Network Working Group V. Manral
Internet-Draft IPInfusion Inc.
Expires: March 1, 2009
Operational issues with Tiny Fragments in IPv6
draft-manral-v6ops-tiny-fragments-issues-03
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 10, 2009.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2008).
Abstract
IPv6 fragmentation allows fragments to be sent only by the source of
a packet. The Fragment header is used by an IPv6 source to send a
packet larger than would fit in the path MTU to its destination.
Firewalls generally use 5-tuples to filter out packets. However there
are cases where fragmentation can be used to disguise TCP packets
from IP filters used in routers and hosts. This document specifies
where tiny fragments can be issues.
Manral [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT Operational issues with Tiny August 2008
Fragments in IPv6
Requirements Language
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].
1. Problem Statement
With many IP implementations it is possible to impose a fragment
small enough to force some of a packet's Upper Layer e.g. TCP header
fields into the second fragment.
This can cause all middlebox's like firewall and NAT-PT which expect
the fields header information in the first fragment to not work properly.
Though the NAT Behave draft, states that NAT box should reassemble
the packets, a lot of new issues can result. Keeping state could result
in easy DoS attacks. Besides the jury is still out about how many NAT
boxes do reassembly.
All policy based devices where packets are forwarded or sent on a
tunnel based on some policy are also affected.
2. Issues with Firewalls
There are different types of firewalls and state can be created in
these firewalls through different methods. Independent of the
adopted method, firewalls typically look at five parameters of the
traffic arriving at the firewalls:
o Source IP address
o Destination IP address
o Protocol type
o Source port number
o Destination port number
Based on these parameters, firewalls usually decide whether to allow
the traffic or to drop the packets.
However in cases where the first fragment does not have the upper
layer header information, the firewall is not able to get the port
information and other upper layer information, thus allowing the
packets to be sent to the protected side.
Manral [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT Operational issues with Tiny August 2008
Fragments in IPv6
This can lead to attacks to the network and the firewall not being
able to block such an attack.
3. Issues with NAT-PT
NAT-PT [RFC2766] assumes that for NAPT-PT operation the ports are
visible to the translator. However if the Upper Layer Header is not
there in the first fragment. This causes the visibility ot the port to
be lost. This can cause the translation process to fail.
When the translator gets a tiny IPv6 fragment which has to be
translated to an IPv4 packet. The translator will have to reassemble
the packets as the IPv4 non last fragment needs to have a datagram
size of 68 octets atleast.
STD 5, RFC 791 states:
Every internet module must be able to forward a datagram of 68
octets without further fragmentation. This is because an internet
header may be up to 60 octets, and the minimum fragment is 8
octets.
4. Issues with Policy Boxes
Tiny Fragments could cause issues to Policy boxes which look further
inside the packet, to make decisions.
For IPsec Security Policy Database (SPD) specifies what services are
to be offered to IP datagrams and in what fashion. The draft
[RFC2401bis] states:
"Non-initial" vs "Initial" Fragments
Throughout this document, the phrase "non-initial" fragments is
used to mean fragments that do not contain all of the selector
values that may be needed for access control. And the phrase
"initial" fragment is used to mean a fragment that contains all
the selector values needed for access control.
However, it should be noted that for IPv6, which fragment contains
the Next Layer Protocol and ports (or ICMP message type/code or
Mobility Header type) will depend on the kind and number of extension
headers present.
Having tiny fragments could mean that none of the fragments would
be the Initial Fragment. So any access control/ tunneling based on
that may not work unless reassembly is done, or extra state like next
Header and previous header length remaining are kept across
fragments.
Manral [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT Operational issues with Tiny August 2008
Fragments in IPv6
5. Proposed solutions to the problem
a. Impose a minimum packet size for the non-last fragments. If a
fragment of a lesser size is received, the packet is treated as a
malformed packet and is discarded.
b. Reassemble all the fragments of the packet, translate the header
fields and, glean out relevent information and then pass the original
fragments ahead after modifying the relevent fields.
c. Reassemble all the fragments of the packet till we have the header
fields of the upper layer , glean out relevent information and then
pass the original fragments ahead after modifying the relevent fields.
d. If upper layer protocol present then the header must be there in
the first fragment.
The above is just a first summary and the proposals are expected to
change as the draft matures.
6. Issues with fragment size of Minimum MTU
The minimum fragment size of the non last fragment could be
specified to be 1280 octets, the minimum link MTU [RFC2460].
However if the IPv6 packet has to be further tunnelled the packet
may have to be fragmented. To prevent such a case a minimum packet
size of the non-last fragment should be less then 1280.
7. IANA Considerations
This document makes no request of IANA.
Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication as an
RFC.
Manral [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT Operational issues with Tiny August 2008
Fragments in IPv6
8. Security Considerations
This draft outlines security issues arising if "Tiny Fragments" are
sent. This draft raises no new security issues.
Manral [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT Operational issues with Tiny August 2008
Fragments in IPv6
9. Acknowledgements
This draft borrows text heavily from
draft-ietf-mip6-firewalls-03.txt and RFC1858. Thanks to Brian
Carpenter, Pekka Savola, Stig Venaas,Fred Baker, Pyda
Srisuresh, Senthil Sivakumar and Radhakrishnan.S for the
helpful discussion.
Manral [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT Operational issues with Tiny August 2008
Fragments in IPv6
10. References
10.1 Normative References
[RFC2460] Deering & Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC2460, December 1998
[RFC2766] Tsirtsis & Srisuresh, "Network Address Translation -
Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC2766, February 2000
[RFC2401bis] Kent & Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", Work in Progress, September, 2005
10.2 Informative References
[RFC1858] Ziemba, Reed & Traina , "Security Considerations - IP
Fragment Filtering", RFC1858, October 1995
Authors' Addresses
Vishwas Manral
IPInfusion Inc,
41, Ground Floor,
5th Cross Road,
Off 8th Main Raod,
Vasanth Nagar,
Bangalore
India
Phone: +91-80-4113-1268
Email: vishwas@ipinfusion.com
Manral [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT Operational issues with Tiny August 2008
Fragments in IPv6
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
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.
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, THE IETF TRUST 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.
Intellectual Property
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 procedures with respect to rights in RFC 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.
Acknowledgement
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Manral [Page 8]