idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-10.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 == Line 1297 has weird spacing: '...4 any any...' == Line 1313 has weird spacing: '...4 any any...' -- The document date (September 3, 2021) is 964 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) == Missing Reference: '--800--' is mentioned on line 1115, but not defined -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '60' on line 1115 == Missing Reference: '-240-' is mentioned on line 1115, but not defined == Missing Reference: '--4000----------------------' is mentioned on line 1115, but not defined -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 8229 (Obsoleted by RFC 9329) Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 6 warnings (==), 3 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group C. Hopps 3 Internet-Draft LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 4 Intended status: Standards Track September 3, 2021 5 Expires: March 7, 2022 7 IP-TFS: Aggregation and Fragmentation Mode for ESP and its Use for IP 8 Traffic Flow Security 9 draft-ietf-ipsecme-iptfs-10 11 Abstract 13 This document describes a mechanism for aggregation and fragmentation 14 of IP packets when they are being encapsulated in ESP payload. This 15 new payload type can be used for various purposes such as decreasing 16 encapsulation overhead for small IP packets; however, the focus in 17 this document is to enhance IPsec traffic flow security (IP-TFS) by 18 adding Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) to encrypted IP 19 encapsulated traffic. TFC is provided by obscuring the size and 20 frequency of IP traffic using a fixed-sized, constant-send-rate IPsec 21 tunnel. The solution allows for congestion control as well as non- 22 constant send-rate usage. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on March 7, 2022. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 1.1. Terminology & Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 2. The AGGFRAG Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 2.1. Tunnel Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 62 2.2. Payload Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 63 2.2.1. Data Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 64 2.2.2. End Padding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 65 2.2.3. Fragmentation, Sequence Numbers and All-Pad Payloads 6 66 2.2.4. Empty Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 67 2.2.5. IP Header Value Mapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 68 2.2.6. IP Time-To-Live (TTL) and Tunnel errors . . . . . . . 9 69 2.2.7. Effective MTU of the Tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 70 2.3. Exclusive SA Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 71 2.4. Modes of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 72 2.4.1. Non-Congestion Controlled Mode . . . . . . . . . . . 10 73 2.4.2. Congestion Controlled Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 74 2.5. Summary of Receiver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 75 3. Congestion Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 76 3.1. ECN Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 77 4. Configuration of AGGFRAG Tunnels for IP-TFS . . . . . . . . . 14 78 4.1. Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 79 4.2. Fixed Packet Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 80 4.3. Congestion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 81 5. IKEv2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 82 5.1. USE_AGGFRAG Notification Message . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 83 6. Packet and Data Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 84 6.1. AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 85 6.1.1. Non-Congestion Control AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Payload Format 16 86 6.1.2. Congestion Control AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Payload Format . . 16 87 6.1.3. Data Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 88 6.1.4. IKEv2 USE_AGGFRAG Notification Message . . . . . . . 20 89 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 90 7.1. AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Sub-Type Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 91 7.2. USE_AGGFRAG Notify Message Status Type . . . . . . . . . 21 92 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 93 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 94 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 95 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 96 Appendix A. Example Of An Encapsulated IP Packet Flow . . . . . 24 97 Appendix B. A Send and Loss Event Rate Calculation . . . . . . . 25 98 Appendix C. Comparisons of IP-TFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 99 C.1. Comparing Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 100 C.1.1. IP-TFS Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 101 C.1.2. ESP with Padding Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 102 C.2. Overhead Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 103 C.3. Comparing Available Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 104 C.3.1. Ethernet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 105 Appendix D. