[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 7045

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 23, 2014                               August 22, 2013


         Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers
                    draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-03

Abstract

   Various IPv6 extension headers have been standardised since the IPv6
   standard was first published.  This document updates RFC 2460 to
   clarify 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 23, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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 23, 2014               [Page 1]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


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

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction and Problem Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Requirement to Transmit Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  All Extension Headers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Hop-by-Hop Options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   6.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9

1.  Introduction and Problem Statement

   In IPv6, an extension header is any header that follows the initial
   40 bytes of the packet and precedes the upper layer header (which
   might be a transport header, an ICMPv6 header, or a notional "No Next
   Header").

   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 meant that forwarding nodes should be completely
   transparent to extension headers.  There was no provision for
   forwarding nodes to modify them, remove them, insert them, or use
   them to affect forwarding behaviour.  Thus, new extension headers
   could be introduced progressively, used only by hosts that have been
   updated to create and interpret them [RFC6564].  The extension header
   mechanism is an important part of the IPv6 architecture, and several
   new extension headers have been standardised since RFC 2460.

   Today, packets are often forwarded not only by straightforward IP
   routers, but also by a variety of intermediate nodes, often referred
   to as middleboxes, such as firewalls, load balancers, or packet



Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 23, 2014               [Page 2]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


   classifiers.  However, experience has showed that as a result, the
   network is not transparent to IPv6 extension headers.  Contrary to
   Section 4 of RFC 2460, middleboxes sometimes examine and process the
   entire IPv6 packet before making a decision to either forward or
   discard the packet.  This means that they need to traverse the chain
   of extension headers, if present, until they find the transport
   header (or an encrypted payload).  Unfortunately, because not all
   IPv6 extension headers follow a uniform TLV format, this process is
   clumsy and requires knowledge of each extension header's format.  A
   separate problem is that the header chain may even be fragmented
   [I-D.ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain].

   The process is potentially slow as well as clumsy, possibly
   precluding its use in nodes attempting to process packets at line
   speed.  The present document does not intend to solve this problem,
   which is caused by the fundamental architecture of IPv6 extension
   headers.  This document focuses on clarifying how the header chain
   should be traversed in the current IPv6 architecture.

   If they encounter an unrecognised extension header type, some
   firewalls treat the packet as suspect and drop it.  Unfortunately, it
   is an established fact that several widely used firewalls do not
   recognise some or all of the extension headers standardised since RFC
   2460.  It has also been observed that certain firewalls do not even
   handle all the extension headers standardised in RFC 2460, including
   the fragment header [I-D.taylor-v6ops-fragdrop], causing fundamental
   problems of end-to-end connectivity.  This applies in particular to
   firewalls that attempt to inspect packets at very high speed, since
   they cannot take the time to reassemble fragmented packets,
   especially when under a denial of service attack.

   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 standard extension
   headers.  An implementor who consults only RFC 2460 will miss all
   extension headers defined subsequently.

   This combination of circumstances creates a "Catch-22" situation
   [Heller] for the deployment of any newly standardised extension
   header except for local use.  It cannot be widely deployed, because
   existing middleboxes will drop it on many paths through the Internet.
   However, most middleboxes will not be updated to allow the new header
   to pass until it has been proved safe and useful on the open



Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 23, 2014               [Page 3]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


   Internet, which is impossible until the middleboxes have been
   updated.

   The uniform TLV format now defined for extension headers [RFC6564]
   will improve the situation, but only for future extensions.  Some
   tricky and potentially malicious cases will be avoided by forbidding
   very long chains of extension headers that need to be fragmented
   [I-D.ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain].  This will alleviate concerns
   that stateless firewalls cannot locate a complete header chain as
   required by the present document.

   However, these changes are insufficient to correct the underlying
   problem.  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 standardised now and in the future.  It
   also requests IANA to create a subsidiary registry that clearly
   identifies extension header types, and updates RFC 2780 accordingly.
   Fundamental changes to the IPv6 extension header architecture are out
   of scope for this document.

   Also, Hop-by-Hop options are not handled by many high speed routers,
   or are processed only on a slow path.  This document also updates the
   requirements for processing the Hop-by-Hop options header to make
   them more realistic.

1.1.  Terminology

   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].

   In the remainder of this document, the term "forwarding node" refers
   to any router, firewall, load balancer, prefix translator, or any
   other device or middlebox that forwards IPv6 packets with or without
   examining the packet in any way.

2.  Requirement to Transmit Extension Headers

2.1.  All Extension Headers

   Any forwarding node along an IPv6 packet's path, which forwards the
   packet for any reason, SHOULD do so regardless of any extension
   headers that are present, as required by 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 standardised IPv6 extension header types and SHOULD recognise
   experimental IPv6 extension header types.  The list of standardised
   and experimental extension header types is maintained by IANA (see



Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 23, 2014               [Page 4]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


   Section 4) and implementors are advised to check this list regularly
   for updates.

   RFC 2460 requires destination hosts to discard packets containing
   unrecognised extension headers.  However, intermediate forwarding
   nodes SHOULD NOT do this by default, since that might cause them to
   inadvertently discard traffic using a recently standardised extension
   header, not yet recognised by the intermediate node.  The only
   exceptions to this rule are discussed below.

   As mentioned above, forwarding nodes that discard packets containing
   extension headers are known to cause connectivity failures and
   deployment problems.  Therefore, it is important that forwarding
   nodes that inspect IPv6 extension headers can parse all standard
   headers and are able to behave according to the above requirements.
   If a forwarding node discards a packet containing a standard IPv6
   extension header, it MUST be the result of a configurable policy, and
   not just the result of a failure to recognise such a header.  This
   means that the discard policy for each standardised type of extension
   header MUST be individually configurable.  The default configuration
   SHOULD allow all standardised extension headers.

