Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-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 "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gorry Fairhurst , Tom Jones | ||
| Last updated | 2021-11-25 | ||
| Replaces | draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | WG Document | |
| Associated WG milestone |
|
||
| 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-udp-options-dplpmtud-02
Internet Engineering Task Force G. Fairhurst
Internet-Draft T. Jones
Intended status: Standards Track University of Aberdeen
Expires: 29 May 2022 25 November 2021
Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP Options
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud-02
Abstract
This document specifies how a UDP Options sender implements Datagram
Packetization Layer Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery
(DPLPMTUD) as a robust method for Path Maximum Transmission Unit
discovery. This method uses the UDP Options packetization layer. It
allows a datagram application to discover the largest size of
datagram that can be sent across a specific network path.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 29 May 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. DPLPMTUD for UDP Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Sending UDP-Options Probe Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Packet Probes using the Echo Request and Response
Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. DPLPMTUD Procedures for UDP Options . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.2.1. Confirmation of Connectivity across a Path . . . . . 5
4.2.2. Sending Probe Packets to Increase the PLPMTU . . . . 6
4.2.3. Validating the Path with UDP Options . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.4. Sending Packet Probes that include Application
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2.5. Changes in the Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. PTB Message Handling for this Method . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Appendix A. Revision Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
The User Datagram Protocol [RFC0768] offers a minimal transport
service on top of IP and is frequently used as a substrate for other
protocols. Section 3.5 of UDP Guidelines [RFC8085] recommends that
applications implement some form of Path MTU discovery to avoid the
generation of IP fragments:
"Consequently, an application SHOULD either use the path MTU
information provided by the IP layer or implement Path MTU Discovery
(PMTUD)".
The UDP API [RFC8304] offers calls for applications to receive ICMP
Packet Too Big (PTB) messages and to control the maximum size of
datagrams that are sent, but does not offer any automated mechanisms
for an application to discover the maximum packet size supported by a
path. Upper layer protocols (which can include applications)
implement mechanisms for Path MTU discovery above the UDP API.
Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) [RFC4821] describes
a method for a Packetization Layer (PL) (such as UDP Options) to
search for the largest Packetization Layer PMTU (PLPMTU) supported on
a path. Datagram PLPMTUD (DPLPMTUD) [RFC8899] specifies this support
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
for datagram transports. PLPMTUD and DPLPMTUD gain robustness by
using a probing mechanism that does not solely rely on ICMP PTB
messages and works on paths that drop ICMP PTB messages.
This document specifies how UDP Options [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
can be used as a PL to implement DPLPMTUD (see Section 6.1 of
[RFC8899]). In summary, UDP Options [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
supplies functionality that can be used to implement DPLPMTUD within
the UDP transport service. Implementing DPLPMTUD using UDP Options
avoids the need for each upper layer protocol or application to
implement the DPLPMTUD method. This provides a standard method for
applications to discover the current maximum packet size for a path
and to detect when this changes.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119]
[RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown
here.
3. DPLPMTUD for UDP Options
There are two ways an upper PL can perform DPLPMTUD:
* The UDP Options sender implementing DPLPMTUD uses the method
specified in [RFC8899] and the upper PL (or application) does not
perform PMTU discovery. In this case, UDP Options processing is
responsible for sending probes to determine a PLPMTU, as described
in this document. "An application SHOULD avoid using DPLPMTUD
when the underlying transport system provides this capability"
(Section 6.1 of [RFC8899]). This discovered PLPMTU can be used by
UDP Options to either:
- set the maximum datagram size for the current path (based on
the discovered largest IP packet that can be received across
the current path).
- set the maximum fragment size when a sender uses the UDP
Fragmentation Option to divide a datagram into multiple UDP
fragments for transmission. Each UDP fragment is then less
than the discovered largest IP packet that can be received
across the current path.
* An upper PL (or application performs DPLPMTUD (e.g., QUIC
[RFC9000]). This upper PL then uses probes to determine a safe
PLPMTU for the datagrams that it sends. The format and content of
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
any probe is determined by the upper PL. Such a design should
avoid performing discovery at multiple levels, so, when when
configurable, this upper PL SHOULD disable DPLPMTUD by UDP
Options.
This section describes packet formats and procedures for DPLPMTUD
using UDP Options.
4. Sending UDP-Options Probe Packets
DPLPMTUD relies upon the ability of a UDP Options sender to generate
a probe with a specific size, up to the maximum for the size
supported by a local interface. This MUST NOT be constrained by the
maximum PMTU set by network layer mechanisms (such as PMTUD
[RFC1191][RFC8201] or the PMTU size held in the IP- layer cache), as
noted in bullet 2 of Section 2 in [RFC8899]).
Probe packets consume network capacity and incur endpoint processing
(see Section 4.1 of [RFC8899]). Implementations ought to send a
probe with an REQ Option only when required by their local DPLPMTUD
state machine, i.e., when confirming the base PMTU for the path,
probing to increase the PLPMTU or to confirm the current PLPMTU.
