detected they can result in
excessive overall packet loss and can waste bandwidth between the
egress and ultimate packet destination.
4.4. Hop Count
This section considers the selection of the value of the hop count of
the tunnel link header, as well as the potential impact on the tunnel
transit header. The former is affected by the number of hops within
the tunnel. The latter determines whether the tunnel has visible
effect on the transit packet.
In general, the Internet hop count field is used to detect and avoid
forwarding loops that cannot be corrected without a synchronized
reboot. The IPv4 Time-to-Live (TTL) and IPv6 Hop Limit field each
serve this purpose [RFC791][RFC2460].
The IPv4 TTL field was originally intended to indicate packet
expiration time, measured in seconds. A router is required to
decrement the TTL by at least one or the number of seconds the packet
is delayed, whichever is larger [RFC1812]. Packets are rarely held
that long, and so the field has come to represent the count of the
number of routers traversed. IPv6 makes this meaning more explicit.
These hop count fields represent the number of network forwarding
elements traversed by an IP datagram. An IP datagram with a hop count
of zero can traverse a link between two hosts because it never visits
a router (where it would need to be decremented and would have been
dropped).
An IP datagram traversing a tunnel thus need not have its hopcount
modified, i.e., the tunnel transit header need not be affected. A
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
zero hop count datagram should be able to traverse a tunnel as easily
as it traverses a link. A router MAY be configured to decrement
packets traversing a particular link (and thus a tunnel), which may
be useful in emulating a path as if it had traversed one or more
routers, but this is strictly optional. The ability of the outer
network and tunnel network to avoid indefinitely looping packets does
not rely on the hop counts of the tunnel traversal packet and tunnel
link packet being related in any way at all.
The hop count field is also used by several protocols to determine
whether endpoints are "local", i.e., connected to the same subnet
(link-local discovery and related protocols [RFC4861]). A tunnel is a
way to make a remote address appear directly-connected, so it makes
sense that the other ends of the tunnel appear local and that such
link-local protocols operate over tunnels unless configured
explicitly otherwise. When the interfaces of a tunnel are numbered,
these can be interpreted the same way as if they were on the same
link subnet.
4.5. Signaling
In the current Internet architecture, signaling goes upstream, either
from routers along a path or from the destination, back toward the
source. Such signals are typically contained in ICMP messages, but
can involve other protocols such as RSVP, transport protocol signals
(e.g., TCP RSTs), or multicast control or transport protocols.
A tunnel behaves like a link and acts like a link interface at the
nodes where it is attached. As such, it can provide information that
enhances IP signaling (e.g., ICMP), but itself does not directly
generate ICMP messages.
For tunnels, this means that there are two separate signaling paths.
The outer network M devices can each signal the source of the tunnel
transit packets, Hsrc (Figure 8). Inside the tunnel, the inner
network N devices can signal the source of the tunnel link packets,
the ingress I (Figure 9).
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
+--------+-----------------------------------+--------+
| | | |
v --_ -- v
+------+ / \ / \ +------+
| Hsrc |--+ Ra +---- -- -- ----+ Rd +--| Hdst |
+------+ \ / /\ / \ / \ /\ \ / +------+
-- /I \--+ Rb +--+ Rc +--/E \ --
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\/ -- -- \/
<------ Network N ------->
<------------------------ Network M ------------------------->
Figure 8 Signals outside the tunnel
+-----+-------+------+
--_ | | | | --
+------+ / \ v | | | / \ +------+
| Hsrc |--+ Ra +---- -- -- ----+ Rd +--| Hdst |
+------+ \ / /\ / \ / \ /\ \ / +------+
-- /I \--+ Rb +--+ Rc +--/E \ --
\ / \ / \ / \ /
\/ -- -- \/
<------ Network N ------->
<------------------------ Network M ------------------------->
Figure 9 Signals inside the tunnel
These two signal paths are inherently distinct except where
information is exchanged between the network interface of the tunnel
(the ingress) and its attached device (Ra, in both figures).
It is always possible for a network interface to provide hints to its
attached device (host or router), which can be used for optimization.
In this case, when signals inside the tunnel indicate a change to the
tunnel, the ingress (i.e., the tunnel network interface) can provide
information to the router (Ra, in both figures), so that Ra can
generate the appropriate signal in return to Hsrc. This relaying may
be difficult, because signals inside the tunnel may not return enough
information to the ingress to support direct relaying to Hsrc.