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 106 Appendix E. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 107 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 109 1. Introduction 111 Traffic Analysis ([RFC4301], [AppCrypt]) is the act of extracting 112 information about data being sent through a network. While directly 113 obscuring the data with encryption [RFC4303], the traffic pattern 114 itself exposes information due to variations in its shape and timing 115 ([RFC8546], [AppCrypt]). Hiding the size and frequency of traffic is 116 referred to as Traffic Flow Confidentiality (TFC) per [RFC4303]. 118 [RFC4303] provides for TFC by allowing padding to be added to 119 encrypted IP packets and allowing for transmission of all-pad packets 120 (indicated using protocol 59). This method has the major limitation 121 that it can significantly under-utilize the available bandwidth. 123 This document defines an aggregation and fragmentation (AGGFRAG) mode 124 for ESP, and its use for IP Traffic Flow Security (IP-TFS). This 125 solution provides for full TFC without the aforementioned bandwidth 126 limitation. This is accomplished by using a constant-send-rate IPsec 127 [RFC4303] tunnel with fixed-sized encapsulating packets; however, 128 these fixed-sized packets can contain partial, whole or multiple IP 129 packets to maximize the bandwidth of the tunnel. A non-constant 130 send-rate is allowed, but the confidentiality properties of its use 131 are outside the scope of this document. 133 For a comparison of the overhead of IP-TFS with the RFC4303 134 prescribed TFC solution see Appendix C. 136 Additionally, IP-TFS provides for operating fairly within congested 137 networks [RFC2914]. This is important for when the IP-TFS user is 138 not in full control of the domain through which the IP-TFS tunnel 139 path flows. 141 The mechanisms, such as the AGGFRAG mode, defined in this document 142 are generic with the intent of allowing for non-TFS uses, but such 143 uses are outside the scope of this document. 145 1.1. Terminology & Concepts 147 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 148 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 149 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 150 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 151 capitals, as shown here. 153 This document assumes familiarity with IP security concepts including 154 TFC as described in [RFC4301]. 156 2. The AGGFRAG Tunnel 158 As mentioned in Section 1, AGGFRAG mode utilizes an IPsec [RFC4303] 159 tunnel as its transport. For the purpose of IP-TFS, fixed-sized 160 encapsulating packets are sent at a constant rate on the AGGFRAG 161 tunnel. 163 The primary input to the tunnel algorithm is the requested bandwidth 164 to be used by the tunnel. Two values are then required to provide 165 for this bandwidth use, the fixed size of the encapsulating packets, 166 and rate at which to send them. 168 The fixed packet size MAY either be specified manually or be 169 determined through other methods such as the Packetization Layer MTU 170 Discovery (PLMTUD) ([RFC4821], [RFC8899]) or Path MTU discovery 171 (PMTUD) ([RFC1191], [RFC8201]). PMTUD is known to have issues so 172 PLMTUD is considered the more robust option. For PLMTUD, congestion 173 control payloads can be used as in-band probes (see Section 6.1.2 and 174 [RFC8899]). 176 Given the encapsulating packet size and the requested bandwidth to be 177 used, the corresponding packet send rate can be calculated. The 178 packet send rate is the requested bandwidth to be used divided by the 179 size of the encapsulating packet. 181 The egress (receiving) side of the AGGFRAG tunnel MUST allow for and 182 expect the ingress (sending) side of the AGGFRAG tunnel to vary the 183 size and rate of sent encapsulating packets, unless constrained by 184 other policy. 186 2.1. Tunnel Content 188 As previously mentioned, one issue with the TFC padding solution in 189 [RFC4303] is the large amount of wasted bandwidth as only one IP 190 packet can be sent per encapsulating packet. In order to maximize 191 bandwidth, IP-TFS breaks this one-to-one association by introducing 192 an AGGFRAG mode for ESP. 194 AGGFRAG mode aggregates as well as fragments the inner IP traffic 195 flow into encapsulating IPsec tunnel packets. For IP-TFS, the IPsec 196 encapsulating tunnel packets are a fixed size. Padding is only added 197 to the the tunnel packets if there is no data available to be sent at 198 the time of tunnel packet transmission, or if fragmentation has been 199 disabled by the receiver. 201 This is accomplished using a new Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP, 202 [RFC4303]) Next Header field value AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD (Section 6.1). 204 Other non-IP-TFS uses of this AGGFRAG mode have been suggested, such 205 as increased performance through packet aggregation, as well as 206 handling MTU issues using fragmentation. These uses are not defined 207 here, but are also not restricted by this document. 209 2.2. Payload Content 211 The AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload content defined in this document is 212 comprised of a 4 or 24 octet header followed by either a partial 213 datablock, a full datablock, or multiple partial or full datablocks. 