IPv6 Fragment Retransmission and Path MTU Discovery Soft Errors
draft-templin-6man-fragrep-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Fred Templin | ||
| Last updated | 2021-11-17 (Latest revision 2021-11-08) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex | ||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-templin-6man-fragrep-02
Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology
Updates: RFC8200, RFC8201, RFC4443, November 17, 2021
RFC1191 (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: May 21, 2022
IPv6 Fragment Retransmission and Path MTU Discovery Soft Errors
draft-templin-6man-fragrep-02
Abstract
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) provides a fragmentation and
reassembly service for end systems allowing for the transmission of
packets that exceed the path MTU. However, loss of just a single
fragment requires retransmission of the original packet in its
entirety, with potentially devastating effects on performance. This
document specifies an IPv6 fragment retransmission scheme that
matches the loss unit to the retransmission unit. The document
further specifies an update to Path MTU Discovery that distinguishes
hard link size restrictions from reassembly congestion events.
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 May 21, 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
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Common Use Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. IPv6 Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IPv6 Fragment Retransmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Packet Too Big (PTB) Soft Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction
Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) [RFC8200] provides a fragmentation
and reassembly service similar to that found in IPv4 [RFC0791], with
the exception that only the source host (i.e., and not routers on the
path) may perform fragmentation. When an IPv6 packet is fragmented,
the loss unit (i.e., a single IPv6 fragment) becomes smaller than the
retransmission unit (i.e., the entire packet) which under
intermittent loss conditions could result in sustained retransmission
storms with little or no forward progress [RFC8900].
The presumed drawbacks of fragmentation are tempered by the fact that
greater performance can often be realized when the source sends large
packets that exceed the path MTU. This is due to the fact that a
single large IPv6 packet produced by upper layers results in a burst
of multiple fragment packets produced by lower layers with minimal
inter-packet delays. These bursts yield high network utilization for
the burst duration, while modern reassembly implementations have
proven capable of accommodating such bursts. If the loss unit can
somehow be made to match the retransmission unit, the performance
benefits of IPv6 fragmentation can be realized.
This document therefore proposes an IPv6 fragment retransmission
service in which the source marks each fragment with an "Ordinal"
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
number, and the destination may request retransmissions of any
ordinal fragments that are lost. This retransmission request service
is intended only for short-duration and opportunistic best-effort
recovery (i.e., and not true end-to-end reliability). In this way,
the service mirrors the Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ) function of
common data links [RFC3366] by considering an imaginary virtual link
that extends from the IPv6 source to destination. The goal therefore
is for the destination to quickly obtain missing individual fragments
of partial reassemblies before true end-to-end timers would cause
retransmission of the entire packet.
When conditions suggest that original sources should begin sending
smaller packets, the fragmentation source and/or reassembly
destination can return a new type of ICMPv6 Packet Too Big or ICMPv4
Fragmentation Needed message termed a PTB "soft error" that is
distinguished from classic "hard errors" by including a non-zero
value in the PTB Code (ICMIPv6) or unused (ICMPv4) field. The
fragmentation source can return soft errors (subject to rate
limiting) suggesting a smaller packet size while fragmentation of
large packets is producing excessive numbers of fragments.
Similarly, the reassembly destination can return soft errors (via the
fragmentation source) while reassembly of large packets is causing
excessive reassembly congestion. Original sources that receive these
soft errors should reduce the size of packets they send for the short
term, but can again begin to increase their packet sizes without
delay as long as no further soft or hard errors arrive.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "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. Common Use Cases
A common use case of interest is to improve the state of affairs for
IPv6 encapsulation (i.e., "tunneling") [RFC2473] when the original
source may be many IP hops away from the tunnel ingress, and the
tunnel packet may be fragmented following encapsulation. The tunnel
is seen as a "link" on the path from the original source to the final
destination, and the goal is to increase the reliability of that link
in order to minimize wasteful end-to-end retransmissions.
When the original source and IPv6 fragmentation source are located on
the same platform (physical or virtual) the window of opportunity for
successful retransmission of individual fragments may be narrow
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
unless the link persistence timeframe is carefully coordinated with
upper layer retransmission timers. (In an uncoordinated case, upper
layers may retransmit the entire packet before or at roughly the same
time the IPv6 fragmentation source retransmits individual fragments,
leading to increased congestion and wasted retransmissions.)