In all cases, the tunnel ingress needs to determine how to relay the
signals from inside the tunnel into signals back to the source. For
some protocols this is either simple or impossible (such as for
ICMP), for others, it can even be undefined (e.g., multicast). In
some cases, the individual signals relayed from inside the tunnel may
result in corresponding signals in the outside network, and in other
cases they may just change state of the tunnel interface. In the
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
latter case, the result may cause the router Ra to generate new ICMP
errors when later messages arrive from Hsrc or other sources in the
outer network.
The meaning of the relayed information must be carefully translated.
In the case of soft or hard ICMP errors, the translation may be
obvious. ICMP "packet too big" messages from inside the tunnel do not
necessarily have a direct impact on Ra unless they arrive from the
egress (where they would update egressRMTU). Inside the tunnel, these
messages could be used to adjust the ingress fragmentation.
In addition to ICMP, messages typically considered for translation
include Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN [RFC6040]) and
multicast (IGMP, e.g.).
4.6. Relationship of Header Fields
Some tunnel specifications attempt to relate the fields of the tunnel
transit packet and tunnel link packet, i.e., the packet arriving at
the ingress and the encapsulation header. These two headers are
effectively independent and there is no utility in requiring their
contents to be related.
In specific, the encapsulation header source and destination
addresses are network endpoints in the tunnel network N, but have no
meaning in the outer network M, even when the tunneled packet
traverses the same network. The addresses are effectively
independent, and the tunnel endpoint addresses are link addresses to
the tunnel transit packet.
Because the tunneled packet uses source and destination addresses
with a separate meaning, it is inappropriate to copy or reuse the
IPv4 Identification or IPv6 Fragment ID fields of the tunnel transit
packet. These fields need to be generated based on the context of the
encapsulation header, not the tunnel transit header.
Similarly, the DF field need not be copied from the tunnel transit
packet to the encapsulation header of the tunnel link packet
(presuming both are IPv4). Path MTU discovery inside the tunnel does
not directly correspond to path MTU discovery outside the tunnel.
The same is true for most other fields. When a field value is
generated in the encapsulation header, its meaning should be derived
from what is desired in the context of the tunnel as a link. When
feedback is received from these fields, they should be presented to
the tunnel ingress and egress as if they were network interfaces. The
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
behavior of the node where these interfaces attach should be
identical to that of a conventional link.
There are exceptions to this rule that are explicitly intended to
relay signals from inside the tunnel to outside the tunnel. The
primary example is ECN [RFC6040], which copies the ECN bits from the
tunnel transit header to the tunnel link header during encapsulation
at the ingress and modifies the tunnel transit header at egress based
on a combination of the bits of the two headers. This is intended to
allow congestion notification within the tunnel to be interpreted as
if it were on the direct path. Other examples may involve the DSCP
flags. In both cases, it is assumed that the intent of copying values
on encapsulation and merging values on decapsulation has the effect
of allowing the tunnel to act as if it participates in the same type
of network as outside the tunnel (network M).
4.7. Congestion
In general, tunnels carrying IP traffic need not react directly to
congestion any more than would any other link layer [RFC5405]. IP
traffic is not generally expected to be congestion reactive.
[text from David Black on ECN relaying?]
4.8. Checksums
IP traffic transiting a tunnel needs to expect a similar level of
error detection and correction as it would expect from any other
link. In the case of IPv4, there are no such expectations, which is
partly why it includes a header checksum [RFC791].
IPv6 omitted the header checksum because it already expects most link
errors to be detected and dropped by the link layer and because it
also assumes transport protection [RFC2460]. When transiting IPv6
over IPv6, the tunnel fails to provide the expected error detection.
This is why IPv6 is often tunneled over layers that include separate
protection, such as GRE [RFC2784].
The fragmentation created by the tunnel ingress can increase the need
for stronger error detection and correction, especially at the tunnel
egress to avoid reassembly errors. The Internet checksum is known to
be susceptible to reassembly errors that could be common [RFC4963],
and should not be relied upon for this purpose. This is why SEAL and
AERO include a separate checksum [RFC5320][Te16]. This requirement
can be undermined when using UDP as a tunnel with no UDP checksum (as
per [RFC6935][RFC6936]) when fragmentation occurs because the egress
has no checksum with which to validate reassembly. For this reason,
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
it is safe to use UDP with a zero checksum for atomic (non-
fragmented, non-fragmentable) tunnel link packets only; when used on
fragments, whether generated at the ingress or en-route inside the
tunnel, omission of such a checksum can result in reassembly errors
that can cause additional work (capacity, forwarding processing,
receiver processing) downstream of the egress.
