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

Versions: 00 01

INTERNET-DRAFT                                                T. Herbert
Intended Status: Proposed Standard                            Quantonium
Expires: November 19, 2017                                       L. Yong
                                                                  Huawei
                                                              F. Templin
                                                                  Boeing

                                                            May 18, 2017


                Extensions for Generic UDP Encapsulation
                  draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01


Abstract

   This specification defines a set of the fundamental optional
   extensions for Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE). The extensions
   defined in this specification are the group identifier, security
   option, payload transform option, checksum option, fragmentation
   option, and the remote checksum offload option.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html


Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors. All rights reserved.



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 1]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document. Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  GUE header format with optional extensions . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Group identifier option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     3.1.  Extension field format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     3.2.  Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   4.  Security option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.1.  Extension field format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     4.2.  Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.3.  Cookies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     4.4.  HMAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.4.1. Extension field format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       4.4.2. Selecting a hash algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.4.3. Pre-shared key management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     4.5.  Interaction with other optional extensions . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  Fragmentation option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.1.  Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Scope  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.3.  Extension field format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     5.4.  Fragmentation procedure  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     5.5.  Reassembly procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     5.6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   6.  Payload transform option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.1.  Extension field format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     6.2.  Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     6.3.  Interaction with other optional extensions . . . . . . . . 19
     6.4.  DTLS transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   7.  Remote checksum offload option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.1.  Extension field format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     7.2.  Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.2.1. Transmitter operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
       7.2.2. Receiver operation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
     7.3.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  Checksum option  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     8.1.  Extension field format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.2.  Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 2]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


     8.3.  GUE checksum pseudo header . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     8.4.  Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       8.4.1. Transmitter operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       8.4.2.Receiver operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
     8.5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   9.  Processing order of options  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
   10.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
   11. IANA Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
   12.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     12.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     12.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31







































T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 3]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


1.  Introduction

   Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) [I.D.ietf-gue] is a generic and
   extensible encapsulation protocol. This specification defines a
   fundamental set of optional extensions for version 0 of GUE. These
   extensions are the group identifier, security option, payload
   transform option, checksum option, fragmentation option, and the
   remote checksum offload option.

2.  GUE header format with optional extensions

   The format of a version 0 GUE header with the optional extensions
   defined in this specification is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
   |        Source port            |      Destination port         | UDP
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/
   |           Length              |          Checksum             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | 0 |C|   Hlen  |  Proto/ctype  |G| SEC |F|T|R|S|   Rsvd Flags  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Group identifier (optional)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                      Security (optional)                      ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                     Fragmentation (optional)                  +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Payload transform (optional                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                 Remote checksum offload (optional)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Checksum (optional)                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                    Private data (optional)                    ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The contents of the UDP header are described in [I.D.ietf-gue].






T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 4]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   The GUE header consists of:

      o Ver: Version. Set to 0 to indicate GUE encapsulation header.
        Note that version 1 does not allow options.

      o C: C-bit. Indicates the GUE payload is a control message when
        set, a data message when not set. GUE optional extensions can be
        used with either control or data messages unless otherwise
        specified in the extension definition.

      o Hlen: Length in 32-bit words of the GUE header, including
        optional extension fields but not the first four bytes of the
        header. Computed as (header_len - 4) / 4. The length of the
        encapsulated packet is determined from the UDP length and the
        Hlen: encapsulated_packet_length = UDP_Length - 12 - 4*Hlen.

      o Proto/ctype: If the C-bit is not set this indicates IP protocol
        number for the packet in the payload; if the C bit is set this
        is the type of control message in the payload. The next header
        begins at the offset provided by Hlen. When the payload
        transform option or fragmentation option is used this field MAY
        be set to protocol number 59 for a data message, or zero for a
        control message, to indicate no next header for the payload.

      o G: Indicates the the group identifier extension field is
        present. The group identifier option is described in section 3.

      o SEC: Indicates security extension field is present. The security
        option is described in section 4.

      o F: Indicates fragmentation extension field is present. The
        fragmentation option is described in section 5.

      o T: Indicates payload transform extension field is present. The
        payload transform option is described in section 6.

      o R: Indicates the remote checksum extension field is present. The
        remote checksum offload option is described in section 7.

      o K: Indicates checksum extension field is present. The checksum
        option is described in section 8.

      o Private data is described in [I.D.ietf-gue].

3.  Group identifier option

   The group identifier classifies packet that logically belong to the
   same group. Groups are arbitrarily defined for different purposes and



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 5]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   their definition is shared between the communicating end nodes.

3.1.  Extension field format

   The presence of the GUE group identifier option is indicated in the G
   flag bit of the GUE header.

   The format of the group identifier option is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                       Group identifier                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields of the option are:

      o Group identifier: Identifier value of a group.

3.2.  Usage

   The group identifier is set by an encapsulator to indicate to the
   decapsulator that a packet belongs to a group. Groups may be
   arbitrarily defined to classify packets. Specific use cases of the
   group identifier may be defined in other documents ([I.D.hy-nvo3-gue-
   4-nvo] defines a use of this field to contain a virtual networking
   identifier for implementing network virtualization).

   Intermediate nodes SHOULD NOT attempt to infer the meaning or
   semantics of group identifiers.

4.  Security option

   The GUE security option provides origin authentication and integrity
   protection of the GUE header at tunnel end points to guarantee
   isolation between tunnels and mitigate Denial of Service attacks.

4.1.  Extension field format

   The presence of the GUE security option is indicated in the SEC flag
   bits of the GUE header.










T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 6]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   The format of the security option is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                           Security                            ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields of the option are:

      o  Security (variable length). Contains the security information.
         The specific semantics and format of this field are expected to
         be negotiated between the two communicating nodes.

