Skip to main content

A Widely Deployed Solution to the Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Fragmentation Problem
RFC 7588

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.ad@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.shepherd@ietf.org, intarea-chairs@ietf.org to (None)
2015-07-14
05 (System) RFC published
2015-07-07
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-07-02
05 Jean Mahoney Closed request for Telechat review by GENART with state 'No Response'
2015-07-02
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-06-29
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-05-21
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-05-20
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-05-20
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-05-19
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2015-05-19
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-05-19
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2015-05-19
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2015-05-19
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-05-19
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-05-15
05 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2015-05-15
05 Brian Haberman Ballot approval text was generated
2015-05-14
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thank you for adding text on fragmentation attacks.
2015-05-14
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-05-14
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-05-14
05 Ron Bonica IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-05-14
05 Ron Bonica New version available: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-05.txt
2015-05-14
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-05-14
04 Cindy Morgan Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-05-14
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]

I agree that adding a para in response to Kathleen's discuss is a good plan.
2015-05-14
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-05-14
04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2015-05-14
04 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-05-13
04 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this draft, I have a question I'd like to discuss to see if another security consideration needs to …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this draft, I have a question I'd like to discuss to see if another security consideration needs to be added.  This should be very quick to resolve.

Do we need to worry about fragmentation overlap attacks when packets are reassembled?  I see that you would not have to worry about it in cases where fragmentation is handled at a different layer as is the case with some of the methods as it might be addressed at that layer.  Or does it not matter as the reassembled packets would be forwarded and the device reassembling wouldn't be processing the payload where an exploit could avoid detection?
2015-05-13
04 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-05-13
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-05-13
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-05-13
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-05-13
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-05-13
04 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-05-11
04 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-05-09
04 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-05-09
04 Joel Jaeggli
[Ballot comment]
from Tom Taylor's opsdir review (looks like it's being addressed already)

My apologies -- I let this slip way past due date. This …
[Ballot comment]
from Tom Taylor's opsdir review (looks like it's being addressed already)

My apologies -- I let this slip way past due date. This is a review of operational aspects of this document, primarily for use by the OPS area ADs in their evaluation of the document.

Summary: this document describes a commonly encountered set of implemented procedures for handling fragmentation of GRE packets. The described procedures include configuration options. The document is well-written and ready to go subject to the following observations, all of which are trivial except for the second minor issue noted below.

Tom Taylor

1) Very minor issue: there is no advice to the operator on coordinating the configuration of the ingress and egress nodes. Section 3.3.2 assumes that configuration is coordinated (i.e., fragmented GRE delivery packets are reassembled at egress). Section 3.4 simply presents the option. This could be fixed by changing the relevant sentence of 3.3.2.1 and 3.3.2.2 as follows:

OLD
  If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE
  egress.

NEW
  If the delivery packet is fragmented, it is reassembled by the GRE
  egress if the latter is configured to do so.

2) Minor issue: 3.3.1.1, 3.3.1.2, 3.3.1.3 final paragraph:
  s/delivery header/delivery packet/



Typos:

Last paragraph before Sec. 3, second line: s/lager/larger/

3.3.1.1 second paragraph, last line on page 5:
    s/an Next-hop MTU/a Next-Hop MTU value/