   Experimental IPv6 extension headers, including types 253 and 254
   defined by [RFC3692] and [RFC4727], SHOULD be treated in the same way
   as standardised extension headers, but they MAY be dropped by
   default.

   Forwarding nodes MUST be configurable to allow packets containing
   unrecognised extension headers, but such packets MAY be dropped by
   default.

   The IPv6 Routing Header Types 0 and 1 have been deprecated [RFC5095].
   However, this does not mean that the IPv6 Routing Header can be
   unconditionally dropped by forwarding nodes.  Packets containing
   standardised and undeprecated Routing Headers SHOULD be forwarded by
   default.  At the time of writing, these include Type 2 [RFC6275],
   Type 3 [RFC6554], and the experimental Routing Header Types 253 and
   254 [RFC4727].  Others may be defined in future.

2.2.  Hop-by-Hop Options

   The IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD be processed by
   intermediate forwarding nodes as described in [RFC2460].  However, it
   is to be expected that 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 need to be aware of
   this likely behaviour.




Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 23, 2014               [Page 5]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


   As a reminder, in RFC 2460, it is stated that the Hop-by-Hop Options
   header, if present, must be first.

3.  Security Considerations

   Forwarding nodes that operate as firewalls MUST conform to the
   requirements in the previous section in order to respect the IPv6
   extension header architecture.  In particular, packets containing
   standard extension headers are only to be discarded as a result of a
   configurable policy.

   When new extension headers are standardised in the future, those
   implementing and configuring forwarding nodes, including firewalls,
   will need to take account of them.  A newly defined header will
   exercise new code paths in a host that does recognise it, so caution
   may be required.  It is therefore to be expected that the deployment
   process will be slow and will depend on satisfactory operational
   experience.  Until it is complete, the new extension will fail in
   some parts of the Internet.  This aspect needs to be considered when
   deciding to standardise a new extension.  Specific security
   considerations for each new extension should be documented in the
   document that defines it.

4.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to clearly mark in the Assigned Internet Protocol
   Numbers registry those values which are also IPv6 Extension Header
   types defined by an IETF action, for example by adding an extra
   column to indicate this.  This will also apply to any IPv6 Extension
   Header types defined in the future.

   Additionally, IANA is requested to replace the existing empty IPv6
   Next Header Types registry by an IPv6 Extension Header Types
   registry.  It will contain only those protocol numbers which are also
   marked as IPv6 Extension Header types in the Assigned Internet
   Protocol Numbers registry.  Experimental values will be marked as
   such.  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]




Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 23, 2014               [Page 6]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


   o  60, Destination Options, [RFC2460]

   o  135, MIPv6, [RFC6275]

   o  139, experimental use, HIP, [RFC5201]

   o  140, shim6, [RFC5533]

   o  253, experimental use, [RFC3692], [RFC4727]

   o  254, experimental use, [RFC3692], [RFC4727]

   This list excludes type 59, No Next Header, [RFC2460], which is not
   an extension header as such.

   The references to the IPv6 Next Header field in [RFC2780] are to be
   interpreted as also applying 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 Dominique Barthel, Tim Chown, Lorenzo
   Colitti, Fernando Gont, C. M. Heard, Bob Hinden, Ray Hunter, Suresh
   Krishnan, Marc Lampo, Michael Richardson, Dave Thaler, Joe Touch,
   Bjoern Zeeb, 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].

6.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-03: added details for experimental
   values, various clarifications and minor corrections, 2013-08-22.

   draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-02: explicit mention of header types 253
   and 254, editorial fixes, 2013-08-06.

   draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-01: tuned use of normative language,
   clarified that only standardised extensions are covered (hence
   excluding HIP), 2013-05-29.

   draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-00: first WG version, more
   clarifications, 2013-03-26.





Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 23, 2014               [Page 7]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


   draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit-02: clarifications following WG
   comments, recalibrated firewall requirements, 2013-02-22.

   draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit-01: feedback at IETF85: clarify
   scope and impact on firewalls, discuss line-speed processing and lack
   of uniform TLV format, added references, restructured IANA
   considerations, 2012-11-13.

   draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit-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.

   [RFC3692]  Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
              Considered Useful", BCP 82, RFC 3692, January 2004.

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

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

   [RFC4727]  Fenner, B., "Experimental Values In IPv4, IPv6, ICMPv4,
              ICMPv6, UDP, and TCP Headers", RFC 4727, November 2006.

   [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.



Carpenter & Jiang       Expires February 23, 2014               [Page 8]

Internet-Draft     IPv6 Extension Header Transmission        August 2013


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

7.2.  Informative References

   [Heller]   Heller, J., "Catch-22", Simon and Schuster , 1961.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain]
              Gont, F., Manral, V., and R. Bonica, "Implications of
              Oversized IPv6 Header Chains", draft-ietf-6man-oversized-
              header-chain-04 (work in progress), August 2013.

   [I-D.taylor-v6ops-fragdrop]
              Jaeggli, J., Colitti, L., Kumari, W., Vyncke, E., Kaeo,
              M., and T. Taylor, "Why Operators Filter Fragments and
              What It Implies", draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop-01 (work in
              progress), June 2013.

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

   [RFC6554]  Hui, J., Vasseur, JP., Culler, D., and V. Manral, "An IPv6
              Routing Header for Source Routes with the Routing Protocol
              for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", RFC 6554, March
              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 23, 2014               [Page 9]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/