   To provide security capability, the SEC flags MUST be set. Different
   sizes are allowed to allow different methods and extensibility. The
   use of the security field is expected to be negotiated out of band
   between two tunnel end points.

   The values in the SEC flags are:

      o 000b - No security field

      o 001b - 64 bit security field

      o 010b - 128 bit security field

      o 011b - 256 bit security field

      o 100b - 388 bit security field (HMAC)

      o 101b, 110b, 111b - Reserved values

4.2.  Usage

   The GUE security option is used to provide integrity and
   authentication of the GUE header. Security parameters (interpretation
   of security field, key management, etc.) are expected to be
   negotiated out of band between two communicating hosts. Two security
   algorithms are defined below.

4.3.  Cookies

   The security field may be used as a cookie. This would be similar to
   the cookie mechanism described in L2TP [RFC3931], and the general
   properties should be the same. A cookie MAY be used to validate the



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 7]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   encapsulation. The cookie is a shared value between an encapsulator
   and decapsulator which SHOULD be chosen randomly and may be changed
   periodically. Different cookies MAY be used for logical flows between
   the encapsulator and decapsulator, for instance packets sent with
   different VNIs in network virtualization [I.D.hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo]
   might have different cookies. Cookies can b be 64, 128, or 256 bits
   in size.

4.4.  HMAC

   Key-hashed message authentication code (HMAC) is a strong method of
   checking integrity and authentication of data. This sections defines
   a GUE security option for HMAC. Note that this is based on the HMAC
   TLV description in "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)" [I.D.previdi-
   6man-sr-header].

4.4.1. Extension field format

   The HMAC option is a 320 bit field (40 octets). The security flags
   are set to 100b to indicates the presence of a 320 bit security
   field.

   The format of the field is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                          HMAC Key-id                          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |       Payload offset          |        Payload length         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                        HMAC (256 bits)                        ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Fields are:

      o HMAC Key-id: opaque field to allow multiple hash algorithms or
                     key selection

      o Payload offset: offset in payload that indicates the first octet
                     of payload data included in the HMAC.

      o Payload length: length of payload data starting from the payload
                     offset to be included in the HMAC calculation. Zero
                     indicates no payload data in used in the
                     calculation.



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 8]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


      o HMAC: Output of HMAC computation

   The HMAC field is the output of the HMAC computation (per [RFC2104])
   using a pre-shared key identified by HMAC Key-id and of the text
   which consists of the concatenation of:

      o The IP addresses

      o The GUE header including all optional extensions except for the
        security option

      o Optionally some or all of GUE payload. The portion of payload
        covered is indicated by an offset into the payload and a length
        relative to the offset.

   The purpose of the HMAC option is to verify the validity, the
   integrity and the authentication of the GUE header itself and
   optionally some or all of the GUE payload.

   The HMAC Key-id field allows for the simultaneous existence of
   several hash algorithms (SHA-256, SHA3-256 ... or future ones) as
   well as pre-shared keys. The HMAC Key-id field is opaque, i.e., it
   has neither syntax nor semantic. Having an HMAC Key-id field allows
   for pre-shared key roll-over when two pre-shared keys are supported
   for a while when GUE endpoints converge to a fresher pre-shared key.

   A portion of the GUE payload MAY be included in the HMAC calculation.
   The payload coverage is indicated in the option in the payload offset
   and payload length fields. If no payload data is included in the HMAC
   then the payload length field is set to zero. On reception, if the
   sum of the payload offset and the payload length is greater than the
   total length of the payload, then the packet MUST be dropped.

4.4.2. Selecting a hash algorithm

   The HMAC field in the HMAC option is 256 bit wide. Therefore, the
   HMAC MUST be based on a hash function whose output is at least 256
   bits. If the output of the hash function is 256 bits, then this
   output is simply inserted in the HMAC field. If the output of the
   hash function is larger than 256 bits, then the output value is
   truncated to 256 bits by taking the least-significant 256 bits and
   inserting them in the HMAC field.

   GUE implementations can support multiple hash functions but MUST
   implement SHA-2 [FIPS180-4] in its SHA-256 variant.

4.4.3. Pre-shared key management




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017                [Page 9]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   The field HMAC Key-id allows for:

      o Key roll-over: when there is a need to change the key (the hash
        pre-shared secret), then multiple pre-shared keys can be used
        simultaneously.  A decapsulator can have a table of <HMAC Key-
        id, pre-shared secret> for the currently active and future keys.

      o Different algorithms: by extending the previous table to <HMAC
        Key-id, hash function, pre-shared secret>, the decapsulator can
        also support simultaneously several hash algorithms

   The pre-shared secret distribution can be done:

      o In the configuration of the endpoints

      o Dynamically using a trusted key distribution such as [RFC6407]

4.5.  Interaction with other optional extensions

   If GUE fragmentation (section 5) is used in concert with the GUE
   security option, the security option processing is performed after
   fragmentation at the encapsulator and before reassembly at the
   decapsulator.

   The GUE payload transform option (section 6) may be used in concert
   with the GUE security option. The payload transform option could be
   used to encrypt the GUE payload to provide privacy for an
   encapsulated packet during transit. The security option provides
   authentication and integrity for the GUE header (including the
   payload transform field in the header). The two functions are
   processed separately at tunnel end points. A GUE tunnel can use both
   functions or use one of them. Section 6.3 details handling for when
   both are used in a packet.

5.  Fragmentation option

   The fragmentation option allows an encapsulator to perform
   fragmentation of packets being ingress to a tunnel. Procedures for
   fragmentation and reassembly are defined in this section. This
   specification adapts the procedures for IP fragmentation and
   reassembly described in [RFC0791] and [RFC2460]. Fragmentation can be
   performed on both data and control messages in GUE.