4.9. Numbering
Tunnel ingresses and egresses have addresses associated with the
encapsulation protocol. These addresses are the source and
destination (respectively) of the encapsulated packet while
traversing the tunnel network.
Tunnels may or may not have addresses in the network whose traffic
they transit (e.g., network M in Figure 4). In some cases, the tunnel
is an unnumbered interface to a point-to-point virtual link. When the
tunnel has multiple egresses, tunnel interfaces require separate
addresses in network M.
To see the effect of tunnel interface addresses, consider traffic
sourced at router Ra in Figure 4. Even before being encapsulated by
the ingress, that traffic needs a source IP network address that
belongs to the router. One option is to use an address associated
with one of the other interfaces of the router [RFC1122]. Another
option is to assign a number to the tunnel interface itself.
Regardless of which address is used, the resulting IP packet is then
encapsulated by the tunnel ingress using the ingress address as a
separate operation.
4.10. Multicast
[To be addressed]
Note that PMTU for multicast is difficult. PIM carries an option that
may help in the Population Count Extensions to PIM [RFC6807].
IMO, again, this is no different than any other multicast link.
4.11. NAT / Load Balancing
[To be addressed]
4.12. Recursive tunnels.
The rules described in this document already support tunnels over
tunnels, sometimes known as "recursive" tunnels, in which IP is
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
transited over IP either directly or via intermediate encapsulation
(IP-UDP-IP).
There are known hazards to recursive tunneling, notably that the
independence of the tunnel transit header and tunnel link header hop
counts can result in a tunneling loop. Such looping can be avoided
when using direct encapsulation (IP in IP) by use of a header option
to track the encapsulation count and to limit that count [RFC2473].
This looping cannot be avoided when other protocols are used for
tunneling, e.g., IP in UDP in IP, because the encapsulation count may
not be visible where the recursion occurs.
5. Observations (implications)
[Leave this as a shopping list for now]
5.1. Tunnel protocol designers
Account for egress MTU/path MTU differences.
Include a stronger checksum.
Ensure the egress MTU is always larger than the path MTU.
Ensure that the egress reassembly can keep up with line rate OR
design PLMTUD into the tunneling protocol.
5.2. Tunnel implementers
Detect when the egress MTU is exceeded.
Detect when the egress MTU drops below the required minimum and shut
down the tunnel if that happens - configuring the tunnel down and
issuing a hard error may be the only way to detect this anomaly, and
it's sufficiently important that the tunnel SHOULD be disabled.
Do NOT decrement the TTL as part of being a tunnel. It's always
already OK for a router to decrement the TTL based on different next-
hop routers, but TTL is a property of a router not a link.
5.3. Tunnel operators
Keep the difference between "enforced by operators" vs. "enforced by
active protocol mechanism" in mind. It's fine to assume something the
tunnel cannot or does not test, as long as you KNOW you can assume
it. When the assumption is wrong, it will NOT be signaled by the
tunnel. Do NOT decrement the TTL as part of being a tunnel. It's
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
always already OK for a router to decrement the TTL based on
different next-hop routers, but TTL is a property of a router not a
link.
Do NOT decrement the TTL as part of being a tunnel. It's always
already OK for a router to decrement the TTL based on different next-
hop routers, but TTL is a property of a router not a link.
5.4. For existing standards
5.4.1. Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE - IP in UDP in IP)
[He15a][He15b]
5.4.2. Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6
[RFC2473]
Consistent with this doc:
Considers the endpoints of the tunnel as virtual interfaces.
Considers the tunnel a virtual link.
Requires source fragmentation at the ingress and reassembly at the
egress.
Includes a recursion limit to prevent unlimited re-encapsulation.
Sets tunnel transit header hop limit independently.
Sends ICMPs back at the ingress based on the arriving tunnel
transit packet and its relation to the tunnel MTU (though it uses the
incorrect value of the tunnel MTU; see below).
Allows for ingress relaying of internal tunnel errors (but see
below; it does not discuss retaining state about these).
Inconsistent with this doc:
Decrements the tunnel transit header by 1, i.e., incorrectly
assuming that tunnel endpoints occur at routers only and that the
tunnel, rather than the router, is responsible for this decrement.
This doc goes to pains to describe the decapsulation process as if
it were distinct from conventional protocol processing by the
receiver (when it should not be).
