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

Versions: (draft-hinden-6man-mtu-option) 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                          R. Hinden
Internet-Draft                                      Check Point Software
Intended status: Experimental                               G. Fairhurst
Expires: 18 March 2021                            University of Aberdeen
                                                       14 September 2020


                IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option
                     draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-03

Abstract

   This document specifies a new Hop-by-Hop IPv6 option that is used to
   record the minimum Path MTU along the forward path between a source
   host to a destination host.  This collects a minimum Path MTU
   recorded along the path to the destination.  The value can then be
   communicated back to the source using the return Path MTU field in
   the option.

   This Hop-by-Hop option is intended to be used in environments like
   Data Centers and on paths between Data Centers, to allow them to
   better take advantage of paths able to support a large Path MTU.  The
   method could also be useful in other environments, including the
   general Internet.

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 https://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 18 March 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.





Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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 the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Example Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  Use of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Motivation and Problem Solved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Applicability Statements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   6.  Router, Host, and Transport Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Router Behaviour  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.2.  Host Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     6.3.  Transport Behavior  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       6.3.1.  Including the Option in an Outgoing Packet  . . . . .   8
       6.3.2.  Validation by the Upper Layer Protocol  . . . . . . .  10
       6.3.3.  Receiving the Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       6.3.4.  Using the Rtn-PMTU Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       6.3.5.  Detection of Droping Packets that include the
               Option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Network Layer Host Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  Validating use of the Option Data . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.3.  Direct use of the Rtn-PMTU Value  . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     8.4.  Using the Rtn-PMTU Value as a Hint for Probing  . . . . .  14
     8.5.  Impact of Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]  . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18










Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


1.  Introduction

   This draft proposes a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option to be used to record
   the minimum of the Maxmim Transmission Unit (MTU) along the forward
   path between the source and destination hosts.  The source host
   creates a packet with this Hop-by-Hop Option and fills the Min-PMTU
   field in the option with the value of the MTU for the outbound link
   that will be used to forward the packet towards the destination host.
   This option is carried in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header.

   At each subsequent hop where the option is processed, the router
   compares the value of the Min-PMTU Field in the option and the MTU of
   its outgoing link.  If the MTU of the outgoing link is less than the
   Min-PMTU specified in the option, it rewrites the value in the option
   data with the smaller value.  When the packet arrives at the
   destination host, the destination host can send the value of the
   minimum reported MTU for the path back to the source host using the
   Rtn-PMTU field in the option.  The source host can then use this
   value as an input to the method used to set the Path MTU (PMTU) used
   by upper layer protocols.

1.1.  Example Operation

   The figure below illustrates the operation of the method.  In this
   case, the path between the source and destination hosts comprises
   three links, the sender has a link MTU of size MTU-S, the link
   between routers R1 and R2 has an MTU of size 9000 bytes, and the
   final link to the destination has an MTU of size MTU-D.

      +--------+         +----+        +----+         +-------+
      |        |         |    |        |    |         |       |
      | Sender +---------+ R1 +--------+ R2 +-------- + Dest. |
      |        |         |    |        |    |         |       |
      +--------+  MTU-S  +----+  9000B +----+  MTU-D  +-------+


   Three scenarios are described:

   *  Scenario 1, considers all links to have an 9000 byte MTU and the
      method is supported by both routers.  The PMTU is therefore 9000
      bytes.

   *  Scenario 2, considers the link to the destination host (MTU-D) to
      have an MTU of 1500 bytes.  This is the smallest MTU, router R2
      updates the Min-PMTU to 1500 bytes and the method correctly
      updates the PMTU to 1500 bytes.  Had there been another smaller
      MTU at a link further along the path that also supports the
      method, the lower MTU would also have been detected.



Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   *  Scenario 3, considers the case where the router preceding the
      smallest link (R2) does not support the method, and the link to
      the destination host (MTU-D) has an MTU of 1500 bytes.  Therefore,
      router R2 does not update the Min-PMTU to 1500 bytes.  The method
      then fails to detect the actual PMTU.

   In Scenarios 2 and 3, a lower PMTU would also fail to be detected in
   the case where PMTUD had been used and an ICMPv6 Packet to Big (PTB)
   message had not been delivered to the sender [RFC8201].