4.1. Packet Probes using the Echo Request and Response Options
A UDP Options node that supports DPLPMTUD MUST support sending and
receiving of the REQ Option and the RES Option. When not supported,
DPLPMTUD will be unable to confirm the Path or to discover the PMTU.
This section describes a format of probe consisting of an empty UDP
datagram, UDP Options area and Padding.
A Probe Packet includes the UDP Options area containing a RES Option
and any other required options concluded with an EOL Option followed
by any padding needed to inflate to the required probe size.
The UDP Options used in this document are described in Section 6 of
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]:
* The REQ Option is set by a sending PL to solicit a response from a
remote UDP Options receiver. A four-byte token identifies each
request.
* The RES Option is generated by the UDP Options receiver in
response to reception of a previously received REQ Option. Each
RES Option echoes a previously received four-byte token.
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
* Reception of a RES Option confirms reception of a specific
received probe by the remote UDP Options receiver.
The token value allows a sender to distinguish between
acknowledgements for initial probes and acknowledgements confirming
receipt of subsequent probes (e.g., travelling along alternate paths
with a larger round trip time). This needs each probe to be uniquely
identifiable by the UDP Options sender within the Maximum Segment
Lifetime (MSL). The UDP Options sender therefore MUST NOT recycle
token values until they have expired or have been acknowledged. A
four byte value for the token field provides sufficient space for
multiple unique probes to be made within the MSL. Since UDP Options
operates over UDP, the token values only need to be unique for the
specific 5-tuple over which DPLPMTUD is operating.
The initial value of the four byte token field SHOULD be assigned to
a randomised value to enhance protection from off-path attacks, as
described in Section 5.1 of [RFC8085]).
4.2. DPLPMTUD Procedures for UDP Options
DPLPMTUD utilises three types of probes. These are described in the
following sections:
* A probe to confirm the path can support the BASE_PLPMTU see
Section 5.1.4 of [RFC8899]).
* A probe to detect whether the path can support a larger PLPMTU.
* A probe to validate the path supports the current PLPMTU.
4.2.1. Confirmation of Connectivity across a Path
The DPLPMTUD method requires a PL to confirm connectivity over the
path using the BASE_PLPMTU (see Section 5.1.4 of [RFC8899]), but UDP
does not offer a mechanism for this.
UDP Options can provide this required functionality. A UDP Options
sender implementing this specification MUST elicit a positive
confirmation of connectivity for the path, by sending a probe, padded
to size BASE_PLPMTU. This confirmation probe MUST include a UDP
Option that elicits a response from the remote endpoint (e.g., by
including the RES and REQ Options) to confirm that a packet of the
size traversed the path. This also confirms that the remote receiver
supports use of the RES and REQ Options.
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
4.2.2. Sending Probe Packets to Increase the PLPMTU
From time to time, DPLPMTUD enters the SEARCHING state [RFC8899]
(e.g., after expiry of the PMTU_RAISE_TIMER) to detect whether the
current path can support a larger PLPMTU. When the remote endpoint
advertises a UDP Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option, this value can be
used as a hint to initialise this search to increase the PLPMTU.
Probe packets seeking to increase the PLPMTU SHOULD NOT carry
application data (see "Probing using padding data" in Section 4.1 of
[RFC8899]), since they will be lost whenever their size exceeds the
actual PMTU.
A probe seeking to increase the PLPMTU needs to elicit a positive
acknowledgment that the path has delivered a datagram of the specific
probed size and, therefore, MUST include the REQ Option.
Received probes that do not carry application data do not form a part
of the end-to-end transport data and are not delivered to the upper
layer protocol.
4.2.3. Validating the Path with UDP Options
A PL using DPLPMTUD needs to validate that a path continues to
support the PLPMTU discovered in a previous search for a suitable
PLPMTU value (see Section 6.1.4 of [RFC8899]). This validation sends
probes in the DPLPMTUD SEARCH_COMPLETE state to detect black-holing
of data (see Section 4.2 of [RFC8899]).
This function can be implemented within UDP Options, by generating a
probe of size PLPMTU, which MUST include a RES Option to elicit a
positive confirmation whether the path has delivered the probe. This
confirmation probe MAY use "Probing using padding data" or "Probing
using application data and padding data" (see Section 4.1 of
[RFC8899]) or can construct a probe packet that does not carry any
application data, as described in a previous section.
4.2.4. Sending Packet Probes that include Application Data
The method can be designed to only use probes that are formed of a
UDP datagram that includes application data (which could be
applications control information), padded to the required size and
include a RES Option. This implements "Probing using padding data",
and avoids having to retransmit application data when a probe fails.
This type of probe must be used when searching to increase the
PLPMTU. In this use, the RES and REQ Options do not form a part of
the end-to-end transport data and a receiver does not deliver them to
the upper layer protocol. A simple implementation of the method
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
might be designed to only use this format for all probes.