214 The following diagram illustrates this payload within the ESP packet. 215 See Section 6.1 for the exact formats of the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload. 217 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 . Outer Encapsulating Header ... . 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 . ESP Header... . 221 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 222 | [AGGFRAG subtype/flags] : BlockOffset | 223 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 224 : [Optional Congestion Info] : 225 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 226 | DataBlocks ... ~ 227 ~ ~ 228 ~ | 229 +---------------------------------------------------------------| 230 . ESP Trailer... . 231 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Figure 1: Layout of an AGGFRAG mode IPsec Packet 235 The "BlockOffset" value is either zero or some offset into or past 236 the end of the "DataBlocks" data. 238 If the "BlockOffset" value is zero it means that the "DataBlocks" 239 data begins with a new data block. 241 Conversely, if the "BlockOffset" value is non-zero it points to the 242 start of the new data block, and the initial "DataBlocks" data 243 belongs to the data block that is still being re-assembled. 245 If the "BlockOffset" points past the end of the "DataBlocks" data 246 then the next data block occurs in a subsequent encapsulating packet. 248 Having the "BlockOffset" always point at the next available data 249 block allows for recovering the next inner packet in the presence of 250 outer encapsulating packet loss. 252 An example AGGFRAG mode packet flow can be found in Appendix A. 254 2.2.1. Data Blocks 256 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ 257 | Type | rest of IPv4, IPv6 or pad. 258 +-------- 260 Figure 2: Layout of a DataBlock 262 A data block is defined by a 4-bit type code followed by the data 263 block data. The type values have been carefully chosen to coincide 264 with the IPv4/IPv6 version field values so that no per-data block 265 type overhead is required to encapsulate an IP packet. Likewise, the 266 length of the data block is extracted from the encapsulated IPv4's 267 "Total Length" or IPv6's "Payload Length" fields. 269 2.2.2. End Padding 271 Since a data block's type is identified in its first 4-bits, the only 272 time padding is required is when there is no data to encapsulate. 273 For this end padding a "Pad Data Block" is used. 275 2.2.3. Fragmentation, Sequence Numbers and All-Pad Payloads 277 In order for a receiver to reassemble fragmented inner-packets, the 278 sender MUST send the inner-packet fragments back-to-back in the 279 logical outer packet stream (i.e., using consecutive ESP sequence 280 numbers). However, the sender is allowed to insert "all-pad" 281 payloads (i.e., payloads with a "BlockOffset" of zero and a single 282 pad "DataBlock") in between the packets carrying the inner-packet 283 fragment payloads. This interleaving of all-pad payloads allows the 284 sender to always send a tunnel packet, regardless of the 285 encapsulation computational requirements. 287 When a receiver is reassembling an inner-packet, and it receives an 288 "all-pad" payload, it increments the expected sequence number that 289 the next inner-packet fragment is expected to arrive in. 291 Given the above, the receiver will need to handle out-of-order 292 arrival of outer ESP packets prior to reassembly processing. ESP 293 already provides for optionally detecting replay attacks. Detecting 294 replay attacks normally utilizes a window method. A similar sequence 295 number based sliding window can be used to correct re-ordering of the 296 outer packet stream. Receiving a larger (newer) sequence number 297 packet advances the window, and received older ESP packets whose 298 sequence numbers the window has passed by are dropped. A good choice 299 for the size of this window depends on the amount of re-ordering the 300 user may normally experience. 302 As the amount of reordering that may be present is hard to predict, 303 the window size SHOULD be configurable by the user. Implementations 304 MAY also dynamically adjust the reordering window based on actual 305 reordering seen in arriving packets. 307 Please note when IP-TFS sends a continuous stream of packets, there 308 is no requirement for an explicit drop timer; however, using a drop 309 timer is RECOMMENDED. If an implementation does not use a drop timer 310 and only considers an outer packet lost when the reorder window moves 311 by it, the inner traffic can be delayed by up to the reorder window 312 size times the per packet send rate. This amount of delay could be 313 significant for slower send rates or when larger reorder window sizes 314 are in use. 316 While ESP guarantees an increasing sequence number with subsequently 317 sent packets, it does not actually require the sequence numbers to be 318 generated with no gaps (e.g., sending only even numbered sequence 319 numbers would be allowed as long as they are always increasing). 320 Gaps in the sequence numbers will not work for this document so the 321 sequence number stream MUST increase monotonically by 1 for each 322 subsequent packet. 