TSGWG J. Touch Internet Draft USC/ISI Intended status: Experimental January 19, 2016 Expires: July 2016 Transport Options for UDP draft-touch-tsvwg-udp-options-02.txt Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft will expire on July 19, 2016. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2016 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 (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. Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 1] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 Abstract Transport protocols are extended through the use of transport header options. This document experimentally extends UDP to provide a location, syntax, and semantics for transport layer options. Table of Contents 1. Introduction...................................................2 2. Conventions used in this document..............................2 3. Background.....................................................3 4. The UDP Option Area............................................3 5. Whose options are these?.......................................7 6. UDP options vs. UDP-Lite.......................................7 7. Interactions with Legacy Devices...............................8 8. Options in a Stateless, Unreliable Transport Protocol..........9 9. Security Considerations........................................9 10. IANA Considerations...........................................9 11. References...................................................10 11.1. Normative References....................................10 11.2. Informative References..................................10 12. Acknowledgments..............................................11 1. Introduction Transport protocols use options as a way to extend their capabilities. TCP [RFC793], SCTP [RFC4960], and DCCP [RFC4340] include space for these options but UDP [RFC768] currently does not. This document defines an experimental extension to UDP that provides space for transport options including their generic syntax and semantics for their use in UDP's stateless, unreliable message protocol. 2. Conventions used in this document The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in ALL CAPS. Lowercase uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying significance described in RFC 2119. In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s) indicates a statement using the key words listed above. This Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 2] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying or finding the portions of this RFC covered by these key words. 3. Background Many protocols include a default header and an area for header options. These options enable the protocol to be extended for use in particular environments or in ways unforeseen by the original designers. Examples include TCP's Maximum Segment Size, Window Scale, Timestamp, and Authentication Options [RFC793][RFC5925][RFC7323]. These options are used both in stateful (connection-oriented, e.g., TCP [RFC793], SCTP [RFC4960], DCCP [RFC4340]) and stateless (connectionless, e.g., IPv4 [RFC791], IPv6 [RFC2460] protocols. In stateful protocols they can help extend the way in which state is managed. In stateless protocols their effect is often limited to individual packets, but they can have an aggregate effect on a sequence as well. One example of such uses is Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD) [Tr15], and this document is intended to provide an out-of-band option area as an alternative to the in-band mechanism currently proposed [Hi15]. UDP is one of the most popular protocols that lacks space for options [RFC768]. The UDP header was intended to be a minimal addition to IP, providing only ports and a data checksum for protection. This document experimentally extends UDP to provide a trailer area for options located after the UDP data payload. 4. The UDP Option Area The UDP transport header includes demultiplexing and service identification (port numbers), a checksum, and a field that indicates the payload length. This length field is typically redundant with total IP datagram length and header length. For IPv4, the total datagram length (including IP header) is the IP "Total Length" field and the header and its options are 4*IHL ("Internet Header Length"), as shown in Figure 1 [RFC791]. For IPv6, the last IP option with "Next Header" = UDP (i.e., 17) indicates the size of the transport payload as its "Payload Length" directly, as shown in Figure 2 [RFC2460]. In both cases, the space available for the UDP transport protocol data unit is indicated by IP, either indirectly for IPv4 (Total Length - 4*IHL) or directly (Payload Length). In either case, this document will refer to the length of the IP payload by the IPv6 term of "Payload Length". Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 3] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| IHL |Type of Service| Total Length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Time to Live | Proto=17 (UDP)| Header Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Source Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Destination Address | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... Options (padded as necessary, indicated by Frag. Offset) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | UDP Source Port | UDP Destination Port | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 1 IPv4 datagram with UDP transport payload +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Payload Length | Next Hdr=17 | Hop Limit | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... | Source Address (128 bits) | ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ... | Destination Address (128 bits) | ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | UDP Source Port | UDP Destination Port | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | UDP Length | UDP Checksum | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Figure 2 IPv6 datagram with UDP transport payload As a result of this redundancy, there is an opportunity to use the UDP Length field as a way to break up the IP payload into two areas - that intended as UDP user data and an additional "surplus area" (as shown in Figure 3). Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 4] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 +--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+ | IP Hdr | UDP Hdr | UDP user data | surplus area | +--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+ | | ^ ^ | +-------- UDP Length -------+ | | | +------------------ IP Total Length --------------------+ Figure 3 IP Payload Length vs. UDP Length In most cases, the IP Payload Length and UDP Length are the same, i.e., they point to the same location, indicating that there is no surplus area. UDP-Lite used the difference in these pointers to indicate the partial coverage of the UDP Checksum, such that the UDP user data, UDP header, and UDP pseudoheader (a subset of the IP header) are covered by the UDP checksum but additional user data in the surplus area is not covered [RFC3828]. This document uses the surplus area for UDP transport options. The UDP option area is thus defined as the location between the end of the UDP payload and the end of the IP datagram as a trailing options area. This area can occur at any valid byte offset, i.e., it need not be 16-bit or 32-bit aligned. In effect, this document redefines the UDP "Length" field as a "trailer offset". UDP options are defined using a syntax similar to that of TCP [RFC793]. They are typically a minimum of two bytes in length as shown in Figure 4, excepting only the one byte options "No Operation" (NOP) and "End of Options List" (EOL) described below. +--------+--------+ | Kind | Length | +--------+--------+ Figure 4 UDP option default format >> UDP options MAY occur at any UDP length offset. >> The UDP length MUST be at least as large as the UDP header (8) and no larger than the payload of the IP datagram. Values outside this range MUST be silently discarded as invalid and logged where rate-limiting permits. Others have considered using values of the UDP Length that is larger than the IP Payload Length as an additional type of signal. Using a value smaller than the IP Payload Length is expected to be backward compatible with existing UDP implementations, i.e., to deliver the Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 5] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 UDP Length of user data to the application and silently ignore the additional surplus area data. Using a value larger than the IP Payload Length would either be considered malformed (and be silently dropped) or could cause buffer overruns, and so is not considered silently and safely backward compatible. Its use is thus out of scope for the extension described in this document. >> UDP options MUST be interpreted in the order in which they occur in the UDP option area. The following UDP options are currently defined: Kind Length Meaning ---------------------------------------------- 0 - End of Options List (EOL) 1 - No operation (NOP) 2 2 Option checksum (OCS) 128-253 RESERVED 254 N(>=4) RFC 3692-style experiments 255 RESERVED >> If options longer than one byte are used, NOP options SHOULD be used at the beginning of the UDP options area to achieve alignment as would be more efficient for for active (i.e., non-NOP) options. The option checksum (OCS, Kind = 2) is an 8-bit ones-complement sum that covers only the options, from the first option as indicated by the UDP Length to the last option as indicated by EOL (where present) or the IP Payload Length. OCS can be calculated by computing the 16-bit ones-complement sum and "folding over" the result (using carry wraparound). Note that OCS is direct, i.e., it is not negated or adjusted if zero. OCS protects the option area from errors in a similar way that the UDP checksum protects the UDP user data. >> When present, the option checksum SHOULD occur as early as possible, preferably preceded by only NOP options for alignment. >> If the option checksum fails, all options MUST be ignored and any trailing surplus data silently discarded. >> UDP data that is validated by a correct UDP checksum MUST be delivered to the application layer, even if the UDP option checksum fails, unless the endpoints have negotiated otherwise for this segment's socket pair. Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 6] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 >> When the UDP options do not consume the entire option area, the last non-NOP option SHOULD be EOL (vs. filling the entire option area with NOP values). >> All bytes after EOL MUST be ignored by UDP option processing. Those bytes MAY be passed to the application layer and this can be used as a way to include user data that is not protected by a checksum. If this unprotected data is provided to the user, it MUST be provided distinct from the UDP user data. Kind=254 is reserved for experiments [RFC3692]. Only one such value is reserved because it experiments are expected to already apply the shared use approach developed for TCP experimental options [RFC6994]. >> The length of the experimental option MUST be at least 4 to account for the Kind, Length, and the minimum 16-bit UDP ExID identifier (similar to TCP ExIDs [RFC6994]). 5. Whose options are these? UDP options are indicated in an area of the IP payload that is not used by UDP. That area is really part of the IP payload, not the UDP payload, and as such, it might be tempting to consider whether this is a generally useful approach to extending IP. Unfortunately, the surplus area exists only for transports that include their own transport layer payload length indicator. TCP and SCTP include header length fields that already provide space for transport options by indicating the total length of the header area, such that the entire remaining area indicated in the network layer (IP) is transport payload. UDP-Lite already uses the UDP Length field to indicate the boundary between data covered by the transport checksum and data not covered, and so there is no remaining area where the length of the UDP payload as a whole can be indicated [RFC3828]. 6. UDP options vs. UDP-Lite UDP-Lite provides partial checksum coverage, so that packets with errors in some locations can be delivered to the user [RFC3828]. It uses a different transport protocol number (136) than UDP (17) to interpret the UDP Length field as the prefix covered by the UDP checksum. UDP (protocol 17) already defines the UDP Length field as the limit of the UDP checksum, but by default also limits the data provided to Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 7] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 the application as that which precedes the UDP Length. A goal of UDP-Lite is to deliver data beyond UDP Length as a default, which is why a separate transport protocol number was required. UDP options do not need a separate transport protocol number because the data beyond the UDP Length offset (surplus data) is not provided to the application by default. That data is interpreted exclusively within the UDP transport layer. UDP options support a similar service to UDP-Lite by terminating the UDP options with an EOL option. The additional data not covered by the UDP checksum follows that EOL option, and is passed to the user separately. The difference is that UDP-Lite provides the un- checksummed user data to the application by default, whereas UDP options can provide the same capability only for endpoints that are negotiated in advance (i.e., by default, UDP options would silently discard this non-checksummed data). Additionally, in UDP-Lite the checksummed and non-checksummed payload components are adjacent, whereas in UDP options they are separated by the option area - which, minimally, must consist of at least one EOL option. UDP-Lite cannot support UDP options, either as proposed here or in any other form, because the entire payload of the UDP packet is already defined as user data and there is no additional field in which to indicate a separate area for options. The UDP Length field in UDP-Lite is already used to indicate the boundary between user data covered by the checksum and user data not covered. 