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
Copies traffic class from tunnel link to tunnel transit header (as
one variant).
Treats the tunnel MTU as the tunnel path MTU, rather than the
tunnel egress MTU.
Incorrectly fragments IPv4 DF=0 tunnel transit packets that arrive
larger than the tunnel MTU at the IPv6 layer; the relationship
between IPv4 and the tunnel is more complex (as noted in this doc).
Fails to retain state from the tunnel based on ingress receiving
ICMP messages from inside the tunnel, e.g., such as might cause
future tunnel transit packets arriving at the ingress to be discarded
with an ICMP error response rather than allowing them to proceed into
the tunnel.
5.4.3. Geneve (NVO3)
[RFC7364][Gr16]
Consistent with this doc:
Generation of the link header fields is not discussed and presumed
independent of transit packet.
Inconsistent with this doc:
Tries to match transit to tunnel path MTU rather than egress MTU.
5.4.4. GRE (IP in GRE in IP)
IPv4 [RFC2784][RFC7588][RFC7676]:
Consistent with this doc:
Does not address link header generation.
Non-default behavior allows fragmentation of link packet to match
tunnel path MTU up to the limit of the egress MTU.
Default behavior sets link DF independently.
Shuts the tunnel down if the tunnel path MTU isn't => 1280.
Inconsistent with this doc:
Based on tunnel path MTU, not egress MTU.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
Claims that the tunnel (GRE) mechanism is responsible for
generating ICMP error messages.
Default behavior fragments transit packet (where possible) based
on tunnel path MTU (it should fragment based on egress MTU).
Default behavior does not support the minimum MTU of IPv6 when run
over IPv6.
Non-default behavior allows copying DF for IPv4 in IPv4.
5.4.5. IP in IP / mobile IP
IPv4 [RFC2003][RFC5944]:
Consistent with this doc:
Generate link ID independently
Generate link DF independently when transit DF=0
Generate ECN/update ECN based on sharing info [RFC6040]
Set link TTL to transit to egress only (independently)
Do not decrement TTL on entry except when part of forwarding
Do not decrement TTL on exit except when part of forwarding
Options not copied, but used as a hint to desired services.
Generally treat tunnel as a link, e.g., for link-local.
Inconsistent with this doc
Set link DF when transit DF=1 (won't work unless I-E runs PLMTUD)
Drop at egress if transit TTL=0 (wrong TTL for host-host tunnels)
Drop when transit source is router's IP (prevents tun from router)
Drop when transit source matches egress (prevents tun to router)
Use tunnel ICMPs to generate upper ICMPs, copying context (ICMPs
are now coming from inside a link!); these should be handled by
setting errors as a "network interface" and letting the attached
host/router figure out what to send.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
Using tunnel MTU discovery to tune the transit packet to the
tunnel path MTU rather than egress MTU.
IPv6 [RFC2473]:
Consistent with this doc:
Doesn't discuss lots of header fields, but implies they're set
independently.
Sets link TTL independently.
Inconsistent with this doc:
Tunnel issues ICMP PTBs.
ICMP PTB issued if larger then 1280 - header, rather than egress
reassembly MTU.
Fragments IPv6 over IPv6 fragments only if transit is <= 1280
(i.e., forces all tunnels to have a max MTU of 1280).
Fragments IPv4 over IPv6 fragments only if IPv4 DF=0
(misinterpreting the "can fragment the IPv4 packet" as permission to
fragment at the IPv6 link header)
Considers encapsulation a forwarding operation and decrements the
transit TTL.
5.4.6. IPsec tunnel mode (IP in IPsec in IP)
[RFC4301]
Consistent with this doc:
Most of the rules, except as noted below.
Inconsistent with this doc:
Writes its own header copying rules (Sec 5.1.2), rather than
referring to existing standards.
Uses policy to set, clear, or copy DF (policy isn't the issue)
Intertwines tunneling with forwarding rather than presenting the
tunnel as a network interface; this can be corrected by using IPsec
transport mode with an IP-in-IP tunnel [RFC3884].
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
5.4.7. L2TP
[RFC3931]
Consistent with this doc:
Does not address most link headers, which are thus independent.
Inconsistent with this doc:
Manages tunnel access based on tunnel path MTU, instead of egress
MTU.
Refers to RFC2473 (IPv6 in IPv6), which is inconsistent with this
doc as noted above.
