Network Working Group X. Xiao
Internet Draft E. Crabbe
A. Hannan
Frontier Globalcenter
V. Paxson
ACIRI/ICSI
Expiration Date: March 2000 September 1999
TCP Processing of the IP Precedence Field
<draft-xiao-tcp-prec-00.txt>
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
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 document will expire in March 2000.
2. Abstract
This draft describes a potential conflict between TCP [RFC793] and
DiffServ [RFC2475] on the use of the three leftmost bits in the TOS
octet of an IPv4 header [RFC791] or the Traffic Class octet of an
IPv6 header [RFC2460]. In a network that contains DiffServ capable
nodes, such a conflict can cause failures in establishing TCP
connections or can cause some established TCP connections to be reset
undesirably. This draft proposes a modification to TCP for resolving
the conflict.
Xiao et al [Page 1]
ID TCP and the IP Precedence Field September 1999
3. Introduction
In TCP, each connection has a set of states associated with it. Such
states are reflected by a set of variables stored in the TCP Control
Block (TCB) of both ends. Such variables may include the local and
remote socket number, precedence of the connection, security level
and compartment, etc. Both ends must agree on the setting of the
precedence and security parameters in order to establish a connection
and keep it open.
There is no field in the TCP header that indicates the precedence of
a segment. Instead, the precedence field in the header of the IP
packet is used as the indication. The security level and compartment
are likewise carried in the IP header, but as IP options rather than
a fixed header field. Because of this difference, the problem with
precedence discussed in this memo does not apply to them.
TCP requires that the precedence (and security parameters) of a
connection must remain unchanged during the lifetime of the
connection. Therefore, for an established TCP connection with
precedence, the receipt of a segment with different precedence
indicates an error. The connection must be reset [RFC793, page 37].
With the advent of DiffServ, intermediate nodes may modify the
Differentiated Services Codepoint (DSCP) [RFC2474] of the IP header
to indicate the desired Per-hop Behavior (PHB) [RFC2475, RFC2597,
RFC2598]. The DSCP includes the three bits formerly known as the
precedence field. Because any modification to those three bits will
be considered illegal by endpoints that are precedence-aware, they
may cause failures in establishing connections, or may cause
established connections to be reset.
4. Terminology
Segment: the unit of data that TCP sends to IP
Precedence Field: the three leftmost bits in the TOS octet of an IPv4
header or the Traffic Class octet of an IPv6 header. Note that in
DiffServ, these three bits may or may not used to denote the
precedence of the IP packet.
TOS Field: bits 3-6 in the TOS octet of IPv4 header [RFC 1349].
MBZ field: Must Be Zero
The structure of the TOS octet is depicted below:
Xiao et al [Page 2]
ID TCP and the IP Precedence Field September 1999
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
| PRECEDENCE | TOS | MBZ |
+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Traffic Class Octet: the TOS octet's counterpart in IPv6
DS Field: the TOS octet of an IPv4 header, or the Traffic Class octet
of an IPv6 header, is renamed the Differentiated Services (DS) Field
by DiffServ.
The structure of the DS field is depicted below:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| DSCP | CU |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
DSCP: Differentiated Service Code Point, the leftmost 6 bits in the
DS field.
CU: currently unused.
Per-hop Behavior (PHB): a description of the externally observable
forwarding treatment applied at a differentiated services-compliant
node to a behavior aggregate.
5. Problem Description
The manipulation of the DSCP to achieve the desired PHB by DiffServ-
capable nodes may conflict with TCP's use of the precedence field.
This conflict can potentially cause problems for TCP implementations
that conform to RFC 793. First, page 36 of RFC 793 states:
If the connection is in any non-synchronized state (LISTEN,
SYN-SENT, SYN-RECEIVED), and the incoming segment acknowledges
something not yet sent (the segment carries an unacceptable
ACK), or if an incoming segment has a security level or compart-
ment which does not exactly match the level and compartment
requested for the connection, a reset is sent. If our SYN has
not been acknowledged and the precedence level of the incoming
segment is higher than the precedence level requested then
either raise the local precedence level (if allowed by the user
and the system) or send a reset; or if the precedence level of
the incoming segment is lower than the precedence level
requested then continue as if the precedence matched exactly (if
the remote TCP cannot raise the precedence level to match ours
Xiao et al [Page 3]
ID TCP and the IP Precedence Field September 1999
this will be detected in the next segment it sends, and the con-
nection will be terminated then). If our SYN has been ack-
nowledged (perhaps in this incoming segment) the precedence
level of the incoming segment must match the local precedence
level exactly, if it does not a reset must be sent.
This leads to Problem #1: For a precedence-aware TCP module, if dur-
ing TCP's synchronization process, the precedence fields of the SYN
and/or ACK packets are modified by the intermediate nodes, resulting
in the received ACK packet having a different precedence from the
precedence picked by this TCP module, the TCP connection cannot be
established, even if both modules actually agree on an identical pre-
cedence for the connection.
Then, on page 37, RFC 793 states:
If the connection is in a synchronized state (ESTABLISHED, FIN-
WAIT-1, FIN-WAIT-2, CLOSE-WAIT, CLOSING, LAST-ACK, TIME-WAIT),
... [unrelated statements snipped] If an incoming segment has a
security level, or compartment, or precedence which does not
exactly match the level, and compartment, and precedence
requested for the connection, a reset is sent and connection
goes to the CLOSED state.
