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 for the currently active and future keys. o Different algorithms: by extending the previous table to , 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, . [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, . [RFC6407] Weis, B., Rowles, S., and T. Hardjono, "The Group Domain of Interpretation" , RFC 6407, DOI 10.17487/RFC6407, October 2011, . [RFC4459] Savola, P., "MTU and Fragmentation Issues with In-the- Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI 10.17487/RFC4459, April 2006, . [RFC4963] Heffner, J., Mathis, M., and B. Chandler, "IPv4 Reassembly Errors at High Data Rates", RFC 4963, DOI 10.17487/RFC4963, July 2007, . [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, . [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, . 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]