5.4.8. L2VPN
[RFC4664]
5.4.9. L3VPN
[RFC4176]
5.4.10. LISP
[RFC6830]
5.4.11. MPLS
[RFC3031]
5.4.12. PWE
[RFC3985]
5.4.13. SEAL/AERO
[RFC5320][Te16]
5.4.14. TRILL
[RFC5556][RFC6325]
Consistent with this doc:
Puts IP in Ethernet, so most of the issues don't come up.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
Ethernet doesn't have TTL or fragment.
Rbridge (trill) TTL header is independent of transit packet.
5.5. For future standards
Larger IPv4 MTU (2K? or just 2x path MTU?) for reassembly
Always include frag support for at least two frags; do NOT try to
deprecate fragmentation.
Limit encapsulation option use/space.
Augment ICMP to have two separate messages: PTB vs P-bigger-than-
optimal
Include MTU as part of BGP as a hint - SB
Hazards of multi-MTU draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-04
6. Security Considerations
Tunnels may introduce vulnerabilities or add to the potential for
receiver overload and thus DOS attacks. These issues are primarily
related to the fact that a tunnel is a link that traverses a network
path and to fragmentation and reassembly. ICMP signal translation
introduces a new security issue and must be done with care. ICMP
generation at the router or host attached to a tunnel is already
covered by existing requirements (e.g., should be throttled).
Tunnels traverse multiple hops of a network path from ingress to
egress. Traffic along such tunnels may be susceptible to on-path and
off-path attacks, including fragment injection, reassembly buffer
overload, and ICMP attacks. Some of these attacks may not be as
visible to the endpoints of the architecture into which tunnels are
deployed and these attacks may thus be more difficult to detect.
Fragmentation at routers or hosts attached to tunnels may place an
undue burden on receivers where traffic is not sufficiently diffuse,
because tunnels may induce source fragmentation at hosts and path
fragmentation (for IPv4 DF=0) more for tunnels than for other links.
Care should be taken to avoid this situation, notably by ensuring
that tunnel MTUs are not significantly different from other link
MTUs.
Tunnel ingresses emitting IP datagrams MUST obey all existing IP
requirements, such as the uniqueness of the IP ID field. Failure to
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
either limit encapsulation traffic, or use additional ingress/egress
IP addresses, can result in high speed traffic fragments being
incorrectly reassembled.
[management?]
[Access control?]
describe relationship to [RFC6169] - JT (as per INTAREA meeting
notes, don't cover Teredo-specific issues in RFC6169, but include
generic issues here)
7. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations.
The RFC Editor should remove this section prior to publication.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
8.2. Informative References
[Cl88] Clark, D., "The design philosophy of the DARPA internet
protocols," Proc. Sigcomm 1988, p.106-114, 1988.
[Er94] Eriksson, H., "MBone: The Multicast Backbone,"
Communications of the ACM, Aug. 1994, pp.54-60.
[Gr16] Gross, J., et al., "Geneve: Generic Network Virtualization
Encapsulation," draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-01, Jan. 2016.
[He15a] Herbert, T., L. Yong, O. Zia, "Generic UDP Encapsulation,"
draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-02, Dec. 2015.
[He15b] Herbert, T., F. Templin, "Fragmentation option for Generic
UDP Encapsulation," draft-herbert-gue-fragmentation-02,
Oct. 2015.
[RFC768] Postel, J, "User Datagram Protocol," RFC 768, Aug. 1980
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol," RFC 791 / STD 5, September
1981.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
[RFC793] Postel, J, "Transmission Control Protocol," RFC 793, Sept.
1981.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers," RFC 1122 / STD 3, October 1989.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J., S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery," RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC1812] Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers," RFC
1812, June 1995.
[RFC2003] Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP," RFC 2003,
October 1996.
[RFC2460] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification," RFC 2460, Dec. 1998.
[RFC2473] Conta, A., "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6
Specification," RFC 2473, Dec. 1998.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., T. Li, S. Hanks, D. Meyer, P. Traina,
"Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, March
2000.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery," RFC
2923, September 2000.
[RFC2473] Conta, A., S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6
Specification," RFC 2473, Dec. 1998.
[RFC3031] Rosen, E., A. Viswanathan, R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised"
RFC 5944, Nov. 2010.
[RFC3819] Karn, P., Ed., C. Bormann, G. Fairhurst, D. Grossman, R.