This leads to Problem #2: For a precedence-aware TCP module, if the
precedence field of a received segment from an established TCP con-
nection has been changed en route by the intermediate nodes so as to
be different from the precedence specified during the connection
setup, the TCP connection will be reset.
Each of problems #1 and #2 has a mirroring problem. They cause TCP
connections that must be reset according to RFC 793 not to be reset.
Problem #3: A TCP connection may be established between two TCP
modules that pick different precedence, because the precedence fields
of the SYN and ACK packets are modified by intermediate nodes,
resulting in both modules thinking that they are in agreement for the
precedence of the connection.
Problem #4: A TCP connection has been established normally by two
TCP modules that pick the same precedence. But in the middle of the
data transmission, one of the TCP modules changes the precedence of
its segments. According to RFC 793, the TCP connection must be reset.
In a DiffServ-capable environment, if the precedence of the segments
is altered by intermediate nodes such that it retains the expected
value when arriving at the other TCP module, the connection will not
be reset.
Xiao et al [Page 4]
ID TCP and the IP Precedence Field September 1999
6. Proposed Modification to TCP
The proposed modification to TCP is that TCP must ignore the pre-
cedence of all received segments. More specifically:
(1) In TCP's synchronization process, the TCP modules at both ends
must ignore the precedence fields of the SYN and ACK packets. The TCP
connection will be established if all the conditions specified by RFC
793 are satisfied except the precedence of the connection.
(2) After a connection is established, each end sends segments with
its desired precedence. The two ends' precedence may be the same or
may be different (because precedence is ignored during connection
setup time). The precedence fields may be changed by the intermediate
nodes too. They will be ignored by the other end. The TCP connection
will not be reset.
Problems #1 and #2 are solved by this proposed modification. Problems
#3 and #4 become non-issues because TCP must ignore the precedence.
In a DiffServ-capable environment, the two cases described in prob-
lems #3 and #4 should be allowed.
The proposed modification to TCP is in conformance with TCP's design
philosophy. In RFC 793, page 36, it is stated that:
As a general rule, reset (RST) must be sent whenever a segment
arrives which apparently is not intended for the current connec-
tion. A reset must not be sent if it is not clear that this is
the case.
With the deployment of DiffServ, the precedence field can be modified
by intermediate network nodes. A change in the precedence of a
received segment does not necessarily indicate that the segment is
not intended for the connection. Therefore, a RST must not be sent
based solely on the change of the precedence of a received segment,
no matter whether the TCP connection is in a non-synchronized state
or synchronized state.
7. Security Considerations
The RST generation rules given on page 37 of RFC 793 appear to indi-
cate that the reception of any segment with an incorrect precedence
field terminates a connection. If this is true regardless of the
correctness of the sequence numbers in the segment's header, then the
RFC 793 rules present a serious denial-of-service threat, as all an
attacker must do to terminate a connection is guess the port numbers
and then send two segments with different precedence values; one of
Xiao et al [Page 5]
ID TCP and the IP Precedence Field September 1999
them is certain to terminate the connection. Accordingly, the change
to TCP processing proposed in this memo would yield a significant
gain in terms of TCP resilience.
On the other hand, the stricter processing rules of RFC 793 in prin-
ciple make TCP spoofing attacks more difficult, as the attacker must
not only guess the victim TCP's initial sequence number, but also its
precedence setting.
Finally, the security issues of each PHB group are addressed in the
PHB group's specification [RFC2597, RFC2598].
8. References
[RFC791]
Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.
[RFC793]
Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC 793,
September 1981.
[RFC1349]
Almquist, P., "Type of Service in the Internet Protocol Suite",
RFC 1349, July 1992.
[RFC2460]
Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.
[RFC2474]
Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F. and D. Black, "Definition of
the Differentiated Services Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and
IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, December 1998.
[RFC2475]
Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z. and W.
Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated Services", RFC 2475,
December 1998.
[RFC2597]
Heinanen, J., Baker, F., Weiss, W. and J. Wroclawski, "Assured
Forwarding PHB Group", RFC 2587, June 1999.
[RFC2598]
Jacobson, V., Nichols, K. and K. Poduri, "An Expedited
Xiao et al [Page 6]
ID TCP and the IP Precedence Field September 1999
Forwarding PHB", RFC 2598, June 1999.
9. Authors' Addresses
Xipeng Xiao <xipeng@globalcenter.net>
Frontier Globalcenter
141 Caspian Court
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
USA
Phone: +1 408-543-4801
Edward Crabbe <ecrabbe@globalcenter.net>
Frontier Globalcenter
141 Caspian Court,
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
USA
Phone: +1 408-543-4827
Alan Hannan <alan@globalcenter.net>
Frontier Globalcenter
141 Caspian Court,
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
USA
Phone: +1 408-543-4891
Vern Paxson <vern@aciri.org>
ACIRI/ICSI
1947 Center Street
Suite 600
Berkeley, CA 94704-1198
USA
Phone: +1 510-642-4274 x302
Xiao et al [Page 7]