Network Working Group K. Lahey
Internet Draft April 1999
Expires: October 1999
TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery
<draft-ietf-tcpimpl-pmtud-01.txt>
1. Status of this Memo
This documnt is an Internet-Draft and is in full onformance with all
provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
This document is an Internet Draft. 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 memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
2. Introduction
This memo catalogs several known TCP implementation problems dealing
with Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191], including the long-standing black
hole problem, stretch ACKs due to confusion between MSS and segment
size, and MSS advertisement based on PMTU. The goal in doing so is
to improve conditions in the existing Internet by enhancing the
quality of current TCP/IP implementations.
While Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) can be used with any upper-layer
protocol, it is most commonly used by TCP; this document does not
attempt to treat problems encountered by other upper-layer protocols.
Lahey [Page 1]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
Each problem is defined as follows:
Name of Problem
The name associated with the problem. In this memo, the name is
given as a subsection heading.
Classification
One or more problem categories for which the problem is classified:
"congestion control", "performance", "reliability", "non-interoper-
ation - connectivity failure".
Description
A definition of the problem, succinct but including necessary back-
ground material.
Significance
A brief summary of the sorts of environments for which the problem
is significant.
Implications
Why the problem is viewed as a problem.
Relevant RFCs
The RFCs defining the TCP specification with which the problem con-
flicts. These RFCs often qualify behavior using terms such as
MUST, SHOULD, MAY, and others written capitalized. See RFC 2119
for the exact interpretation of these terms.
Trace file demonstrating the problem
One or more ASCII trace files demonstrating the problem, if appli-
cable.
Trace file demonstrating correct behavior
One or more examples of how correct behavior appears in a trace, if
applicable.
References
References that further discuss the problem.
Lahey [Page 2]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
How to detect
How to test an implementation to see if it exhibits the problem.
This discussion may include difficulties and subtleties associated
with causing the problem to manifest itself, and with interpreting
traces to detect the presence of the problem (if applicable).
How to fix
For known causes of the problem, how to correct the implementation.
3. Known implementation problems
3.1.
Name of Problem
Black Hole Detection
Classification
Non-interoperation -- connectivity failure
Description
Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) works by sending out as large a packet
as possible, with the Don't Fragment (DF) bit set in the IP header.
If the packet is too large for a router to forward on to a particu-
lar link, the router must send an ICMP Destination Unreachable --
Fragmentation Needed message to the source address.
As was pointed out in [RFC1435], routers don't always do this cor-
rectly -- many routers fail to send the ICMP messages, for a vari-
ety of reasons ranging from kernel bugs to configuration problems.
Firewalls are often misconfigured to supress all ICMP messages.
PMTUD, as documented in [RFC1191], fails when confronted with this
problem. The upper-layer protocol continues to try to send large
packets and, without the ICMP messages, never discovers that it
needs to reduce the size of those packets. Its packets are disap-
pearing into a PMTUD black hole.
Significance
When PMTUD fails due to the lack of ICMP messages, TCP will also
Lahey [Page 3]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
completly fail under some conditions.
Implications
This failure is especially difficult to debug, as pings and some
interactive TCP connections to the destination host work. Bulk
transfers fail with the first large packet and the connection even-
tually times out.
These situations can almost always be blamed on a misconfiguration
within the network, which should be corrected. However it is not
appropriate for some TCP implementations to suffer interoperability
failures over paths which do not affect other TCP implementions
(i.e. those without PMTUD).
This creates a market disincentive for deploying TCP implementation
with PMTUD enabled.
Relevant RFCs
RFC1191 describes Path MTU Discovery. RFC 1435 provides an early
description of these sorts of problems.
Trace file demonstrating the problem
Made using tcpdump [Jacobson89] recording at an intermediate host.
20:12:11.951321 A > B: S 1748427200:1748427200(0)
win 49152 <mss 1460>
20:12:11.951829 B > A: S 1001927984:1001927984(0)
ack 1748427201 win 16384 <mss 65240>
20:12:11.955230 A > B: . ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:12:11.959099 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:12:13.139074 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:12:16.188685 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:12:22.290483 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:12:34.491856 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:12:58.896405 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:13:47.703184 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:14:52.780640 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:15:57.856037 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:17:02.932431 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:18:08.009337 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:19:13.090521 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:20:18.168066 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
20:21:23.242761 A > B: R 1461:1461(0) ack 1 win 49152 (DF)
Lahey [Page 4]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
The short SYN packet has no trouble traversing the network, due to
its small size. Similarly, ICMP echo packets used to diagnose con-
nectivity problems will succeed.
