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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RFC 5320

Network Working Group                                    F. Templin, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                      Boeing Phantom Works
Intended status: Informational                               May 6, 2008
Expires: November 7, 2008


        The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)
                       draft-templin-seal-13.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of 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 November 7, 2008.

Abstract

   Subnetworks are connected network regions bounded by border routers
   that forward unicast and multicast packets over a virtual topology
   manifested by tunneling.  This virtual topology resembles a "virtual
   ethernet", but may span multiple IP- and/or sub-IP layer forwarding
   hops that can introduce packet duplication and/or traverse links with
   diverse Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs).  This document specifies a
   Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL) that
   accommodates such virtual topologies over diverse underlying link
   technologies.






Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology and Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Applicability Statement  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   4.  SEAL Protocol Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     4.1.  Model of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  ITE Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.1.  Tunnel Interface MTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       4.2.2.  Segmentation and Encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.2.3.  Packet Identification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.4.  Sending SEAL Protocol packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.2.5.  Sending S-MSS Probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       4.2.6.  Processing Fragmentation Reports (FRAGREPs)  . . . . . 12
       4.2.7.  Processing ICMP PTBs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     4.3.  ETE Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.1.  Reassembly Buffer Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.2.  IPv4-Layer Reassembly  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       4.3.3.  Generating Fragmentation Reports (FRAGREPs)  . . . . . 14
       4.3.4.  SEAL-Layer Reassembly and Decapsulation  . . . . . . . 15
   5.  Link Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   6.  End System Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Router Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix A.  Historic Evolution of PMTUD (written 10/30/2002)  . . 19
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 22



















Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


1.  Introduction

   As internet technology and communication has grown and matured, many
   techniques have developed that use virtual topologies (frequently
   tunnels of one form or another) over an actual IP network.  Those
   virtual topologies have elements which appear as one hop in the
   virtual topology, but are actually multiple IP or sub-IP layer hops.
   These multiple hops often have quite diverse properties which are
   often not even visible to the end-points of the virtual hop.  This
   introduces many failure modes that are not dealt with well in current
   approaches.

   The use of IP encapsulation has long been considered as an
   alternative for creating such virtual topologies.  However, the
   insertion of an outer IP header reduces the effective path MTU as-
   seen by the IP layer.  When IPv4 is used, this reduced MTU can be
   accommodated through the use of IPv4 fragmentation, but unmitigated
   in-the-network fragmentation has been shown to be harmful through
   operational experience and studies conducted over the course of many
   years [FRAG][FOLK][RFC4963].  Additionally, classical path MTU
   discovery [RFC1191] has known operational issues that are exacerbated
   by in-the-network tunnels [RFC2923][RFC4459].

   For the purpose of this document, subnetworks are defined as virtual
   topologies that span connected network regions bounded by border
   routers.  Examples include the global Internet interdomain routing
   core, Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) and enterprise networks.  These
   subnetworks are mainfested by tunnels that may span many underlying
   IP networks, e.g., in the internal organization of an enterprise
   network.  Subnetwork border routers support the Internet protocols
   [RFC0791][RFC2460] and forward unicast and multicast IP packets over
   the virtual topology across multiple IP- and/or sub-IP layer
   forwarding hops which may introduce packet duplication and/or
   traverse links with diverse Maximum Transmission Units (MTUs).

   This document proposes a Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation
   Layer (SEAL) for the operation of IP over subnetworks that connect
   the Ingress- and Egress Tunnel Endpoints (ITEs/ETEs) of border
   routers.  SEAL accommodates links with diverse MTUs and supports
   efficient duplicate packet detection by introducing a minimal mid-
   layer encapsulation.  The SEAL encapsulation introduces an extended
   Identification field for packet identification and a mid-layer
   segmentation and reassembly capability that allows simplified cutting
   and pasting of packets without invoking in-the-network IP
   fragmentation.  The SEAL protocol is specified in the following
   sections.





Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


2.  Terminology and Requirements

   The term "subnetwork" in this document refers to a virtual topology
   that is configured over a connected network region bounded by border
   routers and that appears as a fully-connected shared link, i.e., a
   "Virtual Ethernet (VET)" [I-D.templin-autoconf-dhcp].

   The terms "inner", "mid-layer" and "outer" respectively refer to the
   innermost IP {layer, protocol, header, packet, etc.} before any
   encapsulation, the mid-layer IP {protocol, header, packet, etc.)
   after any mid-layer '*' encapsulation and the outermost IP {layer,
   protocol, header, packet etc.} after SEAL/*/IPv4 encapsulation.

   The notation IPvX/*/SEAL/*IPvY refers to an inner IPvX packet
   encapsulated in any mid-layer '*' encapsulations followed by the SEAL
   header followed by any outer '*' encapsulations followed by an outer
   IPvY header.  The notation "IP" means either IP protocol version
   (IPv4 or IPv6).