4. IPv6 Fragmentation
IPv6 fragmentation is specified in Section 4.5 of [RFC8200] and is
based on the IPv6 Fragment extension header formatted as shown below:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Reserved | Fragment Offset |Res|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In this format:
o Next Header is a 1-octet IP protocol version of the next header
following the Fragment Header.
o Reserved is a 1-octet reserved field set to 0 on transmission and
ignored on reception.
o Fragment Offset is a 13-bit field that provides the offset (in
8-octet units) of the data portion that follows from the beginning
of the packet.
o Res is a 2-bit field set to 0 on transmission and ignored on
reception.
o M is the "More Fragments" bit telling whether additional fragments
follow.
o Identification is a 32 bit numerical identification value for the
entire IPv6 packet. The value is copied into each fragment of the
same IPv6 packet.
The fragmentation and reassembly specification in [RFC8200] can be
considered as the standard method which adheres to the details of
that RFC. This document presents an enhanced method that allows for
retransmissions of individual fragments.
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
5. IPv6 Fragment Retransmission
Fragmentation implementations that obey this specification write an
"Ordinal" value beginning with 0 and monotonically incremented for
each successive fragment in the (formerly) "Reserved" field of the
IPv6 Fragment Header, which is redefined as a 6-bit "Ordinal" field
followed by a 1-bit R(eserved) flag followed by a 1-bit A(RQ) flag as
shown below:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Ordinal |R|A| Fragment Offset |Res|M|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
In particular, when a source that obeys this specification fragments
an IPv6 packet it sets the Ordinal value for the first fragment to
'0', the Ordinal value for the second fragment to '1', the Ordinal
value for the third fragment to '2', etc. up to either the final
fragment or the 64th fragment (whichever comes first). The source
also sets the A flag to 1 in each fragment to inform the destination
that fragment retransmission is supported for this packet.
When a destination that obeys this specification receives IPv6
fragments with the A flag set to 1, it infers that the source
participates in the protocol and maintains a checklist of all Ordinal
numbered fragments received for a specific Identification number.
If the destination notices one or more Ordinals missing after most
other Ordinals for the same Identification have arrived, it can
prepare an ICMPv6 Fragmentation Report (FRAGREP) message [RFC4443] to
send back to the source. The message is formatted as follows:
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification (0) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ordinal Bitmap (0) (0-31) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ordinal Bitmap (0) (32-63) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification (1) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ordinal Bitmap (1) (0-31) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ordinal Bitmap (1) (32-63) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ... |
| ... |
In this format, the destination prepares the FRAGREP message as a
list of 12-octet (Identification(i), Bitmap(i)) pairs. The first 4
octets in each pair encode the Identification value for the IPv6
packet that is subject of the report, while the remaining 8 octets
encode a 64-bit Bitmap of Ordinal fragments received for this
Identification. For example, if the destination receives Ordinals 0,
1, 3, 4, 6, and 8 it sets Bitmap bits 0, 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 to '1' and
sets all other bits to '0'. The destination may include as many
(Identification, Bitmap) pairs as necessary without causing the
entire message to exceed the minimum IPv6 MTU of 1280 bytes. (If
additional pairs are necessary, the destination may prepare and send
multiple messages.)
The destination next transmits the FRAGREP message to the IPv6
fragment source. When the source receives the message, it examines
each entry to determine the per-Identification Ordinal fragments that
require retransmission. For example, if the source receives a Bitmap
for Identification 0x12345678 with bits 0, 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8 set to
'1', it would retransmit Ordinal fragments (0x12345678, 2),
(0x12345678, 5) and (0x12345678, 7).
This implies that the source should maintain a cache of recently
transmitted fragments for a time interval known as "link persistence"
[RFC3366]. The link persistence should be at least as long as the
round-trip time from the fragmentation source to the reassembly
destination, plus an additional small delay to allow for reassembly
processing overhead. Then, if the source receives a FRAGREP message
requesting retransmission of one or more Ordinals, it can retransmit
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
if it still holds the Ordinal in its cache. Otherwise, the Ordinal
will incur a cache miss and the original source will eventually
retransmit the original packet in its entirety. After processing all
entries in the FRAGREP, the source discards the message.
Note that the maximum-sized IPv6 packet that a source can submit for
fragmentation is 64KB, and the minimum IPv6 path MTU is 1280B.
Assuming the minimum IPv6 path MTU as the nominal size for non-final
fragments, the number of Ordinals for each IPv6 packet should
therefore fit within the allotted 64 Bitmap bits when the fragments
are transmitted over IPv6-only network paths. However, when the path
may traverse one or more IPv4 networks (e.g., via tunneling) the path
MTU may be significantly smaller. In that case, the number of IPv6
fragments needed may exceed the maximum number of Ordinal candidates
for retransmission (i.e., 64).