   These scenarios are summarized in the table below.

      +-+-----+-----+----+----+----------+-----------------------+
      | |MTU-S|MTU-D| R1 | R2 | Rec PMTU | Note                  |
      +-+-----+-----+----+----+----------+-----------------------+
      |1|9000B|9000B| H  | H  |  9000 B  | Endpoints attempt to  |
      |       |     |    |    |          | use an 9000 B PMTU.   |
      +-+-----+-----+----+----+----------+-----------------------+
      |2|9000B|1500B| H  | H  |  1500 B  | Endpoints attempt to  |
      | |     |     |    |    |          | use a 1500 B PMTU.    |
      +-+-----+-----+----+----+----------+-----------------------+
      |3|9000B|1500B| H  | -  |  9000 B  | Endpoints attempt to  |
      | |     |     |    |    |          | use an 9000 B PMTU,   |
      | |     |     |    |    |          | but need to implement |
      | |     |     |    |    |          | a method to fall back |
      | |     |     |    |    |          | to discover and use a |
      | |     |     |    |    |          | 1500 B PMTU.          |
      +-+-----+-----+----+----+----------+-----------------------+


1.2.  Use of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header

   IPv6 as specified in [RFC8200] allows nodes to optionally process
   Hop-by-Hop headers.  Specifically from Section 4:

   *  The Hop-by-Hop Options header is not inserted or deleted, but may
      be 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.  The Hop-by-Hop Options header,
      when present, must immediately follow the IPv6 header.  Its
      presence is indicated by the value zero in the Next Header field
      of the IPv6 header.

   *  NOTE: While [RFC2460] required that all nodes must examine and
      process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that
      nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the
      Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so.



Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   The Hop-by-Hop Option defined in this document is designed to take
   advantage of this property of how Hop-by-Hop options are processed.
   Nodes that do not support this Option SHOULD ignore them.  This can
   mean that the Min-PMTU value does not account for all links along a
   path.

2.  Motivation and Problem Solved

   The current state of Path MTU Discovery on the Internet is
   problematic.  The mechanisms defined in [RFC8201] are known to not
   work well in all environments.  This fails to work in various cases,
   including when nodes in the middle of the network do not send ICMP
   PTB messages, or rate-limited messages to the point of not making
   them a useful mechanism, or do not have a return path to the source
   host.

   This results in many transport connections being configured to use
   smaller packets (e.g., 1280 bytes) by default and makes it difficult
   to take advantage of paths with a larger PMTU where they do exist.
   Applications that can gain benefit from sending large packets are
   forced to use IPv6 Fragmentation [RFC8200], which can reduce the
   reliability of Internet communication [RFC8900].

   Transport encapsulations and network-layer tunnels further reduce the
   the payload size available for a transport to use.  Also, some use-
   cases increase packet overhead, for example, Network Virtualization
   Using Generic Routing Encapsulation (NVGRE) [RFC7637] encapsulates L2
   packets in an outer IP header and does not allow IP Fragmentation.

   Sending small packets can limit performance, e.g., when packet
   processing is limited by the packet rate.  The potential of multi-
   gigabit Ethernet will not be realized if the packet size is limited
   to 1280 bytes, because this exceeds the packet per second rate that
   most nodes can process.  For example, the packet per second rate
   required to reach wire speed on a 10G Ethernet link with 1280 byte
   packets is about 977K packets per second (pps), vs. 139K pps for 9000
   byte packets.  A significant difference.

   The purpose of the this draft is to improve the situation by defining
   a mechanism that does not rely on reception of ICMPv6 Packet Too Big
   messages from nodes in the middle of the network.  Instead, this
   provides information to the destination host about the minimum Path
   MTU, and sends this information back to the source host.  This is
   expected to work better than the current RFC8201-based mechanisms.







Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


3.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

4.  Applicability Statements

   This Hop-by-Hop Option header is intended to be used in environments
   such as Data Centers and on paths between Data Centers, to allow a
   host to better take advantage of a path that is able to support a
   large PMTU.

   The design of the option is sufficiently simple that it could be
   executed on a router's fast path.  A strong pull from router vendors
   customers will be required to create critical mass for this to
   happen.  This could initially be the case for connections within and
   between Data Centers.

