[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit

6man                                                        B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Updates: 2460, 2780 (if approved)                               S. Jiang
Intended status: Standards Track            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Expires: February 15, 2013                               August 14, 2012


                 Transmission of IPv6 Extension Headers
                  draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit-00

Abstract

   Various IPv6 extension headers have been defined since the IPv6
   standard was first published.  This document updates RFC 2460 to
   describe how intermediate nodes should deal with such extension
   headers and with any that are defined in future.  It also specifies
   how extension headers should be registered by IANA, with a
   corresponding minor update to RFC 2780.

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 http://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 February 15, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 15, 2013               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2012


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Requirement to Transmit Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . 4
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   6.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7



































Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 15, 2013               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2012


1.  Introduction

   An initial set of IPv6 extension headers was defined by [RFC2460],
   which also described how they should be handled by intermediate
   nodes, with the exception of the hop-by-hop options header:

   "...extension headers are not examined or processed
   by any node along a packet's delivery path, until the packet reaches
   the node (or each of the set of nodes, in the case of multicast)
   identified in the Destination Address field of the IPv6 header."

   This provision allowed for the addition of new extension headers,
   since it means that forwarding nodes should be completely transparent
   to them.  Thus, new extension headers could be introduced
   progressively, used only by hosts that have been updated to create
   and interpret them.  Several such extension headers have been defined
   since RFC 2460.

   Unfortunately, experience has showed that the network is not
   transparent to these headers.  The main reason for this is that some
   firewalls attempt to inspect the transport payload.  This means that
   they traverse the chain of extension headers, if present, until they
   find the payload.  If they encounter an unknown extension header
   type, some of these firewalls treat the packet as suspect and drop
   it.  It is an established fact that several widely used firewalls do
   not recognise some or all of the extension headers defined since RFC
   2460.  It has also been observed that a few firewalls do not even
   recognise all the extension headers in RFC 2460, including the
   fragment header, causing fundamental problems of connectivity.

   Other types of middlebox, such as load balancers or packet
   classifiers, might also fail in the presence of extension headers
   that they do not recognise.

   A contributory factor to this problem is that, because extension
   headers are numbered out of the existing IP Protocol Number space,
   there is no collected list of them.  For this reason, it is hard for
   an implementor to quickly identify the full set of valid extension
   headers.  An implementor who consults only RFC 2460 will miss all
   extension headers defined subsequently.

   [RFC6564] improves the situation by defining a uniform format for any
   future extension headers, but this in itself is insufficient.  The
   present document clarifies that the above requirement from RFC 2460
   applies to all types of node that forward IPv6 packets and to all
   extension headers defined now and in the future.  It also requests
   IANA to create a subsidiary registry that clearly identifies valid
   extension header types, and updates RFC 2780 accordingly.



Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 15, 2013               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2012


   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 [RFC2119].


2.  Requirement to Transmit Extension Headers

   [NOTE IN DRAFT: These requirements may look controversial compared to
   RFC 2460, and are presented for discussion in the WG.  In reality,
   hop-by-hop options are not handled by many high speed routers, or are
   processed only on a slow path.  Also, many firewalls inspect and
   filter extension headers.  The following text is intended to deal
   with those realities.]

   The IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD be processed by
   intermediate nodes as described in [RFC2460].  However, it is to be
   expected that some high performance routers will either ignore it, or
   assign packets containing it to a slow processing path.  Designers
   planning to use a Hop-by-Hop option should be aware of this likely
   behaviour.

   Apart from that, any node along an IPv6 packet's path, which forwards
   it for any reason, SHOULD do so regardless of any extension headers
   that are present, as described in RFC 2460.  Exceptionally, if this
   node is designed to examine extension headers for any reason, such as
   firewalling, it MUST recognise and deal appropriately with all valid
   IPv6 extension header types.  The list of currently valid extension
   header types is maintained by IANA (see Section 4).

   RFC 2460 requires destination hosts to discard packets containing
   unrecognised extension headers.  However, intermediate forwarding
   nodes MUST NOT do this by default, since that might cause them to
   inadvertently discard traffic using a recently defined extension
   header, not yet recognised by the intermediate node.

   As mentioned above, firewalls that violate RFC 2460 by discarding
   packets containing valid extension headers are known to cause
   connectivity failures.  Therefore, it is important that firewalls
   behave according to the above requirements.  If a firewall chooses to
   discard a packet containing a valid IPv6 extension header, it MUST be
   the result of an explicit firewall policy, and not just the result of
   a failure to recognise such a header.

   The IPv6 Routing Header Types 0 and 1 have been deprecated and SHOULD
   NOT be used.  However, as specified in [RFC5095], this does not mean
   that the IPv6 Routing Header can be unconditionally dropped by
   forwarding nodes.  Packets containing undeprecated Routing Headers
   MUST be forwarded by default.



Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 15, 2013               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2012


3.  Security Considerations

   Firewall devices MUST conform to the requirements in the previous
   section.  In particular, packets containing specific extension
   headers are only to be discarded as a result of explicit policy, and
   never by default.


4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to replace the existing empty IPv6 Next Header
   Types registry by an IPv6 Extension Header Types registry, clearly
   marked as subsidiary to the existing Assigned Internet Protocol
   Numbers registry.  It will contain only those protocol numbers which
   are also IPv6 Extension Header types.  The initial list will be as
   follows:
   o  0, Hop-by-Hop Options, [RFC2460]
   o  43, Routing, [RFC2460], [RFC5095]
   o  44, Fragment, [RFC2460]
   o  50, Encapsulating Security Payload, [RFC4303]
   o  51, Authentication, [RFC4302]
   o  58, ICMPv6, [RFC2460]
   o  59, No Next Header, [RFC2460]
   o  60, Destination Options, [RFC2460]
   o  135, MIPv6, [RFC6275]
   o  139, HIP, [RFC5201]
   o  140, shim6, [RFC5533]

   Any future IPv6 Extension Header types will be added to this registry
   as well as to the Assigned Internet Protocol Numbers registry.

   The reference to the IPv6 Next Header field in [RFC2780] applies
   equally to the IPv6 Extension Header field.


5.  Acknowledgements

   This document was triggered by mailing list discussions including
   John Leslie, Stefan Marksteiner and others.  Valuable comments and
   contributions were made by TBD and others.

   Brian Carpenter was a visitor at the Computer Laboratory, Cambridge
   University during part of this work.

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].






Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 15, 2013               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2012


6.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmission-00: original version,
   2012-08-14.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC2780]  Bradner, S. and V. Paxson, "IANA Allocation Guidelines For
              Values In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers",
              BCP 37, RFC 2780, March 2000.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              December 2005.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.

   [RFC5095]  Abley, J., Savola, P., and G. Neville-Neil, "Deprecation
              of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6", RFC 5095,
              December 2007.

   [RFC5201]  Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson,
              "Host Identity Protocol", RFC 5201, April 2008.

   [RFC5533]  Nordmark, E. and M. Bagnulo, "Shim6: Level 3 Multihoming
              Shim Protocol for IPv6", RFC 5533, June 2009.

   [RFC6275]  Perkins, C., Johnson, D., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support
              in IPv6", RFC 6275, July 2011.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC6564]  Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
              M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
              RFC 6564, April 2012.




Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 15, 2013               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Brian Carpenter
   Department of Computer Science
   University of Auckland
   PB 92019
   Auckland,   1142
   New Zealand

   Email: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com


   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   Q14, Huawei Campus
   No.156 Beiqing Road
   Hai-Dian District, Beijing  100095
   P.R. China

   Email: jiangsheng@huawei.com































Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 15, 2013               [Page 7]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.107, available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/