324 When using the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD in conjunction with replay detection, 325 the window size for both MAY be reduced to the smaller of the two 326 window sizes. This is because packets outside of the smaller window 327 but inside the larger would still be dropped by the mechanism with 328 the smaller window size. However, there is also no requirement to 329 make these values the same. Indeed, in some cases, such as slow 330 tunnels where a very small or zero reorder window size is 331 appropriate, the user may still want a large replay detection window 332 to log replayed packets. Additionally, large replay windows can be 333 implemented with very little overhead compared to large reorder 334 windows. 336 Finally, as sequence numbers are reset when switching SAs (e.g., when 337 re-keying a child SA), senders MUST NOT send initial fragments of an 338 inner packet using one SA and subsequent fragments in a different SA. 340 2.2.3.1. Optional Extra Padding 342 When the tunnel bandwidth is not being fully utilized, a sender MAY 343 pad-out the current encapsulating packet in order to deliver an inner 344 packet un-fragmented in the following outer packet. The benefit 345 would be to avoid inner-packet fragmentation in the presence of a 346 bursty offered load (non-bursty traffic will naturally not fragment). 347 Senders MAY also choose to allow for a minimum fragment size to be 348 configured (e.g., as a percentage of the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload 349 size) to avoid fragmentation at the cost of tunnel bandwidth. The 350 cost with these methods is complexity and added delay of inner 351 traffic. The main advantage to avoiding fragmentation is to minimize 352 inner packet loss in the presence of outer packet loss. When this is 353 worthwhile (e.g., how much loss and what type of loss is required, 354 given different inner traffic shapes and utilization, for this to 355 make sense), and what values to use for the allowable/added delay may 356 be worth researching, but is outside the scope of this document. 358 While use of padding to avoid fragmentation does not impact 359 interoperability, used inappropriately it can reduce the effective 360 throughput of a tunnel. Senders implementing either of the above 361 approaches will need to take care to not reduce the effective 362 capacity, and overall utility, of the tunnel through the overuse of 363 padding. 365 2.2.4. Empty Payload 367 To support reporting of congestion control information (described 368 later) using a non-AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD enabled SA, it is allowed to send 369 an AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload with no data blocks (i.e., the ESP payload 370 length is equal to the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD header length). This special 371 payload is called an empty payload. 373 Currently this situation is only applicable in non-IKEv2 use cases. 375 2.2.5. IP Header Value Mapping 377 [RFC4301] provides some direction on when and how to map various 378 values from an inner IP header to the outer encapsulating header, 379 namely the Don't-Fragment (DF) bit ([RFC0791] and [RFC8200]), the 380 Differentiated Services (DS) field [RFC2474] and the Explicit 381 Congestion Notification (ECN) field [RFC3168]. Unlike [RFC4301], 382 AGGFRAG mode may and often will be encapsulating more than one IP 383 packet per ESP packet. To deal with this, these mappings are 384 restricted further. 386 2.2.5.1. DF bit 388 AGGFRAG mode never maps the inner DF bit as it is unrelated to the 389 AGGFRAG tunnel functionality; AGGFRAG mode never needs to IP fragment 390 the inner packets and the inner packets will not affect the 391 fragmentation of the outer encapsulation packets. 393 2.2.5.2. ECN value 395 The ECN value need not be mapped as any congestion related to the 396 constant-send-rate IP-TFS tunnel is unrelated (by design) to the 397 inner traffic flow. The sender MAY still set the ECN value of inner 398 packets based on the normal ECN specification [RFC3168]. 400 2.2.5.3. DS field 402 By default the DS field SHOULD NOT be copied, although a sender MAY 403 choose to allow for configuration to override this behavior. A 404 sender SHOULD also allow the DS value to be set by configuration. 406 2.2.6. IP Time-To-Live (TTL) and Tunnel errors 408 [RFC4301] specifies how to modify the inner packet TTL [RFC0791]. 410 Any errors (e.g., ICMP errors arriving back at the tunnel ingress due 411 to tunnel traffic) are handled the same as with non-AGGFRAG IPsec 412 tunnels. 414 2.2.7. Effective MTU of the Tunnel 416 Unlike [RFC4301], there is normally no effective MTU (EMTU) on an 417 AGGFRAG tunnel as all IP packet sizes are properly transmitted 418 without requiring IP fragmentation prior to tunnel ingress. That 419 said, a sender MAY allow for explicitly configuring an MTU for the 420 tunnel. 422 If fragmentation has been disabled on the AGGFRAG tunnel, then the 423 tunnel's EMTU and behaviors are the same as normal IPsec tunnels 424 [RFC4301]. 