[Search] [txt|xml|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01                                                         
Network Working Group                                         M. Andrews
Internet-Draft                                                       ISC
Expires: February 2, 2014                                       Aug 2013


          IPv6 Stateless Fragmentation Identification Options
                   draft-andrews-6man-fragopt-00.txt

Abstract

   Fragmented IPv6 packets are often dropped because there is no way to
   identify whether a fragment matches a otherwise permitted packet as
   the L4 header information is not available on all the fragments.

   The document defines hop-by-hop options that can be used to supply
   the missing information in non initial fragments.

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 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 February 2, 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 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.



Andrews                 Expires February 2, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft            hop by hop frag opts                  Aug 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  TCP and UDP Fragements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   4.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4












































Andrews                 Expires February 2, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft            hop by hop frag opts                  Aug 2013


1.  Introduction

   Fragmented IPv6 packets are often dropped because there is no way to
   identify whether a fragment matches a otherwise permitted packet as
   the L4 header information is not available on all the fragments.

   The document defines hop-by-hop options that can be used to supply
   the missing information in non initial fragments.

   The informtion required differs depending upon the L4 packet.  For
   TCP and UDP the source and destination ports are needed.  For ICMP
   the type of ICMP packet is needed.

   These options are expected to be used by middle boxes (firewalls and
   loadbalancers) and end nodes.


2.  TCP and UDP Fragements

   For TCP and UDP a skippable hop-by-hop option [RFC2460] (for
   backwards compatibilty) containing the source and destination ports
   from the TCP and UDP headers is needed.  To permit the use of NATs,
   however undesired, the option contents are marked changable enroute.
   The option code has nmemonic PORTS and value (TBD) and is added to
   all fragments of UDP and TCP packets when they are fragmented.  By
   adding the option to all fragments you reduce the amount of
   fragmentation reassembly failures that would result if you only added
   the option to non-initial fragments and were dropping non-initial
   fragments without this option.

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |0|0|1|  (TBD)  |      4        |           source port         |
      +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
      |       destination port        |
      +-------------------------------+


3.  Security Considerations

   The use of these options will expose nodes to more fragmention based
   attacks and potentually more traffic which will ultimately be dropped
   if a attacker can guess which option values will be permitted.

   With the exception of the fragmentation based attacks, permitting
   fragments with these options is no worse that permitting multiple
   unfragmented packets based in the same parameters.



Andrews                 Expires February 2, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft            hop by hop frag opts                  Aug 2013


4.  Normative References

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.


Author's Address

   M. Andrews
   Internet Systems Consortium
   950 Charter Street
   Redwood City, CA  94063
   US

   Email: marka@isc.org




































Andrews                 Expires February 2, 2014                [Page 4]