   The method could also be useful in other environments, including the
   general Internet, if and when this Hop-by-Hop Option is supported on
   these paths.

5.  IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option

   The Minimum Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option has the following format:























Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


    Option    Option    Option
     Type    Data Len   Data
   +--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-+
   |BBCTTTTT|00000100|     Min-PMTU    |     Rtn-PMTU    |R|
   +--------+--------+--------+--------+---------+-------+-+

     Option Type (see Section 4.2 of [RFC8200]):

     BB     00   Skip over this option and continue processing.

     C       1   Option data can change en route to the packet's final
                 destination.

     TTTTT 10000 Option Type assigned from IANA [IANA-HBH].

     Length:  4  The size of the each value field in Option Data
                 field supports PMTU values from 0 to 65,535 octets.

     Min-PMTU: n 16-bits.  The minimum MTU recorded along the path
                 in octets, reflecting the smallest link MTU that
                 the packet experienced along the path.
                 A value less than the IPv6 minimum link
                 MTU [RFC8200] should be ignored.

     Rtn-PMTU: n 15-bits.  The returned Path MTU field, carrying the 15
                 most significant bits of the latest received Min-PMTU
                 field for the forward path.  The value zero means that
                 no Reported MTU is being returned.

     R        n  1-bit.  R-Flag.   Set by the source to signal that
                 the destination host should include the received
                 Rtn-PMTU field updated by the reported Min-PMTU value.

   NOTE: The encoding of the final two octets (Rtn-PMTU and R-Flag)
   could be implemented by a mask of the latest received Min-PMTU value
   with 0xFFFE, discarding the right-most bit and then performing a
   logical 'OR' with the R-Flag value of the sender.

6.  Router, Host, and Transport Behaviors

6.1.  Router Behaviour

   Routers that are not configured to support Hop-by-Hop Options SHOULD
   ignore this option and SHOULD forward the packet.

   Routers that support Hop-by-Hop Options, but that are not configured
   to support this option SHOULD ignore the option and SHOULD forward
   the packet.



Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   Routers that recognize this option SHOULD compare the value of the
   Min-PMTU field with the MTU configured for the outgoing link.  If the
   MTU of the outgoing link is less than the Min-PMTU, the router
   rewrites the Min-PMTU in the Option to use the smaller value.

   A router MUST ignore and MUST NOT change the Rtn-PMTU field or the
   R-Flag in the option.

   Discussion:

   *  The design of this option makes it feasible to be implemented
      within the fast path of a router, because the processing
      requirements are minimal.

6.2.  Host Behavior

   When requested to send an IPv6 packet with the Minimum Path MTU
   option, the source host includes the option in an outgoing packet.
   The source host SHOULD fill the Min-PMTU field with the MTU
   configured for the link over which it will send the packet on the
   next hop towards the destination host.  If this value is not updated,
   the field MUST be set to zero.

   The source host SHOULD set the Rtn-PMTU field to the cached value of
   the reported Min-PMTU value for the flow ( see Section 6.3.3).  If
   this value is not set, for example, because there is no cached
   reported Min-PMTU value, the field MUST be set to zero.

   The source host MAY request the destination host to return the
   reported Min-PMTU value by setting the R-Flag in the option of an
   outgoing packet.

6.3.  Transport Behavior

6.3.1.  Including the Option in an Outgoing Packet

   The upper layer protocol can request the Minimum Path MTU option is
   included in an outgoing IPv6 packet.  This option does not need to be
   included in all packets belonging to a flow.  A transport protocol
   (or upper layer protocol) can include this option only on specific
   packets used to test the path.

   When it includes the option, the host supplies the previously cached
   value of the received Minimum Path MTU for the flow to set the Rtn-
   PMTU field (see Section 6.3.3).  If a valid cached received Minimum
   Path MTU is not available, the Rtn-PMTU field value MUST be set to
   zero.




Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   The source host MAY request the destination host to send a packet
   carrying the option by setting the R-Flag.  The R-Flag SHOULD NOT be
   set when the Minimum Path MTU Option was sent solely to feedback the
   return Path MTU.