426 2.3. Exclusive SA Use 428 This document does not specify mixed use of an AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD 429 enabled SA. A sender MUST only send AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payloads over an 430 SA configured for AGGFRAG mode. 432 2.4. Modes of Operation 434 Just as with normal IPsec/ESP tunnels, AGGFRAG tunnels are 435 unidirectional. Bidirectional IP-TFS functionality is achieved by 436 setting up 2 AGGFRAG tunnels, one in either direction. 438 An AGGFRAG tunnel used for IP-TFS can operate in 2 modes, a non- 439 congestion controlled mode and congestion controlled mode. 441 2.4.1. Non-Congestion Controlled Mode 443 In the non-congestion controlled mode, IP-TFS sends fixed-sized 444 packets over an AGGFRAG tunnel at a constant rate. The packet send 445 rate is constant and is not automatically adjusted regardless of any 446 network congestion (e.g., packet loss). 448 For similar reasons as given in [RFC7510] the non-congestion 449 controlled mode should only be used where the user has full 450 administrative control over the path the tunnel will take. This is 451 required so the user can guarantee the bandwidth and also be sure as 452 to not be negatively affecting network congestion [RFC2914]. In this 453 case packet loss should be reported to the administrator (e.g., via 454 syslog, YANG notification, SNMP traps, etc) so that any failures due 455 to a lack of bandwidth can be corrected. 457 Non-congestion control mode is also appropriate if ESP over TCP is in 458 use [RFC8229]. 460 2.4.2. Congestion Controlled Mode 462 With the congestion controlled mode, IP-TFS adapts to network 463 congestion by lowering the packet send rate to accommodate the 464 congestion, as well as raising the rate when congestion subsides. 465 Since overhead is per packet, by allowing for maximal fixed-size 466 packets and varying the send rate transport overhead is minimized. 468 The output of the congestion control algorithm will adjust the rate 469 at which the ingress sends packets. While this document does not 470 require a specific congestion control algorithm, best current 471 practice RECOMMENDS that the algorithm conform to [RFC5348]. 472 Congestion control principles are documented in [RFC2914] as well. 473 [RFC4342] provides an example of the [RFC5348] algorithm which 474 matches the requirements of IP-TFS (i.e., designed for fixed-size 475 packet and send rate varied based on congestion. 477 The required inputs for the TCP friendly rate control algorithm 478 described in [RFC5348] are the receiver's loss event rate and the 479 sender's estimated round-trip time (RTT). These values are provided 480 by IP-TFS using the congestion information header fields described in 481 Section 3. In particular, these values are sufficient to implement 482 the algorithm described in [RFC5348]. 484 At a minimum, the congestion information MUST be sent, from the 485 receiver and from the sender, at least once per RTT. Prior to 486 establishing an RTT the information SHOULD be sent constantly from 487 the sender and the receiver so that an RTT estimate can be 488 established. Not receiving this information over multiple 489 consecutive RTT intervals should be considered a congestion event 490 that causes the sender to adjust its sending rate lower. For 491 example, [RFC4342] calls this the "no feedback timeout" and it is 492 equal to 4 RTT intervals. When a "no feedback timeout" has occurred 493 [RFC4342] halves the sending rate. 495 An implementation MAY choose to always include the congestion 496 information in its AGGFRAG payload header if sending on an IP-TFS 497 enabled SA. Since IP-TFS normally will operate with a large packet 498 size, the congestion information should represent a small portion of 499 the available tunnel bandwidth. An implementation choosing to always 500 send the data MAY also choose to only update the "LossEventRate" and 501 "RTT" header field values it sends every "RTT" though. 503 When choosing a congestion control algorithm (or a selection of 504 algorithms) note that IP-TFS is not providing for reliable delivery 505 of IP traffic, and so per packet ACKs are not required and are not 506 provided. 508 It is worth noting that the variable send-rate of a congestion 509 controlled AGGFRAG tunnel, is not private; however, this send-rate is 510 being driven by network congestion, and as long as the encapsulated 511 (inner) traffic flow shape and timing are not directly affecting the 512 (outer) network congestion, the variations in the tunnel rate will 513 not weaken the provided inner traffic flow confidentiality. 515 2.4.2.1. Circuit Breakers 517 In additional to congestion control, implementations MAY choose to 518 define and implement circuit breakers [RFC8084] as a recovery method 519 of last resort. Enabling circuit breakers is also a reason a user 520 may wish to enable congestion information reports even when using the 521 non-congestion controlled mode of operation. The definition of 522 circuit breakers are outside the scope of this document. 524 2.5. Summary of Receiver Processing 526 An AGGFRAG enabled SA receiver has a few tasks to perform. 528 The receiver first reorders, possibly out-of-order ESP packets 529 received on an SA into in-sequence-order AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payloads 530 (Section 2.2.3). If congestion control is enabled, the receiver 531 considers a packet lost when it's sequence number is abandoned (e.g., 532 pushed out of the re-ordering window, or timed-out) by the reordering 533 algorithm. 