   The following abbreviations correspond to terms used within this
   document and elsewhere in common Internetworking nomenclature:

      Subnetwork - a connected network region bounded by border routers

      SEAL - Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer

      VET - Virtual EThernet

      MANET - Mobile Ad-hoc Network

      ITE - Ingress Tunnel Endpoint

      ETE - Egress Tunnel Endpoint

      MTU - Maximum Transmission Unit

      MLEN - the length of any mid-layer '*' headers and traliers

      SLEN - the length of the outer encapsulating SEAL/*/IPv4 headers

      S-MSS - the per-ETE SEAL Maximum Segment Size

      S-MRU- the per-ETE SEAL Maximum Reassembly Unit

      PTB - an ICMPv6 "Packet Too Big" or an ICMPv4 "fragmentation
      needed" message





Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


      DF - the IPv4 header Don't Fragment flag

      FRAGREP - a Fragmentation Report message

      FLEN - the length of an IPv4 fragment embedded in a FRAGREP

      SEAL-ID - a 32-bit Identification value; randomly initialized and
      monotonically incremented for each SEAL protocol packet

      SEAL_PROTO - an IPv4 protocol number used for SEAL

      SEAL_PORT - a TCP/UDP service port number used for SEAL

   The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD,
   SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this
   document, are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


3.  Applicability Statement

   SEAL was motivated by the specific use case of subnetwork abstraction
   for MANETs, however the domain of applicability also extends to
   subnetwork abstractions of enterprise networks, the interdomain
   routing core, etc.  The domain of application therefore also includes
   the map-and-encaps architecture proposals in the IRTF Routing
   Research Group (RRG) (see: http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/
   trac/wiki/RoutingResearchGroup).

   SEAL introduces a minimal new sublayer for IPvX in IPvY encapsulation
   (e.g., as IPv6/SEAL/IPv4), and appears as a subnetwork encapsulation
   as seen by the inner IP layer.  SEAL can also be used as a sublayer
   for encapsulating inner IP packets within outer UDP/IPv4 header
   (e.g., as IP/SEAL/UDP/IPv4) such as for the Teredo domain of
   applicability [RFC4380].  For further study, SEAL may also be useful
   for "transport-mode" applications, e.g., when the inner layer
   includes ordinary protocol data rather than an encapsulated IP
   packet.

   The current document version is specific to the use of IPv4 as the
   outer encapsulation layer, however the same principles apply when
   IPv6 is used as the outer layer.


4.  SEAL Protocol Specification







Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


4.1.  Model of Operation

   SEAL supports the encapsulation of inner IP packets in mid-layer and
   outer encapsulating headers/trailers.  For example, an inner IP
   packet would appear as IP/*/SEAL/*/IPv4 after mid-layer and outer
   encapsulations, where '*' denotes zero or more encapsulation
   sublayers.  Ingres Tunnel Endpoints (ITEs) add mid-layer '*' and
   outer SEAL/*/IPv4 encapsulations to the inner packets they inject
   into a subnetwork, where the outermost IPv4 header contains the
   source and destination addresses of the subnetwork entry/exit points
   (i.e., the ITE/ETE), respectively.  SEAL defines a new IP protocol
   type and a new encapsulation sublayer for both unicast and multicast.
   The ITE encapsulates an inner IP packet in mid-layer and outer
   encapsulations as shown in Figure 1:

                                            +-------------------------+
                                            |                         |
                                            ~   Outer */IPv4 headers  ~
                                            |                         |
   I                                        +-------------------------+
   n                                        |       SEAL Header       |
   n      +-------------------------+       +-------------------------+
   e      ~ Any mid-layer * headers ~       ~ Any mid-layer * headers ~
   r      +-------------------------+       +-------------------------+
          |                         |       |                         |
   I -->  ~        Inner IP         ~  -->  ~        Inner IP         ~
   P -->  ~         Packet          ~  -->  ~         Packet          ~
          |                         |       |                         |
   P      +-------------------------+       +-------------------------+
   a      ~  Any mid-layer trailers ~       ~  Any mid-layer trailers ~
   c      +-------------------------+       +-------------------------+
   k                                        ~    Any outer trailers   ~
   e                                        +-------------------------+
   t
           (After mid-layer encaps.)        (After SEAL/*/IPv4 encaps.)

                       Figure 1: SEAL Encapsulation

   where the SEAL header is inserted as follows:

   o  For simple IP/IPv4 encapsulations (e.g.,
      [RFC2003][RFC2004][RFC4213]), the SEAL header is inserted between
      the inner IP and outer IPv4 headers as: IP/SEAL/IPv4.

   o  For tunnel-mode IPsec encapsulations over IPv4, [RFC4301], the
      SEAL header is inserted between the {AH,ESP} header and outer IPv4
      headers as: IP/*/{AH,ESP}/SEAL/IPv4.




Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   o  For IP encapsulations over transports such as UDP, the SEAL header
      is inserted immediately after the outer transport layer header,
      e.g., as IP/*/SEAL/UDP/IPv4.

