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



Internet Area WG                                               R. Bonica
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Best Current Practice                          F. Baker
Expires: September 3, 2018                                  Unaffiliated
                                                               G. Huston
                                                                   APNIC
                                                               R. Hinden
                                                    Check Point Software
                                                                O. Troan
                                                                   Cisco
                                                           March 2, 2018


                  IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
                  draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-00

Abstract

   This document provides an overview of IP fragmentation.  It explains
   how IP fragmentation works and why it is required.  As part of that
   explanation, this document also explains how IP fragmentation reduces
   the reliability of Internet communication.

   This document also proposes alternatives to IP fragmentation.
   Finally, it provides recommendations for application developers and
   network operators.

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 September 3, 2018.








Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (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
   2.  IP Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.1.  Links, Paths, MTU and PMTU  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Upper-layer Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   4.  IP Fragmentation Reduces Reliability  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Middle Box Failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Partial Filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Suboptimal Load Balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Security Vulnerabilities  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.5.  Blackholing Due to ICMP Loss  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.6.  Blackholing Due To Filtering  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Alternatives to IP Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Transport Layer Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Application Layer Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   6.  Applications That Rely on IPv6 Fragmentation  . . . . . . . .  14
     6.1.  DNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.2.  OSPFv3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  IP Encapsulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   7.  Recommendation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.1.  For Application Developers  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     7.2.  For Network Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   Appendix A.  Contributors' Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19




Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


1.  Introduction

   Operational experience [RFC7872] [Huston] reveals that IP
   fragmentation reduces the reliability of Internet communication.
   This document provides an overview of IP fragmentation.  It explains
   how IP fragmentation works and why it is required.  As part of that
   explanation, this document also explains how IP fragmentation reduces
   the reliability of Internet communication.

   This document also proposes alternatives to IP fragmentation.
   Finally, it provides recommendations for application developers and
   network operators.

2.  IP Fragmentation

2.1.  Links, Paths, MTU and PMTU

   An Internet path connects a source node to a destination node.  A
   path can contain links and intermediate systems.  If a path contains
   more than one link, the links are connected in series and an
   intermediate system connects each link to the next.  An intermediate
   system can be a router or a middle box.

   Internet paths are dynamic.  Assume that the path from one node to
   another contains a set of links and intermediate systems.  If the
   network topology changes, that path can also change so that it
   includes a different set of links and intermediate systems.

   Each link is constrained by the number of bytes that it can convey in
   a single IP packet.  This constraint is called the link Maximum
   Transmission Unit (MTU).  IPv4 [RFC0791] requires every link to have
   an MTU of 68 bytes or greater.  IPv6 [RFC8200] requires every link to
   have an MTU of 1280 bytes or greater.  These are called the IPv4 and
   IPv6 minimum link MTU's.

   Each Internet path is constrained by the number of bytes that it can
   convey in a IP single packet.  This constraint is called the Path MTU
   (PMTU).  For any given path, the PMTU is equal to the smallest of its
   link MTU's.  Because Internet paths are dynamic, PMTU is also
   dynamic.

   For reasons described below, source nodes estimate the PMTU between
   themselves and destination nodes.  A source node can produce
   extremely conservative PMTU estimates in which:

   o  The estimate for each IPv4 path is equal to IPv4 minimum link MTU
      (68 bytes).




Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   o  The estimate for each IPv6 path is equal to the IPv6 minimum link
      MTU (1280 bytes).

   While these conservative estimates are guaranteed to be less than or
   equal to the actual MTU, they are likely to be much less than the
   actual PMTU.  This may adversely affect upper-layer protocol
   performance.

   By executing Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) [RFC1191] [RFC8201]
   procedures, a source node can maintain a less conservative, running
   estimate of the PMTU between itself and a destination node.
   According to these procedures, the source node produces an initial
   PMTU estimate.  This initial estimate is equal to the MTU of the
   first link along path to the destination node.  It can be greater
   than the actual PMTU.