Ludwig, J. Mahdavi, G. Montenegro, J. Touch, L. Wood,
"Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers," RFC 3819 / BCP
89, July 2004.
[RFC3884] Touch, J., L. Eggert, Y. Wang, "Use of IPsec Transport Mode
for Dynamic Routing," RFC 3884, September 2004.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Ed., M. Townsley, Ed., I. Goyret, Ed., "Layer Two
Tunneling Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)," RFC 3931, March
2005.
[RFC3985] Bryant, S., P. Pate (Eds.), "Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge-to-
Edge (PWE3) Architecture", RFC 3985, March 2005.
[RFC4176] El Mghazli, Y., Ed., T. Nadeau, M. Boucadair, K. Chan, A.
Gonguet, "Framework for Layer 3 Virtual Private Networks
(L3VPN) Operations and Management," RFC 4176, October 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S., and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol," RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
Network Tunneling," RFC 4459, April 2006.
[RFC4664] Andersson, L., Ed., E. Rosen, Ed., "Framework for Layer 2
Virtual Private Networks (L2VPNs)," RFC 4664, September
2006.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M., J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery," RFC 4821, March 2007.
[RFC4861] Narten, T., E. Nordmark, W. Simpson, H. Soliman, "Neighbor
Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)," RFC 4861, Sept. 2007.
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., M. Mathis, B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates," RFC 4963, July 2007.
[RFC5320] Templin, F., Ed., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and
Adaptation Layer (SEAL)," RFC 5320, Feb. 2010.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L., G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines for
Application Designers," RFC 5405, Nov. 2008.
[RFC5556] Touch, J., R. Perlman, "Transparently Interconnecting Lots
of Links (TRILL): Problem and Applicability Statement," RFC
5556, May 2009.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunneling of Explicit Congestion
Notification," RFC 6040, Nov. 2010.
[RFC6169] Krishnan, S., D. Thaler, J. Hoagland, "Security Concerns
With IP Tunneling," RFC 6169, Apr. 2011.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
[RFC6325] Perlman, R., D. Eastlake, D. Dutt, S. Gai, A. Ghanwani,
"Routing Bridges (RBridges): Base Protocol Specification,"
RFC 6325, July 2011.
[RFC6807] Farinacci, D., G. Shepherd, S. Venaas, Y. Cai, "Population
Count Extensions to Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM),"
RFC 6807, Dec. 2012.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., V. Fuller, D. Meyer, D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol," RFC 6830, Jan. 2013.
[RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field,"
Proposed Standard, RFC 6864, Feb. 2013.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., P. Chimento, M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and UDP
Checksums for Tunneled Packets," RFC 6935, Apr. 2013.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G., M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement for
the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums," RFC
6936, Apr. 2013.
[RFC7364] Narten, T., Gray, E., Black, D., Fang, L., Kreeger, L., M.
Napierala, "Problem Statement: Overlays for Network
Virtualization", RFC 7364, October 2014.
[RFC7588] Bonica, R., C. Pignataro, J. Touch, "A Widely-Deployed
Solution to the Generic Routing Encapsulation Fragmentation
Problem," RFC 7588, July 2015.
[RFC7676] Pignataro, C., R. Bonica, S. Krishnan, "IPv6 Support for
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)," RFC 7676, Oct 2015.
[Sa84] Saltzer, J., D. Reed, D. Clark, "End-to-end arguments in
system design," ACM Trans. on Computing Systems, Nov. 1984.
[Te16] Templin, F., "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization,"
draft-templin-aerolink-64, Jan. 2016.
[To01] Touch, J., "Dynamic Internet Overlay Deployment and
Management Using the X-Bone," Computer Networks, July 2001,
pp. 117-135.
[To03] Touch, J., Y. Wang, L. Eggert, G. Finn, "Virtual Internet
Architecture," USC/ISI Tech. Report 570, Aug. 2003.
[To98] Touch, J., S. Hotz, "The X-Bone," Proc. Globecom Third
Global Internet Mini-Conference, Nov. 1998.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
[Zi80] Zimmermann, H., "OSI Reference Model - The ISO Model of
Architecture for Open Systems Interconnection," IEEE Trans.
on Comm., Apr. 1980.
9. Acknowledgments
This document originated as the result of numerous discussions among
the authors, Jari Arkko, Stuart Bryant, Lars Eggert, Ted Faber, Gorry
Fairhurst, Dino Farinacci, Matt Mathis, and Fred Templin, as well as
members participating in the Internet Area Working Group.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Authors' Addresses
Joe Touch
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
U.S.A.