Large data packets fail to traverse the network. Eventually the
connection times out. This can be especially confusing when the
application starts out with a very small write, which succeeds,
following up with many large writes, which then fail.
Trace file demonstrating correct behavior
Made using tcpdump recording at an intermediate host.
16:48:42.659115 A > B: S 271394446:271394446(0)
win 8192 <mss 1460> (DF)
16:48:42.672279 B > A: S 2837734676:2837734676(0)
ack 271394447 win 16384 <mss 65240>
16:48:42.676890 A > B: . ack 1 win 8760 (DF)
16:48:42.870574 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 8760 (DF)
16:48:42.871799 A > B: . 1461:2921(1460) ack 1 win 8760 (DF)
16:48:45.786814 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 8760 (DF)
16:48:51.794676 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 8760 (DF)
16:49:03.808912 A > B: . 1:537(536) ack 1 win 8760
16:49:04.016476 B > A: . ack 537 win 16384
16:49:04.021245 A > B: . 537:1073(536) ack 1 win 8760
16:49:04.021697 A > B: . 1073:1609(536) ack 1 win 8760
16:49:04.120694 B > A: . ack 1609 win 16384
16:49:04.126142 A > B: . 1609:2145(536) ack 1 win 8760
In this case, the sender sees four packets fail to traverse the
network (using a two-packet initial send window) and turns off
PMTUD. All subsequent packets have the DF flag turned off, and the
size set to the default value of 536 [RFC1122].
References
This problem has been discussed extensively on the tcp-impl mailing
list; the name "black hole" has been in use for many years.
How to detect
This shows up as a TCP connection which hanges (fails to make
progress) until closed by timeout. A series of ICMP echo packets
will show that the connection is still passing packets, a
series of MTU-sized ICMP echo packets will show some fragmentation,
and a series of MTU-sized ICMP echo packets with DF set will fail.
This can be confusing for network engineers trying to diagnose the
Lahey [Page 5]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
problem.
There are several traceroute implementations that do PMTUD. See,
for example, ftp://ftp.psc.edu/pub/networking/tools/traceroute.tar
How to fix
TCP should notice that the connection is timing out. After several
timeouts, TCP should attempt to send smaller packets, perhaps turn-
ing off the DF flag for each packet. If this succeeds, it should
continue to turn off PMTUD for the connection for some reasonable
period of time, after which it should probe again to try to deter-
mine if the path has changed.
Note that, under IPv6, there is no DF bit -- it is implicitly on at
all times. Fragmentation is not allowed in routers, only at the
originating host. Fortunately, the minimum supported MTU for IPv6
is 1280 octets, which is significantly larger than the 68 octet
minimum in IPv4. This should make it more reasonable for IPv6 TCP
implementations to fall back to 1280 octet packets, when IPv4
implementations will probably have to turn off DF to respond to
black hole detection.
While, ideally, the ICMP black holes should be fixed when they are
found, the large number of these requires some more aggressive
response on the part of host implementations. Any system that uses
Path MTU Discovery should also support some form of black hole
detection.
3.2.
Name of Problem
Stretch ACK due to PMTUD
Classification
Congestion Control / Performance
Description
When a naively implemented TCP stack communicates with a PMTUD-
equipped stack, it will try to generate an ACK for every second
full-sized segment. If it determines the full-sized segment based
on the advertised MSS, this can degrade badly in the face of PMTUD.
The PMTU can wind up being a small fraction of the advertised MSS;
Lahey [Page 6]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
in this case, an ACK would be generated only very infrequently.
Significance
Stretch ACKs have a variety of unfortunate effects, more fully out-
lined in [RFC2525]. Most of these have to do with encouraging a
more bursty connection, due to the infrequent arrival of ACKs.
They can also impede congestion window growth.
Implications
The complete implications of stretch ACKs are outlined in
[RFC2525].
Relevant RFCs
RFC 1122 outlines the requirements for frequency of ACK generation.
[RFC2581] expands on this and clarifies that delayed ACK is a
SHOULD, not a MUST.
Trace file demonstrating it
Made using tcpdump recording at an intermediate host. The times-
tamp options from all but the first two packets have been removed
for clarity.