   Having produced an initial PMTU estimate, the source node sends non-
   fragmentable IP packets to the destination node.  If one of these
   packets is larger than the actual PMTU, a downstream router will not
   be able to forward the packet through the next link along the path.
   Therefore, the downstream router drops the packet and send an
   Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) [RFC0792] [RFC4443] Packet
   Too Big (PTB) message to the source node.  The ICMP PTB message
   indicates the MTU of the link through which the packet could not be
   forwarded.  The source node uses this information to refine its PMTU
   estimate.

   PMTUD produces a running estimate of the PMTU between a source node
   and a destination node.  Because PMTU is dynamic, at any given time,
   the PMTU estimate can differ from the actual PMTU.  In order to
   detect PMTU increases, PMTUD occasionally resets the PMTU estimate to
   the MTU of the first link along path to the destination node.  It
   then repeats the procedure described above.

   Furthermore, PMTUD has the following characteristics:

   o  It relies on the network's ability to deliver ICMP PTB messages to
      the source node.

   o  It is susceptible to attack because ICMP messages are easily
      forged [RFC5927].

   FOOTNOTE: According to RFC 0791, every IPv4 host must be capable of
   receiving a packet whose length is equal to 576 bytes.  However, the
   IPv4 minimum link MTU is not 576.  Section 3.2 of RFC 0791 explicitly
   states that the IPv4 minimum link MTU is 68 bytes.





Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   FOOTNOTE: In the paragraphs above, the term "non-fragmentable packet"
   is introduced.  A non-fragmentable packet can be fragmented at its
   source.  However, it cannot be fragmented by a downstream node.  An
   IPv4 packet whose DF-bit is set to zero is fragmentable.  An IPv4
   packet whose DF-bit is set to one is non-fragmentable.  All IPv6
   packets are also non-fragmentable.

   FOOTNOTE: In the paragraphs above, the term "ICMP PTB message" is
   introduced.  The ICMP PTB message has two instantiations.  In ICMPv4
   [RFC0792], the ICMP PTB message is Destination Unreachable message
   with Code equal to (4) fragmentation needed and DF set.  This message
   was augmented by [RFC1191] to indicates the MTU of the link through
   which the packet could not be forwarded.  In ICMPv6 [RFC4443], the
   ICMP PTB message is a Packet Too Big Message with Code equal to (0).
   This message also indicates the MTU of the link through which the
   packet could not be forwarded.

2.2.  Upper-layer Protocols

   When an upper-layer protocol submits data to the underlying IP
   module, and the resulting IP packet's length is greater than the
   PMTU, IP fragmentation may be required.  IP fragmentation divides a
   packet into fragments.  Each fragment includes an IP header and a
   portion of the original packet.

   [RFC0791] describes IPv4 fragmentation procedures.  IPv4 packets
   whose DF-bit is set to one cannot be fragmented.  IPv4 packets whose
   DF-bit is set to zero can be fragmented at the source node or by any
   downstream router.  [RFC8200] describes IPv6 fragmentation
   procedures.  IPv6 packets can be fragmented at the source node only.

   IPv4 fragmentation differs slightly from IPv6 fragmentation.
   However, in both IP versions, the upper-layer header appears in the
   first fragment only.  It does not appear in subsequent fragments.

   Upper-layer protocols can operate in the following modes:

   o  Do not rely on IP fragmentation.

   o  Rely on IP source fragmentation only (i.e., fragmentation at the
      source node).

   o  Rely on IP source fragmentation and downstream fragmentation
      (i.e., fragmentation at any node along the path).

   Upper-layer protocols running over IPv4 can operate in the first and
   third modes (above).  Upper-layer protocols running over IPv6 can
   operate in the first and second modes (above).



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   Upper-layer protocols that operate in the first two modes (above)
   require access to the PMTU estimate.  In order to fulfil this
   requirement, they can

   o  Estimate the PMTU to be equal to the IPv4 or IPv6 minimum link
      MTU.

   o  Access the estimate that PMTUD produced.

   o  Execute PMTUD procedures themselves.

   o  Execute Packetization Layer PMTUD (PLPMTUD) [RFC4821]
      [I-D.fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud] procedures.

   According to PLPMTUD procedures, the upper-layer protocol maintains a
   running PMTU estimate.  It does so by sending probe packets of
   various sizes to its peer and receiving acknowledgements.  This
   strategy differs from PMTUD in that it relies of acknowledgement of
   received messages, as opposed to ICMP PTB messages concerning dropped
   messages.  Therefore, PLPMTUD does not rely on the network's ability
   to deliver ICMP PTB messages to the source.