Phone: +1 (310) 448-9151
Email: touch@isi.edu
W. Mark Townsley
Cisco
L'Atlantis, 11, Rue Camille Desmoulins
Issy Les Moulineaux, ILE DE FRANCE 92782
Email: townsley@cisco.com
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
Appendix A. Fragmentation
There are two places where fragmentation can occur in a tunnel,
called Outer Fragmentation and Inner Fragmentation.
A.1. Outer Fragmentation
The simplest case is Outer Fragmentation, as shown in Figure 10. The
bottom of the figure shows the network topology, where packets start
at the source, enter the tunnel at the encapsulator, exit the tunnel
at the decapsulator, and arrive finally at the destination. The
packet traffic is shown above the topology, where the end-to-end
packets are shown at the top. The packets are composed of an inner
header (iH) and inner data (iD); the term "inner") is relative to the
tunnel, as will become apparent. When the packet (iH,iD) arrives at
the encapsulator, it is placed inside the tunnel packet structure,
here shown as adding just an outer header, oH, in step (a).
When the encapsulated packet exceeds the MTU of the tunnel, the
packet needs to be fragmented. In this case we fragment the packet at
the outer header, with the fragments shown as (b1) and (b2). Note
that the outer header indicates fragmentation (as ' and "),the inner
header occurs only in the first fragment, and the inner data is
broken across the two packets. These fragments are reassembled at the
encapsulator in step (c), and the resulting packet is decapsulated
and sent on to the destination.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
+----+----+ +----+----+
| iH | iD |------+ - - - - - - - - - - +------>| iH | iD |
+----+----+ | | +----+----+
v |
+----+----+----+ +----+----+----+
(a) | oH | iH | iD | | oH | iH | iD | (c)
+----+----+----+ +----+----+----+
| ^
| +----+----+-----+ |
(b1) +----- >| oH'| iH | iD1 |-------+
| +----+----+-----+ |
| |
| +----+-----+ |
(b2) +----- >| oH"| iD2 |------------+
+----+-----+
+-----+ +---+ +---+ +-----+
| | / \ ======================= / \ | |
| Src |=======| Enc |=======================| Dec |=======| Dst |
| | \ / ======================= \ / | |
+-----+ +---+ +---+ +-----+
Figure 10 Fragmentation of the outer packet
Outer fragmentation isolates Source and Destination from tunnel
encapsulation duties. This can be considered a benefit in clean,
layered network design, but also may result in complex decapsulator
design, especially where tunnels aggregate large amounts of traffic,
such as IP ID overload (see Sec. 4.3). Outer fragmentation is valid
for any tunnel encapsulation protocol that supports fragmentation
(e.g., IPv4 or IPv6), where the tunnel endpoints act as the host
endpoints of that protocol.
Along the tunnel, the inner header is contained only in the first
fragment, which can interfere with mechanisms that 'peek' into lower
layer headers, e.g., as for ICMP, as discussed in Sec. 4.5.
A.2. Inner Fragmentation
Inner Fragmentation distributes the impact of tunneling across both
the decapsulator and destination, and is shown in Figure 11. Again,
the network topology is shown at the bottom of the figure, and the
original packets show at the top. Packets arrive at the encapsulator,
and are fragmented there based on the inner header into (a1) and
(a2). The fragments arrive at the decapsulator, which removes the
outer header and forwards the resulting fragments on to the
destination. The destination is then responsible for reassembling the
fragments into the original packet.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
+----+----+ +----+----+
| iH | iD |-------+- - - - - - - - - - - - - >| iH | iD |
+----+----+ | +----+----+
v ^
+----+-----+ +----+-----+ |
(a1) | iH'| iD1 | | iH'| iD1 |------+
+----+-----+ +----+-----+ |
|
+----+--- +----+-----+ |
(a2) | iH"| iD2 | | iH"| iD2 |------+
+----+-----+ +----+-----+
| ^
| +----+----+----- |
(b1) +----- >| oH | iH'| iD1 |-------+
| +----+----+-----+ |
| |
| +----+----+-----+ |
(b2) +----- >| oH | iH"| iD2 |-------+
+----+----+-----+
+-----+ +---+ +---+ +-----+
| | / \ ======================= / \ | |
| Src |=======| Enc |=======================| Dec |=======| Dst |
| | \ / ======================= \ / | |
+-----+ +---+ +---+ +-----+
Figure 11 Fragmentation of the inner packet
As noted, inner fragmentation distributes the effort of tunneling
across the decapsulator and destinations; this can be especially
important when the tunnel aggregates large amounts of traffic. Note
that this mechanism is thus valid only when the original source
packets can be fragmented on-path, e.g., as in IPv4.