18:16:52.976657 A > B: S 3183102292:3183102292(0) win 16384 <mss 4312,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 12128 0> (DF) ()
18:16:52.979580 B > A: S 2022212745:2022212745(0) ack 3183102293 win 49152 <mss 4312,nop,wscale 1,nop,nop,timestamp 1592957 12128> (DF) ()
18:16:52.979738 A > B: . ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:52.982473 A > B: . 1:4301(4300) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:52.982557 C > A: icmp: B unreachable - need to frag (mtu 1500) (DF) ()
18:16:52.985839 B > A: . ack 1 win 32768 (DF) ()
18:16:54.129928 A > B: . 1:1449(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
.
.
.
18:16:58.507078 A > B: . 1463941:1465389(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.507200 A > B: . 1465389:1466837(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.507326 A > B: . 1466837:1468285(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.507439 A > B: . 1468285:1469733(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.524763 B > A: . ack 1452357 win 32768 (DF) ()
18:16:58.524986 B > A: . ack 1461045 win 32768 (DF) ()
18:16:58.525138 A > B: . 1469733:1471181(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.525268 A > B: . 1471181:1472629(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
Lahey [Page 7]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
18:16:58.525393 A > B: . 1472629:1474077(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.525516 A > B: . 1474077:1475525(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.525642 A > B: . 1475525:1476973(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.525766 A > B: . 1476973:1478421(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.526063 A > B: . 1478421:1479869(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.526187 A > B: . 1479869:1481317(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.526310 A > B: . 1481317:1482765(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.526432 A > B: . 1482765:1484213(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.526561 A > B: . 1484213:1485661(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.526671 A > B: . 1485661:1487109(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
18:16:58.537944 B > A: . ack 1478421 win 32768 (DF) ()
18:16:58.538328 A > B: . 1487109:1488557(1448) ack 1 win 17248 (DF) ()
Note that the interval between ACKs is significantly larger than
two times the segment size; it works out to be almost exactly two
times the advertised MSS. This transfer was long enough that it
could be verified that the stretch ACK was not the result of lost
ACK packets.
Trace file demonstrating correct behavior
Made using tcpdump recording at an intermediate host. The times-
tamp options from all but the first two packets have been removed
for clarity.
18:13:32.287965 A > B: S 2972697496:2972697496(0) win 16384
<mss 4312,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 11326 0> (DF)
18:13:32.290785 B > A: S 245639054:245639054(0) ack 2972697497 win 34496
<mss 4312> (DF)
18:13:32.290941 A > B: . ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:32.293774 A > B: . 1:4313(4312) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:32.293856 C > A: icmp: B unreachable - need to frag (mtu 1500) (DF)
18:13:33.637338 A > B: . 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
.
.
.
18:13:35.561691 A > B: . 1514021:1515481(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.561814 A > B: . 1515481:1516941(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.561938 A > B: . 1516941:1518401(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.562059 A > B: . 1518401:1519861(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.562174 A > B: . 1519861:1521321(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.564008 B > A: . ack 1481901 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.564383 A > B: . 1521321:1522781(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.564499 A > B: . 1522781:1524241(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.615576 B > A: . ack 1484821 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.615646 B > A: . ack 1487741 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.615716 B > A: . ack 1490661 win 64680 (DF)
Lahey [Page 8]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
18:13:35.615784 B > A: . ack 1493581 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.615856 B > A: . ack 1496501 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.615952 A > B: . 1524241:1525701(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.615966 B > A: . ack 1499421 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.616088 A > B: . 1525701:1527161(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.616105 B > A: . ack 1502341 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.616211 A > B: . 1527161:1528621(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.616228 B > A: . ack 1505261 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.616327 A > B: . 1528621:1530081(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.616349 B > A: . ack 1508181 win 64680 (DF)
18:13:35.616448 A > B: . 1530081:1531541(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.616565 A > B: . 1531541:1533001(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
18:13:35.616891 A > B: . 1533001:1534461(1460) ack 1 win 17248 (DF)
In this trace, an ACK is generated for every two segments that
arrive. (The segment size is slightly larger in this trace, even
though the source hosts are the same, because of the lack of times-
tamp options in this trace.)
How to detect
This condition can be observered in a packet trace when the adver-
tised MSS is significantly larger than the actual PMTU of a connec-
tion.
How to fix
Several solutions for this problem have been proposed:
A simple solution is to ACK every other packet, regardless of size.
This has the drawback of generating large numbers of ACKs in the
face of lots of very small packets; this shows up with applica-
tions like the X Window System.