5.1.  Motivation

   This section describes the motivation for having a fragmentation
   option in GUE.




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 10]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   MTU and fragmentation issues with In-the-Network Tunneling are
   described in [RFC4459]. Considerations need to be made when a packet
   is received at a tunnel ingress point which may be too large to
   traverse the path between tunnel endpoints.

   There are four suggested alternatives in [RFC4459] to deal with this:

      1) Fragmentation and Reassembly by the Tunnel Endpoints

      2) Signaling the Lower MTU to the Sources

      3) Encapsulate Only When There is Free MTU

      4) Fragmentation of the Inner Packet

   Many tunneling protocol implementations have assumed that
   fragmentation should be avoided, and in particular alternative #3
   seems preferred for deployment. In this case, it is assumed that an
   operator can configure the MTUs of links in the paths of tunnels to
   ensure that they are large enough to accommodate any packets and
   required encapsulation overhead. This method, however, may not be
   feasible in certain deployments and may be prone to misconfiguration
   in others.

   Similarly, the other alternatives have drawbacks that are described
   in [RFC4459]. Alternative #2 implies use of something like Path MTU
   Discovery which is not known to be sufficiently reliable. Alternative
   #4 is not permissible with IPv6 or when the DF bit is set for IPv4,
   and it also introduces other known issues with IP fragmentation.

   For alternative #1, fragmentation and reassembly at the tunnel
   endpoints, there are two possibilities: encapsulate the large packet
   and then perform IP fragmentation, or segment the packet and then
   encapsulate each segment (a non-IP fragmentation approach).

   Performing IP fragmentation on an encapsulated packet has the same
   issues as that of normal IP fragmentation. Most significant of these
   is that the Identification field is only sixteen bits in IPv4 which
   introduces problems with wraparound as described in [RFC4963].

   The second possibility of alternative #1 follows the suggestion
   expressed in [RFC2764] and the fragmentation feature described in the
   AERO protocol [I.D.templin-aerolink]; that is for the tunneling
   protocol itself to incorporate a segmentation and reassembly
   capability that operates at the tunnel level. In this method
   fragmentation is part of the encapsulation and an encapsulation
   header contains the information for reassembly. This differs from IP
   fragmentation in that the IP headers of the original packet are not



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 11]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   replicated for each fragment.

   Incorporating fragmentation into the encapsulation protocol has some
   advantages:

      o At least a 32 bit identifier can be defined to avoid issues of
        the 16 bit Identification in IPv4.

      o Encapsulation mechanisms for security and identification, such
        as virtual network identifiers, can be applied to each segment.

      o This allows the possibility of using alternate fragmentation and
        reassembly algorithms (e.g. fragmentation with Forward Error
        Correction).

      o Fragmentation is transparent to the underlying network so it is
        unlikely that fragmented packet will be unconditionally dropped
        as might happen with IP fragmentation.

5.2.  Scope

   This specification describes the mechanics of fragmentation in
   Generic UDP Encapsulation. The operational aspects and details for
   higher layer implementation must be considered for deployment, but
   are considered out of scope for this document. The AERO protocol
   [I.D.templin-aerolink] defines one use case of fragmentation with
   encapsulation.

5.3.  Extension field format

   The presence of the GUE fragmentation option is indicated by the F
   bit in the GUE header.

   The format of the fragmentation option is:

       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
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |       Fragment offset   |Res|M|  Orig-proto   |               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+               +
      |                        Identification                         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields of the option are:

      o Fragment offset: This field indicates where in the datagram this
        fragment belongs. The fragment offset is measured in units of 8
        octets (64 bits).  The first fragment has offset zero.



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 12]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


      o Res: Two bit reserved field. MUST be set to zero for
        transmission. If set to non-zero in a received packet then the
        packet MUST be dropped.

      o M: More fragments bit. Set to 1 when there are more fragments
        following in the datagram, set to 0 for the last fragment.

      o Orig-proto: The control type (when the C-bit in the GUE header
        is set) or the IP protocol (when C-bit is not set) of the
        fragmented packet.

      o Identification: 40 bits. Identifies fragments of a fragmented
        packet.

   Pertinent GUE header fields to fragmentation are:

      o C-bit: This is set for each fragment based on the whether the
        original packet being fragmented is a control or data message.

      o Proto/ctype - For the first fragment (fragment offset is zero)
        this is set to that of the original packet being fragmented
        (either will be a control type or IP protocol). For other
        fragments, this is set to zero for a control message being
        fragmented, or to "No next header" (protocol number 59) for a
        data message being fragmented.

      o F bit - Set to indicate presence of the fragmentation extension
        field.

5.4.  Fragmentation procedure

   If an encapsulator determines that a packet must be fragmented (eg.
   the packet's size exceeds the Path MTU of the tunnel) it should
   divide the packet into fragments and send each fragment as a separate
   GUE packet, to be reassembled at the decapsulator (tunnel egress).

   For every packet that is to be fragmented, the source node generates
   an Identification value. The Identification MUST be different than
   that of any other fragmented packet sent within the past 60 seconds
   (Maximum Segment Lifetime) with the same tunnel identification-- that
   is the same outer source and destination addresses, same UDP ports,
   same orig-proto, and same virtual network identifier if present.

   The initial, unfragmented, and unencapsulated packet is referred to
   as the "original packet". This will be a layer 2 packet, layer 3
   packet, or the payload of a GUE control message:





T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 13]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


      +-------------------------------//------------------------------+
      |                        Original packet                        |
      |            (e.g. an IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet packet)              |
      +------------------------------//-------------------------------+

   Fragmentation and encapsulation are performed on the original packet
   in sequence. First the packet is divided up in to fragments, and then
   each fragment is encapsulated. Each fragment, except possibly the
   last ("rightmost") one, is an integer multiple of 8 octets long.
   Fragments MUST be non-overlapping. The number of fragments should be
   minimized, and all but the last fragment should be approximately
   equal in length.