535 Additionally, if congestion control is enabled, the receiver sends 536 congestion control data (Section 6.1.2) back to the sender as 537 described in Section 2.4.2 and Section 3. 539 Finally, the receiver processes the now in-order AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD 540 payload stream to extract the inner-packets (Section 2.2.3, 541 Section 6.1). 543 3. Congestion Information 545 In order to support the congestion control mode, the sender needs to 546 know the loss event rate and to approximate the RTT [RFC5348]. In 547 order to obtain these values, the receiver sends congestion control 548 information on it's SA back to the sender. Thus, to support 549 congestion control the receiver must have a paired SA back to the 550 sender (this is always the case when the tunnel was created using 551 IKEv2). If the SA back to the sender is a non-AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD 552 enabled SA then an AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD empty payload (i.e., header only) 553 is used to convey the information. 555 In order to calculate a loss event rate compatible with [RFC5348], 556 the receiver needs to have a round-trip time estimate. Thus the 557 sender communicates this estimate in the "RTT" header field. On 558 startup this value will be zero as no RTT estimate is yet known. 560 In order for the sender to estimate its "RTT" value, the sender 561 places a timestamp value in the "TVal" header field. On first 562 receipt of this "TVal", the receiver records the new "TVal" value 563 along with the time it arrived locally, subsequent receipt of the 564 same "TVal" MUST NOT update the recorded time. 566 When the receiver sends its CC header it places this latest recorded 567 "TVal" in the "TEcho" header field, along with 2 delay values, "Echo 568 Delay" and "Transmit Delay". The "Echo Delay" value is the time 569 delta from the recorded arrival time of "TVal" and the current clock 570 in microseconds. The second value, "Transmit Delay", is the 571 receiver's current transmission delay on the tunnel (i.e., the 572 average time between sending packets on its half of the AGGFRAG 573 tunnel). 575 When the sender receives back its "TVal" in the "TEcho" header field 576 it calculates 2 RTT estimates. The first is the actual delay found 577 by subtracting the "TEcho" value from its current clock and then 578 subtracting "Echo Delay" as well. The second RTT estimate is found 579 by adding the received "Transmit Delay" header value to the senders 580 own transmission delay (i.e., the average time between sending 581 packets on its half of the AGGFRAG tunnel). The larger of these 2 582 RTT estimates SHOULD be used as the "RTT" value. 584 The two RTT estimates are required to handle different combinations 585 of faster or slower tunnel packet paths with faster or slower fixed 586 tunnel rates. Choosing the larger of the two values guarantees that 587 the "RTT" is never considered faster than the aggregate transmission 588 delay based on the IP-TFS send rate (the second estimate), as well as 589 never being considered faster than the actual RTT along the tunnel 590 packet path (the first estimate). 592 The receiver also calculates, and communicates in the "LossEventRate" 593 header field, the loss event rate for use by the sender. This is 594 slightly different from [RFC4342] which periodically sends all the 595 loss interval data back to the sender so that it can do the 596 calculation. See Appendix B for a suggested way to calculate the 597 loss event rate value. Initially this value will be zero (indicating 598 no loss) until enough data has been collected by the receiver to 599 update it. 601 3.1. ECN Support 603 In additional to normal packet loss information AGGFRAG mode supports 604 use of the ECN bits in the encapsulating IP header [RFC3168] for 605 identifying congestion. If ECN use is enabled and a packet arrives 606 at the egress (receiving) side with the Congestion Experienced (CE) 607 value set, then the receiver considers that packet as being dropped, 608 although it does not drop it. The receiver MUST set the E bit in any 609 AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload header containing a "LossEventRate" value 610 derived from a CE value being considered. 612 As noted in [RFC3168] the ECN bits are not protected by IPsec and 613 thus may constitute a covert channel. For this reason, ECN use 614 SHOULD NOT be enabled by default. 616 4. Configuration of AGGFRAG Tunnels for IP-TFS 618 IP-TFS is meant to be deployable with a minimal amount of 619 configuration. All IP-TFS specific configuration should be specified 620 at the unidirectional tunnel ingress (sending) side. It is intended 621 that non-IKEv2 operation is supported, at least, with local static 622 configuration. 624 4.1. Bandwidth 626 Bandwidth is a local configuration option. For non-congestion 627 controlled mode, the bandwidth SHOULD be configured. For congestion 628 controlled mode, the bandwidth can be configured or the congestion 629 control algorithm discovers and uses the maximum bandwidth available. 630 No standardized configuration method is required. 