A slightly more complex solution would monitor the size of incoming
segments and try to determine what segment size the sender is
using. This requires slightly more state in the receiver, but has
the advantage of making receiver SWS avoidance computations more
accurate.
3.3.
Name of Problem
Determining MSS from PMTU
Lahey [Page 9]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
Classification
Performance
Description
The MSS advertised at the start of a connection should be based on
the MTU of the interfaces on the system. Some systems use PMTUD
determined values to determine the MSS to advertise.
This results in an advertised MSS that is smaller than the largest
MTU the system can receive.
Significance
The advertised MSS is an indication to the remote system about the
largest TCP segment that can be received [RFC879]. If this value
is too small, the remote system will be forced to use a smaller
segment size when sending, purely because the local system found a
particular PMTU earlier.
Given the asymmetric nature of many routes on the Internet [Pax-
son97], it seems entirely possible that the return PMTU is differ-
ent from the sending PMTU. Limiting the segment size in this way
can reduce performance and frustrate the PMTUD algorithm.
Even if the route was symmetric, setting this artificially lowered
limit on segment size will make it impossible to probe later to
determine if the PMTU has changed.
Implications
The whole point of PMTUD is to send as large a segment as possible.
If long-running connections cannot successfully probe for larger
PMTU, then potential performance gains will be impossible to real-
ize. This destroys the whole point of PMTUD.
Relevant RFCs
RFC 1191. [RFC897] provides a complete discussion of MSS calcula-
tions and appropriate values. Note that this practice does not
violate any of the specifications in these RFCs.
Trace file demonstrating it
This trace was made using tcpdump running on an intermediate host.
Host A initiates two separate consecutive connections, A1 and A2,
Lahey [Page 10]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
to host B. Router C is the location of the MTU bottleneck. As
usual, TCP options are removed from all non-SYN packets.
22:33:32.305912 A1 > B: S 1523306220:1523306220(0)
win 8760 <mss 1460> (DF)
22:33:32.306518 B > A1: S 729966260:729966260(0)
ack 1523306221 win 16384 <mss 65240>
22:33:32.310307 A1 > B: . ack 1 win 8760 (DF)
22:33:32.323496 A1 > B: P 1:1461(1460) ack 1 win 8760 (DF)
22:33:32.323569 C > A1: icmp: 129.99.238.5 unreachable -
need to frag (mtu 1024) (DF) (ttl 255, id 20666)
22:33:32.783694 A1 > B: . 1:985(984) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:32.840817 B > A1: . ack 985 win 16384
22:33:32.845651 A1 > B: . 1461:2445(984) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:32.846094 B > A1: . ack 985 win 16384
22:33:33.724392 A1 > B: . 985:1969(984) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:33.724893 B > A1: . ack 2445 win 14924
22:33:33.728591 A1 > B: . 2445:2921(476) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:33.729161 A1 > B: . ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:33.840758 B > A1: . ack 2921 win 16384
[...]
22:33:34.238659 A1 > B: F 7301:8193(892) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:34.239036 B > A1: . ack 8194 win 15492
22:33:34.239303 B > A1: F 1:1(0) ack 8194 win 16384
22:33:34.242971 A1 > B: . ack 2 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:34.454218 A2 > B: S 1523591299:1523591299(0)
win 8856 <mss 984> (DF)
22:33:34.454617 B > A2: S 732408874:732408874(0)
ack 1523591300 win 16384 <mss 65240>
22:33:34.457516 A2 > B: . ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:34.470683 A2 > B: P 1:985(984) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:34.471144 B > A2: . ack 985 win 16384
22:33:34.476554 A2 > B: . 985:1969(984) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
22:33:34.477580 A2 > B: P 1969:2953(984) ack 1 win 8856 (DF)
[...]
Notice that the SYN packet for session A2 specifies an MSS of 984.
Trace file demonstrating correct behavior
As before, this trace was made using tcpdump running on an interme-
diate host. Host A initiates two separate consecutive connections,
A1 and A2, to host B. Router C is the location of the MTU
Lahey [Page 11]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
bottleneck. As usual, TCP options are removed from all non-SYN
packets.