   The fragments are transmitted in separate "fragment packets" as:

      +--------------+--------------+---------------+--//--+----------+
      |    first     |    second    |    third      |      |   last   |
      |   fragment   |   fragment   |   fragment    | .... | fragment |
      +--------------+--------------+---------------+--//--+----------+

   Each fragment is encapsulated as the payload of a GUE packet. This is
   illustrated as:

      +------------------+----------------+-----------------------+
      |  IP/UDP header   |   GUE header   |         first         |
      |                  | w/ frag option |        fragment       |
      +------------------+----------------+-----------------------+

      +------------------+----------------+-----------------------+
      |  IP/UDP header   |   GUE header   |         second        |
      |                  | w/ frag option |        fragment       |
      +------------------+----------------+-----------------------+
                                    o
                                    o
      +------------------+----------------+-----------------------+
      |  IP/UDP header   |   GUE header   |          last         |
      |                  | w/ frag option |         fragment      |
      +------------------+----------------+-----------------------+

   Each fragment packet is composed of:

      (1) Outer IP and UDP headers as defined for GUE encapsulation.

          o The IP addresses and UDP ports MUST be the same for all
            fragments of a fragmented packet.

      (2) A GUE header that contains:




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 14]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


          o The C-bit which is set to the same value for all the
            fragments of a fragmented packet based on whether a control
            message or data message was fragmented.

          o A proto/ctype. In the first fragment this is set to the
            value corresponding to the next header of the original
            packet and will be either an IP protocol or a control type.
            For subsequent fragments, this field is set to 0 for a
            fragmented control message or 59 (no next header) for a
            fragmented data message.

          o The F bit is set and fragment extension field is present.

          o Other GUE options. Note that options apply to the individual
            GUE packet. For instance, the security option would be
            validated before reassembly. The group identifier option
            MUST be set to the same value for all fragments.

      (3) The GUE fragmentation option. The contents of the extension
          field include:

          o Orig-proto specifies the protocol of the original packet.

          o A Fragment Offset containing the offset of the fragment, in
            8-octet units, relative to the start of the of the original
            packet.  The Fragment Offset of the first ("leftmost")
            fragment is 0.

          o An M flag value of 0 if the fragment is the last
            ("rightmost") one, else an M flag value of 1.

          o The Identification value generated for the original packet.

      (4) The fragment itself.


5.5.  Reassembly procedure

   At the destination, fragment packets are decapsulated and reassembled
   into their original, unfragmented form, as illustrated:

      +-------------------------------//------------------------------+
      |                        Original packet                        |
      |             (e.g. an IPv4, IPv6, Ethernet packet)             |
      +------------------------------//-------------------------------+

   The following rules govern reassembly:




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 15]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


        The IP/UDP/GUE headers of each packet are retained until all
        fragments have arrived. The reassembled packet is then composed
        of the decapsulated payloads in the GUE packets, and the
        IP/UDP/GUE headers are discarded.

        When a GUE packet is received with the fragment extension, the
        proto/ctype field in the GUE header MUST be validated. In the
        case that the packet is a first fragment (fragment offset is
        zero), the proto/ctype in the GUE header MUST equal the orig-
        proto value in the fragmentation option. For subsequent
        fragments (fragment offset is non-zero) the proto/ctype in the
        GUE header must be 0 for a control message or 59 (no-next-hdr)
        for a data message. If the proto/ctype value is invalid for a
        received packet it MUST be dropped.

        An original packet is reassembled only from GUE fragment packets
        that have the same outer source address, destination address,
        UDP source port, UDP destination port, GUE header C-bit, group
        identifier if present, orig-proto value in the fragmentation
        option, and Fragment Identification. The protocol type or
        control message type (depending on the C-bit) for the
        reassembled packet is the value of the GUE header proto/ctype
        field in the first fragment.

   The following error conditions can arise when reassembling fragmented
   packets with GUE encapsulation:

        If insufficient fragments are received to complete reassembly of
        a packet within 60 seconds (or a configurable period) of the
        reception of the first-arriving fragment of that packet,
        reassembly of that packet MUST be abandoned and all the
        fragments that have been received for that packet MUST be
        discarded.

        If the payload length of a fragment is not a multiple of 8
        octets and the M flag of that fragment is 1, then that fragment
        MUST be discarded.

        If the length and offset of a fragment are such that the payload
        length of the packet reassembled from that fragment would exceed
        65,535 octets, then that fragment MUST be discarded.

        If a fragment overlaps another fragment already saved for
        reassembly then the new fragment that overlaps the existing
        fragment MUST be discarded.

        If the first fragment is too small then it is possible that it
        does not contain the necessary headers for a stateful firewall.



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 16]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


        Sending small fragments like this has been used as an attack on
        IP fragmentation. To mitigate this problem, an implementation
        SHOULD ensure that the first fragment contains the headers of
        the encapsulated packet at least through the transport header.

        A GUE node MUST be able to accept a fragmented packet that,
        after reassembly and decapsulation, is as large as 1500 octets.
        This means that the node must configure a reassembly buffer that
        is at least as large as 1500 octets plus the maximum-sized
        encapsulation headers that may be inserted during encapsulation.
        Implementations may find it more convenient and efficient to
        configure a reassembly buffer size of 2KB which is large enough
        to accommodate even the largest set of encapsulation headers and
        provides a natural memory page size boundary.

5.6.  Security Considerations

   Exploits that have been identified with IP fragmentation are
   conceptually applicable to GUE fragmentation.

