Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling
draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-01
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (tsvwg WG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Edward Crabbe , Lucy Yong , Xiaohu Xu | ||
| Last updated | 2014-02-13 | ||
| Stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | plain text htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Reviews |
OPSDIR Last Call review
(of
-13)
Has Nits
GENART Last Call review
(of
-13)
Ready with Nits
|
||
| 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-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-01
Network Working Group E. Crabbe, Ed.
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Standard Track L. Yong, Ed.
Huawei USA
X. Xu, Ed.
Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 2014 February 13, 2014
Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling
draft-ietf-tsvwg-gre-in-udp-encap-01
Abstract
This document describes a method of encapsulating arbitrary
protocols within GRE and UDP headers. In this encapsulation, the
source UDP port may be used as an entropy field for purposes of load
balancing while the payload protocol may be identified by the GRE
Protocol Type.
Status of This Document
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 13, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
Crabbe, el al. Expires September 13, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................3
1.1. Applicability Statements..................................3
2. Terminology....................................................4
2.1. Requirements Language.....................................4
3. Procedures.....................................................4
4. Encapsulation Considerations...................................8
5. Backward Compatibility.........................................9
6. IANA Considerations............................................9
7. Security Considerations.......................................10
7.1. Vulnerability............................................10
8. Acknowledgements..............................................10
9. Contributors..................................................10
10. References...................................................11
10.1. Normative References....................................11
10.2. Informative References..................................12
11. Authors' Addresses...........................................13
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
1. Introduction
Load balancing, or more specifically, statistical multiplexing of
traffic using Equal Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) and/or Link Aggregation
Groups (LAGs) in IP networks is a widely used technique for creating
higher capacity networks out of lower capacity links. Most existing
routers in IP networks are already capable of distributing IP
traffic flows over ECMP paths and/or LAGs on the basis of a hash
function performed on flow invariant fields in IP packet headers and
their payload protocol headers. Specifically, when the IP payload is
a User Datagram Protocol (UDP)[RFC0768] or Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP) packet, router hash functions frequently operate on
the five-tuple of the source IP address, the destination IP address,
the source port, the destination port, and the protocol/next-header
Several tunneling techniques are in common use in IP networks, such
as Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], MPLS [RFC4023] and
L2TPv3 [RFC3931]. GRE is an increasingly popular encapsulation
choice, especially in environments where MPLS is unavailable or
unnecessary. Unfortunately, use of common GRE endpoints may reduce
the entropy available for use in load balancing, especially in
environments where the GRE Key field [RFC2890] is not readily
available for use as entropy in forwarding decisions.
This document defines a generic GRE-in-UDP encapsulation for
tunneling arbitrary network protocol payloads across an IP network
environment where ECMP or LAGs are used. The GRE header provides
payload protocol de-multiplexing by way of it's protocol type field
[RFC2784] while the UDP header provides additional entropy by way of
it's source port.
This encapsulation method requires no changes to the transit IP
network. Hash functions in most existing IP routers may utilize and
benefit from the use of a GRE-in-UDP tunnel is without needing any
change or upgrade to their ECMP implementation. The encapsulation
mechanism is applicable to a variety of IP networks including Data
Center and wide area networks.
1.1. Applicability Statements
It is recommended to use the GRE-in-UDP encapsulation technology in
a Service Provider (SP) network and/or DC network where the
congestion control is not a concern, rather than over the Internet
where the congestion control is a must. Furthermore, packet filters
should be added so as to prevent GRE-in-UDP packets from escaping
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
from the service provider networks due to mis-configuration or
packet errors.
2. Terminology
The terms defined in [RFC768] are used in this document.
2.1. Requirements Language
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].
3. Procedures
When a tunnel ingress device conforming to this document receives a
packet, the ingress MUST encapsulate the packet in UDP and GRE
headers and set the destination port of the UDP header to [TBD]
Section 6. The ingress device must also insert the payload protocol
type in the GRE Protocol Type field. The ingress device SHOULD set
the UDP source port based on flow invariant fields from the payload
header, otherwise it should be set to a randomly selected constant
value, e.g. zero, to avoid packet flow reordering. How a tunnel
ingress generates entropy from the payload is outside the scope of
this document. The tunnel ingress MUST encode its own IP address as
the source IP address and the egress tunnel endpoint IP address.
The TTL field in the IP header must be set to a value appropriate
for delivery of the encapsulated packet to the tunnel egress
endpoint.
When the tunnel egress receives a packet, it must remove the outer
UDP and GRE headers. Section 5 describes the error handling when
this entity is not instantiated at the tunnel egress.