   An upper-layer protocol that does not rely on IP fragmentation never
   causes the underlying IP module to emit

   o  A fragmentable IP packet (i.e., an IPv4 packet with the DF-bit set
      to zero).

   o  An IP fragment.

   o  A packet whose length is greater than the PMTU estimate.

   However, when the PMTU estimate is greater than the actual PMTU, the
   upper-layer protocol can cause the underlying IP module to emit a
   packet whose length is greater than the actual PMTU.  When this
   occurs, a downstream router drops the packet and the source node
   refines its PMTU estimate, employing either PMTUD or PLPMTUD
   procedures.

   When an upper-layer protocol that relies on IP source fragmentation
   only submits data to the underlying IP module, and the resulting
   packet is larger than the PMTU estimate, the underlying IP module
   fragments the packet and emits the fragments.  However, the upper-
   layer protocol never causes the underlying IP module to emit

   o  A fragmentable IP packet.

   o  A packet whose length is greater than the PMTU estimate.



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   When the PMTU estimate is greater than the actual PMTU, the upper-
   layer protocol can cause the underlying IP module to emit a packet
   whose length is greater than the actual PMTU.  When this occurs, a
   downstream router drops the packet and the source node refines its
   PMTU estimate, employing either PMTUD or PLPMTUD procedures.

   An upper-layer protocol that relies on IP source fragmentation and
   downstream fragmentation can cause the underlying IP module to emit

   o  A fragmentable IP packet.

   o  An IP fragment.

   o  A packet whose length is greater than the PMTU estimate.

   A protocol that relies on IP source fragmentation and downstream
   fragmentation does not require access to the PMTU estimate.  For
   these protocols, the underlying IP module:

   o  Fragments all packets whose length exceeds the MTU of the first
      link along the path to the destination.

   o  Sets the DF-bit to zero, so that downstream nodes can fragment the
      packet.

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.  IP Fragmentation Reduces Reliability

   This section explains how IP fragmentation reduces the reliability of
   Internet communication.

4.1.  Middle Box Failures

   Many middle boxes require access to the transport-layer header.
   However, when a packet is divided into fragments, the transport-layer
   header appears in the first fragment only.  It does not appear in
   subsequent fragments.  This omission can prevent middle boxes from
   delivering their intended services.

   For example, assume that a router diverts selected packets from their
   normal path towards network appliances that support deep packet



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   inspection and lawful intercept.  The router selects packets for
   diversion based upon the following 5-tuple:

   o  IP Source Address.

   o  IP Destination Address.

   o  IPv4 Protocol or IPv6 Next Header.

   o  transport-layer source port.

   o  transport-layer destination port.

   IP fragmentation causes this selection algorithm to behave
   suboptimally, because the transport-layer header appears only in the
   first fragment of each packet.

   In another example, a middle box remarks a packet's Differentiated
   Services Code Point [RFC2474] based upon the above mentioned 5-tuple.
   IP fragmentation causes this process to behave suboptimally, because
   the transport-layer header appears only in the first fragment of each
   packet.

   In all of the above-mentioned examples, the middle box cannot deliver
   its intended service without reassembling fragmented packets.

4.2.  Partial Filtering

   IP fragments cause problems for firewalls whose filter rules include
   decision making based on TCP and UDP ports.  As the port information
   is not in the trailing fragments the firewall may elect to accept all
   trailing fragments, which may admit certain classes of attack, or may
   elect to block all trailing fragments, which may block otherwise
   legitimate traffic, or may elect to reassemble all fragmented
   packets, which may be inefficient and negatively affect performance.

4.3.  Suboptimal Load Balancing

   Many stateless load-balancers require access to the transport-layer
   header.  Assume that a load-balancer distributes flows among parallel
   links.  In order to optimize load balancing, the load-balancer sends
   every packet or packet fragment belonging to a flow through the same
   link.

