IPv6 Extended Fragment Header for IPv4
draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext2-02
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Fred Templin | ||
| Last updated | 2024-04-12 | ||
| Replaces | draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext2-02
Network Working Group F. L. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology
Updates: 6864, 8900 (if approved) 12 April 2024
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: 14 October 2024
IPv6 Extended Fragment Header for IPv4
draft-templin-intarea-ipid-ext2-02
Abstract
The Internet Protocol, version 4 (IPv4) header includes a 16-bit
Identification field in all packets, but this length is too small to
ensure reassembly integrity even at moderate data rates in modern
networks. Even for Internet Protocol, version 6 (IPv6), the 32-bit
Identification field included when a Fragment Header is present may
be smaller than desired for some applications. This specification
addresses these limitations by adapting the IPv6 Extended Fragment
Header for IPv4.
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 14 October 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IP Identification Extension April 2024
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Relation to IPv6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. IPv6 Extended Fragment Header for IPv4 . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Destination Qualification and Path MTU . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Packet Too Big (PTB) Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The Internet Protocol, version 4 (IPv4) header includes a 16-bit
Identification in all packets [RFC0791], but this length is too small
to ensure reassembly integrity even at moderate data rates in modern
networks [RFC4963][RFC6864][RFC8900]. This specification adapts the
IPv6 Extended Fragment Header [I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2] for
Identification extension and to support an alternate fragmentation
and reassembly service for IPv4.
When an IPv4 packet includes the IPv6 Extended Fragment Header, a
"deep packet fragmentation" capability is enabled that supports
Identification, fragmentation and reassembly services from deep
within the packet independently of any IPv4 header level services.
This may be useful for networks that engage fragmentation and
reassembly at extreme data rates, or for cases when advanced IPv4
packet Identification uniqueness assurance is critical.
2. Relation to IPv6
As is often the case, extensions intended for IPv6 can be applied in
similar fashion as for IPv4 (and vice-versa). The terminology used
and the motivation for extending the Identification field for IPv4 is
the same as for IPv6 Identification extension as specified in
[I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2]. All normative aspects of the IPv6
specification that can be applied for IPv4 apply also to this
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IP Identification Extension April 2024
document.
3. IPv6 Extended Fragment Header for IPv4
IPv4 end systems and intermediate systems do not by default recognize
the IP protocol numbers for IPv6 extension headers, as these are
typically used to support IPv6 operations only. However,
implementations of this specification are required to recognize IP
protocol number 0 and the IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Option formats as
defined for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header per [RFC8200][RFC9268]
as well as IP protocol number 60 and its associated header and option
formats as defined for the IPv6 Destination Options header per
[RFC8200].
Implementations of this specification also recognize the IPv6
Extended Fragment Header Option as specified in
[I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2] when it appears in an IPv6 Destination
Options Header following the IPv4 header. Requirements for
encapsulation of extension headers in IPv4 packets are introduced and
discussed in [I-D.herbert-ipv4-eh].
IPv4 sources insert an IPv6 Destination Option with an Extended
Fragment Header in an IPv6 extension header chain that begins
immediately after the end of the IPv4 header and ends immediately
before the upper layer protocol header, e.g., TCP, UDP, etc. The
source then increments the IPv4 Total Length by the length of the
extension headers, and sets the IPv4 Protocol field to the protocol
number of the first extension header. The source then sets the IPv6
Destination Options Header Next Header field to the protocol number
of the next extension header or the upper layer protocol number if
there are no further extensions.
The IPv4 source then applies fragmentation if necessary the same as
for the IPv6 fragmentation procedures specified in
[I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2]. This will produce a sequence of
fragments each containing a copy of the IPv4 header followed by any
Per-Fragment headers up to and including the Destination Options
Header with IPv6 Extended Fragment Header Option (with Index,
Fragment Offset, M and Identification set appropriately) followed by
a fragment of the upper layer protocol payload.
The IPv4 source then sends the fragments to the IPv4 destination
which accepts and processes them only if it recognizes the IP
Protocol value of the first extension header. The destination then
reassembles per the procedures specified in
[I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2].
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IP Identification Extension April 2024
IPv4 intermediate systems that recognize the IPv6 Destination Options
Header in IPv4 packets forward packets or fragments that include the
option if they are no larger than the next hop link MTU; otherwise,
they drop the packet/fragment and return a PTB message. Destinations
that recognize the option perform reassembly and/or return PTB
messages as necessary under the same conditions specified for the
IPv6 Extended Fragment Header in [I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2].
4. Destination Qualification and Path MTU
IPv4 intermediate systems and destinations that do not recognize the
IPv6 Destination Options Header with Extended Fragment Header Option
appearing after the IPv4 header unconditionally drop the packet and
SHOULD return an "ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable - Protocol
Unreachable" message per [RFC0792].
The source can therefore test whether the path up to and including
the destination accepts the IPv6 Destination Options Header and
Extended Fragment Header Option by occasionally sending "probe"
packets that include them. If the source receives an
acknowledgement, it has assurance that the destination recognizes the
protocol and that intermediate systems at least forward the protocol
messages without dropping; the source can instead consider receipt of
an ICMPv4 Destination Unreachable - Protocol Unreachable as a hint
that some node in the path rejects the protocol. The source should
occasionally re-probe each destination in case routing redirects a
flow to a different anycast destination.