   Attacks on GUE fragmentation can be mitigated by:

      o Hardened implementation that applies applicable techniques from
        implementation of IP fragmentation.

      o Application of GUE security (section 4) or IPsec [RFC4301].
        Security mechanisms can prevent spoofing of fragments from
        unauthorized sources.

      o Implement fragment filter techniques for GUE encapsulation as
        described in [RFC1858] and [RFC3128].

      o Do not accepted data in overlapping segments.

      o Enforce a minimum size for the first fragment.

6.  Payload transform option

   The payload transform option indicates that the GUE payload has been
   transformed. Transforming a payload is done by running a function
   over the data and possibly modifying it (encrypting it for instance).
   The payload transform option indicates the method used to transform
   the data so that a decapsulator is able to validate and reverse the
   transformation to recover the original data. Payload transformations
   could include encryption, authentication, CRC coverage, and
   compression. This specification defines a transformation for DTLS.

6.1.  Extension field format



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 17]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   The presence of the GUE payload transform option is indicated by the
   T bit in the GUE header.

   The format of Payload Transform Field is:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Type       |     P_C_type  |            Data               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields of the option are:

      Type: Payload Transform Type or Code point. Each payload transform
            mechanism must have one code point registered in IANA.  This
            document specifies:

               0x01: for DTLS [RFC6347]

               0x80~0xFF: for private payload transform types

            A private payload transform type can be used for
            experimental purpose or vendor proprietary mechanisms.

      P_C_type: Indicates the protocol or control type of the
            untransformed payload. When payload transform option is
            present, proto/ctype in the GUE header is set to 59 ("No
            next header") for a data message and zero for a control
            message. The IP protocol or control message type of the
            untransformed payload MUST be encoded in this field.

            The benefit of this rule is to prevent a middle box from
            inspecting the encrypted payload according to GUE next
            protocol. The assumption here is that a middle box may
            understand GUE base header but does not understand GUE
            option flag definitions.

      Data: A field that can be set according to the requirements of
            each payload transform type. If the specification for a
            payload transform type does not specify how this field is to
            be set, then the field MUST be set to zero.

6.2.  Usage

   The payload transform option provides a mechanism to transform or
   interpret the payload of a GUE packet. The Type field provides the
   method used to transform the payload, and the P_C_type field provides
   the protocol or control message type of the of payload before being
   transformed. The payload transformation option is generic so that it
   can have both security related uses (such as DTLS) as well as non



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 18]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   security related uses (such as compression, CRC, etc.).

   An encapsulator performs payload transformation before transmission,
   and a decapsulator performs the reverse transformation before
   accepting a packet. For example, if an encapsulator transforms a
   payload by encrypting it, the peer decaspsulator MUST decrypt the
   payload before accepting the packet. If a decapsulator fails to
   perform the reverse transformation or cannot validate the
   transformation it MUST discard the packet and MAY generate an alert
   to the management system.

6.3.  Interaction with other optional extensions

   If GUE fragmentation (section 5) is used in concert with the GUE
   transform option, the transform option processing is performed after
   fragmentation at the encapsulator and before reassembly at the
   decapsulator. If the payload transform changes the size of the data
   being fragmented this must be taken into account during
   fragmentation.

   If both the security option and the payload transform are used in a
   GUE packet, an encapsulator MUST perform the payload transformation
   first, set the payload transform option in the GUE header, and then
   create the security option. A decapsulator does processing in
   reverse-- the security option is processed (GUE header is validated)
   and then the reverse payload transform is performed.

   In order to get flow entropy from the payload, an encapsulator should
   derive the flow entropy before performing a payload transform.

6.4.  DTLS transform

   The payload of a GUE packet can be secured using Datagram Transport
   Layer Security [RFC6347]. An encapsulator would apply DTLS to the GUE
   payload so that the payload packets are encrypted and the GUE header
   remains in plaintext. The payload transform option is set to indicate
   that the payload is interpreted as a DTLS record.

   The payload transform option for DLTS is:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      1        |    P_C_type   |              0                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   DTLS [RFC6347] provides packet fragmentation capability. To avoid
   packet fragmentation performed multiple times, a GUE encapsulator
   SHOULD only perform the packet fragmentation at packet encapsulation
   process, i.e., not in the payload encryption process.



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 19]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   DTLS usage [RFC6347] is limited to a single DTLS session for any
   specific tunnel encapsulator/decapsulator pair (identified by source
   and destination IP addresses). Both IP addresses MUST be unicast
   addresses - multicast traffic is not supported when DTLS is used. A
   GUE tunnel decapsulator implementation that supports DTLS can
   establish DTLS session(s) with one or multiple tunnel encapsulators,
   and likewise a GUE tunnel encapsulator implementation can establish
   DTLS session(s) with one or multiple decapsulators.

7.  Remote checksum offload option

   Remote checksum offload is mechanism that provides checksum offload
   of encapsulated packets using rudimentary offload capabilities found
   in most Network Interface Card (NIC) devices. Many NIC
   implementations can only offload the outer UDP checksum in UDP
   encapsulation. Remote checksum offload is described in [UDPENCAP].

   In remote checksum offload the outer header checksum, that in the
   outer UDP header, is enabled in packets and, with some additional
   meta information, a receiver is able to deduce the checksum to be set
   for an inner encapsulated packet. Effectively this offloads the
   computation of the inner checksum. Enabling the outer checksum in
   encapsulation has the additional advantage that it covers more of the
   packet, including the encapsulation headers, than an inner checksum.

7.1.  Extension field format

   The presence of the GUE remote checksum offload option is indicated
   by the R bit in the GUE header.