632 4.2. Fixed Packet Size 634 The fixed packet size to be used for the tunnel encapsulation packets 635 MAY be configured manually or can be automatically determined using 636 other methods such as PLMTUD ([RFC4821], [RFC8899]) or PMTUD 637 ([RFC1191], [RFC8201]). As PMTUD is known to have issues, PLMTUD is 638 considered the more robust option. No standardized configuration 639 method is required. 641 4.3. Congestion Control 643 Congestion control is a local configuration option. No standardized 644 configuration method is required. 646 5. IKEv2 648 5.1. USE_AGGFRAG Notification Message 650 As mentioned previously AGGFRAG tunnels utilize ESP payloads of type 651 AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD. 653 When using IKEv2, a new "USE_AGGFRAG" Notification Message enables 654 the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload on a child SA pair. The method used is 655 similar to how USE_TRANSPORT_MODE is negotiated, as described in 656 [RFC7296]. 658 To request use of the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload on the Child SA pair, 659 the initiator includes the USE_AGGFRAG notification in an SA payload 660 requesting a new Child SA (either during the initial IKE_AUTH or 661 during CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges). If the request is accepted then 662 the response MUST also include a notification of type USE_AGGFRAG. 663 If the responder declines the request the child SA will be 664 established without AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload use enabled. If this is 665 unacceptable to the initiator, the initiator MUST delete the child 666 SA. 668 As the use of the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload is currently only defined 669 for non-transport mode tunnels, the USE_AGGFRAG notification MUST NOT 670 be combined with USE_TRANSPORT notification. 672 The USE_AGGFRAG notification contains a 1 octet payload of flags that 673 specify requirements from the sender of the notification. If any 674 requirement flags are not understood or cannot be supported by the 675 receiver then the receiver SHOULD NOT enable use of AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD 676 (either by not responding with the USE_AGGFRAG notification, or in 677 the case of the initiator, by deleting the child SA if the now 678 established non-AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD using SA is unacceptable). 680 The notification type and payload flag values are defined in 681 Section 6.1.4. 683 6. Packet and Data Formats 685 The packet and data formats defined below are generic with the intent 686 of allowing for non-IP-TFS uses, but such uses are outside the scope 687 of this document. 689 6.1. AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Payload 691 ESP Next Header value: 0x5 693 An AGGFRAG payload is identified by the ESP Next Header value 694 AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD which has the value 0x5. The value 5 was chosen to 695 not conflict with other used values. The first octet of this payload 696 indicates the format of the remaining payload data. 698 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 699 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 700 | Sub-type | ... 701 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 703 Sub-type: 704 An 8-bit value indicating the payload format. 706 This document defines 2 payload sub-types. These payload formats are 707 defined in the following sections. 709 6.1.1. Non-Congestion Control AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Payload Format 711 The non-congestion control AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload is comprised of a 712 4 octet header followed by a variable amount of "DataBlocks" data as 713 shown below. 715 1 2 3 716 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 1 717 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 718 | Sub-Type (0) | Reserved | BlockOffset | 719 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 720 | DataBlocks ... 721 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 723 Sub-type: 724 An octet indicating the payload format. For this non-congestion 725 control format, the value is 0. 727 Reserved: 728 An octet set to 0 on generation, and ignored on receipt. 730 BlockOffset: 731 A 16-bit unsigned integer counting the number of octets of 732 "DataBlocks" data before the start of a new data block. If the 733 start of a new data block occurs in a subsequent payload the 734 "BlockOffset" will point past the end of the "DataBlocks" data. 735 In this case all the "DataBlocks" data belongs to the current data 736 block being assembled. When the "BlockOffset" extends into 737 subsequent payloads it continues to only count "DataBlocks" data 738 (i.e., it does not count subsequent packets non-"DataBlocks" data 739 such as header octets). 741 DataBlocks: 742 Variable number of octets that begins with the start of a data 743 block, or the continuation of a previous data block, followed by 744 zero or more additional data blocks. 746 6.1.2. Congestion Control AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Payload Format 748 The congestion control AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload is comprised of a 24 749 octet header followed by a variable amount of "DataBlocks" data as 750 shown below. 