   NOTE: Including this option in a large packet (e.g., one larger than
   the present PMTU) is not likely to be useful, since the large packet
   would itself be dropped by any link along the path with a smaller
   MTU, preventing the Min-PMTU information from reaching the
   destination host.

   Discussion:

   *  In the case of TCP, the option could be included in packets
      carrying a SYN segment as part of the connection set up, or can
      periodically be sent in packets carrying other segments.
      Including this packet in a SYN could increase the probability that
      the SYN segment is lost when routers on the path drop packets with
      this option (see Section 6.3.5).  NOTE: A TCP connection can also
      negotiate the Maximum Segment Size (MSS), which acts as an upper
      limit to the packet size that can be sent by a TCP sender.

   *  The use with datagram transport protocols (e.g., UDP) is harder to
      characterize because applications using datagram transports range
      from very short-lived (low data-volume applications) exchanges, to
      longer (bulk) exchanges of packets between the source and
      destination hosts [RFC8085].

   *  Simple-exchange protocols (i.e., low data-volume applications
      [RFC8085] that only send one or a few packets per transaction,
      might assume that the PMTU is symmetrical.  That is, the PMTU is
      the same in both directions, or at least not smaller for the
      return path.  This optimisation does not hold when the paths are
      not symmetric.

   *  The use of this option with DNS and DNSSEC over UDP ought to work,
      for symmetric paths.  The DNS server will learn the PMTU from the
      DNS query messages.  If the Rtn-PMTU value is smaller, then a
      large DNSSEC response might be dropped and the known problems with
      PMTUD will occur.  DNS and DNSSEC over transport protocols that
      can carry the PMTU ought to work.

   *  Applications that use Anycast should include this option in all
      packets, because the actual destination host will vary due to the
      nature of Anycast.






Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


6.3.2.  Validation by the Upper Layer Protocol

   An upper layer protocol (e.g., transport endpoint) using this option
   needs to provide protection from data injection attacks by off-path
   devices [RFC8085].  This requires a method to assure that the
   information in the Option Data is provided by a node on the path.
   For example, a TCP connection or UDP application that maintains the
   related state and uses a randomised ephemeral port would provide this
   basic validation to protect from off-path data injection.  IPsec
   [RFC4301] and TLS [RFC8446] provide greater assurance.

   The Upper Layer discards any received packet when the packet
   validation fails.  When this packet validation fails, the Upper Layer
   MUST also discard the associated Option Data from the minimum Path
   MTU option without further processing.

6.3.3.  Receiving the Option

   An upper layer protocol that receives a Minimum Path MTU Option
   iccnluded with a valid packet caches the value of the last received
   Min-PMTU.  This value is specific to the instance of the upper layer
   protocol (i.e., matching the IPv6 flow ID, port-fields in UDP or the
   SPI in IPsec [RFC4301], etc), not to the pair of source and
   destination addresses, because network devices can make forwarding
   decisions that impact the PMTU of a flow based on the presence and
   value of the packet's upper layer fields.

   For a connection-oriented upper layer protocol, caching of the
   received Min-PMTU could be implemented by saving the value in the
   connection context at the transport layer.  A connection-less upper
   layer (e.g., one using UDP), requires the upper layer protocol to
   cache the value for each flow it uses.

   A destination host that receives a Minimum Path MTU Option with the
   R-Flag SHOULD include the Minimum Path MTU option in the next
   outgoing IPv6 packet for the corresponding flow.

   A simple mechanism could only include this option (with the Rtn-PMTU
   field set) the first time this option is received or when it notifies
   a change in the Minimum Path MTU.  This limits the number of packets
   including the option packets that are sent.  However, this does not
   provide robustness to packet loss or recovery after a sender looses
   state.

   Path characteristics can change and the actual PMTU could increase or
   decrease over time.  For instance, following a path change when
   packets are then forwarded over a link with a different MTU than that
   previously used.  To bound the delay in discovering a change in the



Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   actual PMTU, a sender with a link MTU larger than the current PMTU
   SHOULD periodically send the Minimum Path MTU Option with the R-bit
   set.  DPLPMTUD provides recommendations concerning how this could be
   implemented (see Section 5.3 of [RFC8899]).  Since the option
   consumes less capacity than a full-sized probe packet, there can be
   advantage in using this to detect a change in the path
   characteristics.