   SEAL-encapsulated packets include a 32-bit SEAL-ID formed from the
   concatenation of the 16-bit ID Extension field in the SEAL header as
   the most-significant bits, and with the 16-bit ID value in the outer
   IPv4 header as the least-significant bits.  (For tunnels that
   traverse IPv4 Network Address Translators, the SEAL-ID is instead
   maintained only within the 16-bit ID Extension field in the SEAL
   header.)  Routers within the subnetwork use the SEAL-ID for duplicate
   packet detection, and ITEs/ETEs use the SEAL-ID for SEAL segmentation
   and reassembly.

   SEAL enables a multi-level segmentation and reassembly capability.
   First, the ITE can use IPv4 fragmentation to fragment inner IPv4
   packets with DF=0 before SEAL encapsulation to avoid lower-level
   segmentation and reassembly.  Secondly, the SEAL layer itself
   provides a simple mid-layer cutting-and-pasting of mid-layer packets
   to avoid IPv4 fragmentation on the outer packet.  Finally, ordinary
   IPv4 fragmentation is permitted on the outer packet after SEAL
   encapsulation and used to detect and dampen any in-the-network
   fragmentation as quickly as possible.

   The following sections specifiy the SEAL-related operations of the
   ITE and ETE, respectively:

4.2.  ITE Specification

4.2.1.  Tunnel Interface MTU

   The ITE configures a tunnel virtual interface over one or more
   underlying links that connect the border router to the subnetwork.
   The tunnel interface must present a fixed MTU to the inner IP layer
   (i.e., Layer 3) as the size for admission of inner IP packets into
   the tunnel.  Since the tunnel interface provides a virtual point-to-
   multipoint abstraction between the ITE and a potentially large set of
   ETEs, however, care must be taken in setting a greatest-common-
   denominator MTU for all ETEs while still upholding end system
   expectations.

   Due to the ubiquitous deployment of standard Ethernet and similar
   networking gear, the nominal Internet cell size has become 1500
   bytes; this is the de facto size that end systems have come to expect
   will either be delivered by the network without loss due to an MTU
   restriction on the path or a suitable ICMP PTB message returned.
   However, the network may not always deliver the necessary PTBs,
   leading to MTU-related black holes [RFC2923].  The ITE therefore



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   requires a means for conveying 1500 byte (or smaller) packets to the
   ETE without loss due to MTU restrictions and without dependence on
   PTB messages from within the subnetwork.

   In common deployments, there may be many forwarding hops between the
   original source and the ITE.  Within those hops, there may be
   additional encapsulations (IPSec, L2TP, etc.) such that a 1500 byte
   packet sent by the original source might grow to a larger size by the
   time it reaches the ITE for encapsulation as an inner IP packet.
   Similarly, additional encapsulations on the path from the ITE to the
   ETE could cause the encapsulated packet to become larger still and
   trigger in-the-network fragmentation.  In order to preserve the end
   system expectations, the ITE therefore requires a means for conveying
   these larger packets to the ETE even though there may be links within
   the subnetwork that configure a smaller MTU.

   The ITE should therefore set a tunnel virtual interface MTU of 1500
   bytes plus extra room to accommodate any additional encapsulations
   that may occur on the path from the original source (i.e., even if
   the underlying links do not support an MTU of this size).  The ITE
   can set larger MTU values still (up to the maximum MTU size of the
   underlying links), but should select a value that is not so large as
   to cause excessive ICMP PTBs coming from within the tunnel interface
   (see: Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.6).  The ITE can also set smaller MTU
   values, however care must be taken not to set so small a value that
   original sources would experience an MTU underflow.  In particular,
   IPv6 sources must see a minimum path MTU of 1280 bytes, and IPv4
   sources should see a minimum path MTU of 576 bytes.

   The inner IP layer consults the tunnel interface MTU when admitting a
   packet into the interface.  For inner IPv4 packets larger than the
   tunnel interface MTU and with the IPv4 Don't Fragment (DF) bit set to
   0, the inner IP layer uses IPv4 fragmentation to break the packet
   into IPv4 fragments no larger than the tunnel interface MTU then
   admits each fragment into the tunnel as an independent packet.  For
   all other inner packets (IPv4 or IPv6), the ITE admits the packet if
   it is no larger than the tunnel interface MTU; otherwise, it drops
   the packet and sends an ICMP PTB message with an MTU value of the
   tunnel interface MTU to the source.

4.2.2.  Segmentation and Encapsulation

   The ITE performs segmentation and encapsulation on inner packets that
   have been admitted into the tunnel interface.  The ITE sets 'SLEN' to
   the length of the SEAL/*/IPv4 encapsulating headers and maintains a
   SEAL Maximum Segment Size (S-MSS) value for each ETE as soft state
   within the tunnel interface (e.g., in the IPv4 path MTU discovery
   cache).  The ITE initializes S-MSS to (MTU of the underlying link



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   minus SLEN), and decreases or increases S-MSS based on any
   Fragmentation Report (FRAGREP) messages received (see: Section
   4.2.6).  The ITE additionally maintains a SEAL Maximum Reassembly
   Unit (S-MRU) value for each ETE.  The ITE initializes S-MRU to a
   value no larger than (2KB -SLEN) and uses this value to determine
   when to set the "Dont Reassemble" bit (see below).