3.3.1.2 first line: s/send/sends/

Sec. 5 last paragraph, fourth last line: s/includes/include/

_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list
OPS-DIR@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir
2015-05-09
04 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-05-08
04 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Tom Taylor.
2015-05-07
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2015-05-07
04 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2015-05-07
04 Ron Bonica IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-05-07
04 Ron Bonica New version available: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-04.txt
2015-05-06
03 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-05-04
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Tom Yu.
2015-04-27
03 Brian Haberman Notification list changed to draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.ad@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.shepherd@ietf.org, intarea-chairs@ietf.org from draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu@ietf.org, int-area@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.ad@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.shepherd@ietf.org, intarea-chairs@ietf.org
2015-04-24
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2015-04-23
03 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2015-04-23
03 Brian Haberman Ballot has been issued
2015-04-23
03 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-04-23
03 Brian Haberman Created "Approve" ballot
2015-04-23
03 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2015-04-23
03 Brian Haberman Notification list changed to draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu@ietf.org, int-area@ietf.org, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.ad@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu.shepherd@ietf.org, intarea-chairs@ietf.org from "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
2015-04-23
02 Brian Haberman Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-05-14
2015-04-23
02 Ron Bonica IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2015-04-23
03 Ron Bonica New version available: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-03.txt
2015-04-23
02 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2015-04-19
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-04-19
02 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tom Taylor
2015-04-16
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2015-04-16
02 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Martin Thomson
2015-04-16
02 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-04-16
02 Amanda Baber
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.
2015-04-16
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu
2015-04-16
02 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu
2015-04-09
02 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-04-09
02 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Widely-Deployed Solution To The …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (A Widely-Deployed Solution To The Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) Fragmentation Problem) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'A Widely-Deployed Solution To The Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)
  Fragmentation Problem'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-04-23. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This memo describes how many vendors have solved the Generic Routing
  Encapsulation (GRE) fragmentation problem.  The solution described
  herein is configurable.  It is widely deployed on the Internet in its
  default configuration.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-04-09
02 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-04-09
02 Brian Haberman Last call was requested
2015-04-09
02 Brian Haberman Last call announcement was generated
2015-04-09
02 Brian Haberman Ballot approval text was generated
2015-04-09
02 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was generated
2015-04-09
02 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-04-09
02 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-04-09
02 Ron Bonica New version available: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-02.txt
2015-04-08
01 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation
2015-03-27
01 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2015-03-25
01 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Brian Haberman
2015-03-15
01 Suresh Krishnan
Writeup
=======

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type …
Writeup
=======

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

Informational. This draft documents how several major vendors have solved the GRE fragmentation problem in their implementations.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

GRE [RFC2784] is a protocol that allows the encapsulation of an arbitrary network layer protocol over another arbitrary network layer protocol. The GRE protocol specification does not define how to handle fragmentation, and this has led to several implementation specific ways of doing this. A GRE tunnel will operate correctly only if its ingress and egress nodes support compatible fragmentation solutions. This document describes a widely deployed GRE fragmentation solution used by multiple vendors.

Working Group Summary

The individual draft that led to this working group draft was initially aimed at becoming a BCP. There was some controversy in the working group as to whether the solution documented in the draft was the best way of doing things. This led to the document being re-oriented as Informational with the explicit goal of documenting existing deployments.

Document Quality

Yes. There are multiple interoperable implementations of the solution described in this draft. Two major router vendors already support the specification. The solution is also widely deployed and is in use on the Internet.

Personnel

Suresh Krishnan is the document shepherd. Ted Lemon is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document shepherd has reviewed the draft and finds that it is
ready to advance to the IESG. All issues that were raised in the
working group last calls have been addressed.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No. The document shepherd has no such concerns.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No such concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

The WG consensus behind this document has been pretty stable but not
very strong.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No errors were found on the ID nits check.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document requests no IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A
2015-03-15
01 Suresh Krishnan Responsible AD changed to Ted Lemon
2015-03-15
01 Suresh Krishnan IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document
2015-03-15
01 Suresh Krishnan IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-03-15
01 Suresh Krishnan IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-03-15
01 Suresh Krishnan Changed document writeup
2015-03-15
01 Suresh Krishnan Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2015-02-20
01 Suresh Krishnan Notification list changed to "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
2015-02-20
01 Suresh Krishnan Document shepherd changed to Suresh Krishnan
2014-12-30
01 Ron Bonica New version available: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-01.txt
2014-10-02
00 Ron Bonica New version available: draft-ietf-intarea-gre-mtu-00.txt