   Discussion:

   *  Some upper layer protocols send packets less frequently than
      packets that the host receives packets.  This provides less
      frequent feedback of the received Rtn-PMTU value.  However, a host
      always sends the most recent Rtn-PMTU value.

6.3.4.  Using the Rtn-PMTU Field

   The Rtn-PMTU field provides an indication of the PMTU from on-path
   routers.  It does not necessarily reflect the actual PMTU between the
   sender and destination.  Care therefore needs to be exercised in
   using the Rtn-PMTU value.  Specifically:

   *  The actual PMTU can be lower than the Rtn-PMTU value because Min-
      PMTU field was not updated by a router on the path that did not
      process the option.

   *  The actual PMTU may be lower than the Rtn-PMTU value because the
      there is a layer 2 device with a lower MTU that does not perform
      IPv6 forwarding.

   *  The actual PMTU may be larger than the Rtn-PMTU value because of a
      corrupted, delayed or mis-ordered response.  A source host SHOULD
      ignore a Rtn-PMTU value larger than the MTU configured for the
      outgoing link.

   Using the method has the potential to complete discovery of the
   correct value in a single round trip time, even over paths that have
   successive links each configured with a lower MTU.













Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   To avoid unintentional dropping of packets that exceed the actual
   PMTU (e.g., Scenario 3 in Section 1.1), the source host can delay
   increasing the PMTU until a probe packet with the size of the Rtn-
   PMTU value has been sucessfuly acknowledged by the upper layer,
   confirming that the path supports the larger PMTU.  This probing
   increases robustness, but adds one additional path round trip time
   before the PMTU is updated.  This use resembles that of PTB messages
   in section 4.6 of DPLPMTUD [RFC8899] (with the important difference
   that a PTB message can only seek to lower the PMTU, whereas this
   option could trigger a probe packet to seek to increase the PMTU.)

   Section 5.2 of [RFC8201] provides guidance on the caching of PMTU
   information and also the relation to IPv6 flow labels.
   Implementations should consider the impact of Equal Cost Multipath
   (ECMP) [RFC6438].  Specifically, whether a PMTU ought be maintained
   for each transport endpoint, or for each network address.

6.3.5.  Detection of Droping Packets that include the Option

   There is evidence that some middleboxes drop packets that include
   Hop-by-Hop options.  For example, a firewall might drop a packet that
   carries an unknown extension header or option.  This practice is
   expected to decrease as an option becomes more widely used.  It could
   result in generation of an ICMPv6 message indicating the problem.
   This could be used to (temporarily) suspend use of this option.

   A middlebox that silently discards a packet with this option, results
   in dropping of any packet using the option.  This dropping be avoided
   by appropiate configuration in a controlled environment, such as
   within a data centre, but needs to be considered for Internet usage.
   Section 6.2 recommends that this option is not used on packets where
   loss might adversely impact performance.

7.  IANA Considerations

   No IANA actions are requested in this document.

   IANA has assigned and registered a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option type
   from the "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry
   [IANA-HBH].  This assignment is shown in Section 5.











Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


8.  Security Considerations

   This section discusses the security considerations.  It first reviews
   host processing when receiving this option at the network layer.  It
   then considers two ways in which the Option Data can be processed,
   followed by two approaches for using the Option Data.  Finally, it
   discusses middlebox implications related to use in the general
   Interent.

8.1.  Network Layer Host Processing

   A malicious attacker can forge a packet directed at a host that
   carries the minimum Path MTU option.  By design, the fields of this
   IP option can be modified by the network.

   Network layer option processing is normally done before any upper
   layer protocol delivery checks are performed.  Reception of this
   packet will incur receive processing as the network stack parses the
   packet before the packet is delivered to the upper layer protocol.

   The network layer does not normally have sufficient information to
   validate that the packet carrying an option originated from the
   destination (or an on-path node).  It also does not typically have
   sufficient context to demultiplex the packet to identify the related
   transport flow.  This can mean that any changes resulting from
   reception of the option apply to all flows between a pair of
   endpoints.

