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

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                          M. Mathis
Internet-Draft                                                J. Heffner
Expires: January 8, 2005                                     B. Chandler
                                                                     PSC
                                                           July 10, 2004


                 Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful
                      draft-mathis-frag-harmful-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable
   patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed,
   and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with
   RFC 3668.

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

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

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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2005.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   IPv4 fragmentation is not sufficiently robust for general use in
   today's Internet. The 16-bit IP identification field is not large
   enough to prevent frequent missassociated IP fragments and the TCP
   and UDP checksums are insufficient to prevent the resulting corrupted
   data from being delivered to higher protocol layers.  In this note we
   describe some easily reproduced experiments demonstrating the problem
   and estimate the scale the data corruption in the presence of ever
   growing data rates.




Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful        July 2004


1.  Introduction

   The IPv4 header was designed at a time when data rates were several
   orders of magnitude lower than those achievable today.  In this
   document, we describe a consequent scale-related failure in the IP
   identification (ID) field, where fragments may be mis-associated at a
   rate high enough likely to invalidate assumptions about data
   integrity failure rates.  We also outline scenarios in which data
   corruption may happen reliably and reproducibly.

   While a number of problems with IP fragmentation have been well
   documented [1], this presents a relatively new and serious
   operational problem given the severity of the failure mode, and that
   it occurs on what is today common communications equipment. It is
   especially pertinent due to the recent proliferation of UDP bulk
   transport tools which do not do MTU discovery , and some network
   equipment which ignores the Don't Fragment (DF) bit in the IP header
   as a work-around for MTU discovery problems [2].

2.  Wrapping the IP ID Field

   The Internet Protocol standard specifies:

      "The choice of the Identifier for a datagram is based on the need
      to provide a way to uniquely identify the fragments of a
      particular datagram.  The protocol module assembling fragments
      judges fragments to belong to the same datagram if they have the
      same source, destination, protocol, and Identifier.  Thus, the
      sender must choose the Identifier to be unique for this source,
      destination pair and protocol for the time the datagram (or any
      fragment of it) could be alive in the internet." [3]

   Strict conformance to this standard limits transmissions in one
   direction between any address pair to no more than 65536 datagrams
   per maximum packet lifetime.

   Obviously hosts do not follow the standard so strictly.  Assuming a
   maximum packet lifetime on the order of seconds, today it is common
   for host interfaces to send at rates higher than this.  For example,
   a host with a 100 Mbps interface sending 1500 byte packets may send
   65536 packets in under 8 seconds.

   The problem occurs when a fragment is dropped by the network, and a
   later fragment is received that, while part of a different datagram,
   has the same ID value and fragment offset as the dropped fragment.
   The two fragments will be incorrectly spliced together and delivered
   to the layer above IP.  It is common that the fragment offset and
   length would match since packets of the same size sent along the same



Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful        July 2004


   path will be fragmented in the same manner.  In 65537 segments, there
   must be at least two with matching ID fields.  If the sender is
   transmitting segments fast enough that datagrams are send with
   duplicate ID fields within the reassembly timeout (a suggested value
   is 15 seconds [3]), then fragments may be mis-associated.

   The case of particular concern occurs when only the first fragment of
   a datagram is lost by the network.  The remaining fragments will be
   stored in the fragment reassembly buffer, and at some point in the
   future a new packet will arrive with the matching ID field. This new
   first fragment will be (incorrectly) matched up with the rest of the
   old packet and delivered to the upper layer.  Assuming the fragments
   are delivered in order, the rest of the new datagram will be
   buffered, forming a cycle.  One of every 65536 datagrams will be
   incorrectly reassembled by the IP layer.  It is possible to have a
   number of simultaneous cycles, bounded by the size of the fragment
   reassembly buffer.

   Most TCP implementations today participate in MTU discovery [4],
   which will avoid this problem by avoiding fragmentation. However, as
   a work-around for MTU discovery problems [2], some TCP
   implementations and communications gear provide mechanisms to disable
   path MTU discovery by clearing or ignoring the DF bit.

3.  Harmful Effects of Mis-associated Fragments

   When the mis-associated fragments are delivered, transport-layer
   checksumming should detect these datagrams as incorrect and discard
   them.  When the datagrams are discarded, it could pose a problem for
   loss feedback congestion control algorithms since there will be a
   high number of non-congestion-related losses.

   However, transport checksums may not be designed to handle such high
   error rates, either.  The UDP checksum is only 16 bits in length.  If
   these checksums follow a uniform random distribution, we expect
   mis-associated datagrams to be accepted by the checksum at a rate of
   one per 65536.  With only one mis-association cycle, we expect
   corrupt data delivered to the application layer once per 2^32
   datagrams.  This number can be significantly higher with multiple
   cycles.

   With non-random data, the UDP checksum may be even weaker still.  It
   is possible to construct datasets where mis-associated fragments will
   always have the same checksum.  Such a case may be considered
   unlikely, but is worth considering. "Real" data may be more likely
   than random data to cause checksum hotspots and increase the
   probability of false checksum match [5].  Also, some applications may
   turn off checksumming to increase speed, though this practice has



Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful        July 2004


   been found to be dangerous for other reasons [6].

4.  Experimental Results

   To test the practical impact of fragmentation on UDP, we ran a series
   of experiments with a common UDP bulk transport protocol, Reliable
   Blast UDP (RBUDP), part of the QUANTA networking toolkit.  It is one
   of the tools used as an alternative to TCP for high-bandwidth
   applications on specialized networks. The choice to use RBUDP has
   very little to do with the protocol itself, as any UDP transport tool
   without extra corruption detection would work equally well.

