TCPM Working Group J. Touch
Internet Draft USC/ISI
Intended status: Informational October 24, 2011
Expires: April 2012
Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options
draft-touch-tcpm-experimental-options-00.txt
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), 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 April 24, 2012.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 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
(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.
Touch, (TBD) Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options October 2011
Abstract
This document describes how TCP option codepoints can support
concurrent experiments. The suggested mechanism avoids the need for
a coordinated registry, and is backward-compatible with currently
known uses.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................2
2. Conventions used in this document..............................3
3. TCP Experimental Option Structure..............................3
4. Security Considerations........................................4
5. IANA Considerations............................................5
6. References.....................................................5
6.1. Normative References......................................5
6.2. Informative References....................................5
7. Acknowledgments................................................6
1. Introduction
TCP includes options to enable new protocol capabilities that can be
activated only where needed and supported [RFC793]. The space for
identifying such options is small - 256 values, of which 31 are
assigned at the time this document was published [IANA]. Two of
these codepoints are allocated to support experiments (253, 254)
[RFC4727]. These numbers are intended for testing purposes, and
implementations need to assume they can be used for other purposes,
but this is often not the case.
There is no mechanism to support shared use of the experimental
option codepoints. Experimental options 245 and 255 are deployed in
operational code to support an early version of TCP authentication.
Option 253 is also documented for the experimental TCP Cookie
Transaction option [RFC6013]. This shared use results in collisions
in which a single codepoint can appear multiple times in a single
TCP segment and each use is ambiguous.
Other options have been used without assignment, notably 31-32 (TCP
cookie transactions, as originally distributed and in its API doc)
and 76-78 (tcpcrypt) [Bi11][Si11]. Commercial products reportedly
also use unassigned options 33 and 76-78 as well.
There are a variety of proposed approaches to address this issue.
The first is to relax the requirements for assignment of TCP
Touch, (TBD) Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options October 2011
options, allowing them to be assigned more readily for protocols
that have not been standardized through the IETF process [RFC5226].
A second would be to assign a larger pool to options, and to manage
their sharing through IANA coordination [Ed11].
This document proposes a solution that does not require additional
codepoints and also avoids IANA participation. A short nonce is
added to the structure of the experimental TCP option structure. The
nonce helps reduce the probability of collision of independent
experimental uses of the same option codepoint. This feature
increases the size of experimental options, but the size can be
reduced when the experiment is converted to a standard protocol with
a conventional codepoint assignment.
2. Conventions used in this document
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].
In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be
interpreted as carrying RFC-2119 significance.
In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s)
indicates a compliance requirement statement using the key words
listed above. This convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying
or finding the explicit compliance requirements of this RFC.
3. TCP Experimental Option Structure
TCP options have the current common structure, where the first byte
is the codepoint (Kind) and the second is the length of the option
in bytes (Length):
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind | Length | ... |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| ...
+--------
Figure 1 TCP Option Structure [RFC793]
This document extends the option structure for experimental
codepoints (253, 254) as follows:
Touch, (TBD) Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options October 2011
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind | Length | Nonce |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Nonce | ...
+--------+--------+--------+---
Figure 2 TCP Experimental Option with a Nonce
>> Protocols using the TCP experimental option codepoints (253, 254)
SHOULD use nonces as described in this document.
The nonce is selected by the protocol designer when the experimental
option is defined. The Nonce is selected any of a variety of ways,
e.g., using the Unix time() command or bits selected by an arbitrary
function (such as a hash).
>> The nonce SHOULD be selected to reduce the probability of
collision.
The length of the nonce is intended to be 32 bit in network standard
byte order. It can be shorter if desired (e.g., 16 bits), with a
corresponding increased probability of collision and thus false
positives.
During TCP processing, experimental options are matched against both
the experimental codepoints and the Nonce value for each implemented
protocol.
>> Experimental options that have nonces that do not match
implemented protocols MUST be ignored.
The remainder of the option is specified by the particular
experimental protocol.
Use of a nonce uses additional space in the TCP header and requires
additional protocol processing by experimental protocols. Because
these are experiments, neither consideration is a substantial
impediment; a finalized protocol can avoid both issues with the
assignment of a dedicated option codepoint later.
4. Security Considerations
The mechanism described in this document is not intended to provide
security for TCP option processing. False positives are always
possible, where a Nonce matches a legacy use of these options or a
protocol that does not implement the mechanism described in this
document.
Touch, (TBD) Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options October 2011
>> Protocols that are not robust to such false positives SHOULD
implement other measures to ensure they process options for their
protocol only, such as checksums or digital signatures among
cooperating parties of their protocol.
5. IANA Considerations
This document has no IANA considerations. This section should be
removed prior to publication.
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
793, Sep. 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4727] Fenner, B., "Experimental Values in IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, Nov. 2006.
6.2. Informative References
[Bi11] Bittau, A., D. Boneh, M. Hamburg, M. Handley, D. Mazieres,
Q. Slack, "Cryptographic protection of TCP Streams
(tcpcrypt)", work in progress, draft-bittau-tcp-crypt-01,
Aug. 29, 2011.
[Ed11] Eddy, W., "Additional TCP Experimental-Use Options", work
in progress, draft-eddy-tcpm-addl-exp-options-00, Aug. 16,
2011.
[IANA] IANA web pages, http://www.iana.org/
[RFC5226] Narten, T., H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May
2008.
[RFC6013] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT)", RFC 6013,
Jan. 2011.
[Si11] Simpson, W., "TCP Cookie Transactions (TCPCT) Sockets
Application Program Interface (API)", work in progress,
draft-simpson-tcpct-api-04, Apr. 7, 2011.
Touch, (TBD) Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options October 2011
7. Acknowledgments
This document was motivated by discussions on the IETF TCPM mailing
list and by Wes Eddy's proposal [Ed11].
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Authors' Addresses
Joe Touch
USC/ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695 U.S.A.
Phone: +1 (310) 448-9151
Email: touch@isi.edu
Touch, (TBD) Expires April 24, 2012 [Page 6]