   These considerations are no different to other uses of Hop-by-Hop
   options, and this is the use case for PMTUD.  The following section
   describes a mitigation for this attack.

8.2.  Validating use of the Option Data

   Transport protocols should be designed to provide protection from
   data injection attacks by off-path devices and mechanisms should be
   described in the Security Considerations for each transport
   specification (see Section 5.1 of the UDP Guidelines [RFC8085]).  For
   example, a TCP or UDP application that maintains the related state
   and uses a randomised ephemeral port would provide basic protection.
   TLS [RFC8446] or IPsec [RFC4301] provide cryptographic
   authentication.  An upper layer protocol that validates each received
   packet discards any packet when this validation fails.  In this case,
   the host MUST also discard the associated Option Data from the
   minimum Path MTU option without further processing (Section 6.3).






Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   A network node on the path has visibility of all packets it forwards.
   By observing the network packet payload, the node might be able to
   construct a packet might be validated by the destination host.  Such
   a node would also be able to drop or limit the flow in other ways
   that could be potentially more disruptive.  Authenticating the
   packet, for example, using IPsec [RFC4301] or TLS [RFC8446] mitigates
   this attack.

8.3.  Direct use of the Rtn-PMTU Value

   The simplest way to utilise the Rtn-PMTU value is to directly use
   this to update PMTU.  This approach results in a set of security
   issues when the option carries malicious data:

   *  A direct update of the PMTU using the Rtn-PMTU value could result
      in an attacker inflating or reducing the size of the host PMTU for
      the destination.  Forcing a reduction in the PMTU can decrease the
      efficiency of network use, might increase the number of packets/
      fragments required to send the same volume of payload data, and
      prevents sending an unfragmented datagram larger than the PMTU.
      Increasing the PMTU can result in black-holing (see Section 1.1 of
      [RFC8899]) when the source sends packets larger than the actual
      PMTU.  This persists until the PMTU is next updated.

   *  The method can be used to solicit a response from the destination
      host.  A malicious attacker could forge a packet that cause the
      sender to add the option to a packet sent to the source.  A forged
      value of Rtn-PMTU in the Option Data might also impact the remote
      endpoint, as described in the previous bullet.  This persists
      until a valid minimum Path MTU option is received.  This attack
      could be mitigated by limiting the sending of the minimum Path MTU
      option in reply to incoming packets that carry the option.

8.4.  Using the Rtn-PMTU Value as a Hint for Probing

   Another way to utilise the Rtn-PMTU value is to indirectly trigger a
   probe to determine if the path supports a PMTU of size Rtn-PMTU.
   This approach needs context for the flow, and hence assumes an upper
   layer protocol that validates the packet that carries the option
   Section 8.2.  This is the case when used in combination with DPLPMTUD
   [RFC8899].  A set of security considerations result when an option
   carries malicious data:

   *  If the forged packet carries a validated option with a non-zero
      Rtn-PMTU field, the upper layer protocol can utilise the
      information in the Rtn-PMTU field.  A Rtn-PMTU larger than the
      current PMTU can trigger a probe for a new size.




Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   *  If the forged packet carries a non-zero Min-PMTU field, the upper
      layer protocol would change the cached information about the path
      from the source.  The cached information at the destination host
      will be overwritten when the host receives another packet that
      includes a minimum Path MTU option corresponding to the flow.

   *  Processing of the option could cause a destination host to add the
      minimum Path MTU option to a packet sent to the source host.  This
      option will carry a Rtn-PMTU value that could have been updated by
      the forged packet.  The impact of the source host receiving this
      resembles that discussed previously.

8.5.  Impact of Middleboxes

   There is evidence that some middleboxes drop packets that include
   Hop-by-Hop options.  For example, a firewall might drop a packet that
   carries an unknown extension header or option.  This practice is
   expected to decrease as the option becomes more widely used.  Methods
   to address this are discussed in Section 6.3.5.

   When a forged packet cause a packet to be sent including the minimum
   Path MTU option, and the return path does not forward packets with
   this option, the packet will be dropped Section 6.3.5.  This attack
   is mitigated by validating the option data before use and by limiting
   the rate of responses generated.  An upper layer could further
   mitigate the impact by responding to a R-Flag by including the option
   in a packet that does not carry application data.