22:36:58.828602 A1 > B: S 3402991286:3402991286(0) win 32768
<mss 4312,wscale 0,nop,timestamp 1123370309 0,
echo 1123370309> (DF)
22:36:58.844040 B > A1: S 946999880:946999880(0)
ack 3402991287 win 16384
<mss 65240,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 429552 1123370309>
22:36:58.848058 A1 > B: . ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:36:58.851514 A1 > B: P 1:1025(1024) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:36:58.851584 C > A1: icmp: 129.99.238.5 unreachable -
need to frag (mtu 1024) (DF)
22:36:58.855885 A1 > B: . 1:969(968) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:36:58.856378 A1 > B: . 969:985(16) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:36:59.036309 B > A1: . ack 985 win 16384
22:36:59.039255 A1 > B: FP 985:1025(40) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:36:59.039623 B > A1: . ack 1026 win 16344
22:36:59.039828 B > A1: F 1:1(0) ack 1026 win 16384
22:36:59.043037 A1 > B: . ack 2 win 32768 (DF)
22:37:01.436032 A2 > B: S 3404812097:3404812097(0) win 32768
<mss 4312,wscale 0,nop,timestamp 1123372916 0,
echo 1123372916> (DF)
22:37:01.436424 B > A2: S 949814769:949814769(0)
ack 3404812098 win 16384
<mss 65240,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,timestamp 429562 1123372916>
22:37:01.440147 A2 > B: . ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:37:01.442736 A2 > B: . 1:969(968) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:37:01.442894 A2 > B: P 969:985(16) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:37:01.443283 B > A2: . ack 985 win 16384
22:37:01.446068 A2 > B: P 985:1025(40) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:37:01.446519 B > A2: . ack 1025 win 16384
22:37:01.448465 A2 > B: F 1025:1025(0) ack 1 win 32768 (DF)
22:37:01.448837 B > A2: . ack 1026 win 16384
22:37:01.449007 B > A2: F 1:1(0) ack 1026 win 16384
22:37:01.452201 A2 > B: . ack 2 win 32768 (DF)
Note that the same MSS was used for both session A1 and session A2.
How to detect
This can be detected using a packet trace of two separate connec-
tions; the first should invoke PMTUD; the second should start soon
enough after the first that the PMTU value does not time out.
Lahey [Page 12]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
How to fix
The MSS should be determined based on the MTUs of the interfaces on
the system, as outlined in [RFC1122] and [RFC1191].
4. Security Considerations
The one security concern raised by this memo is that ICMP black holes
are often caused by over-zealous security administrators who block
all ICMP messages. It is vitally important that those who design and
deploy security systems understand the impact of strict filtering on
upper-layer protocols. The safest web site in the world is worthless
if most TCP implementations cannot transfer data from it. It would
be far nicer to have all of the black holes fixed rather than fixing
all of the TCP implementations.
5. Acknowledgements
Thanks to Mark Allman and Vern Paxon for generous help reviewing the
document, and to Matt Mathis for early suggestions of various mecha-
nisms that can cause PMTUD black holes, as well as review. The
structure for describing TCP problems, and the early description of
that structure is from [RFC2525]. Special thanks to Amy Bock, who
helped perform the PMTUD tests which discovered these bugs.
6. References
[RFC2581]
M. Allman, V. Paxson, and W. Stevens, "TCP Congestion Control",
April 1999.
[RFC1122]
R. Braden, Editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communica-
tion Layers," Oct. 1989.
[Jacobson89]
V. Jacobson, C. Leres, and S. McCanne, tcpdump, available via
anonymous ftp to ftp.ee.lbl.gov, Jun. 1989.
[RFC1435]
S. Knowles, "IESG Advice from Experience with Path MTU Discovery,"
March 1993.
[RFC1191]
J. Mogul and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery," Nov. 1990.
Lahey [Page 13]
Internet Draft TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery December 1998
[Paxson96]
V. Paxson, "End-to-End Routing Behavior in the Internet," IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Networking (5), pp.~601-615, Oct. 1997.
[RFC2525]
V. Paxon, Editor, M. Allman, S. Dawson, W. Fenner, J. Griner, I.
Heavens, K. Lahey, J. Semke, and B. Volz, "Known TCP Implementation
Problems", March 1999.
[RFC879]
J. Postel, "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related Topics,"
November, 1983.
[RFC2001]
W. Stevens, "TCP Slow Start, Congestion Avoidance, Fast Retransmit,
and Fast Recovery Algorithms," Jan. 1997.
7. Author's Address
Kevin Lahey <kml@nas.nasa.gov>
NASA Ames Research Center/MRJ
MS 258-6
Moffett Field, CA 94035
USA
Phone: +1 650/604-4334
This draft was created in April 1999.
It expires in October 1999.
Lahey [Page 14]