   The ITE first calculates the length 'MLEN' of any mid-layer '*'
   headers and trailers (e.g., for '*' = AH, ESP, NULL, etc.) to be
   added to the inner packet before SEAL/*/IPv4 encapsulation.  Next,
   for inner IPv4 packets with the DF bit set to 0, if the length of the
   inner packet is larger than (MIN(S-MSS, S-MRU) - MLEN) the ITE uses
   IPv4 fragmentation to break the packet into IPv4 fragments no larger
   than (MIN(S-MSS, S-MRU) - MLEN).  For other inner packets, if the
   length of the inner packet is larger than (MAX(S-MSS, S-MRU) - MLEN)
   the ITE drops the packet and sends an ICMP PTB message with an MTU
   value of (MAX(S-MSS, S-MRU) - MLEN) back to the original source.

   The ITE then encapsulates each inner packet/fragment in any mid-layer
   '*' headers and trailers.  For each such resulting mid-layer packet,
   if the packet is no larger than S-MRU but is larger than S-MSS, the
   ITE breaks it into N segments (N <= 16) that are no larger than S-MSS
   bytes each.  Each segment except the final one MUST be of equal
   length, while the final segment MUST be no larger than the initial
   segment.  The first byte of each segment MUST begin immediately after
   the final byte of the previous segment, i.e., the segments MUST NOT
   overlap.

   Note that this SEAL segmentation is used only for packets that are no
   larger than S-MRU; packets that are larger than S-MRU (and also no
   larger than S-MSS) are instead encapsulated as a single SEAL packet.
   Note also that this SEAL segmentation ignores the DF bit in the inner
   IPv4 header or (in the case of IPv6) ignores the fact that the
   network is not permitted to perform IPv6 fragmentation.  This
   segmentation process is a mid-layer (not an IP layer) operation
   employed by the ITE to adapt the mid-layer packet to the subnetwork
   path characteristics, and the ETE will restore the inner packet to
   its original form during decapsulation.  Therefore, the fact that the
   packet may have been segmented within the subnetwork is not
   observable after decapsulation.

   The ITE next encapsulates each segment in a SEAL header formatted as
   follows:








Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |          ID Extension         |D|M|CTL|Segment|  Next Header  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                       Figure 2: SEAL Header Format

   where the header fields are defined as follows:

   ID Extension (16)
      a 16-bit extension of the ID field in the outer IPv4 header;
      encodes the most-significant 16 bits of a 32 bit SEAL-ID value.

   D (1)
      the "Dont Reassemble" bit.  Set to 1 if this SEAL protocol packet
      is to be discarded by the ETE if IPv4 reassemly is required.

   M (1)
      the "More Segments" bit.  Set to 1 if this SEAL protocol packet
      contains a non-final segment of a multi-segment mid-layer packet.

   CTL (2)
      a 2-bit "Control" field that identifies the type of SEAL protocol
      packet as follows:

      '00' - a Fragmentation Report (FRAGREP).

      '01' - a non-probe.

      '10' - an implicit probe.

      '11' - an explicit probe.

   Segment (4)
      a 4-bit Segment number.  Encodes a segment number between 0 - 15.

   Next Header (8)  an 8-bit field that encodes an IP protocol number
      the same as for the IPv4 protocol and IPv6 next header fields.

   For single-segment mid-layer packets, the ITE encapsulates the
   segment in a SEAL header with (M=0; Segment=0).  For N-segment mid-
   layer packets (N <= 16), the ITE encapsulates each segment in a SEAL
   header with (M=1; Segment=0) for the first segment, (M=1; Segment=1)
   for the second segment, etc., with the final segment setting (M=0;
   Segment=N-1).  For all SEAL-encapsulated packets, the ITE sets D=0 in
   the SEAL header if the ETE is permitted to reassemble the packet if
   it arrives as multiple IPv4 fragments; in particular, the ITE MUST



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   set D=0 in the SEAL header for all mid-layer packets no larger than
   S-MRU.  The ITE instead sets D=1 in the SEAL header if the ETE is to
   discard the packet if it arrives as multiple IPv4 fragments; in
   particular, the ITE MUST set D=1 in the SEAL header for all mid-layer
   packets larger than S-MRU.

   The ITE next sets CTL in the SEAL header of each segment as specified
   in Section 4.2.5, then writes the IP protocol number corresponding to
   the mid-layer packet in the SEAL 'Next Header' field.  Next, the ITE
   encapsulates the segment in the requisite */IPv4 outer headers
   according to the specific encapsulation format (e.g., [RFC2003],
   [RFC4213], [RFC4380], etc.), except that it writes 'SEAL_PROTO' in
   the protocol field of the outer IPv4 header (when simple IPv4
   encapsualtion is used) or writes 'SEAL_PORT' in the outer destination
   service port field (e.g., when UDP/IPv4 encapsulation is used).  The
   ITE finally sets packet identification values and sends the packets
   as described in the following sections.

