6man T. Jones
Internet-Draft G. Fairhurst
Intended status: Informational University of Aberdeen
Expires: 9 November 2019 8 May 2019
Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic
draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675-00
Abstract
This document changes the status of RFC2675, IPv6 Jumbograms, from
Proposed Standard to Historic.
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 9 November 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
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.
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. RFCs Referencing Jumbograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix B. Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix C. Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
[RFC2675] defines the IPv6 Jumbo Payload Option, which enables
Jumbograms, IPv6 datagrams that carry a payload greater than 65,535
octets. Jumbograms have seen little deployment in the open Internet
and there are currently no known active Internet deployments.
Note: "Jumboframe" is a commonly term that is used to describe frames
that exceed 1500 bytes in length, and is different to an IPv6 Jumbo
Payload Option, or Jumbogram.
When published, this document changes the status of RFC2675 to
historic.
2. Conventions and Definitions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Rationale
Jumbograms have seen little deployment, A Roadmap for Transmission
Control Protocol (TCP) Specification Documents ([RFC7414]) explains
some of the protocol reasons behind this:
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
"This document states that jumbograms are to only be used when it can be
guaranteed that all receiving nodes, including each router in the
end-to-end path, will support jumbograms. If even a single node that does
not support jumbograms is attached to a local network, then no host on
that network may use jumbograms. This explains why jumbogram use has been
rare, and why this document is considered a performance optimization and
not part of TCP over IPv6's basic functionality."
Over time, the IPv6 Node Requirements document series has reported on
the deployment of Jumbograms, as follows:
* RFC4294: "IPv6 Jumbograms "[RFC-2675]" MAY be supported."
* RFC6434: "To date, few implementations exist, and there is
essentially no reported experience from usage."
* RFC8504: "Removed Jumbograms (RFC 2675) as they aren't deployed."
This document removes support for Jumbograms, and therefore paves the
way for the removal of their support from operating system stacks.
This also removes the need for testing Jumbogram support, which
otherwise require links with a MTU greater than 65,535 bytes, making
testing of implementations impractical without significant effort.
4. RFCs Referencing Jumbograms
This section summarises document in the RFC series that mention
support for IPv6 Jumbograms.
The Jumbo option is mentioned in a set of documents:
* Protocols that consider the larger possible sized enabled by
Jumbograms, for encryption ciphers (AES [RFC3686] and [RFC4309]).
* Protocols that are unable to support Jumbograms, due to their
increased length (SRTP [RFC3711] and ROHC [RFC5225]).
* Protocols that consider the jumbogram option field as a possible
length format (IPFIX [RFC5102], IPv6 transition [RFC8468]).
TCP specifications have also refered to Jumbograms. Adding support
for TCP jumbograms required modification to the Maximum Segment Size
and Urgent Pointer fields to interpret a value of 65,535 as infinite.
These modifications resulted in references to [RFC2675] in several
TCP Documents ([RFC4614], [RFC6691], [RFC7323], [RFC7414]) and the
TCP Roadmap [RFC7414], which describes the fundamental changes to TCP
required to support Jumbograms.
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
UDP Usage Guidlines [RFC8085] refers to Jumbogram support for large
unfragmentable datagrams:
"IPv6 allows the option of transmitting large packets ("jumbograms")
without fragmentation when all link layers along the path support this
[RFC2675]."
References also appear in documents that acknowledge the existence of
the jumbo option, but do not define new mechanisms. Jumbograms are
mentioned in IPv6 node requirements [RFC4294], UDP Guidelines
[RFC5405] (histroric), IPv6 Avian Carriers [RFC6214], IPv6 node
requirements [RFC6434], DTN convergence [RFC7122].
If published, this document changes the status of RFC2675 to
historic. Use of Jumbograms will no longer be specified as an IETF
mechanism for use with these IETF-specified protocols.
5. Security Considerations
XXX security considerations XXX
The security considerations for in RFC2675 state: "The Jumbo Payload
option and TCP/UDP jumbograms do not introduce any known new security
concerns".