   The format of remote checksum offload field is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Checksum start         |       Checksum offset         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields of the option are:

      o Checksum start: starting offset for checksum computation
        relative to the start of the encapsulated payload. This is
        typically the offset of a transport header (e.g. UDP or TCP).

      o Checksum offset: Offset relative to the start of the
        encapsulated packet where the derived checksum value is to be
        written. This typically is the offset of the checksum field in
        the transport header (e.g. UDP or TCP).



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 20]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


7.2.  Usage

7.2.1. Transmitter operation

   The typical actions to set remote checksum offload on transmit are:

      1) Transport layer creates a packet and indicates in internal
         packet meta data that checksum is to be offloaded to the NIC
         (normal transport layer processing for checksum offload). The
         checksum field is populated with the bitwise not of the
         checksum of the pseudo header or zero as appropriate.

      2) Encapsulation layer adds its headers to the packet including
         the remote checksum offload option. The start offset and
         checksum offset are set accordingly.

      3) Encapsulation layer arranges for checksum offload of the outer
         header checksum (e.g. UDP).

      4) Packet is sent to the NIC. The NIC will perform transmit
         checksum offload and set the checksum field in the outer
         header. The inner header and rest of the packet are transmitted
         without modification.

7.2.2. Receiver operation

   The typical actions a host receiver does to support remote checksum
   offload are:

      1) Receive packet and validate outer checksum following normal
         processing (e.g. validate non-zero UDP checksum).

      2) Validate the remote checksum option. If checksum start is
         greater than the length of the packet, then the packet MUST be
         dropped. If checksum offset is greater then the length of the
         packet minus two, then the packet MUST be dropped.

      3) Deduce full checksum for the IP packet. If a NIC is capable of
         receive checksum offload it will return either the full
         checksum of the received packet or an indication that the UDP
         checksum is correct. Either of these methods can be used to
         deduce the checksum over the IP packet [UDPENCAP].

      4) From the packet checksum, subtract the checksum computed from
         the start of the packet (outer IP header) to the offset in the
         packet indicted by checksum start in the meta data. The result
         is the deduced checksum to set in the checksum field of the
         encapsulated transport packet.



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 21]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


         In pseudo code:

           csum: initialized to checksum computed from start (outer IP
                 header) to the end of the packet
           start_of_packet: address of start of packet
           encap_payload_offset: relative to start_of_packet
           csum_start: value from the checksum start field
           checksum(start, len): function to compute checksum from start
                 address for len bytes

           csum -= checksum(start_of_packet, encap_payload_offset +
                            csum_start)

      5) Write the resultant checksum value into the packet at the
         offset provided by checksum offset in the meta data.

         In pseudo code:

           csum_offset: value from the checksum offset field

           *(start_of_packet + encap_payload_offset +
             csum_offset) = csum

      6) Checksum is verified at the transport layer using normal
         processing. This should not require any checksum computation
         over the packet since the complete checksum has already been
         provided.

7.3.  Security Considerations

   Remote checksum offload allows a means to change the GUE payload
   before being received at a decapsulator. In order to prevent misuse
   of this mechanism, a decapsulator MUST apply security checks on the
   GUE payload only after checksum remote offload has been processed.

8.  Checksum option

   The GUE checksum option provides a checksum that covers the GUE
   header, a GUE pseudo header, and optionally part or all of the GUE
   payload. The GUE pseudo header includes the corresponding IP
   addresses as well as the UDP ports of the encapsulating headers. This
   checksum should provide adequate protection against address
   corruption in IPv6 when the UDP checksum is zero. Additionally, the
   GUE checksum provides protection of the GUE header when the UDP
   checksum is set to zero with either IPv4 or IPv6. In particular, the
   GUE checksum can provide protection for some sensitive data, such as
   the virtual network identifier ([I.D.hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo]), which when
   corrupted could lead to mis-delivery of a packet to the wrong virtual



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 22]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   network.

8.1.  Extension field format

   The presence of the GUE checksum option is indicated by the K bit in
   the GUE header.

   The format of the checksum extension is:

    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Checksum           |        Payload coverage       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The fields of the option are:

      o Checksum: Computed checksum value. This checksum covers the GUE
        header (including fields and private data covered by Hlen), the
        GUE pseudo header, and optionally all or part of the payload
        (encapsulated packet).

      o Payload coverage: Number of bytes of payload to cover in the
        checksum. Zero indicates that the checksum only covers the GUE
        header and GUE pseudo header. If the value is greater than the
        encapsulated payload length, the packet MUST be dropped.

8.2.  Requirements

   The GUE header checksum SHOULD be set on transmit when using a zero
   UDP checksum with IPv6.

   The GUE header checksum SHOULD be used when the UDP checksum is zero
   for IPv4 if the GUE header includes data that when corrupted can lead
   to misdelivery or other serious consequences, and there is no other
   mechanism that provides protection (no security field that checks
   integrity for instance).

   The GUE header checksum SHOULD NOT be set when the UDP checksum is
   non-zero. In this case the UDP checksum provides adequate protection
   and this avoids convolutions when a packet traverses NAT that does
   address translation (in that case the UDP checksum is required).

8.3.  GUE checksum pseudo header

   The GUE pseudo header checksum is included in the GUE checksum to
   provide protection for the IP and UDP header elements which when
   corrupted could lead to misdelivery of the GUE packet. The GUE pseudo



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 23]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   header checksum is similar to the standard IP pseudo header defined
   in [RFC0768] and [RFC0793] for IPv4, and in [RFC2460] for IPv6.

