[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04                                                
Network Working Group                                            W. Eddy
Internet-Draft                                      NASA GRC/Verizon FNS
Expires: March 4, 2005                                 September 3, 2004


             Extending the Space Available for TCP Options
                         draft-eddy-tcp-loo-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3667.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 4, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes a method for increasing the space available
   for TCP options.  Two new TCP options (LO and SLO) are detailed which
   reduce the limitations imposed by the TCP header's Data Offset field.
   The LO option provides this extension after connection establishment,
   and the SLO option aids in transmission of lengthy connection
   initialization and configuration options.








Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


1. Requirements Notation

   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 RFC 2119.














































Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


2. Introduction

   Every TCP header contains a 4-bit Data Offset (DO) field implying the
   length of that segment's TCP header.  The DO field has been specified
   as: "The number of 32 bit words in the TCP Header.  This indicates
   where the data begins.  The TCP header (even one including options)
   is an integral number of 32 bits long" [1]. For a TCP implementation,
   this means that the boundary separating TCP control data and
   application data is always exactly DO * 4 bytes from the beginning of
   the TCP header.

   As a 4-bit unsigned integer, DO's value is bounded between 0 and 15.
   This allows for a maximum TCP header length of 60 bytes (15 * 4
   bytes).  The required fields in a TCP header occupy a fixed 20 bytes.
   This leaves 40 bytes as the maximum amount of space for use by TCP
   options.

   While 40 bytes is a reasonable amount of space, sufficient for the
   concurrent use of several presently defined TCP options, there are
   cases where more space might be useful.  For example, the SACK option
   [2] uses a fixed 2 bytes for kind and length fields, and requires an
   additional 8 bytes per SACK block.  Thus, the maximum number of SACK
   blocks a TCP acknowledgement may carry is limited to 4 (with 6 bytes
   left over).  Since SACK is commonly used with the Timestamp option
   [3], which uses 10 bytes, this further limits the number of SACK
   blocks that may be carried to 3.  For specific scenarios involving
   large windows and combinations of data and acknowledgement loss,
   additional capacity for SACK blocks is useful [4].

   Creation of new TCP options is also hindered by the lack of space
   left over after currently-used options are accounted for.  For long
   options that must be present at connection-startup time, this is a
   particular problem, as all negotiable options need to share 40 bytes
   of space in a SYN segment.  One way that has been used to get around
   this limitation is overloading the Timestamp bytes in the SYN
   segments [5].  There are other header fields that might be similarly
   overloaded (e.g. the urgent pointer), but this approach is of
   obviously limited utility, as it does not address the fundamental
   limitation imposed by the DO field, and there are a finite number of
   overloadable bits.

   This document specifies two new TCP options, LO and SLO.  The Long
   Options (LO) option allows two hosts to negotiate for the ability to
   use TCP headers longer than 60 bytes (and thus options space of
   greater than 40 bytes) on subsequent segments.  This is accomplished
   by ignoring the DO field's value and adding a 16 bit field at a fixed
   location in the header's options to replace it.  The format and usage
   of the LO option is detailed in Section 3.



Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


   Attempting to process initial SYN segements with greater than 60
   bytes of TCP headers might cause errors if received by hosts that
   consider anything past the DO-specified boundary to be application
   data.  For backwards compatibility reasons, the maximum length of
   options on a connection-initiating SYN segment remains 40.  The SYN
   Long Options (SLO) option is used in the case where these 40 bytes
   are not enough space to carry the desired startup configuration
   options, and negotiates for later reliable delivery of the left-off
   options. Section 4 describes the format and usage of the SLO option.










































Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


3. The Long Options (LO) Option

   A host might implement some set of TCP options allowing it to predict
   that greater than 40 bytes of TCP options space may be useful (for
   example SACK, Timestamps, alternate checksums, etc).  In this case, a
   host MAY implement the LO option.  When initiating connections
   through an active open, hosts implementing the LO option SHOULD place
   a LO option of the form shown in Figure 1 somewhere in the SYN
   segment's options.  The 16-bit field labelled "Header Length" should
   be filled in with the same value as the DO field in the required
   portion of the TCP header, left-padded with zeros.

                        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
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |    Kind: #    |  Length = 4   |        Header Length          |
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+

   TCP Long Options (LO) Option

                                Figure 1

   Receipt of an acknowledgement covering the SYN and also containing a
   LO option means the LO option MUST be used as the first option on all
   subsequent segments, and the DO field on all subsequent segments
   SHOULD be set to 6.  The value 6 represents the length of the
   required portions of the TCP header plus the LO option.  The Header
   Length field of a LO option overrides the DO field in the fixed
   header, and has an identical meaning, but with 16 bits of unsigned
   precision rather than 4.  Semantically, this still represents the
   offset from the beginning of the TCP header bounding the start of
   application data bytes. Since the LO option is found in a fixed place
   on all susbequent segments, it essentially becomes part of the
   required header, and looking up the Header Length field is of similar
   computational complexity to that required when the DO field is used.

   Since a LO option's Header Length field is of the same range as the
   IP header's Total Length field [6], this allows TCP options to
   consume an entire maximum-sized IP datagram's length (minus the IP
   header and required TCP header fields).  No matter what size the
   options section of a TCP header is, it must still be appended with
   zero-padding to make the total header a multiple of 32 bits, per RFC
   793 [1].