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[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>.
[RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms",
RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2675>.
[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>.
7.2. Informative References
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
[RFC3686] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
Counter Mode With IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload
(ESP)", RFC 3686, DOI 10.17487/RFC3686, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3686>.
[RFC3711] Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K.
Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)",
RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, March 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3711>.
[RFC3790] Mickles, C., Ed., Nesser, P., and , "Survey of IPv4
Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area
Standards Track and Experimental Documents", RFC 3790,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3790, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3790>.
[RFC4294] Loughney, J., Ed., "IPv6 Node Requirements", RFC 4294,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4294, April 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4294>.
[RFC4309] Housley, R., "Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CCM
Mode with IPsec Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4309, DOI 10.17487/RFC4309, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4309>.
[RFC4614] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., and E. Blanton, "A Roadmap
for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Specification
Documents", RFC 4614, DOI 10.17487/RFC4614, September
2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4614>.
[RFC5102] Quittek, J., Bryant, S., Claise, B., Aitken, P., and J.
Meyer, "Information Model for IP Flow Information Export",
RFC 5102, DOI 10.17487/RFC5102, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5102>.
[RFC5225] Pelletier, G. and K. Sandlund, "RObust Header Compression
Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and
UDP-Lite", RFC 5225, DOI 10.17487/RFC5225, April 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5225>.
[RFC5405] Eggert, L. and G. Fairhurst, "Unicast UDP Usage Guidelines
for Application Designers", RFC 5405,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5405, November 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5405>.
[RFC5506] Johansson, I. and M. Westerlund, "Support for Reduced-Size
Real-Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP): Opportunities
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
and Consequences", RFC 5506, DOI 10.17487/RFC5506, April
2009, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5506>.
[RFC6214] Carpenter, B. and R. Hinden, "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for
IPv6", RFC 6214, DOI 10.17487/RFC6214, April 2011,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6214>.
[RFC6434] Jankiewicz, E., Loughney, J., and T. Narten, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", RFC 6434, DOI 10.17487/RFC6434, December
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6434>.
[RFC6691] Borman, D., "TCP Options and Maximum Segment Size (MSS)",
RFC 6691, DOI 10.17487/RFC6691, July 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6691>.
[RFC6904] Lennox, J., "Encryption of Header Extensions in the Secure
Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 6904,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6904, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6904>.
[RFC7012] Claise, B., Ed. and B. Trammell, Ed., "Information Model
for IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX)", RFC 7012,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7012, September 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7012>.
[RFC7122] Kruse, H., Jero, S., and S. Ostermann, "Datagram
Convergence Layers for the Delay- and Disruption-Tolerant
Networking (DTN) Bundle Protocol and Licklider
Transmission Protocol (LTP)", RFC 7122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7122, March 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7122>.
[RFC7323] Borman, D., Braden, B., Jacobson, V., and R.
Scheffenegger, Ed., "TCP Extensions for High Performance",
RFC 7323, DOI 10.17487/RFC7323, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7323>.
[RFC7414] Duke, M., Braden, R., Eddy, W., Blanton, E., and A.
Zimmermann, "A Roadmap for Transmission Control Protocol
(TCP) Specification Documents", RFC 7414,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7414, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7414>.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
[RFC8468] Morton, A., Fabini, J., Elkins, N., Ackermann, M., and V.
Hegde, "IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence: Updates for
the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) Framework", RFC 8468,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8468, November 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8468>.
[RFC8504] Chown, T., Loughney, J., and T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
Requirements", BCP 220, RFC 8504, DOI 10.17487/RFC8504,
January 2019, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8504>.
Acknowledgments
Tom Jones and Godred Fairhurst are supported by the University of
Aberdeen.
Appendix B. Appendix A
RFC editor: please remove this section before publication.
This appendix provides an annotated list of text where support is
mentioned within the RFC series.