   In order to diagnose corruption on files transferred with RBUDP, we
   used a file format including embedded sequence numbers and MD5
   checksums.  These were placed such that one set was included in each
   fragment of each datagram.  Thus it was possible to distinguish
   random corruption from that caused by mis-associated fragments.

   Two types of dataset were used.  In the first, all space not used for
   sequence numbers and MD5 checksums was filled with pseudo-random
   data, giving datagrams random checksums.  The second was constructed
   in a similar manner except that the upper halves of each 32-bit word
   were filled with the 16-bit ones complement of the lower half. This
   gave each 32-bit word a zero ones-complement sum, so datagrams had
   constant checksums.  With these constant checksums, mis-associated
   fragments were guaranteed not to fail the UDP checksum test.  Each
   dataset used was 400 MB in size.

   The RBUDP tools were used to send the datasets between a pair of
   hosts at slightly less than the available datarate.  Near the
   beginning of each flow, a brief secondary flow was started to induce
   packet loss in the primary flow. Throughout the life of the primary
   flow, we typically observed mis-association rates on the order of
   0.05%.  In datasets with constant checksums, each of these
   mis-associations resulted in corrupted data.  In sending datasets
   with random checksums 100 times (for a total of 100 GB), we observed
   one corruption and 41091 bad UDP checksums.

5.  Remedies

   IPv6 is less vulnerable to this type of problem, since its fragment
   header contains a 32-bit identification field [7]. Mis-association
   will only be a problem at packet rates 65536 times higher than for
   IPv4.

   Since mis-association of fragments will only occur when the IP ID
   field is wrapped within the fragment reassembly timeout, it is
   possible to reduce the timeout so that this situation is less likely



Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful        July 2004


   to occur.  Since the timeout is set by the receiving host while the
   IP ID field is set by the sending host, it is not generally possible
   to set the timeout low enough so that a fast sender's fragments will
   not be mis-association, yet high enough so that a slow sender's
   fragments will not be unconditionally discarded before it is possible
   to reassemble them.  It is not within the scope of this document to
   recommend timeout values.

   Another means of solving the corruption issue is to add stronger
   integrity checking, which can be done at any layer above IP.  This is
   a natural side effect of using cryptographic authentication.  At the
   network layer, if IPsec AH is in use, the mis-associated fragments
   should be discarded with extremely high probability.  Other higher
   layers may use longer checksums (for example, SCTP's is 32 bits in
   length [8]) or cryptographic authentication (SSH message
   authentication codes [10]). While stronger integrity checking may
   prevent data corruption, it will not solve the problem of a high
   effective loss rate.

6.  Security Considerations

   If a malicious entity knows that a pair of hosts are communicating
   using a fragmented stream, it may present an opportunity for this
   entity to corrupt the flow.  By sending "high" fragments (those with
   offset greater than zero) with a forged source address, the attacker
   can deliberately cause corruption as described above.  Exploiting
   this vulnerability requires only knowledge of the source and
   destination addresses of the flow, and fragment boundaries.  It does
   not require knowledge of port or sequence numbers.

   If the attacker has visibility of packets on the path, the attack
   profile is similar to injecting full segments.  Using this attack
   makes blind disruptions easier, and could certainly be used
   effectively to cause denial of service. However, only streams using
   IPv4 fragmentation are vulnerable.  Because of the nature of the
   problems outlined in this draft, the use of IPv4 fragmentation for
   critical applications may not be advisable regardless of security
   concerns.

7  References

   [1]   Kent, C. and J. Mogul, "Fragmentation considered harmful",
         Proc. SIGCOMM '87 vol. 17, No. 5, October 1987.

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

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



Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful        July 2004


         1981.

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

   [5]   Stone, J., Greenwald, M., Partridge, C. and J. Hughes,
         "Performance of Checksums and CRC's over Real Data", IEEE/ACM
         Transactions on Networking vol. 6, No. 5, October 1998.

   [6]   Stone, J. and C. Partridge, "When The CRC and TCP Checksum
         Disagree", Proc. SIGCOMM 2000 vol. 30, No. 4, October 2000.

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

   [8]   Stewart, R., Xie, Q., Morneault, K., Sharp, C., Schwarzbauer,
         H., Taylor, T., Rytina, I., Kalla, M., Zhang, L. and V. Paxson,
         "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 2960, October 2000.

   [9]   Kent, S. and R. Atkinson, "IP Authentication Header", RFC 2402,
         November 1998.

   [10]  Ylonen, T. and C. Lonvick, "SSH Transport Layer Protocol",
         draft-ietf-secsh-transport-18 (work in progress), June 2004.

   [11]  Clark, D., "IP datagram reassembly algorithms", RFC 815, July
         1982.


Authors' Addresses

   Matt Mathis
   Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
   4400 Fifth Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA  15213
   US

   Phone: 412-268-3319
   EMail: mathis@psc.edu












Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful        July 2004


   John W. Heffner
   Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
   4400 Fifth Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA  15213
   US

   Phone: 412-268-2329
   EMail: jheffner@psc.edu


   Ben Chandler
   Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
   4400 Fifth Avenue
   Pittsburgh, PA  15213
   US

   Phone: 412-268-9783
   EMail: bchandle@psc.edu

Appendix A.  Support

   This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under
   Grant No. 0083285.




























Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Fragmentation Considered Very Harmful        July 2004


Intellectual Property Statement

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

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

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


Disclaimer of Validity

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


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject
   to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.




Mathis, et al.          Expires January 8, 2005                 [Page 8]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/