IPv6 maintenance Working Group (6man) F. Gont Internet-Draft SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Obsoletes: 6564 (if approved) W. Liu Intended status: Standards Track Huawei Technologies Expires: October 10, 2014 S. Krishnan Ericsson H. Pfeifer Rohde & Schwarz April 8, 2014 IPv6 Universal Extension Header draft-gont-6man-rfc6564bis-00 Abstract In IPv6, optional internet-layer information is encoded in separate headers that may be placed between the IPv6 header and the transport- layer header. There are a small number of such extension headers currently defined. This document describes the issues that can arise when defining new extension headers and specifies a new IPv6 Extension Header - the Universal Extension Header - that overcomes the aforementioned problem, while enabling the extensibility of IPv6. Finally, this document formally obsoletes RFC 6564. 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 October 10, 2014. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header April 2014 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. Table of Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. A Problem with RFC 6564 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. UEH Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Operation of the UEH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Forbidding New IPv6 Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 12.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1. Introduction There has recently been a lot of work in the area of IPv6 Extension Headers. Firstly, there has been research about the extent to which IPv6 Extension Headers are dropped in the public Internet [GONT-IEPG-Nov13] [GONT-IEPG-Mar14], and debate about the motivation behind such policy [I-D.taylor-v6ops-fragdrop]. Secondly, there has been a fair share of work to improve some technicalities of IPv6 Extension Headers [RFC7112] [RFC7045], in the hopes that they can be reliably used in the public Internet. A key challenge for IPv6 Extension Headers to be "deployable" in the public Internet is that they should not impair any nodes's ability to process the entire IPv6 header chain. One of the steps meant in that direction has been the specification of a Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers [RFC6564], which was meant to be employed by any IPv6 Extension Headers that might be defined in the future, such that middle-boxes can still process the entire IPv6 header chain if the new extension headers employ the Uniform Format. However, a problem Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header April 2014 in the aforementioned specification prevents such uniform format from being of use in practice. Section 3 discusses the aforementioned flaw in the Uniform Format for Extension Headers specified in [RFC6564]. Section 4 explicitly describes the implications of the aforementioned flaw. Section 5 formally updates [RFC6564], specifying the new Universal Extension Header (UEH). Section 6 explains how new IPv6 would be developed with the UEH. Section 7 formally forbids the specification of new IPv6 Extension Headers (with new Next Header values), and mandates that any new IPv6 Extensions be encoded with the UEH specified in this document. 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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 3. A Problem with RFC 6564 A key problem with the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers [RFC6564] lies in that both IPv6 Extension Headers and Transport Protocols share the same namespace ("Next Header" registry/ namespace). Thus, given an "unknown Next Header value", it is impossible to tell whether the aforementioned value refers to an IPv6 Extension Header that employs the aforementioned uniform format, or an "unknown" upper-layer protocol (e.g. an "unknown" transport protocol). That is, while [RFC6564] specifies the syntax for the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers, but it does not provide a mechanism for a node to identify whether the aforementioned format is being employed in the first place. 4. Implications The current impossibility to parse an IPv6 header chain that includes unknown Next Header values results in concrete implications for the extensibility of the IPv6 protocol, and the deployability of IPv6 extension headers. Namely, o New IPv6 extension headers cannot be incrementally deployed. o New transport protocols cannot be deployed. Since there is no way for a node to process IPv6 extension headers that employ unknown next header values, an IPv6 host that receives a packet that employs a new IPv6 extension header will not be able to parse the IPv6 header chain past that unknown extension header, and Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header April 2014 hence it will drop the aforementioned packet. In a similar way, a middlebox that needs to process the transport-protocol header will be faced with the dilemma of what to do with packets that employ unknown Next Header values. Since they will not be able to parse the IPv6 header chain past the unknown Next Header, it is very likely that they will drop such packets. Unfortunately, since transport protocols share the same namespace as IPv6 Extension Headers, new transport protocols will pose the same challenge to middle-boxes, and hence they will be likely dropped in the network. We believe that the current situation has implications that are generally overlooked, and that, whatever the outcome, it should be the result of an explicit decision by our community, rather than simply "omission". 