< draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00.txt		draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-01.txt >
	6man Working Group R. Bonica		6man Working Group R. Bonica
	Internet-Draft Juniper Networks		Internet-Draft Juniper Networks
	Updates: RFC 2460 (if approved) W. Kumari		Updates: RFC 2460 (if approved) W. Kumari
	Intended status: Standards Track Google, Inc.		Intended status: Standards Track Google, Inc.
	Expires: December 22, 2013 June 20, 2013		Expires: December 23, 2013 R. Bush
			Internet Initiative Japan
			June 21, 2013
	IPv6 Fragment Header Deprecated		IPv6 Fragment Header Deprecated
	draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-00		draft-bonica-6man-frag-deprecate-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This memo deprecates the IPv6 Fragment Header. It provides reasons		This memo deprecates the IPv6 Fragment Header. It provides reasons
	for deprecation and updates RFC 2460.		for deprecation and updates RFC 2460.
	Requirements Language		Requirements Language
	The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",		The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
	"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this		"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
	skipping to change at page 1, line 38 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 40 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on December 22, 2013.		This Internet-Draft will expire on December 23, 2013.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶
	1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Case For Deprecation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2. Case For Deprecation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.1. Resource Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.1. Resource Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2. Fragmentation Is Rare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		2.2. Fragmentation Is Rare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	2.2.1. UDP-based Applications That Rely on Fragmentation . . 4		2.2.1. UDP-based Applications That Rely on Fragmentation . . 4
	2.3. Attack Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		2.3. Attack Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	2.4. Operator Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		2.4. Operator Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	3. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		3. Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
	6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5		6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	Each link on the Internet is characterized by a Maximum Transmission		Each link on the Internet is characterized by a Maximum Transmission
	Unit (MTU). A link's MTU represents the maximum packet size that can		Unit (MTU). A link's MTU represents the maximum packet size that can
	be conveyed over the link, without fragmentation. MTU is a		be conveyed over the link, without fragmentation. MTU is a
	skipping to change at page 4, line 21 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 26 ¶
	back to sending messages that are shorter than the default effective		back to sending messages that are shorter than the default effective
	MTU for sending." The effective MTU for IPv6 is 1280 bytes.		MTU for sending." The effective MTU for IPv6 is 1280 bytes.
	Because many UDP-based applications follow the above-quoted		Because many UDP-based applications follow the above-quoted
	recommendation, IPv6 fragments carrying UDP traffic are also rarely		recommendation, IPv6 fragments carrying UDP traffic are also rarely
	observed on the Internet.		observed on the Internet.
	2.2.1. UDP-based Applications That Rely on Fragmentation		2.2.1. UDP-based Applications That Rely on Fragmentation
	The following is a list of UDP-based applications that do not follow		The following is a list of UDP-based applications that do not follow
	the recommendation of [RFC5405] and rely in IPv6 fragmentation:		the recommendation of [RFC5405] and rely in IPv6 fragmentation:
	o DNSSEC [RFC4035]		o DNSSEC [RFC4035]. (However, it is useful to note the DNS queries
			and responses can run over TCP.)
	The effectiveness of these protocols may currently be degraded by		The effectiveness of these protocols may currently be degraded by
	operator behavior. SeeSection 2.4 for details.		operator behavior. SeeSection 2.4 for details.
	2.3. Attack Vectors		2.3. Attack Vectors
	Security researchers have found and continue to find attack vectors		Security researchers have found and continue to find attack vectors
	that rely on IP fragmentation. For example,		that rely on IP fragmentation. For example,
	[I-D.ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain] and		[I-D.ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain] and
	[I-D.ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers] describe variants of the tiny		[I-D.ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers] describe variants of the tiny
	skipping to change at page 7, line 43 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 4 ¶
	Authors' Addresses		Authors' Addresses
	Ron Bonica		Ron Bonica
	Juniper Networks		Juniper Networks
	2251 Corporate Park Drive		2251 Corporate Park Drive
	Herndon, Virginia 20170		Herndon, Virginia 20170
	USA		USA
	Email: rbonica@juniper.net		Email: rbonica@juniper.net
			Warren Kumari
	Warren
	Google, Inc.		Google, Inc.
	1600 Amphitheatre Parkway		1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
	Mountainview, California 94043		Mountainview, California 94043
	USA		USA
	Email: warren@kumari.net		Email: warren@kumari.net
			Randy Bush
			Internet Initiative Japan
			5147 Crystal Springs
			Bainbridge Island Washington
			USA
			Email: randy@psg.com
End of changes. 8 change blocks.
	8 lines changed or deleted		10 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/