The source can also include IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Discovery Hop-by-
Hop Options in packets/fragments sent to unicast, multicast or
anycast destinations per [RFC9268]. The source inserts the Hop-by-
Hop Options Header between the IPv4 header and the Destination
Options header, then increments the IPv4 Total Length by 8 octets,
sets the IPv4 Protocol field to 0 (i.e., the protocol number for the
Hop-by-Hop Options header) and sets the Hop-by-Hop Options Header
Next Header field to 60. If the source receives acknowledgements
that include a {TCP,UDP} MTU/Fragmentation Report Option, the source
should regard the reported MTU as the largest potential fragment size
for this destination under current path MTU conditions noting that
the actual size may be smaller still for some paths.
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IP Identification Extension April 2024
5. Packet Too Big (PTB) Extensions
When an intermediate system attempts to forward an IP packet that
exceeds the next hop link MTU but for which fragmentation is
forbidden, it returns an ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big (PTB)" message with
Code 0 [RFC4443] [RFC8201] or an ICMPv4 "Destination Unreachable -
Fragmentation Needed" message [RFC1191] to the source and discards
the packet. This always results in wasted transmissions for which
the source is required to reduce the size of the packets it is
sending and retransmit. (Note: IPv4 intermediate systems that
recognize the IPv6 Destination Option header with Extended Fragment
Header Option return ICMPv6 PTB messages instead of ICMPv4 messages.
IPv4 intermediate systems and destinations that send Code 0 ICMPv6
PTB messages must therefore employ OMNI UDP/IPv4 encapsulation of
ICMPv6 messages with IPv4-compatible IPv6 addresses so the messages
can traverse IPv4 networks [I-D.templin-6man-omni3]. IPv4 sources
that include the IPv6 Extended Fragment Header Option must therefore
monitor the OMNI UDP port for UDP/IPv4-encapsulated ICMPv6 messages.
6. Requirements
All nodes that process an IPv6 Destination Options Header with
Extended Fragment Header Option observe the extension header limits
specified in [I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits].
Intermediate systems that recognize IPv6 extension headers MUST
forward without dropping IPv4 packets that include a Destination
Options Header with an Extended Fragment Header Option unless they
detect a security policy threat through deeper inspection of the
protocol data that follows.
Sources MUST include at most one Extended Fragment Header in each
IPv4 packet/fragment. Intermediate systems and destinations SHOULD
silently drop packets/fragments with multiples.
Destinations that accept flows using Extended Fragment Headers MUST
configure an EMTU_R of 65535 octets or larger.
Note: IP fragmentation can only be applied for conventional packets
as large as 65535 octets. IP parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)
provide a means for efficiently packaging and shipping multiple or
singleton segments ranging in size from very small to very large, but
they are not eligible for fragmentation at any size
[I-D.templin-intarea-parcels2].
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IP Identification Extension April 2024
7. Implementation Status
In progress.
8. IANA Considerations
This document has no requirements for IANA.
9. Security Considerations
All aspects of IP security apply equally to this document, which does
not introduce any new vulnerabilities. Moreover, when employed
correctly the mechanisms in this document robustly address known IPv4
reassembly integrity concerns [RFC4963] and also provide an advanced
degree of packet Identification uniqueness assurance.
All other security aspects of the IPv6 Extended Fragment Header per
[I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2] apply also to its use in IPv4.
10. Acknowledgements
This work was inspired by continued DTN performance studies. Amanda
Baber, Tom Herbert, Bob Hinden and Eric Vyncke offered useful
insights that helped improve the document.
Honoring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
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>.
[RFC0792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[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>.
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IP Identification Extension April 2024
[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>.
[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.herbert-ipv4-eh]
Herbert, T., "IPv4 Extension Headers and Flow Label", Work
in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03, 22
February 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03>.
[I-D.ietf-6man-eh-limits]
Herbert, T., "Limits on Sending and Processing IPv6
Extension Headers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-6man-eh-limits-12, 18 December 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-6man-eh-
limits-12>.
[I-D.templin-6man-ipid-ext2]
Templin, F., "IPv6 Extended Fragment Header", Work in
Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext2-01,
19 February 2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/
draft-templin-6man-ipid-ext2-01>.
[I-D.templin-6man-omni3]
Templin, F., "Transmission of IP Packets over Overlay
Multilink Network (OMNI) Interfaces", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-templin-6man-omni3-00, 5 April 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-6man-
omni3-00>.
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IP Identification Extension April 2024
[I-D.templin-intarea-parcels2]
Templin, F., "IPv4 Parcels and Advanced Jumbos (AJs)",
Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-templin-intarea-
parcels2-02, 19 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-templin-
intarea-parcels2-02>.
[RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4963, July 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4963>.
[RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC6864, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6864>.
[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>.
[RFC9268] Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-
by-Hop Option", RFC 9268, DOI 10.17487/RFC9268, August
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9268>.
Appendix A. Change Log
<< RFC Editor - remove prior to publication >>
Differences from earlier versions:
* First draft publication.
Author's Address
Fred L. Templin (editor)
Boeing Research & Technology
P.O. Box 3707
Seattle, WA 98124
United States of America
Email: fltemplin@acm.org
Templin Expires 14 October 2024 [Page 8]