When the number of IPv6 fragments exceeds 64, the source assigns an
Ordinal value and sets A to 1 in the first 64 fragments, but sets
both Ordinal and A to 0 in all remaining fragments then transmits all
fragments. When the destination receives the fragments, it may
return a FRAGREP to request retransmission of any of the first 64
fragments, but may not request retransmission of any additional
fragments for which the default behavior of best-effort delivery
applies. (However, all fragments are presented equally to the
reassembly cache where successful reassembly is likely.)
Finally, transmission of IPv6 fragments over IPv6-only paths can
safely proceed without a fragmentation-layer integrity check since
IPv6 includes reassembly safeguards and a 32-bit Identification
value. Conversely, transmission of IPv6 fragments over IPv4-only or
mixed IPv6/IPv4 paths requires a fragmentation-layer integrity check
inserted by the source before fragmentation and verified by the
destination following reassembly since IPv4 provides only a 16-bit
Identification and no reassembly safeguards. (In cases where the
full path cannot be determined a priori, an integrity check should
always be included as specified in AERO [I-D.templin-6man-aero] and
OMNI [I-D.templin-6man-omni].)
6. Packet Too Big (PTB) Soft Errors
When an IPv6 fragmentation source forwards packets that produce what
it considers as excessive numbers fragments (e.g., 32, 48, 64, more),
the fragmentation source can also return PTB "soft errors" to the
original source (subject to rate limiting). Either the fragmentation
source or reassembly destination may also return PTB soft errors if
the frequency of retransmissions or reassembly failures exceeds
acceptable thresholds.
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
PTB soft errors are distinguished from ordinary "hard errors" through
a non-zero value in the ICMPv6 "Code" field [RFC8201][RFC4443] or
ICMPv4 "unused" field [RFC1191]. The following values are currently
defined:
o 0 - "PTB hard error" - Original sources that receive these
messages obey the classic Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD)
specifications found in [RFC8201][RFC1191].
o 1 - "PTB soft error (packet lost)" - Original sources that receive
these messages should reduce their packet sizes while
retransmitting the data from the lost packet, but need not wait
the prescribed 10 minutes before attempting to again increase
packet sizes.
o 2 - "PTB soft error (packet forwarded)" - Original sources that
receive these messages should reduce their packet sizes without
invoking retransmission, and also need not wait the prescribed 10
minutes before attempting to again increase packet sizes.
o 3-255 - reserved for future use.
PTB soft errors include as much of the invoking packet as possible
without the message exceeding the minimum MTU (i.e., 1280 bytes for
IPv6 or 576 bytes for IPv4). Original sources that recognize PTB
soft errors should follow common logic to dynamically tune their
packet sizes to obtain the best performance. In particular, an
original source can gradually increase the size of packets it sends
while no or few PTB soft errors are arriving then again reduce packet
sizes when excessive soft errors arrive.
Original sources that do not recognize PTB soft errors (i.e., that do
not examine the Code/unused field value) follow the same standards as
for hard errors as described above. These sources may miss
opportunities to realize improved performance.
7. Implementation Status
TBD.
8. IANA Considerations
A new ICMPv6 Message Type code for "Fragmentation Report (FRAGREP)"
is requested.
The IANA is instructed to create new registries for "ICMPv6 Packet
Too Big Code field" and "ICMPv4 Fragmentation Needed unused field"
values. Both registries should have the following initial values:
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
Value Sub-Type name Reference
----- ------------- ----------
0 PTB hard error [RFCXXXX]
1 PTB soft error (loss) [RFCXXXX]
2 PTB soft error (no loss) [RFCXXXX]
3-252 Unassigned
253-254 Reserved for Experimentation [RFCXXXX]
255 Reserved by IANA [RFCXXXX]
Figure 1: Packet Too Big Code/unused Values
9. Security Considerations
Communications networking security is necessary to preserve
confidentiality, integrity and availability.
10. Acknowledgements
This work was inspired by ongoing AERO/OMNI/DTN investigations.
.
11. References
11.1. Normative References
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[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>.
[RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[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>.
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IPv6 Fragment Retransmission November 2021
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[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>.
11.2. Informative References
[I-D.templin-6man-aero]
Templin, F. L., "Automatic Extended Route Optimization
(AERO)", draft-templin-6man-aero-37 (work in progress),
November 2021.
[I-D.templin-6man-omni]
Templin, F. L. and T. Whyman, "Transmission of IP Packets
over Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", draft-
templin-6man-omni-51 (work in progress), November 2021.
[RFC2473] Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[RFC8900] Bonica, R., Baker, F., Huston, G., Hinden, R., Troan, O.,
and F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile",
BCP 230, RFC 8900, DOI 10.17487/RFC8900, September 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8900>.
Author's Address
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
USA
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin Expires May 21, 2022 [Page 10]