   The GUE pseudo header for IPv4 is:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Source Address                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Destination Address                      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Source port            |      Destination port         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The GUE pseudo header for IPv6 is:

   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                         Source Address                        +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                      Destination Address                      +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Source port            |      Destination port         |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   Note that the GUE pseudo header does not include payload length or
   protocol as in the standard IP pseudo headers. The length field is
   deemed unnecessary because:

      o If the length is corrupted this will usually be detected by a
        checksum validation failure on the inner packet.

      o Fragmentation of packets in a tunnel should occur on the inner
        packet before being encapsulated or GUE fragmentation (section
        4) MAY be performed at tunnel ingress. GUE packets are not
        expected to be fragmented when using IPv6. See [RFC6936] for
        considerations of payload length and IPv6 checksum.




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 24]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


      o A corrupted length field in itself should not lead to
        misdelivery of a packet.

      o Without the length field, the GUE pseudo header checksum is the
        same for all packets of flow. This is a useful property for
        optimizations such as TCP Segment Offload (TSO).

8.4.  Usage

   The GUE checksum is computed and verified following the standard
   process for computing the Internet checksum [RFC1071]. Checksum
   computation may be optimized per the mathematical properties
   including parallel computation and incremental updates.

8.4.1. Transmitter operation

   The procedure for setting the GUE checksum on transmit is:

      1) Create the GUE header including the checksum and payload
         coverage fields. The checksum field is initially set to zero.

      2) Calculate the 1's complement checksum of the GUE header from
         the start of the GUE header through the its length as indicated
         in GUE Hlen.

      3) Calculate the checksum of the GUE pseudo header for IPv4 or
         IPv6.

      4) Calculate checksum of payload portion if payload coverage is
         enabled (payload coverage field is non-zero). If the length of
         the payload coverage is odd, logically append a single zero
         byte for the purposes of checksum calculation.

      5) Add and fold the computed checksums for the GUE header, GUE
         pseudo header and payload coverage. Set the bitwise not of the
         result in the GUE checksum field.

8.4.2.Receiver operation

   If the GUE checksum option is present, the receiver MUST validate the
   checksum before processing any other fields or accepting the packet.

   The procedure for verifying the checksum is:

      1) If the payload coverage length is greater than the length of
         the encapsulated payload then drop the packet.

      2) Calculate the checksum of the GUE header from the start of the



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 25]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


         header to the end as indicated by Hlen.

      3) Calculate the checksum of the appropriate GUE pseudo header.

      4) Calculate the checksum of payload if payload coverage is
         enabled (payload coverage is non-zero). If the length of the
         payload coverage is odd logically append a single zero byte for
         the purposes of checksum calculation.

      5) Sum the computed checksums for the GUE header, GUE pseudo
         header, and payload coverage. If the result is all 1 bits (-0
         in 1's complement arithmetic), the checksum is valid and the
         packet is accepted; otherwise the checksum is considered
         invalid and the packet MUST be dropped.

8.5.  Security Considerations

   The checksum option is only a mechanism for corruption detection, it
   is not a security mechanism. To provide integrity checks or
   authentication of the GUE header, the GUE security option SHOULD be
   used.

9.  Processing order of options

   Options MUST be processed in a specific order for both sending and
   receive. Note that some options, such as the checksum option, depend
   on other fields in the GUE header to be set.

   The order of processing options to send a GUE packet are:

      1) Set group identifier option.

      2) Fragment if necessary and set fragmentation option. If the
         group identifier is present it is copied into each fragment.
         Note that if payload transformation will increase the size of
         the payload that MUST be accounted for when deciding how to
         fragment

      3) Perform payload transform (potentially on a fragment) and set
         payload transform option.

      4) Set Remote checksum offload.

      5) Set security option. If the checksum option field is also
         present, the checksum value and the payload coverage MUST be
         set to zero if computing an HMAC over the GUE header.

      6) Calculate GUE checksum and set checksum option.



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 26]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   On reception the order of actions is reversed.

      1) Verify GUE checksum.

      2) Verify security option. If the GUE checksum is also present and
         HMAC computation is being done over the GUE header, set the
         checksum and payload fields in the checksum option to zero
         before computing the HMAC.

      3) Adjust packet for remote checksum offload.

      4) Perform payload transformation (i.e. decrypt payload).

      5) Perform reassembly.

      6) Process packet (take group identifier into account if present).

   Note that the relative processing order of private fields is
   unspecified.

10.  Security Considerations

   Encapsulation of network protocol in GUE should not increase security
   risk, nor provide additional security in itself. GUE requires that
   the source port for UDP packets SHOULD be randomly seeded to mitigate
   some possible denial service attacks.

   If the integrity and privacy of data packets being transported
   through GUE is a concern, GUE security option and payload encryption
   using the the transform option SHOULD be used to remove the concern.
   If the integrity is the only concern, the tunnel may consider use of
   GUE security only for optimization. Likewise, if privacy is the only
   concern, the tunnel may use GUE encryption function only.

   If GUE payload already provides secure mechanism, e.g., the payload
   is IPsec packets, it is still valuable to consider use of GUE
   security.

   GUE may rely on other secure tunnel mechanisms such as DTLS [RFC6347]
   over the whole UDP payload for securing the whole GUE packet or IPsec
   [RFC4301] to achieve the secure transport over an IP network or
   Internet.

   IPsec [RFC4301] was designed as a network security mechanism, and
   therefore it resides at the network layer.  As such, if the tunnel is
   secured with IPsec, the UDP header would not be visible to
   intermediate routers in either IPsec tunnel or transport mode. The
   big drawback here prohibits intermediate routers to perform load



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 27]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   balancing based on the flow entropy in UDP header. In addition, this
   method prohibits any middle box function on the path.

   By comparison, DTLS [RFC6347] was designed with application security
   and can better preserve network and transport layer protocol
   information than IPsec [RFC4301]. Using DTLS over UDP to secure the
   GUE tunnel, both GUE header and payload will be encrypted. In order
   to differentiate plaintext GUE header from encrypted GUE header, the
   destination port of the UDP header between two must be different,
   which essentially requires another standard UDP port for GUE with
   DTLS. The drawback on this method is to prevent a middle box
   operation to GUE tunnel on the path.