4.2.3.  Packet Identification

   For the purpose of packet identification, the ITE maintains a 32-bit
   SEAL-ID value as per-ETE soft state, e.g. in the IPv4 destination
   cache.  The ITE randomly-initializes SEAL-ID when the soft state is
   created and monotonically increments it (modulo 2^32) for each
   successive SEAL protocol packet it sends to the ETE.  For each
   packet, the ITE writes the least-significant 16 bits of the SEAL-ID
   value in the ID field in the outer IPv4 header, and writes the most-
   significant 16 bits in the ID Extension field in the SEAL header.

   For tunnels that may traverse an IPv4 Network Address Translator
   (NAT), the ITE instead maintains SEAL-ID as a 16-bit value that it
   randomly-initializes when the soft state is created and monotonically
   increments (modulo 2^16) for each successive SEAL protocol packet.
   For each packet, the ITE writes SEAL-ID in the ID extension field of
   the SEAL header and writes a random 16-bit value in the ID field in
   the outer IPv4 header.  This requires that both the ITE and ETE
   participate in this alternate scheme.

4.2.4.  Sending SEAL Protocol packets

   Following SEAL segmentation and encapsulation, the ITE sets DF=0 in
   the outer IPv4 header of every outer packet it sends.

   The ITE then sends each outer packet that encapsulates a segment of
   the same mid-layer packet into the tunnel in canonical order, i.e.,
   Segment 0 first, then Segment 1, etc. and finally Segment N-1.





Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


4.2.5.  Sending S-MSS Probes

   When S-MSS is larger than 128, the ITE sends each data packet as an
   implicit probe to detect any in-the-network IPv4 fragmentation.  The
   ITE sets CTL='10' in the SEAL header and DF=0 in the outer IPv4
   header of each SEAL protocol packet, and will receive FRAGREP
   messages from the ETE if fragmentation occurs.  When S-MSS=128, the
   ITE instead sets CTL='01' in the SEAL header to avoid generating
   FRAGREPs for unavoidable in-the-network fragmentation.

   The ITE additionally sends explicit probes periodically to manage a
   window of SEAL-IDs of outstanding probes that allows the ITE to
   validate any FRAGREPs it receives.  The ITE sends explicit probes by
   setting CTL='11' in the SEAL header and DF=0 in the IPv4 header,
   where the probe can be either an ordinary data packet or a NULL
   packet created by setting the 'Next Header' field in the SEAL header
   to a value of "No Next Header".  When the ETE receives an explicit
   probe, it will return a FRAGREP message whether or not any in-the-
   network fragmentation occured.

   The ITE should periodically probe to detect increases in the path MTU
   to the ETE.  The ITE can 1) reset S-MSS to the MTU of the underlying
   link minus SLEN, and/or 2) send explicit probes that are larger than
   S-MSS using either a NULL packet or an ordinary data packet that is
   padded at the end by setting the outer IPv4 length field to a larger
   value than the packet's true length.  In either case, the ITE
   processes any FRAGREPs returned to determine a new value for S-MSS.

4.2.6.  Processing Fragmentation Reports (FRAGREPs)

   When the ITE receives a potential FRAGREP message, it first verifies
   that the message was formatted correctly per Section 4.3.3;
   otherwise, it discards the message.  The ITE then discards the outer
   SEAL/*/IPv4 headers and verifies that the SEAL-ID embedded in the
   encapsulated IPv4 first-fragment is within the current window of
   outstanding probes for this ETE.  If the SEAL-ID is outside of the
   window, the ITE discards the message; otherwise, it advances the
   window and sets a variable 'FLEN' to the value in the first-
   fragment's IPv4 length field.  If (FLEN-SLEN) is smaller than S-MSS
   and the encapsulated IPv4 first-fragment contains an explicit probe,
   the ITE discards the message; otherwise, it re-calculates S-MSS as
   follows:

           if (FLEN-SLEN) is greater than S-MSS or FLEN is at least 576
               set S-MSS to (FLEN-SLEN)
           else
               set S-MSS to the maximum of S-MSS/2 and 128
           endif



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   The "576" in the S-MSS calculation above is the nominal minimum MTU
   for typical IPv4 links and accounts for normal-case IPv4 first
   fragments, while the "else" clause institutes a "limited halving"
   factor that accounts for unusual cases in which the ETE receives a
   small IPv4 first-fragment [RFC1812].  This limited halving may
   require multiple iterations of sending probes and receiving FRAGREPs,
   but will soon converge to a stable value for S-MSS.

   After deterimining a new value for S-MSS, if the first-fragment's
   IPv4 header has M=1 and its SEAL header has D=1, the ITE discards the
   first-fragment's SEAL/*/IPv4 and mid-layer '*' headers/trailers and
   encapsulates the remaining inner IP packet portion in an ICMP PTB
   messsage to send back to the original source, with the MTU field set
   to (MAX(S-MRU, FLEN-SLEN) - MLEN).

4.2.7.  Processing ICMP PTBs

   SInce the ITE sends all SEAL protocol packets with DF=0, it
   unconditionally ignores any ICMP PTBs pertaining to SEAL protocol
   packets that it receives from within the tunnel.

