idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year (Using the creation date from RFC2460, updated by this document, for RFC5378 checks: 1997-07-30) -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (September 3, 2013) is 3859 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) == Outdated reference: A later version (-05) exists of draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-03 Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 IPv6 maintenance Working Group (6man) F. Gont 3 Internet-Draft SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH 4 Updates: 2460 (if approved) V. Manral 5 Intended status: Standards Track Hewlett-Packard Corp. 6 Expires: March 7, 2014 R. Bonica 7 Juniper Networks 8 September 3, 2013 10 Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header Chains 11 draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-06 13 Abstract 15 The IPv6 specification allows IPv6 header chains of an arbitrary 16 size. The specification also allows options which can in turn extend 17 each of the headers. In those scenarios in which the IPv6 header 18 chain or options are unusually long and packets are fragmented, or 19 scenarios in which the fragment size is very small, the first 20 fragment of a packet may fail to include the entire IPv6 header 21 chain. This document discusses the interoperability and security 22 problems of such traffic, and updates RFC 2460 such that the first 23 fragment of a packet is required to contain the entire IPv6 header 24 chain. 26 Status of this Memo 28 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 29 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 31 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 32 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 33 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 34 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 36 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 37 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 38 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 39 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 41 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2014. 43 Copyright Notice 45 Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 46 document authors. All rights reserved. 48 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 49 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 50 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 51 publication of this document. Please review these documents 52 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 53 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 54 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 55 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 56 described in the Simplified BSD License. 58 Table of Contents 60 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 4. Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 5. Updates to RFC 2460 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 65 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 67 8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 69 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 73 1. Introduction 75 With IPv6, optional internet-layer information is carried in one or 76 more IPv6 Extension Headers [RFC2460]. Extension headers are placed 77 between the IPv6 header and the upper-layer header in a packet. The 78 term "header chain" refers collectively to the IPv6 header, extension 79 headers and upper-layer header occurring in a packet. In those 80 scenarios in which the IPv6 header chain is unusually long and 81 packets are fragmented, or scenarios in which the fragment size is 82 very small, the header chain may span multiple fragments. 84 While IPv4 had a fixed maximum length for the set of all IPv4 options 85 present in a single IPv4 packet, IPv6 does not have any equivalent 86 maximum limit at present. This document updates the set of IPv6 87 specifications to create an overall limit on the size of the 88 combination of IPv6 options and IPv6 Extension Headers that is 89 allowed in a single IPv6 packet. Namely, it updates RFC 2460 such 90 that the first fragment of a fragmented datagram is required to 91 contain the entire IPv6 header chain. 93 It should be noted that this requirement does not preclude the use of 94 e.g. IPv6 jumbo payloads but instead merely requires that all 95 *headers*, starting from IPv6 base header and continuing up to the 96 upper layer header (e.g. TCP or the like) be present in the first 97 fragment. 99 2. Requirements Language 101 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 102 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 103 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. 105 3. Terminology 107 For the purposes of this document, the terms Extension Header, Header 108 Chain, First Fragment, and Upper-layer Header are used as follows: 110 Extension Header: 112 Extension Headers are defined in Section 4 of [RFC2460]. As a 113 result of [I-D.ietf-6man-ext-transmit], [IANA-PROTO] provides a 114 list of assigned Internet Protocol Numbers and designates which of 115 those protocol numbers also represent extension headers. 117 First Fragment: 119 An IPv6 fragment with fragment offset equal to 0. 121 IPv6 Header Chain: 123 The header chain contains an initial IPv6 header, zero or more 124 IPv6 extension headers, and optionally, a single upper-layer 125 header. If an upper-layer header is present, it terminates the 126 header chain. 128 The first member of the header chain is always an IPv6 header. 129 For a subsequent header to qualify as a member of the header 130 chain, it must be referenced by the "Next Header" field of the 131 previous member of the header chain. However, if a second IPv6 132 header appears in the header chain, as is the case when IPv6 is 133 tunneled over IPv6, the second IPv6 header is considered to be an 134 upper-layer header and terminates the header chain. Likewise, if 135 an Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) header appears in the 136 header chain it is considered to be an upper-layer header and it 137 terminates the header chain. 139 Upper-layer Header: 141 In the general case, the upper-layer header is the first member of 142 the header chain that is neither an IPv6 header nor an IPv6 143 extension header. However, if either an ESP header, or a second 144 IPv6 header occur in the header chain, they are considered to be 145 upper layer headers and they terminate the header chain. 