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| Document| Status | Title | Summary |
+=========+===============+=======================+=================+
| RFC3686 | PS | Using Advanced | Considerations to |
| | | Encryption Standard | cover large |
| | | (AES) Counter Mode With | packets |
| | | IPsec Encapsulating | |
| | | Security Payload (ESP) | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC3711 | PS (Updated by | The Secure Real-time | (except for ipv6 |
| | [RFC5506], | Transport Protocol | "jumbograms" |
| | [RFC6904]) | (SRTP) | [RFC2675], which |
| | | | are not likely to |
| | | | be used for RTP- |
| | | | based multimedia |
| | | | traffic). |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC3790 | Informational | Survey of IPv4 | "This document |
| | | Addresses in Currently | defines a IPv6 |
| | | Deployed IETF Internet | packet format and |
| | | Area Standards Track | is therefore not |
| | | and Experimental | discussed in this |
| | | Documents | document." |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC4294 | Informational | IPv6 Node Requirements | "ipv6 jumbograms |
| | (Obsoleted by | | "[RFC-2675]" MAY |
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
| | [RFC6434]) | | be supported." |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC4309 | PS | Using Advanced | Size parameters |
| | | Encryption Standard | are set so they |
| | | (AES) CCM Mode with | will cover |
| | | IPsec Encapsulating | Jumbograms |
| | | Security Payload (ESP) | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC4614 | Informational | A Roadmap for | Mentions that |
| | (Obsoleted by | Transmission Control | jumbograms exist |
| | [RFC7414]) | Protocol (TCP) | |
| | | Specification Documents | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC5102 | PS (Obsoleted | Informationalormation | Adds Jumbogram |
| | by [RFC7012]) | Model for IP Flow | size |
| | | Informationalormation | considerations to |
| | | Experimentalort | length fields |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC5225 | PS | RObust Header | Does not support |
| | | Compression Version 2 | Jumbograms |
| | | (ROHCv2): Profiles for | |
| | | RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and | |
| | | UDP-Lite | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC5405 | BCP (Obsoleted | Unicast UDP Usage | Jumbograms exist |
| | by [RFC8085]) | Guidelines for | |
| | | Application Designers | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC6214 | Informational | Adaptation of RFC 1149 | |
| | | for IPv6 | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC6434 | Informational | IPv6 Node Requirements | "to date, few |
| | (Obsoleted by | | implementations |
| | [RFC8504]) | | exist, and there |
| | | | is essentially no |
| | | | reported |
| | | | experience from |
| | | | usage." |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC6691 | Informational | TCP Options and Maximum | Treat 65,353 |
| | | Segment Size (MSS) | value in MSS and |
| | | | Urgent Pointer |
| | | | fields as |
| | | | infinite |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC7122 | Experimental | Datagram Convergence | Jumbograms exist |
| | | Layers for the Delay- | though rarely |
| | | and Disruption-Tolerant | used |
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
| | | Networking (DTN) Bundle | |
| | | Protocol and Licklider | |
| | | Transmission Protocol | |
| | | (LTP) | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC7323 | PS | TCP Extensions for High | Jumbograms weaken |
| | | performance | the TCP checksum |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC7414 | Informational | A Roadmap for | Jumbograms exist |
| | | Transmission Control | |
| | | Protocol (TCP) | |
| | | Specification Documents | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC8085 | BCP | UDP Usage Guidelines | Jumbograms exist |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC8468 | Informational | IPv4, IPv6, and | Length |
| | | IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence: | considerations |
| | | (Updated by )dates for | |
| | | the IP Performance | |
| | | Metrics (IPPM) | |
| | | Framework | |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
| RFC8504 | BCP | IPv6 Node Requirements | "removed |
| | | | Jumbograms (RFC |
| | | | 2675) as they |
| | | | aren't deployed." |
+---------+---------------+-----------------------+-----------------+
Table 1
Appendix C. Appendix B
RFC editor please remove this section before publishing
Relevant quotes from PS and BCP documents that reference [RFC2675].
Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Counter Mode With IPsec
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) ([RFC3686]):
"This construction can produce enough key stream for each packet
sufficient to handle any IPv6 jumbogram [JUMBO]."