4.3.  ETE Specification

4.3.1.  Reassembly Buffer Requirements

   ETEs MUST be capable of using IPv4-layer reassembly to reassemble
   SEAL protocol outer packets of at least 2KB bytes, and MUST also be
   capable of using SEAL-layer reassembly to reassemble mid-layer
   packets of (2KB-SLEN).

4.3.2.  IPv4-Layer Reassembly

   The ETE performs IPv4 reassembly as-normal, and should maintain a
   conservative high- and low-water mark for the number of outstanding
   reassemblies pending for each ITE.  When the size of the reassembly
   buffer exceeds this high-water mark, the ETE actively discards
   incomplete reassemblies (e.g., using an Active Queue Management (AQM)
   strategy) until the size falls below the low-water mark.  The ETE
   should also use a reduced IPv4 maximum segment lifetime value (e.g.,
   15 seconds), i.e., the time after which it will discard an incomplete
   IPv4 reassembly for a SEAL protocol packet.

   After reassembly, the ETE either accepts or discards the reassembled
   packet based on the current status of the IPv4 reassembly cache
   (congested vs uncongested).  The SEAL-ID included in the IPv4 first-
   fragment provides an additional level of reassembly assurance, since
   it can record a distinct arrival timestamp useful for associating the
   first-fragment with its corresponding non-initial fragments.  The



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   choice of accepting/discarding a reassembly may also depend on the
   strength of the upper-layer integrity check if known (e.g., IPSec/ESP
   provides a strong upper-layer integrity check) and/or the corruption
   tolerance of the data (e.g., multicast streaming audio/video may be
   more corruption-tolerant than file transfer, etc.).

4.3.3.  Generating Fragmentation Reports (FRAGREPs)

   During IPv4-layer reassembly, the ETE determines whether the packet
   belongs to the SEAL protocol by checking for SEAL_PROTO in the outer
   IPv4 header (i.e., for simple IPv4 encapsulation) or for SEAL_PORT in
   the outer */IPv4 header (e.g., for '*'=UDP).

   When the ETE receives the IPv4 first-fragment of a SEAL protocol
   packet that was delivered as multiple IPv4 fragments and with
   CTL='10' in the SEAL header, it sends a FRAGREP message back to the
   ITE.  The ETE also sends a FRAGREP for any SEAL packet with CTL='11',
   i.e., even if the packet was not fragmented and while treating the
   unfragmented packet the same as a first-fragment.

   The ETE prepares the FRAGREP message by encapsulating as much of the
   first fragment as possible in outer SEAL/*/IPv4 headers without the
   length of the FRAGREP exceeding 576 bytes as shown in Figure 3:

   +-------------------------+ -
   |                         |   \
   ~   Outer */IPv4 headers  ~   |
   ~        of FRAGREP       ~    > FRAGREP headers
   |                         |   |
   +-------------------------+   |
   |  SEAL Header of FRAGREP |   /
   +-------------------------+ -
   |                         |   \
   ~    IP/*/SEAL/*/IPv4     ~   |
   ~  hdrs of first-fragment ~   |
   |                         |    > up to (576-SLEN) bytes
   +-------------------------+   |  of first-fragment
   |                         |   |
   ~  Data of first-fragment ~   |
   |                         |   /
   +-------------------------+ -

             Figure 3: Fragmentation Report (FRAGREP) Message

   The ETE next sets CTL='00', Segment=0, D=0 and M=0 in the outer SEAL
   header, sets the SEAL-ID the same as for any SEAL packet, then sets
   the SEAL Next Header field and the fields of the outer */IPv4 headers
   the same as for ordinay SEAL encapsulation (see: Sections 4.2.3 and



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   4.2.3).  The ETE then sets the FRAGREP's destination address to the
   source address of the first-fragment and sets the FRAGREP's source
   address to the destination address of the first-fragment.  If the
   destination address in the first-fragment was multicast, the ETE
   instead sets the FRAGREP's source address to an address assigned to
   the underlying IPv4 interface.  The ETE finally sends the FRAGREP to
   the ITE the same as specified in Section 4.2.4.

4.3.4.  SEAL-Layer Reassembly and Decapsulation

   Following IPv4 reassembly of a SEAL protocol packet and generation of
   FRAGREPs, if the packet arrived as multiple IPv4 fragments and with
   D=1 in the SEAL header, the ETE discards the reassembled packet.
   This ensures that tunnel is consistent in its handling of large
   packets.  Otherwise, the ETE performs SEAL-Layer reassembly of the
   mid-layer packet (if necessary) then decapsulates and processes the
   inner packet.

   The ETE performs SEAL-layer reassembly for multi-segment mid-layer
   packets through simple in-order concatenation of the encapsulated
   segments from N consecutive SEAL protocol packets from the same mid-
   layer packet.  SEAL-layer reassembly requires the ETE to maintain a
   cache of recently received SEAL packet segments for a hold time that
   would allow for reasonable inter-segment delays.  The ETE uses a SEAL
   maximum segment lifetime of 15 seconds for this purpose, i.e., the
   time after which it will discard an incomplete reassembly.  However,
   the ETE should also actively discard any pending reassemblies that
   clearly have no opportunity for completion, e.g., when a considerable
   number of new SEAL packets have been received before a packet that
   completes a pending reassembly has arrived.