147 Neither the upper-layer payload, nor any protocol data following 148 the upper-layer payload, is considered to be part of the header 149 chain. In a simple example, if the upper-layer header is a TCP 150 header, the TCP payload is not part of the header chain. In a 151 more complex example, if the upper-layer header is an ESP header, 152 neither the payload data, nor any of the fields that follow the 153 payload data in the ESP header are part of the header chain. 155 4. Motivation 157 Many forwarding devices implement stateless firewalls. A stateless 158 firewall enforces a forwarding policy on packet-by-packet basis. In 159 order to enforce its forwarding policy, the stateless firewall may 160 need to glean information from both the IPv6 and upper-layer headers. 162 For example, assume that a stateless firewall discards all traffic 163 received from an interface unless it destined for a particular TCP 164 port on a particular IPv6 address. When this firewall is presented 165 with a fragmented packet, and the entire header chain is contained 166 within the first fragment, the firewall discards the first fragment 167 and allows subsequent fragments to pass. Because the first fragment 168 was discarded, the packet cannot be reassembled at the destination. 169 Insomuch as the packet cannot be reassembled, the forwarding policy 170 is enforced. 172 However, when the firewall is presented with a fragmented packet and 173 the header chain spans multiple fragments, the first fragment does 174 not contain enough information for the firewall to enforce its 175 forwarding policy. Lacking sufficient information, the stateless 176 firewall either forwards or discards that fragment. Regardless of 177 the action that it takes, it may fail to enforce its forwarding 178 policy. 180 5. Updates to RFC 2460 182 When a host fragments a IPv6 datagram, it MUST include the entire 183 header chain in the first fragment. 185 A host that receives a first-fragment that does not satisfy the 186 above-stated requirements SHOULD discard that packet, and also MAY 187 send an ICMPv6 error message to the source address of the offending 188 packet (subject to the rules for ICMPv6 errors specified in 189 [RFC4443]). 191 Likewise, an intermediate system (e.g. router, firewall) that 192 receives an IPv6 first-fragment that does not satisfy the above- 193 stated requirements MAY discard that packet, and MAY send an ICMPv6 194 error message to the source address of the offending packet (subject 195 to the rules for ICMPv6 error messages specified in [RFC4443]). 196 Intermediate systems having this capability SHOULD support 197 configuration (e.g. enable/disable) of whether such packets are 198 dropped or not by the intermediate system. 200 If a host or intermediate system discards a first-fragment because it 201 does not satisfy the above-stated requirements, and sends an ICMPv6 202 error message due to the discard, then the ICMPv6 error message MUST 203 be Type 4 ("Parameter Problem") and MUST use Code TBD ("First- 204 fragment has incomplete IPv6 Header Chain"). The Pointer field 205 contained by the ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message MUST be set to 206 zero. 208 6. IANA Considerations 210 IANA is requested to add a the following entry to the "Reason Code" 211 registry for ICMPv6 "Type 4 - Parameter Problem" messages: 213 CODE NAME/DESCRIPTION 214 TBD IPv6 first-fragment has incomplete IPv6 header chain 216 7. Security Considerations 218 This document describes how improperly-fragmented packets can prevent 219 traditional stateless packet filtering. 221 This document updates RFC 2460 such that those packets are forbidden, 222 thus enabling stateless packet filtering for IPv6. 224 This specification allows nodes that drop the aforementioned packets 225 to signal such packet drops with ICMPv6 "Parameter Problem, IPv6 226 first-fragment has incomplete IPv6 header chain" (Type 4, Code TBD) 227 error messages. 229 As with all ICMPv6 error/diagnostic messages, deploying Source 230 Address Forgery Prevention filters helps reduce the chances of an 231 attacker successfully performing a reflection attack by sending 232 forged illegal packets with the victim/target's IPv6 address as the 233 IPv6 Source Address of the illegal packet [RFC2827] [RFC3704]. 235 8. Acknowledgements 237 The authors of this document would like to thank Ran Atkinson for 238 contributing text and ideas that were incorporated into this 239 document. 241 The authors would like to thank (in alphabetical order) Ran Atkinson, 242 Fred Baker, Brian Carpenter, Dominik Elsbroek, Mike Heard, Bill 243 Jouris, Suresh Krishnan, Dave Thaler, Ole Troan, and Eric Vyncke, for 244 providing valuable comments on earlier versions of this document. 246 9. References 248 9.1. Normative References 250 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 251 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 253 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 254 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998. 256 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, "Internet Control 257 Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol 258 Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, March 2006. 260 [I-D.ietf-6man-ext-transmit] 261 Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing 262 of IPv6 Extension Headers", 263 draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-03 (work in progress), 264 August 2013. 266 9.2. Informative References 268 [RFC2827] Ferguson, P. and D. Senie, "Network Ingress Filtering: 269 Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source 270 Address Spoofing", BCP 38, RFC 2827, May 2000. 272 [RFC3704] Baker, F. and P. Savola, "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed 273 Networks", BCP 84, RFC 3704, March 2004. 275 [IANA-PROTO] 276 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "Protocol Numbers", 277 February 2013, . 280 Authors' Addresses 282 Fernando Gont 283 SI6 Networks / UTN-FRH 284 Evaristo Carriego 2644 285 Haedo, Provincia de Buenos Aires 1706 286 Argentina 288 Phone: +54 11 4650 8472 289 Email: fgont@si6networks.com 290 URI: http://www.si6networks.com 292 Vishwas Manral 293 Hewlett-Packard Corp. 294 191111 Pruneridge Ave. 295 Cupertino, CA 95014 296 US 298 Phone: 408-447-1497 299 Email: vishwas.manral@hp.com 300 URI: 302 Ronald P. Bonica 303 Juniper Networks 304 2251 Corporate Park Drive 305 Herndon, VA 20171 306 US 308 Phone: 571 250 5819 309 Email: rbonica@juniper.net