Along the tunnel, the inner headers are copied into each fragment,
and so are available to mechanisms that 'peek' into headers (e.g.,
ICMP, as discussed in Sec. 4.5). Because fragmentation happens on the
inner header, the impact of IP ID is reduced.
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
APPENDIX B: Fragmentation efficiency
B.1. Selecting fragment sizes
There are different ways to fragment a packet. Consider a network
with an MTU as shown in Figure 12, where packets are encapsulated
over the same network layer as they arrive on (e.g., IP in IP). If a
packet as large as the MTU arrives, it must be fragmented to
accommodate the additional header.
X===========================X (MTU)
+----+----------------------+
| iH | DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |
+----+----------------------+
|
| X===========================X (MTU)
| +---+----+------------------+
(a) +->| H'| iH | DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |
| +---+----+------------------+
| |
| | X===========================X (MTU)
| | +----+---+----+-------------+
| (a1) +->| nH'| H | iH | DDDDDDDDDDD |
| | +----+---+----+-------------+
| |
| | +----+-------+
| (a2) +->| nH"| DDDDD |
| +----+-------+
|
| +---+------+
(b) +->| H"| DDDD |
+---+------+
|
| +----+---+------+
(b1) +->| nH'| H"| DDDD |
+----+---+------+
Figure 12Fragmenting via maximum fit
Figure 12 shows this process, using Outer Fragmentation as an example
(the situation is the same for Inner Fragmentation, but the headers
that are affected differ). The arriving packet is first split into
(a) and (b), where (a) is of the MTU of the network. However, this
tunnel then traverses over another tunnel, whose impact the first
tunnel ingress has not accommodated. The packet (a) arrives at the
second tunnel ingress, and needs to be encapsulated again, but
because it is already at the MTU, it needs to be fragmented as well,
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
into (a1) and (a2). In this case, packet (b) arrives at the second
tunnel ingress and is encapsulated into (b1) without fragmentation,
because it is already below the MTU size.
In Figure 13, the fragmentation is done evenly, i.e., by splitting
the original packet into two roughly equal-sized components, (c) and
(d). Note that (d) contains more packet data, because (c) includes
the original packet header because this is an example of Outer
Fragmentation. The packets (c) and (d) arrive at the second tunnel
encapsulator, and are encapsulated again; this time, neither packet
exceeds the MTU, and neither requires further fragmentation.
X===========================X (MTU)
+----+----------------------+
| iH | DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD |
+----+----------------------+
|
| X===========================X (MTU)
| +---+----+----------+
(c) +->| H'| iH | DDDDDDDD |
| +---+----+----------+
| |
| | X===========================X (MTU)
| | +----+---+----+----------+
| (c1) +->| nH | H'| iH | DDDDDDDD |
| +----+---+----+----------+
|
| +---+--------------+
(d) +->| H"| DDDDDDDDDDDD |
+---+--------------+
|
| +----+---+--------------+
(d1) +->| nH | H"| DDDDDDDDDDDD |
+----+---+--------------+
Figure 13 Fragmenting evenly
B.2. Packing
Encapsulating individual packets to traverse a tunnel can be
inefficient, especially where headers are large relative to the
packets being carried. In that case, it can be more efficient to
encapsulate many small packets in a single, larger tunnel payload.
This technique, similar to the effect of packet bursting in Gigabit
Ethernet (regardless of whether they're encoded using L2 symbols as
delineators), reduces the overhead of the encapsulation headers
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Tunnels in the Internet January 2016
(Figure 14). It reduces the work of header addition and removal at
the tunnel endpoints, but increases other work involving the packing
and unpacking of the component packets carried.
+-----+-----+
| iHa | iDa |
+-----+-----+
|
| +-----+-----+
| | iHb | iDb |
| +-----+-----+
| |
| | +-----+-----+
| | | iHc | iDc |
| | +-----+-----+
| | |
v v v
+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| oH | iHa | iHa | iHb | iDb | iHc | iDc |
+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Figure 14 Packing packets into a tunnel
[NOTE: PPP chopping and coalescing?]
Touch, Townsley Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 40]