To simplify packet processing at the tunnel egress, packets destined
to this assigned UDP destination port [TBD] MAY have their UDP
checksum set to zero. In the environment where the UDP packets may
be mis-delivered [RFC5405], UDP checksum SHOULD be used. Upon
receiving a packet with a non-zero checksum, tunnel egress MUST
perform the UDP checksum verification. For an IPv6 network, UDP
checksum SHOULD be used; if the checksum needs to be disabled for
performance or implementation concerns, the considerations described
in [RFC6935][RFC6936] MUST be examined. The Sequence flags MUST set
to zero.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
The tunnel ingress may set the GRE Key Present, Sequence Number
Present, and Checksum Present bits and associated fields in the GRE
header defined by [RFC2784] and [RFC2890].
In addition IPv6 nodes MUST conform to the following:
1. the IPv6 tunnel ingress and egress SHOULD follow the node
requirements specified in Section 4 of [RFC6936] and the usage
requirements specified in Section 5 of [RFC6936].
2. IPv6 transit nodes SHOULD follow the requirements 9, 10, 11
specified in Section 5 of [RFC6936].
The tunnel ingress may set the GRE Key Present, Sequence Number
Present, and Checksum Present bits and associated fields in the GRE
header defined by [RFC2784] and [RFC2890].
The format of the GRE-in-UDP encapsulation for both IPv4 and IPv6
outer headers is shown in the following figures:
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
IPv4 Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live |Protcol=17(UDP)| Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination IPv4 Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
UDP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = XXXX | Dest Port = TBD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
GRE Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C| |K|S| Reserved0 | Ver | Protocol Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum (optional) | Reserved1 (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 UDP+GRE IPv4 headers
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
IPv6 Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | NxtHdr=17(UDP)| Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Outer Source IPv6 Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Outer Destination IPv6 Address +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
UDP Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Port = XXXX | Dest Port = TBD |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
GRE Header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|C| |K|S| Reserved0 | Ver | Protocol Type |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Checksum (optional) | Reserved1 (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Key (optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Sequence Number (Optional) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 UDP+GRE IPv6 headers
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
The total overhead increase for a UDP+GRE tunnel without use of
optional GRE fields, representing the lowest total overhead increase,
is 32 bytes in the case of IPv4 and 52 bytes in the case of IPv6.
The total overhead increase for a UDP+GRE tunnel with use of GRE Key,
Sequence and Checksum Fields, representing the highest total
overhead increase, is 44 bytes in the case of IPv4 and 64 bytes in
the case of IPv6.
4. Encapsulation Considerations
GRE-in-UDP encapsulation allows the tunneled traffic to be unicast,
broadcast, or multicast traffic. Entropy may be generated from the
header of tunneled unicast or broadcast/multicast packets at tunnel
ingress. The mapping mechanism between the tunneled multicast
traffic and the multicast capability in the IP network is
transparent and independent to the encapsulation and is outside the
scope of this document.
If tunnel ingress must perform the fragmentation [GREMTU] on a
packet before encapsulation, it MUST use the same source UDP port
for all packet fragments. This ensures that the transit routers
will forward the packet fragments on the same path. GRE-in-UDP
encapsulation introduces some overhead as mentioned in section 3,
which reduces the effective Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) size.
An operator should factor in this addition overhead bytes when
considering an MTU size for the payload to reduce the likelihood of
fragmentation.
To ensure the tunneled traffic gets the same treatment over the IP
network, prior to the encapsulation process, tunnel ingress should
process the payload to get the proper parameters to fill into the IP
header such as DiffServ [RFC2983]. Tunnel end points that support
ECN MUST use the method described in [RFC6040] for ECN marking
propagation. This process is outside of the scope of this document.
Note that the IPv6 header [RFC2460] contains a flow label field that
may be used for load balancing in an IPv6 network [RFC6438]. Thus
in an IPv6 network, either GRE-in-UDP or flow labels may be used for
improving load balancing performance. Use of GRE-in-UDP
encapsulation provides a unified hardware implementation for load
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
balancing in an IP network independent of the IP version(s) in use.
However, if UDP checksum has to be used in the environment, a flow
label based load balancing is advantage in performance and
implementation.
5. Backward Compatibility
It is assumed that tunnel ingress routers must be upgraded in order
to support the encapsulations described in this document.
No change is required at transit routers to support forwarding of
the encapsulation described in this document.