   The ETE reassembles the mid-layer packet segments in SEAL protocol
   packets that contain Segment numbers 0 through N-1, with M=1/0 in
   non-final/final segments, respectively, and with consecutive SEAL-ID
   values.  That is, for an N-segment mid-layer packet, reassembly
   entails the concatenation of the SEAL-encapsulated segments with
   (Segment 0, SEAL-ID i), followed by (Segment 1, SEAL-ID ((i + 1) mod
   2^32)), etc. up to (Segment N-1, SEAL-ID ((i + N-1) mod 2^32)).  (For
   tunnels that may traverse an IPv4 NAT, the ETE instead uses only a
   16-bit SEAL-ID value, and uses mod 2^16 arithmetic to associate the
   segments of the same packet.)

   Following reassembly, if the packet had the value "No Next Header" in
   the SEAL header's Next Header field, the ETE discards the reassembled
   mid-layer packet.  Otherwise, the ETE decapsulates the packet and
   processes the inner packet as normal.





Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


5.  Link Requirements

   Subnetwork designers are strongly encouraged to follow the
   recommendations in [RFC3819] when configuring link MTUs, where all
   IPv4 links SHOULD configure a minimum MTU of 576 bytes.  Links that
   cannot configure an MTU of at least 576 bytes (e.g., due to
   performance characteristics) SHOULD implement transparent link-layer
   segmentation and reassembly such that an MTU of at least 576 can
   still be presented to the IP layer.


6.  End System Requirements

   SEAL provides robust mechanisms for returning ICMP PTB messages to
   the original source, however end systems that send unfragmentable IP
   packets larger than 1500 bytes are strongly encouraged to use
   Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery per [RFC4821].


7.  Router Requirements

   IPv4 routers within the subnetwork observe the requirements in
   [RFC1812], and are strongly encouraged to implement IPv4
   fragmentation such that the first fragment is the largest and
   approximately the size of the underlying link MTU.


8.  IANA Considerations

   SEAL_PROTO and SEAL_PORT are taken from their respective range of
   experimental values documented in [RFC3692][RFC4727].  These values
   are for experimentation purposes only, and not to be used for any
   kind of deployments (i.e., they are not to be shipped in any
   products).  This document therefore has no actions for IANA.


9.  Security Considerations

   Unlike IPv4 fragmentation, overlapping fragment attacks are not
   possible due to the requirement that SEAL segments be non-
   overlapping.

   An amplification/reflection attack is possible when an attacker sends
   IPv4 first-fragments with spoofed source addresses to an ETE,
   resulting in a stream of FRAGREP messages returned to a victim ITE.
   The encapsulated segment of the spoofed IPv4 first-fragment provides
   mitigation for the ITE to detect and discard spurious FRAGREPs.




Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   The SEAL header is sent in-the-clear (outside of any IPsec/ESP
   encapsulations) the same as for the IPv4 header.  As for IPv6
   extension headers, the SEAL header is protected only by L2 integrity
   checks and is not covered under any L3 integrity checks.


10.  Acknowledgments

   Path MTU determination through the report of fragmentation
   experienced by the final destination was first proposed by Charles
   Lynn of BBN on the TCP-IP mailing list in May 1987.  An historical
   analysis of the evolution of path MTU discovery appears in
   http://www.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-v6v4-ndisc-01 and is
   reproduced in Appendix A of this document.

   The following individuals are acknowledged for helpful comments and
   suggestions: Jari Arkko, Fred Baker, Teco Boot, Iljitsch van Beijnum,
   Brian Carpenter, Steve Casner, Ian Chakeres, Remi Denis-Courmont,
   Aurnaud Ebalard, Gorry Fairhurst, Joel Halpern, John Heffner, Bob
   Hinden, Christian Huitema, Joe Macker, Matt Mathis, Dan Romascanu,
   Dave Thaler, Joe Touch, Magnus Westerlund, Robin Whittle, James
   Woodyatt and members of the Boeing PhantomWorks DC&NT group.


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC1812]  Baker, F., "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers",
              RFC 1812, June 1995.

   [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.

11.2.  Informative References

   [FOLK]     C, C., D, D., and k. k, "Beyond Folklore: Observations on
              Fragmented Traffic", December 2002.

   [FRAG]     Kent, C. and J. Mogul, "Fragmentation Considered Harmful",
              October 1987.




Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   [I-D.ietf-manet-smf]
              Macker, J. and S. Team, "Simplified Multicast Forwarding
              for MANET", draft-ietf-manet-smf-07 (work in progress),
              February 2008.

   [I-D.templin-autoconf-dhcp]
              Templin, F., Russert, S., and S. Yi, "The MANET Virtual
              Ethernet (VET) Abstraction",
              draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp-14 (work in progress),
              April 2008.