   Use of two independent tunnel mechanisms such as GUE and DTLS over
   UDP to carry a network protocol over an IP network adds some overlap
   and complexity. For example, fragmentation will be done twice.

   As the result, a GUE tunnel SHOULD use the security mechanisms
   specified in this document to provide secure transport over an IP
   network or Internet when it is needed. GUE encapsulation can be used
   as a secure transport mechanism over an IP network and Internet.

11. IANA Consideration

   IANA is requested to assign flags for the extensions defined in this
   specification. Specifically, an assignment is requested for the Group
   Identfier, Security, Fragmentation, Payload Transform, Remote
   Checksum Offload, and Checksum extensions in the "GUE flag-fields"
   registry.

      +-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------------+
      |  Flags bits | Field size    | Description | Reference          |
      +-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------------+
      | Bit 0       | 4 bytes       | Group       | This document      |
      |             |               |  identifier |                    |
      |             |               |             |                    |
      | Bit 1..3    | 001->8 bytes  | Security    | This document      |
      |             | 010->16 bytes |             |                    |
      |             | 011->32 bytes |             |                    |
      |             | 100->40 bytes |             |                    |
      |             |               |             |                    |
      | Bit 4       | 8 bytes       | Fragmen-    | This document      |
      |             |               |  tation     |                    |
      |             |               |             |                    |
      | Bit 5       | 4 bytes       | Payload     | This document      |
      |             |               |  transform  |                    |
      |             |               |             |                    |
      | Bit 6       | 4 bytes       | Remote      | This document      |



T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 28]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


      |             |               |  checksum   |                    |
      |             |               |  offload    |                    |
      |             |               |             |                    |
      | Bit 7       | 4 bytes       | Checksum    | This document      |
      |             |               |             |                    |
      | Bit 8..15   |               | Unassigned  |                    |
      +-------------+---------------+-------------+--------------------+

   IANA is requested to set up a registry for the GUE payload transform
   types. Payload transform types are 8 bit values.  New values for
   control types 1-127 are assigned via Standards Action [RFC5226].

      +----------------+------------------+---------------+
      | Transform type | Description      | Reference     |
      +----------------+------------------+---------------+
      | 0              | Reserved         | This document |
      |                |                  |               |
      | 1              | DTLS             | This document |
      |                |                  |               |
      | 2..127         | Unassigned       |               |
      |                |                  |               |
      | 128..255       | User defined     | This document |
      +----------------+------------------+---------------+

12.  References

12.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
             Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989.

   [RFC0768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
             August 1980.

   [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
             IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI
             10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [I.D.ietf-gue] T. Herbert, L. Yong, and O. Zia, "Generic UDP
             Encapsulation" draft-ietf-intarea-gue-01




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 29]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


12.2.  Informative References


   [RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, W., et al, "Layer Two Tunneling Protocol
             - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC3931, 1999

   [RFC2104] Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "Security Architecture for the
             Internet Protocol" , RFC 2401, DOI 10.17487/RFC2401,
             November 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2401>.

   [RFC6407] Weis, B., Rowles, S., and T. Hardjono, "The Group Domain of
             Interpretation" , RFC 6407, DOI 10.17487/RFC6407, October
             2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6407>.

   [RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the-
             Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI 10.17487/RFC4459, April
             2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4459>.

   [RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly
             Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, DOI 10.17487/RFC4963,
             July 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4963>.

   [RFC2764] B. Gleeson, A. Lin, J. Heinanen, G. Armitage, A. Malis, "A
             Framework for IP Based Virtual Private Networks", RFC2764,
             February 2000.

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

   [RFC1858] Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security
             Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,
             October 1995.

   [RFC3128] Miller, I., "Protection Against a Variant of the Tiny
             Fragment Attack (RFC 1858)", RFC 3128, June 2001.

   [RFC6347] Rescoria, E., Modadugu, N., "Datagram Transport Layer
             Security Version 1.2", RFC6347, 2012.

   [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
             793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
             for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums", RFC
             6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC6936, April 2013, <http://www.rfc-
             editor.org/info/rfc6936>.




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 30]


INTERNET DRAFT    draft-ietf-intarea-gue-extensions-01      May 18, 2017


   [RFC1071] Braden, R., Borman, D., and C. Partridge, "Computing the
             Internet checksum", RFC1071, September 1988.

   [I.D.hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo] Yong, L., Herbert, T., "Generic UDP
             Encapsulation (GUE) for Network Virtualization Overlay"
             draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo-03

   [I.D.previdi-6man-sr-header] Previdi S. et al, "IPv6 Segment Routing
             Header (SRH) draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header-02

   [I.D.templin-aerolink] F. Templin, "Transmission of IP Packets over
             AERO Links" draft-templin-aerolink-62

   [UDPENCAP] T. Herbert, "UDP Encapsulation in Linux",
             http://people.netfilter.org/pablo/netdev0.1/papers/UDP-
             Encapsulation-in-Linux.pdf

   [FIPS180-4] Secure Hash Standard (SHS), Nation Institute of Standards
             and Technology, 8/2015

Authors' Addresses

   Tom Herbert
   Quantonium
   4701 Patrick Henry Dr.
   Santa Clara, CA
   USA

   EMail: tom@herbertland.com


   Lucy Yong
   Huawei USA
   5340 Legacy Dr.
   Plano, TX 75024
   USA

   Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com


   Fred L. Templin
   Boeing Research & Technology
   P.O. Box 3707
   Seattle, WA  98124
   USA

   Email: fltemplin@acm.org




T. Herbert             Expires November 19, 2017               [Page 31]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/