If a router that is intended for use as a tunnel egress does not
support the GRE-in-UDP encapsulation described in this document, it
will not be listening on destination port [TBD]. In these cases,
the router will conform to normal UDP processing and respond to the
tunnel ingress with an ICMP message indicating "port unreachable"
according to [RFC792]. Upon receiving this ICMP message, the tunnel
ingress MUST NOT continue to use GRE-in-UDP encapsulation toward
this tunnel egress without management intervention.
6. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to make the following allocation:
Service Name: GRE-in-UDP
Transport Protocol(s): UDP
Assignee: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Contact: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
Description: GRE-in-UDP Encapsulation
Reference: [This.I-D]
Port Number: TBD
Service Code: N/A
Known Unauthorized Uses: N/A
Assignment Notes: N/A
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
7. Security Considerations
7.1. Vulnerability
Neither UDP nor GRE encapsulation effects security for the payload
protocol. When using GRE-in-UDP, Network Security in a network is
the same as that of a network using GRE.
Use of ICMP for signaling of the GRE-in-UDP encapsulation capability
adds a security concern. Tunnel ingress devices may want to
validate the origin of ICMP Port Unreachable messages before taking
action. The mechanism for performing this validation is out of the
scope of this document.
In an instance where the UDP src port is not set based on the flow
invariant fields from the payload header, a random port SHOULD be
selected in order to minimize the vulnerability to off-path attacks.
[RFC6056] How the src port randomization occurs is outside scope of
this document.
Using one standardized value in UDP destination port for an
encapsulation indication may increase the vulnerability of off-path
attack. To overcome this, tunnel egress may request tunnel ingress
using a different and specific value [RFC6056] in UDP destination
port for the GRE-in-UDP encapsulation indication. How the tunnel end
points communicate the value is outside scope of this document.
8. Acknowledgements
Authors like to thank Vivek Kumar, Ron Bonica, Joe Touch, Ruediger
Geib, Gorry Fairhurst, David Black, Lar Edds, Lloyd, and many others
for their review and valuable input on this draft.
9. Contributors
The following people all contributed significantly to this document
and are listed below in alphabetical order:
John E. Drake
Juniper Networks
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
Email: jdrake@juniper.net
Adrian Farrel
Juniper Networks
Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Vishwas Manral
Hewlett-Packard Corp.
3000 Hanover St, Palo Alto.
Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com
Carlos Pignataro
Cisco Systems
7200-12 Kit Creek Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA
EMail: cpignata@cisco.com
Yongbing Fan
China Telecom
Guangzhou, China.
Phone: +86 20 38639121
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
August 1980.
[RFC791] DARPA, "Internet Protocol", RFC791, September 1981
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.
[RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
March 2000.
[RFC2890] Dommety, G., "Key and Sequence Number Extensions to GRE",
RFC2890, September 2000.
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
[RFC2983] Black, D., "Differentiated Services and Tunnels", RFC2983,
October 2000.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L., "Unicast UDP Usage Guideline for Application
Designers", RFC5405, November 2008.
[RFC6040] Briscoe, B., "Tunneling of Explicit Congestion
Notification", RFC6040, November 2010
[RFC6438] Carpenter, B., Amante, S., "Using the IPv6 Flow Label for
Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Linda Aggregation in
tunnels", RFC6438, November, 2011
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935, April 2013.
[RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, April 2013.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5, RFC
792, September 1981.
[RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, M., and I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, March 2005.
[RFC4023] Worster, T., Rekhter, Y., and E. Rosen, "Encapsulating
MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC
4023, March 2005.
[RFC4364] Rosen, E. and Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private
Networks (VPNs)", RFC 4364, February 2006.
[RFC4884] Bonica, R., Gan, D., Tappan, D., and C. Pignataro,
"Extended ICMP to Support Multi-Part Messages", RFC 4884,
April 2007.
[RFC6056] Larsen, M. and Gont, F., "Recommendations for Transport-
Protocol Port Randomization", RFC6056, January 2011
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Generic UDP Encapsulation for IP Tunneling February 2014
[RFC6790] Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
RFC 6790, November 2012.
[GREMTU] Bonica, R., "A Fragmentation Strategy for Generic Routing
Encapsulation (GRE)", draft-bonica-intara-gre-mtu, work in
progress
11. Authors' Addresses
Edward Crabbe (editor)
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94102
US
Lucy Yong (editor)
Huawei Technologies, USA
Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com
Xiaohu Xu (editor)
Huawei Technologies,
Beijing, China
Email: xuxiaohu@huawei.com
Crabbe, et al. Expires September 13, 2014 [Page 13]