   In order to assign a packet or packet fragment to a link, the load-
   balancer executes an algorithm.  If the packet or packet fragment
   contains a transport-layer header, the load balancing algorithm
   accepts the following 5-tuple as input:



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   o  IP Source Address.

   o  IP Destination Address.

   o  IPv4 Protocol or IPv6 Next Header.

   o  transport-layer source port.

   o  transport-layer destination port.

   However, if the packet or packet fragment does not contain a
   transport-layer header, the load balancing algorithm accepts only the
   following 3-tuple as input:

   o  IP Source Address.

   o  IP Destination Address.

   o  IPv4 Protocol or IPv6 Next Header.

   Therefore, non-fragmented packets belonging to a flow can be assigned
   to one link while fragmented packets belonging to the same flow can
   be divided between that link and another.  This can cause suboptimal
   load balancing.

4.4.  Security Vulnerabilities

   Security researchers have documented several attacks that rely on IP
   fragmentation.  The following are examples:

   o  Overlapping fragment attack [RFC1858]

   o  Incomplete data attack (also known as the Rose Attack)

   In the overlapping fragment attack, an attacker constructs a series
   of packet fragments.  The first fragment contains an IP header, a
   transport-layer header, and some transport-layer payload.  This
   fragment complies with local security policy and is allowed to pass
   through a stateless firewall.  A second fragment, having a non-zero
   offset, overlaps with the first fragment.  The second fragment also
   passes through the stateless firewall.  When the packet is
   reassembled, the transport layer header from the first fragment is
   overwritten by data from the second fragment.  The reassembled packet
   does not comply with local security policy.  Had it traversed the
   firewall in one piece, the firewall would have rejected it.

   A stateless firewall cannot protect against the overlapping fragment
   attack.  However, destination nodes can protect against the



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   overlapping fragment attack by implementing the reassembly procedures
   described in RFC 1858 and RFC 8200.  These reassembly procedures
   detect the overlap and discard the packet.

   The incomplete data attack is a denial of service attack in which the
   attacker constructs a series of fragmented packets.  However, one
   fragment is missing from each packet so that no packet can be
   reassembled.  This attack causes resource exhaustion on the
   destination node, possibly denying reassembly services to other
   flows.  The incomplete data attack can be mitigated by limiting
   reassembly resources dedicated to a particular Source Address or
   flow.

4.5.  Blackholing Due to ICMP Loss

   As stated above, an upper-layer protocol requires access the PMTU
   estimate if it:

   o  Does not rely on IP fragmentation.

   o  Relies on IP source fragmentation only (i.e., fragmentation at the
      source node).

   In order to satisfy this requirement, the upper-layer protocol can:

   o  Estimate the PMTU to be equal to the IPv4 or IPv6 minimum link
      MTU.

   o  Access the estimate that PMTUD produced.

   o  Execute PMTUD procedures itself.

   o  Execute PLPMTUD procedures.

   PMTUD relies upon the network's ability to deliver ICMP PTB messages
   to the source node.  Therefore, if an upper-layer protocol relies on
   PMTUD for its PMTU estimate, it also relies on the networks ability
   to deliver ICMP PTB messages to the source node.

   [RFC4890] states that the PTB messages must not be filtered.
   However, ICMP delivery is not reliable.  It is subject to transient
   loss and, in some configurations, more persistent delivery issues.

   ICMP rate limiting, network congestion and packet corruption can
   cause transient loss.  The effect of rate limiting may be severe, as
   RFC 4443 recommends strict rate limiting of IPv6 traffic.





Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   While transient loss causes PMTUD to perform less efficiently, it
   does not cause PMTUD to fail completely.  When the conditions
   contributing to transient loss abate, the network regains its ability
   to deliver ICMP PTB messages and PMTUD regains its ability to
   function.

   By contrast, more persistent delivery issues cause PMTUD to fail
   completely.  Consider the following example:

   A DNS client sends a request to an anycast address.  The network
   routes that DNS request to the nearest instance of that anycast
   address (i.e., a DNS Server).  The DNS server generates a response
   and sends it back to the DNS client.  While the response does not
   exceed the DNS server's PMTU estimate, it does exceed the actual
   PMTU.