   [MTUDWG]   "IETF MTU Discovery Working Group mailing list,
              gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/WRL/mogul/mtudwg-log, November
              1989 - February 1995.".

   [RFC1063]  Mogul, J., Kent, C., Partridge, C., and K. McCloghrie, "IP
              MTU discovery options", RFC 1063, July 1988.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC1981]  McCann, J., Deering, S., and J. Mogul, "Path MTU Discovery
              for IP version 6", RFC 1981, August 1996.

   [RFC2003]  Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2004]  Perkins, C., "Minimal Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2004,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2923]  Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery",
              RFC 2923, September 2000.

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

   [RFC3819]  Karn, P., Bormann, C., Fairhurst, G., Grossman, D.,
              Ludwig, R., Mahdavi, J., Montenegro, G., Touch, J., and L.
              Wood, "Advice for Internet Subnetwork Designers", BCP 89,
              RFC 3819, July 2004.

   [RFC4213]  Nordmark, E. and R. Gilligan, "Basic Transition Mechanisms
              for IPv6 Hosts and Routers", RFC 4213, October 2005.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC4380]  Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


              Network Address Translations (NATs)", RFC 4380,
              February 2006.

   [RFC4459]  Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
              Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, April 2006.

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

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.

   [RFC4963]  Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
              Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, July 2007.

   [TCP-IP]   "TCP-IP mailing list archives,
              http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/mist/tcpip, May
              1987 - May 1990.".


Appendix A.  Historic Evolution of PMTUD (written 10/30/2002)

   The topic of Path MTU discovery (PMTUD) saw a flurry of discussion
   and numerous proposals in the late 1980's through early 1990.  The
   initial problem was posed by Art Berggreen on May 22, 1987 in a
   message to the TCP-IP discussion group [TCP-IP].  The discussion that
   followed provided significant reference material for [FRAG].  An IETF
   Path MTU Discovery Working Group [MTUDWG] was formed in late 1989
   with charter to produce an RFC.  Several variations on a very few
   basic proposals were entertained, including:

   1.  Routers record the PMTUD estimate in ICMP-like path probe
       messages (proposed in [FRAG] and later [RFC1063])

   2.  The destination reports any fragmentation that occurs for packets
       received with the "RF" (Report Fragmentation) bit set (Steve
       Deering's 1989 adaptation of Charles Lynn's Nov. 1987 proposal)

   3.  A hybrid combination of 1) and Charles Lynn's Nov. 1987 proposal
       (straw RFC draft by McCloughrie, Fox and Mogul on Jan 12, 1990)

   4.  Combination of the Lynn proposal with TCP (Fred Bohle, Jan 30,
       1990)

   5.  Fragmentation avoidance by setting "IP_DF" flag on all packets
       and retransmitting if ICMPv4 "fragmentation needed" messages
       occur (Geof Cooper's 1987 proposal; later adapted into [RFC1191]
       by Mogul and Deering).



Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


   Option 1) seemed attractive to the group at the time, since it was
   believed that routers would migrate more quickly than hosts.  Option
   2) was a strong contender, but repeated attempts to secure an "RF"
   bit in the IPv4 header from the IESG failed and the proponents became
   discouraged. 3) was abandoned because it was perceived as too
   complicated, and 4) never received any apparent serious
   consideration.  Proposal 5) was a late entry into the discussion from
   Steve Deering on Feb. 24th, 1990.  The discussion group soon
   thereafter seemingly lost track of all other proposals and adopted
   5), which eventually evolved into [RFC1191] and later [RFC1981].

   In retrospect, the "RF" bit postulated in 2) is not needed if a
   "contract" is first established between the peers, as in proposal 4)
   and a message to the MTUDWG mailing list from jrd@PTT.LCS.MIT.EDU on
   Feb 19. 1990.  These proposals saw little discussion or rebuttal, and
   were dismissed based on the following the assertions:

   o  routers upgrade their software faster than hosts

   o  PCs could not reassemble fragmented packets

   o  Proteon and Wellfleet routers did not reproduce the "RF" bit
      properly in fragmented packets

   o  Ethernet-FDDI bridges would need to perform fragmentation (i.e.,
      "translucent" not "transparent" bridging)

   o  the 16-bit IP_ID field could wrap around and disrupt reassembly at
      high packet arrival rates

   The first four assertions, although perhaps valid at the time, have
   been overcome by historical events leaving only the final to
   consider.  But, [FOLK] has shown that IP_ID wraparound simply does
   not occur within several orders of magnitude the reassembly timeout
   window on high-bandwidth networks.

   (Authors 2/11/08 note: this final point was based on a loose
   interpretation of [FOLK], and is more accurately addressed in
   [RFC4963].)












Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 20]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


Author's Address

   Fred L. Templin (editor)
   Boeing Phantom Works
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA  98124
   USA

   Email: fltemplin@acm.org










































Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 21]

Internet-Draft                    SEAL                          May 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.











Templin                 Expires November 7, 2008               [Page 22]


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