"Note that ESP with 32- bit Sequence Numbers will not exceed 2^64
blocks even if all of the packets are maximum-length IPv6 jumbograms
[JUMBO]."
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
"A 28-bit block counter value is sufficient for the generation of a key
stream to encrypt the largest possible IPv6 jumbogram [JUMBO]; however,
a 32-bit field is used. This size is convenient for both hardware and
software implementations."
The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) ([RFC3711]):
"The AES has a block size of 128 bits, so 2^16 output blocks are
sufficient to generate the 2^23 bits of keystream needed to encrypt the
largest possible RTP packet (except for IPv6 "jumbograms" `[RFC2675]`,
which are not likely to be used for RTP-based multimedia traffic)."
Using Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) CCM Mode with IPsec
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) ([RFC4309]):
"L L indicates the size of the length field in octets. CCM defines
values of L between 2 octets and 8 octets. This specification only
supports L = 4. Implementations MUST support an L value of 4
octets, which accommodates a full Jumbogram [JUMBO]; however, the
length includes all of the encrypted data, which also includes the
ESP Padding, Pad Length, and Next Header fields."
"payload
The payload of the ESP packet. The payload MUST NOT be longer than
4,294,967,295 octets, which is the maximum size of a Jumbogram
[JUMBO]; however, the ESP Padding, Pad Length, and Next Header
fields are also part of the payload."
"This construction provides more key stream for each packet than is
needed to handle any IPv6 Jumbogram [JUMBO]."
Information Model for IP Flow Information Export ([RFC5102],
Obsolete):
"5.4.30. payloadLengthIPv6
Description:
This Information Element reports the value of the Payload
Length field in the IPv6 header. Note that IPv6 extension
headers belong to the payload. Also note that in case of a
jumbo payload option the value of the Payload Length field in
the IPv6 header is zero and so will be the value reported by
this Information Element."
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
"5.7.1. ipPayloadLength
Description:
The effective length of the IP payload. For IPv4 packets, the
value of this Information Element is the difference between
the total length of the IPv4 packet (as reported by
Information Element totalLengthIPv4) and the length of the
IPv4 header (as reported by Information Element
headerLengthIPv4). For IPv6, the value of the Payload Length
field in the IPv6 header is reported except in the case that
the value of this field is zero and that there is a valid
jumbo payload option. In this case, the value of the Jumbo
Payload Length field in the jumbo payload option is reported."
RObust Header Compression Version 2 (ROHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP,
IP, ESP and UDP-Lite ([RFC5225]):
"IPv6 headers using the jumbo payload option of RFC 2675 `[RFC2675]` will
not be compressible with this encoding method since the value of the
payload length field does not match the length of the packet.
UDP Usage Guidelines ([RFC5405], Obsolete):
"IPv6 allows the option of transmitting large packets ("jumbograms")
without fragmentation when all link layers along the path support this
`[RFC2675]`."
TCP Extensions for High Performance ([RFC7323]):
"Expanding the TCP window beyond 64 KiB for IPv6 allows Jumbograms
`[RFC2675]` to be used when the local network supports packets larger
than 64 KiB. When larger TCP segments are used, the TCP checksum
becomes weaker."
"The same technique applies to IP version 6, except in the case of IPv6
Jumbograms. When IPv6 Jumbograms are supported, [RFC2675] requires
additional steps for dealing with the Urgent Pointer; these steps are
described in Section 5.2 of `[RFC2675]`."
UDP Usage Guidelines [RFC8085]:
"IPv6 allows the option of transmitting large packets ("jumbograms")
without fragmentation when all link layers along the path support this
`[RFC2675]`."
IPv6 Node Requirements ([RFC8504]):
"Removed Jumbograms (RFC 2675) as they aren't deployed."
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic May 2019
Authors' Addresses
Tom Jones
University of Aberdeen
Email: tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Jones & Fairhurst Expires 9 November 2019 [Page 12]