   A downstream router drops the packet and sends an ICMP PTB message
   the packet's source (i.e., the anycast address).  The network routes
   the ICMP PTB message to the anycast instance closest to the
   downstream router.  Sadly, that anycast instance may not be the DNS
   server that originated the DNS response.  It may be another DNS
   server with the same anycast address.  The DNS server that originated
   the response may never receive the ICMP PTB message and may never
   updates it PMTU estimate.

   The problem described in this section is specific to PMTUD.  It does
   not occur when the upper-layer protocol obtains its PMTU estimate
   from PLPMTUD or any other source.

   Furthermore, the problem described in this section occurs when the
   upper-layer protocol does not rely on IP fragmentation, as well as
   when the upper-layer protocol relies on IP source fragmentation only.

4.6.  Blackholing Due To Filtering

   In RFC 7872, researchers sampled Internet paths to determine whether
   they would convey packets that contain IPv6 extension headers.
   Sampled paths terminated at popular Internet sites (e.g., popular
   web, mail and DNS servers).

   The study revealed that at least 28% of the sampled paths did not
   convey packets containing the IPv6 Fragment extension header.  In
   most cases, fragments were dropped in the destination autonomous
   system.  In other cases, the fragments were dropped in transit
   autonomous systems.






Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   Another recent study [Huston] confirmed this finding.  It reported
   that 37% of sampled endpoints used IPv6-capable DNS resolvers that
   were incapable of receiving a fragmented IPv6 response.

   It is difficult to determine why network operators drop fragments.
   In some cases, packet drop may be caused by misconfiguration.  In
   other cases, network operators may consciously choose to drop IPv6
   fragments, in order to address the issues raised in Section 4.1
   through Section 4.5, above.

5.  Alternatives to IP Fragmentation

5.1.  Transport Layer Solutions

   The Transport Control Protocol (TCP) [RFC0793]) can be operated in a
   mode that does not require IP fragmentation.

   Applications submit a stream of data to TCP.  TCP divides that stream
   of data into segments, with no segment exceeding the TCP Maximum
   Segment Size (MSS).  Each segment is encapsulated in a TCP header and
   submitted to the underlying IP module.  The underlying IP module
   prepends an IP header and forwards the resulting packet.

   If the TCP MSS is sufficiently small, the underlying IP module never
   produces a packet whose length is greater than the actual PMTU.
   Therefore, IP fragmentation is not required.

   TCP offers the following mechanisms for MSS management:

   o  Manual configuration

   o  PMTUD

   o  PLPMTUD

   For IPv6 nodes, manual configuration is always applicable.  If the
   MSS is manually configured to 1220 bytes and the packet does not
   contain extension headers, the IP layer will never produce a packet
   whose length is greater than the IPv6 minimum link MTU (1280 bytes).
   However, manual configuration prevents TCP from taking advantage of
   larger link MTU's.

   RFC 8200 strongly recommends that IPv6 nodes implement PMTUD, in
   order to discover and take advantage of path MTUs greater than 1280
   bytes.  However, as mentioned in Section 2.1, PMTUD relies upon the
   network's ability to deliver ICMP PTB messages.  Therefore, PMTUD is
   applicable only in environments where the risk of ICMP PTB loss is
   acceptable.



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   By contrast, PLPMTUD does not rely upon the network's ability to
   deliver ICMP PTB messages.  However, in many loss-based TCP
   congestion control algorithms, the dropping of a packet may cause the
   TCP control algorithm to drop the congestion control window, or even
   re-start with the entire slow start process.  For high capacity, long
   RTT, large volume TCP streams, the deliberate probing with large
   packets and the consequent packet drop may impose too harsh a penalty
   on total TCP throughput for it to be a viable approach.  [RFC4821]
   defines PLPMTUD procedures for TCP.

   While TCP will never cause the underlying IP module to emit a packet
   that is larger than the PMTU estimate, it can cause the underlying IP
   module to emit a packet that is larger than the actual PMTU.  If this
   occurs, the packet is dropped, the PMTU estimate is updated, the
   segment is divided into smaller segments and each smaller segment is
   submitted to the underlying IP module.