5. UEH Specification The entire Section 4 of [RFC6564] is hereby replaced as follows: New IPv6 Extension Headers MUST NOT be specified. Any IPv6 extensions that would require a new IPv6 Extension Header MUST be implemented with the Universal Extension Header specified in this document. This minimizes breakage in intermediate nodes that examine these extension headers. This document specifies a new IPv6 Extension Header: Universal Extension Header. This Extension Header is identified by the value [TBD] of [IANA-IP-PROTO]. The syntax of the Universal Extension Header is: 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Subtype | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + | | . . . Subtype Specific Data . . . | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ where: Next Header Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header April 2014 8-bit selector. Identifies the type of header immediately following the extension header. Uses the same values as the IPv4 Protocol field [IANA-IP-PROTO]. Hdr Ext Len 8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the extension header in 8-octet units, not including the first 8 octets. Subtype 8-bit unsigned integer. Specifies the subtype for this extension header. It uses a new namespace managed by IANA [IANA-UEH]. Subtype Specific Data Variable length. Fields specific to this extension header/ Subtype. The Universal Extension Header specified in this document MAY appear multiple times in the same IPv6 packet. 6. Operation of the UEH This section discusses de operation of the Universal Extension Header. The goal of the UEH is to provide for a common syntax for all future IPv6 extensions. Any future extension headers will be encoded in a UEH, and will be identified by a specific UEH Subtype assigned by IANA at the time the corresponding specification is published. The UEH thus provides for the "common syntax" required to process "unrecognized extensions", and the Subtype field identifies the specific extension being encoded in the UEH. Any "future extension headers" would actually be new Subtypes (assigned by IANA) of the UEH. As a result, in the event an unrecognized Next Header value is encountered by a node, the node will be able to assume that such Next Header value identifies an upper-layer protocol, rather than an extension header. 7. Forbidding New IPv6 Extension Headers Since the specification of any new IPv6 Extension Headers (i.e., with new Next Header values) would hamper (among other things) the incremental deployment of extensions and enforcement of simple ACLs, new IPv6 Extension Headers MUST NOT be specified in any future specifications. Any new IPv6 extensions MUST be specified by means of the UEH specified in this document. Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header April 2014 8. IANA Considerations IANA is requested to create a new registry to maintain the Universal Extension Header Subtypes [IANA-UEH]. 9. Security Considerations Enabling nodes to parse an entire IPv6 header chain even in the presence of unrecognized extensions allows for security mechanisms to be implemented and deployed. 10. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank [TBD] for providing valuable input on earlier versions of this document. 11. Contributors C.M. Heard identified the problems related with the Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers specified in [RFC6564], and participated in the brainstorming that led to this document. 12. References 12.1. Normative References [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. [RFC6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 6564, April 2012. [RFC7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045, December 2013. 12.2. Informative References [RFC7112] Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", RFC 7112, January 2014. Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header April 2014 [I-D.taylor-v6ops-fragdrop] Jaeggli, J., Colitti, L., Kumari, W., Vyncke, E., Kaeo, M., and T. Taylor, "Why Operators Filter Fragments and What It Implies", draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop-02 (work in progress), December 2013. [GONT-IEPG-Nov13] Gont, F., "Fragmentation and Extension Header Support in the IPv6 Internet", IEPG 88, November 3, 2013. Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013, <http://www.iepg.org/2013-11-ietf88/ fgont-iepg-ietf88-ipv6-frag-and-eh.pdf>. [GONT-IEPG-Mar14] Gont, F. and T. Chown, "More results from measurements of IPv6 Extension Header probing", IEPG 89, March 2, 2014. London, U.K., 2014, <http://www.iepg.org/2014-03-02-ietf89 /fgont-iepg-ietf89-eh-update.pdf>. [IANA-IP-PROTO] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers", April 2011, <http://www.iana.org/ assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml>. [IANA-UEH] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Universal Extension Header Subtypes", 2014. Authors' Addresses Fernando Gont SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH Evaristo Carriego 2644 Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706 Argentina Phone: +54 11 4650 8472 Email: fgont@si6networks.com URI: http://www.si6networks.com Will (Shucheng) Liu Huawei Technologies Bantian, Longgang District Shenzhen 518129 P.R. China Email: liushucheng@huawei.com Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Universal Extension Header April 2014 Suresh Krishnan Ericsson 8400 Decarie Blvd. Town of Mount Royal, QC Canada Phone: +1 514 345 7900 x42871 Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Hagen Paul Pfeifer Rohde & Schwarz Muehldorfstrasse 15 Munich 81671 Germany Phone: +49 89 4129 15515 Email: hagen.pfeifer@rohde-schwarz.com URI: http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/ Gont, et al. Expires October 10, 2014 [Page 8]