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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 6691

Network Working Group                              Network Working Group
Internet-Draft                                                 D. Borman
Intended Status: Informational                        Wind River Systems
File: draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-02.txt                        July 13, 2009


                          TCP Options and MSS

Status of This Memo


   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF 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 January 13, 2010.

Copyright

   Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

Abstract

   This memo discusses what value to use with the TCP MSS option.


1. INTRODUCTION

   There has been some confusion as to what value should be filled in
   the TCP MSS option when using TCP options.  RFC-879 [Postel83]
   stated:



Network Working Group   Expires January 13, 2010                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             TCP Options and MSS                 July 2009


        The MSS counts only data octets in the segment, it does not
        count the TCP header or the IP header.

   which is unclear about what to do about TCP options.  RFC-1122
   [Braden89] attempted to clarify this in section 4.2.2.6, but there
   still seems to be confusion.  Clarification was first sent to the TCP
   Large Windows mailing list [Borman93] in 1993.

2. TCP Options and MSS

   The MSS value to be sent in an MSS option should be equal to the
   effective MTU minus the fixed IP and TCP headers.  By ignoring both
   IP and TCP options when calculating the value for the MSS option, if
   there are any IP or TCP options to be sent in a packet, then the
   sender must decrease the size of the TCP data accordingly.  The
   reason for this can be seen in the following table:

                    +--------------------+--------------------+
                    | MSS is adjusted    | MSS isn't adjusted |
                    | to include options | to include options |
   +----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Sender adjusts | Packets are too    | Packets are the    |
   | length for     | short              | correct length     |
   | options        |                    |                    |
   +----------------+--------------------+--------------------+
   | Sender doesn't | Packets are the    | Packets are too    |
   | adjust length  | correct length     | long.              |
   | for options    |                    |                    |
   +----------------+--------------------+--------------------+

   Since the goal is to not send IP datagrams that have to be
   fragmented, and packets sent with the constraints in the lower right
   of this grid will cause IP fragmentation, the only way to guarantee
   that this doesn't happen is for the data sender to decrease the TCP
   data length by the size of the IP and TCP options.  It follows then,
   that since the sender will be adjusting the TCP data length when
   sending IP and TCP options, there is no need to include the IP and
   TCP option lengths in the MSS value.

3. Security Considerations

   Packets that are too long will either be fragmented or dropped.  If
   packets are fragmented, intermediary firewalls or middle boxes may
   drop the fragmented packets.  In either case, when packets are
   dropped the connection can fail; hence it is best to avoid generating
   fragments.

4. IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.



Network Working Group   Expires January 13, 2010                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             TCP Options and MSS                 July 2009


5. References

   Informative References


      [Braden89] Braden, R., editor, "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
      Communication Layers", RFC-1122, October, 1989

      [Postel83]  Postel, J., "The TCP Maximum Segment Size and Related
      Topics", RFC-879, ISI, November 1983.

      [Borman93] Borman, D., "TCP MSS & Timestamps", Message to tcplw
      mailing list, Jan 7, 1993.



Authors' Addresses

   David Borman
   Wind River Systems
   Mendota Heights, MN 55120

   Phone: (651) 454-3052
   Email: david.borman@windriver.com


Full Copyright Statement


   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.
















Network Working Group   Expires January 13, 2010                [Page 3]


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