   The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) [RFC4340] and the
   Stream Control Protocol (SCP) [RFC4960] also can be operated in a
   mode that does not require IP fragmentation.  They both accept data
   from an application and divide that data into segments, with no
   segment exceeding a maximum size.  Both DCCP and SCP offer manual
   configuration, PMTUD and PLPMTUD as mechanisms for managing that
   maximum size.  [I-D.fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud] proposes
   PLPMTUD procedures for DCCP and SCP.

5.2.  Application Layer Solutions

   [RFC8085] recognizes that IP fragmentation reduces the reliability of
   Internet communication.  Therefore, it offers the following advice
   regarding applications the run over the User Data Protocol (UDP)
   [RFC0768].

   "An application SHOULD NOT send UDP datagrams that result in IP
   packets that exceed the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) along the
   path to the destination.  Consequently, an application SHOULD either
   use the path MTU information provided by the IP layer or implement
   Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) itself to determine whether the path to a
   destination will support its desired message size without
   fragmentation."

   RFC 8085 continues:

   "Applications that do not follow the recommendation to do PMTU/
   PLPMTUD discovery SHOULD still avoid sending UDP datagrams that would
   result in IP packets that exceed the path MTU.  Because the actual
   path MTU is unknown, such applications SHOULD fall back to sending
   messages that are shorter than the default effective MTU for sending



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   (EMTU_S in [RFC1122]).  For IPv4, EMTU_S is the smaller of 576 bytes
   and the first-hop MTU.  For IPv6, EMTU_S is 1280 bytes.  The
   effective PMTU for a directly connected destination (with no routers
   on the path) is the configured interface MTU, which could be less
   than the maximum link payload size.  Transmission of minimum-sized
   UDP datagrams is inefficient over paths that support a larger PMTU,
   which is a second reason to implement PMTU discovery."

   RFC 8085 assumes that for IPv4, an EMTU_S of 576 is sufficiently
   small, even though the IPv6 minimum link MTU is 68 bytes.

   This advice applies equally to application that run directly over IP.

6.  Applications That Rely on IPv6 Fragmentation

   The following applications rely on IPv6 fragmentation:

   o  DNS [RFC1035]

   o  OSPFv3 [RFC5340]

   o  IP Encapsulations

   Each of these applications relies on IPv6 fragmentation to a varying
   degree.  In some cases, that reliance is essential, and cannot be
   broken without fundamentally changing the protocol.  In other cases,
   that reliance is incidental, and most implementations already take
   appropriate steps to avoid fragmentation.

   This list is not comprehensive, and other protocols that rely on IPv6
   fragmentation may exist.  They are not specifically considered in the
   context of this document.

6.1.  DNS

   DNS can obtain transport services from either UDP or TCP.  Superior
   performance and scaling characteristics are observed when DNS runs
   over UDP.

   DNS Servers that execute DNSSEC [RFC4035] procedures are more likely
   to generate large responses.  Therefore, when running over UDP, they
   are more likely to cause the generation of IPv6 fragments.  DNS's
   reliance upon IPv6 fragmentation is fundamental and cannot be broken
   without changing the DNS specification.

   DNS is an essential part of the Internet architecture.  Therefore,
   this issue is for further study and must be resolved before DNSSEC
   can be deployed successfully in IPv6 only networks.



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


6.2.  OSPFv3

   OSPFv3 implementations can emit messages large enough to cause IPv6
   fragmentation.  However, in keeping with the recommendations of
   RFC8200, and in order to optimize performance, most OSPFv3
   implementations restrict their maximum message size to the IPv6
   minimum link MTU.

6.3.  IP Encapsulations

   In this document, IP encapsulations include IP-in-IP [RFC2003],
   Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], GRE-in-UDP [RFC8086]
   and Generic Packet Tunneling in IPv6 [RFC2473].  The fragmentation
   strategy described for GRE in [RFC7588] has been deployed for all of
   the above-mentioned IP encapsulations.  This strategy does not rely
   on IPv6 fragmentation except in one corner case. (see Section 3.3.2.2
   of RFC 7588 and Section 7.1 of RFC 2473).  Section 3.3 of [RFC7676]
   further describes this corner case.

7.  Recommendation

7.1.  For Application Developers

   Application developers SHOULD NOT develop applications that rely on
   IPv6 fragmentation.