   Listening hosts that implement the LO option, after reception of a
   SYN segment with the LO option present, SHOULD reply with a LO option
   in their SYN-ACK. The LO option is then used on all subsequent
   segments to override the DO field. It can be seen that in both the



Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


   normal case where one host passively opens and another actively
   opens, and the more rare case where two hosts simultaneously initiate
   active opens, the LO option's use can be successfully negotiated.
















































Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


4. The SYN Long Options (SLO) Option

   If the LO option has been successfully negotiated, an active-opening
   host that has more bytes of initialization options than would fit in
   the SYN, can use the SYN Long Options (SLO) option.  If a host
   supports the LO option, then it MUST support the SLO option.

   Any option bytes transmitted using the SLO option will be treated as
   if they were carried on the SYN segment.  Since there is no guarantee
   that the LO option will be successfully negotiated, the additional 36
   bytes left over aside from the 4 byte LO option on a SYN segment
   should be filled with the most important remaining options that will
   fit.  A host issuing a passive open, MUST NOT use the SLO option, as
   it can use the LO option on SYN-ACK segments if it needs to send long
   initilization options.  The SLO option only serves the needs of an
   active-opening host that, for backwards compatibility reasons, could
   not send more than 40 bytes of options on the SYN segment.

   After successful LO negotiation, if a host has any options that did
   not fit on the SYN, then additional data or acknowledgement segments
   MUST carry a SLO option until the first data byte has been
   acknowledged.  The SLO option's format is shown in figure Figure 2.
   The trailing 2 bytes hold a 16 bit unsigned count of the additional
   bytes that would have been in the SYN segment's options, if they had
   been possible to include.  This represents an offset from the end of
   the SLO option, to the last byte that should be considered a SYN
   option.  The next "Additional Byte Count"-number of bytes trailing
   the SLO option MUST be the ones that did not fit in the SYN segment.
   The SLO option should always immediately follow the LO option,
   followed by the additional SYN options, and then by normal options,
   and finally application data.

                        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
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
   |    Kind: #    |  Length = 4   |    Additional Byte Count      |
   +---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+

   TCP SYN Long Options (SLO) Option

                                Figure 2

   Since TCP connection establishment is often concluded by a pure
   acknowledgement (carrying no data), only placing the SLO option and
   additional SYN options in such a single, unreliable segment would be
   risky.  This is why a host MUST continue transmitting SLO options on
   all segments until its first byte of sent data is acknowledged.
   Acknowledgement of the first data-byte implicitly covers the SLO and



Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


   trailing options, as these must have been received end-to-end with
   the first data byte.

   If a host does not send any data bytes, but if by some means (perhaps
   through the received options) it is possible to derive either an
   explicit or implicit acknowledgement of even a single option
   transmitted in a SLO-carrying segment (for example via a Timestamp
   echo), then a host MAY choose to stop transmitting the SLO data.
   This special case overrides the previously specified MUST condition.

   A host SHOULD NOT continue sending SLO options after it has received
   acknowledgement of the first data byte, nor should a host process
   incoming SLO options other than on the first valid segment it
   receives that carries them.





































Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


5. Middlebox Interactions

   The large number of middleboxes (firewalls, proxies, protocol
   scrubbers, etc) currently present in the Internet pose some
   difficulty for deploying new TCP options.  Some firewalls may block
   segments that carry unknown options.  For instance, if the LO option
   isn't understood by a firewall, incoming SYNs advertising LO support
   may be dropped, preventing connection establishment. This is similar
   to the ECN blackhole problem, where certain faulty hosts and routers
   throw away packets with ECN bits set [7].  Some recent results
   indicate that for new TCP options, this may not be a significant
   threat, with only 0.2% of web requests failing when carrying an
   unknown option [8].

   More problematic, are the implications of TCP connection-splitting
   middleboxes and protocol scrubbers that do not understand the LO
   option.  Since such middleboxes may operate on a packet's contents
   (aggregating application data between multiple segments, rewriting
   sequence numbers, etc), if the LO option isn't understood, then there
   may be a mangling of the data passed to the application, as control
   data could end up inter-mingled with the application data.  Such
   errors would be undetectable at the transport layer, and many
   applications might not perform there own integrity checks.




























Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


6. Security Considerations

   The TCP options presented in this document open no additional
   vulnerabilities that we are aware of.















































Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


7. Acknowledgements

   This document benefitted specifically from discussions with Josh
   Blanton and Shawn Ostermann concerning another proposed TCP
   extension.  Some comments from Eddie Kohler motivated the discussion
   of middlebox interactions.













































Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


References

   [1]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793, September
        1981.

   [2]  Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S. and A. Romanow, "TCP
        Selective Acknowledgement Option", RFC 2018, October 1996.

   [3]  Jacobson, V., Braden, R. and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions for High
        Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.

   [4]  Srijith, K., Jacob, L. and A. Ananda, "Worst-case Performance
        Limitation of TCP SACK and a Feasible Solution", Proceedings of
        8th IEEE International Conference on Communications Systems
        (ICCS), November 2002.

   [5]  Snoeren, A. and H. Balakrishnan, "An End-to-End Approach to Host
        Mobility", Proc. of the Sixth Annual ACM/IEEE International
        Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, August 2000.

   [6]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", RFC 791, September 1981.

   [7]  Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S. and D. Black, "The Addition of
        Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", RFC 3168,
        September 2001.

   [8]  Medina, A., Allman, M. and S. Floyd, "Measuring Interactions
        Between Transport Protocols and Middleboxes", ACM SIGCOMM/USENIX
        Internet Measurement Conference, October 2004.


Author's Address

   Wesley M. Eddy
   NASA GRC/Verizon FNS

   EMail: weddy@grc.nasa.gov














Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft              TCP Long Options              September 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
   on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can
   be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Eddy                     Expires March 4, 2005                 [Page 13]