9.  Acknowledgments

   A somewhat similar mechanism was proposed for IPv4 in 1988 in
   [RFC1063] by Jeff Mogul, C.  Kent, Craig Partridge, and Keith
   McCloghire.  It was later obsoleted in 1990 by [RFC1191] the current
   deployed approach to Path MTU Discovery.

   Helpful comments were received from Tom Herbert, Tom Jones, Fred
   Templin, Ole Troan, [Your name here], and other members of the 6MAN
   working group.

10.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove]

   draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-03, 2020-Sept-14

   *  Rewrite to make text and terminology more consistent.
   *  Added the notion of validating the packet before use of the HBH
      option data.
   *  Method aligned with the way common APIs send/receive HBH option
      data.



Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   *  Added reference to DPLPMTUD and clarified upper layer usage.
   *  Completed security considerations section.

   draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-02, 2020-March-9

   *  Editorial changes to make text and terminology more consistent.
   *  Added reference to DPLPMTUD.

   draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-01, 2019-September-13

   *  Changes to show IANA assigned code point.
   *  Editorial changes to make text and terminology more consistent.
   *  Added a reference to RFC8200 in Section 2 and a reference to
      RFC6438 in Section 6.3.

   draft-ietf-6man-mtu-option-00, 2019-August-9

   *  First 6man w.g. draft version.
   *  Changes to request IANA allocation of code point.
   *  Editorial changes.

   draft-hinden-6man-mtu-option-02, 2019-July-5

   *  Changed option format to also include the Returned PMTU value and
      Return flag and made related text changes in Section 6.2 to
      describe this behaviour.
   *  ICMP Packet Too Big messages are no longer used for feedback to
      the source host.
   *  Added to Acknowledgements Section that a similar mechanism was
      proposed for IPv4 in 1988 in [RFC1063].
   *  Editorial changes.

   draft-hinden-6man-mtu-option-01, 2019-March-05

   *  Changed requested status from Standards Track to Experimental to
      allow use of experimental option type (11110) to allow for
      experimentation.  Removed request for IANA Option assignment.
   *  Added Section 2 "Motivation and Problem Solved" section to better
      describe what the purpose of this document is.
   *  Added appendix describing planned experiments and how the results
      will be measured.
   *  Editorial changes.

   draft-hinden-6man-mtu-option-00, 2018-Oct-16

   *  Initial draft.

11.  References



Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


11.1.  Normative References

   [IANA-HBH] "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/
              ipv6-parameters.xhtml#ipv6-parameters-2>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8201]  McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
              "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8201>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1063]  Mogul, J., Kent, C., Partridge, C., and K. McCloghrie, "IP
              MTU discovery options", RFC 1063, DOI 10.17487/RFC1063,
              July 1988, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1063>.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301,
              December 2005, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.

   [RFC6438]  Carpenter, B. and S. Amante, "Using the IPv6 Flow Label
              for Equal Cost Multipath Routing and Link Aggregation in
              Tunnels", RFC 6438, DOI 10.17487/RFC6438, November 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6438>.




Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft               Path MTU Option              September 2020


   [RFC7637]  Garg, P., Ed. and Y. Wang, Ed., "NVGRE: Network
              Virtualization Using Generic Routing Encapsulation",
              RFC 7637, DOI 10.17487/RFC7637, September 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7637>.

   [RFC8085]  Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
              Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>.

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8446>.

   [RFC8899]  Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tüxen, M., Rüngeler, I., and T.
              Völker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
              Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
              September 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.

   [RFC8900]  Bonica, R., Baker, F., Huston, G., Hinden, R., Troan, O.,
              and F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile",
              BCP 230, RFC 8900, DOI 10.17487/RFC8900, September 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8900>.

Authors' Addresses

   Robert M. Hinden
   Check Point Software
   959 Skyway Road
   San Carlos, CA 94070
   United States of America

   Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com


   Godred Fairhurst
   University of Aberdeen
   School of Engineering
   Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen
   AB24 3UE
   United Kingdom

   Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk








Hinden & Fairhurst        Expires 18 March 2021                [Page 18]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/