The probe used to confirm the connectivity or to validate support for
the current PLPMTU are also permitted to carry application data,
since this type of probe is expected to be successful. Section 4.1
of [RFC8899] provides a discussion of the merits and demerits of
including application data. For example, this reduces the need to
send an additional datagram when confirming that the current path
supports datagrams of size PLPMTU and could be designed to utilise a
control message format defined by the PL that does not need to be
delivered reliably. In this use, the RES and REQ Options need to be
included by the sending upper layer and the values of tokens need to
be coordinated with values used for other DPLPMTUD probe packets.
These probes do form a part of the end-to-end transport data and a
receiver does deliver the RES and REQ Options to the upper layer
protocol.
4.2.5. Changes in the Path
A change in the path or the loss of probe packets can result in a
change of the PLPMTU. DPLPMTUD [RFC8899] recommends that methods are
robust to path changes that could have occurred since the path
characteristics were last confirmed and to the possibility of
inconsistent path information being received. For example, a
notification that a path could have changed could trigger path
validation to provide black hole protection Section 4.3 of
[RFC8899]).
Section 3 of [RFC8899] requires any methods designed to share the
PLPMTU between PLs (such as updating the IP cache PMTU for an
interface/destination) to be robust to the wide variety of underlying
network forwarding behaviors. For example, an implementation could
avoid sharing PMTU information that could potentially relate to
packets sent with the same address over a different interface.
4.3. PTB Message Handling for this Method
Support for receiving ICMP PTB messages is OPTIONAL for use with
DPLPMTUD. A UDP Options sender can therefore ignore received ICMP
PTB messages.
A UDP Options sender that utilises ICMP PTB messages received in
response to a probe packet MUST use the quoted packet to validate the
UDP port information in combination with the token value contained in
the UDP Option, before processing the packet using the DPLPMTUD
method. Section 4.6.1 of [RFC8899] specifies this validation
procedure. An implementation unable to support this validation needs
to ignore received ICMP PTB messages.
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
5. Acknowledgements
Gorry Fairhurst and Tom Jones are supported by funding provided by
the University of Aberdeen.
6. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no requests to IANA.
7. Security Considerations
The security considerations for using UDP Options are described in
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]. The proposed new method does not
change the integrity protection offered by the UDP options method.
The specification recommends that the token in the REQ Option is
initialised to a randomised value to enhance protection from off-path
attacks.
The security considerations for using DPLPMTUD are described in
[RFC8899]. The proposed new method does not change the ICMP PTB
message validation method described DPLPMTUD: A UDP Options sender
that utilies ICMP PTB messages received to a probe packet MUST use
the quoted packet to validate the UDP port information in combination
with the token and/or timestamp value contained in the UDP Option,
before processing the packet using the DPLPMTUD method.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-tsvwg-udp-options]
Touch, J. D., "Transport Options for UDP", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-13,
19 June 2021, <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-
tsvwg-udp-options-13.txt>.
[RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[RFC8304] Fairhurst, G. and T. Jones, "Transport Features of the
User Datagram Protocol (UDP) and Lightweight UDP (UDP-
Lite)", RFC 8304, DOI 10.17487/RFC8304, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8304>.
[RFC9000] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9000>.
Appendix A. Revision Notes
XXX Note to RFC-Editor: please remove this entire section prior to
publication. XXX
Individual draft-00.
* This version contains a description for consideration and comment
by the TSVWG.
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
Individual draft-01.
* Address Nits
* Change Probe Request and Probe Reponse options to Echo to align
names with draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options
* Remove Appendix B, Informative Description of new UDP Options
* Add additional sections around Probe Packet generation
Individual draft-02.
* Address Nits
Individual draft-03.
* Referenced DPLPMTUD RFC.
* Tidied language to clarify the method.
Individual draft-04
* Reworded text on probing with data a little
* Removed paragraph on suspending ICMP PTB suspension.
Working group draft-00
* -00 First Working Group Version
* RFC8899 call search_done SEARCH_COMPLETE, fix
Working group draft -01
* Update to reflect new fragmentation design in UDP Options.
* Add a description of uses of DPLPMTUD with UDP Options.
* Add a description on how to form probe packets with padding.
* Say that MSS options can be used to initialise the search
algorithm.
* Say that the recommended approach is to not use user data for
probes.
* Attempts to clarify and improve wording throughout.
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft UDPO DPLPMTUD November 2021
* Remove text saying you can respond to multiple probes in a single
packet.
* Simplified text by removing options that don't yield benefit.
Working group draft -02
* Update to reflect comments from MED.
* More consistent description of DPLPMTUD with UDP Options.
* Clarify token is intended per 5-tuple, not interface.
* BASE_PLPMTU related to RFC8899.
* Probes with user data can carry application control data.
* Added that application data uses RES and REQ tokens from the app.
* QUIC was intended as an informational reference to an example of
RFC8899.
Authors' Addresses
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen
AB24 3UE
United Kingdom
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Tom Jones
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen
AB24 3UE
United Kingdom
Email: tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Fairhurst & Jones Expires 29 May 2022 [Page 11]