7. Interactions with Legacy Devices UDP options have been tested as interoperable with Linux, Max OS-X, and Windows Cygwin, and worked through NAT devices. These systems successfully delivered only the user data indicated by the UDP Length field and silently discarded additional IP payload. There was one embedded device reported that passed the entire IP payload to the user for UDP sockets. This is already inconsistent with UDP and host requirements [RFC768] [RFC1122], as it presents an IP payload to the user (including the transport header) instead of the transport payload corresponding to the transport protocol. It has been reported that Alcatel-Lucent's "Brick" Intrusion Detection System has a default configuration that interprets inconsistencies between UDP Length and IP Length as an attack to be reported. Note that other firewall systems, e.g., CheckPoint, use a default "relaxed UDP length verification" because it avoids falsely interpreting this inconsistency as an attack. Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 8] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 (TBD: test with UDP checksum offload and UDP fragmentation offload) 8. Options in a Stateless, Unreliable Transport Protocol There are two ways to interpret options for a stateless, unreliable protocol -- an option is either local to the message or intended to affect a stream of messages in a soft-state manner. Either interpretation is valid for defined UDP options. It is impossible to know in advance whether an endpoint supports a UDP option. >> UDP options MUST allow for silent failure on first receipt. >> UDP options that rely on soft-state exchange MUST allow for message reordering and loss. >> A UDP option MUST be silently optional until confirmed by exchange with an endpoint. It is useful that these requirements are inconsistent with using UDP options to implement transport-layer fragmentation and reassembly unless that capability has been negotiated with an endpoint in advance for a socket pair. Legacy systems would need to be able to interpret the payload fragments independently. (I'm sure there will be more here) 9. Security Considerations The use of UDP packets with inconsistent IP and UDP Length fields has the potential to trigger a buffer overflow error if not properly handled, e.g., if space is allocated based on the smaller field and copying is based on the larger. However, there have been no reports of such a vulnerability and it would rely on inconsistent use of the two fields for memory allocation and copying. 10. IANA Considerations Upon publication, IANA is hereby requested to create a new registry for UDP Option Kind numbers, similar to that for TCP Option Kinds. Initial values of this registry are as indicated herein. Additional values in this registry are to be assigned by IESG Approval or Standards Action [RFC5226]. Upon publication, IANA is hereby requested to create a new registry for UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs) for Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 9] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 use in the same manner as TCP ExIDs [RFC6994]. Values in this registry are to be assigned by IANA using first-come, first-served (FCFS) rules [RFC5226]. 11. References 11.1. Normative References [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 11.2. Informative References [Hi15] Hildebrand, J., B. Trammel, "Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD) Prototype," draft-hildebrand-spud- prototype-03, Mar. 2015. [RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", RFC 768, August 1980. [RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol," RFC 791, Sept. 1981. [RFC793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol" RFC 793, September 1981. [RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Communication Layers," RFC 1122, Oct. 1989. [RFC2460] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification," RFC 2460, Dec. 1998. [RFC4340] Kohler, E., M. Handley, and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006. [RFC4960] Stewart, R. (Ed.), "Stream Control Transmission Protocol", RFC 4960, September 2007. [RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful," RFC 3692, Jan. 2004. [RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., M. Degermark, S. Pink, L-E. Jonsson (Ed.), G. Fairhurst (Ed.), "The Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite)," RFC 3828, July 2004. [RFC5226] Narten, T., H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs," RFC 5226, May 2008. Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 10] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 [RFC5925] Touch, J., A. Mankin, R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication Option," RFC 5925, June 2010. [RFC6994] Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options," RFC 6994, Aug. 2013. [RFC7323] Borman, D., R. Braden, V. Jacobson, R. Scheffenegger (Ed.), "TCP Extensions for High Performance," RFC 7323, Sep. 2014. [Tr15] Trammel, B. (Ed.), M. Kuelewind (Ed.), "Requirements for the design of a Substrate Protocol for User Datagrams (SPUD)," draft-trammell-spud-req-01, Oct. 2015. 12. Acknowledgments This work benefitted from feedback from Bob Briscoe, Ken Calvert, Ted Faber, Gorry Fairhurst, C. M. Heard, Tom Herbert, as well as discussions on the IETF SPUD email list. This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot. Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 11] Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP January 2016 Authors' Addresses Joe Touch USC/ISI 4676 Admiralty Way Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA Phone: +1 (310) 448-9151 Email: touch@isi.edu Touch Expires July 19, 2016 [Page 12]