   Application-layer protocols then depend upon IPv6 fragmentation
   SHOULD be updated to break that dependency.

7.2.  For Network Operators

   As per RFC 4890, network operators MUST NOT filter ICMPv6 PTB
   messages unless they are known to be forged or otherwise
   illegitimate.  As stated in Section 4.5, filtering ICMPv6 PTB packets
   causes PMTUD to fail.  Many upper-layer protocols rely on PMTUD.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document makes no request of IANA.

9.  Security Considerations

   This document mitigates some of the security considerations
   associated with IP fragmentation by discouraging the use of IP
   fragmentation.  It does not introduce any new security
   vulnerabilities, because it does not introduce any new alternatives
   to IP fragmentation.  Instead, it recommends well-understood
   alternatives.



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


10.  Acknowledgements

   TBD

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC0768]  Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0768, August 1980,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc768>.

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.

   [RFC0792]  Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
              RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.

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

   [RFC1035]  Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, DOI 10.17487/RFC1035,
              November 1987, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1035>.

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

   [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>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.





Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   [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>.

   [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

   [Huston]   Huston, G., "IPv6, Large UDP Packets and the DNS
              (http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2017-08/xtn-hdrs.html)",
              August 2017.

   [I-D.fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud]
              Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tuexen, M., and I. Ruengeler,
              "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for Datagram
              Transports", draft-fairhurst-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-02
              (work in progress), December 2017.

   [RFC1122]  Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
              Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.

   [RFC1858]  Ziemba, G., Reed, D., and P. Traina, "Security
              Considerations for IP Fragment Filtering", RFC 1858,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC1858, October 1995,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1858>.

   [RFC2003]  Perkins, C., "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC 2003,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.

   [RFC2473]  Conta, A. and S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
              IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.




Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   [RFC2474]  Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
              "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
              Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2474>.

   [RFC2784]  Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P.
              Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2784>.

   [RFC4035]  Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "Protocol Modifications for the DNS Security
              Extensions", RFC 4035, DOI 10.17487/RFC4035, March 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4035>.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.

   [RFC4890]  Davies, E. and J. Mohacsi, "Recommendations for Filtering
              ICMPv6 Messages in Firewalls", RFC 4890,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4890, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4890>.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.

   [RFC5340]  Coltun, R., Ferguson, D., Moy, J., and A. Lindem, "OSPF
              for IPv6", RFC 5340, DOI 10.17487/RFC5340, July 2008,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5340>.

   [RFC5927]  Gont, F., "ICMP Attacks against TCP", RFC 5927,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5927, July 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5927>.

   [RFC7588]  Bonica, R., Pignataro, C., and J. Touch, "A Widely
              Deployed Solution to the Generic Routing Encapsulation
              (GRE) Fragmentation Problem", RFC 7588,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7588, July 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7588>.

   [RFC7676]  Pignataro, C., Bonica, R., and S. Krishnan, "IPv6 Support
              for Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 7676,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7676, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7676>.



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   [RFC7872]  Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
              "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
              Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7872, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872>.

   [RFC8086]  Yong, L., Ed., Crabbe, E., Xu, X., and T. Herbert, "GRE-
              in-UDP Encapsulation", RFC 8086, DOI 10.17487/RFC8086,
              March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8086>.

Appendix A.  Contributors' Address


Authors' Addresses

   Ron Bonica
   Juniper Networks
   2251 Corporate Park Drive
   Herndon, Virginia  20171
   USA

   Email: rbonica@juniper.net


   Fred Baker
   Unaffiliated
   Santa Barbara, California  93117
   USA

   Email: FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com


   Geoff Huston
   APNIC
   6 Cordelia St
   Brisbane, 4101 QLD
   Australia

   Email: gih@apnic.net


   Robert M. Hinden
   Check Point Software
   959 Skyway Road
   San Carlos, California  94070
   USA

   Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com



Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft          IP Fragmentation Fragile              March 2018


   Ole Troan
   Cisco
   Philip Pedersens vei 1
   N-1366 Lysaker
   Norway

   Email: ot@cisco.com












































Bonica, et al.          Expires September 3, 2018              [Page 20]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.126, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/