752 1 2 3 753 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 1 754 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 755 | Sub-type (1) | Reserved |P|E| BlockOffset | 756 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 757 | LossEventRate | 758 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 759 | RTT | Echo Delay ... 760 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 761 ... Echo Delay | Transmit Delay | 762 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 763 | TVal | 764 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 765 | TEcho | 766 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 767 | DataBlocks ... 768 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 770 Sub-type: 771 An octet indicating the payload format. For this congestion 772 control format, the value is 1. 774 Reserved: 775 A 6-bit field set to 0 on generation, and ignored on receipt. 777 P: 778 A 1-bit value if set indicates that PLMTUD probing is in progress. 779 This information can be used to avoid treating missing packets as 780 loss events by the CC algorithm when running the PLMTUD probe 781 algorithm. 783 E: 784 A 1-bit value if set indicates that Congestion Experienced (CE) 785 ECN bits were received and used in deriving the reported 786 "LossEventRate". 788 BlockOffset: 789 The same value as the non-congestion controlled payload format 790 value. 792 LossEventRate: 793 A 32-bit value specifying the inverse of the current loss event 794 rate as calculated by the receiver. A value of zero indicates no 795 loss. Otherwise the loss event rate is "1/LossEventRate". 797 RTT: 798 A 22-bit value specifying the sender's current round-trip time 799 estimate in microseconds. The value MAY be zero prior to the 800 sender having calculated a round-trip time estimate. The value 801 SHOULD be set to zero on non-AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD enabled SAs. If the 802 value is equal to or larger than "0x3FFFFF" it MUST be set to 803 "0x3FFFFF". 805 Echo Delay: 806 A 21-bit value specifying the delay in microseconds incurred 807 between the receiver first receiving the "TVal" value which it is 808 sending back in "TEcho". If the value is equal to or larger than 809 "0x1FFFFF" it MUST be set to "0x1FFFFF". 811 Transmit Delay: 812 A 21-bit value specifying the transmission delay in microseconds. 813 This is the fixed (or average) delay on the receiver between it 814 sending packets on the IPTFS tunnel. If the value is equal to or 815 larger than "0x1FFFFF" it MUST be set to "0x1FFFFF". 817 TVal: 818 An opaque 32-bit value that will be echoed back by the receiver in 819 later packets in the "TEcho" field, along with an "Echo Delay" 820 value of how long that echo took. 822 TEcho: 823 The opaque 32-bit value from a received packet's "TVal" field. 824 The received "TVal" is placed in "TEcho" along with an "Echo 825 Delay" value indicating how long it has been since receiving the 826 "TVal" value. 828 DataBlocks: 829 Variable number of octets that begins with the start of a data 830 block, or the continuation of a previous data block, followed by 831 zero or more additional data blocks. For the special case of 832 sending congestion control information on an non-IP-TFS enabled SA 833 this value MUST be empty (i.e., be zero octets long). 835 6.1.3. Data Blocks 837 1 2 3 838 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 1 839 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 840 | Type | IPv4, IPv6 or pad... 841 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 843 Type: 844 A 4-bit field where 0x0 identifies a pad data block, 0x4 indicates 845 an IPv4 data block, and 0x6 indicates an IPv6 data block. 847 6.1.3.1. IPv4 Data Block 849 1 2 3 850 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 1 851 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 852 | 0x4 | IHL | TypeOfService | TotalLength | 853 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 854 | Rest of the inner packet ... 855 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 857 These values are the actual values within the encapsulated IPv4 858 header. In other words, the start of this data block is the start of 859 the encapsulated IP packet. 861 Type: 862 A 4-bit value of 0x4 indicating IPv4 (i.e., first nibble of the 863 IPv4 packet). 865 TotalLength: 866 The 16-bit unsigned integer "Total Length" field of the IPv4 inner 867 packet. 869 6.1.3.2. IPv6 Data Block 871 1 2 3 872 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 1 873 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 874 | 0x6 | TrafficClass | FlowLabel | 875 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 876 | PayloadLength | Rest of the inner packet ... 877 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 879 These values are the actual values within the encapsulated IPv6 880 header. In other words, the start of this data block is the start of 881 the encapsulated IP packet. 883 Type: 884 A 4-bit value of 0x6 indicating IPv6 (i.e., first nibble of the 885 IPv6 packet). 887 PayloadLength: 888 The 16-bit unsigned integer "Payload Length" field of the inner 889 IPv6 inner packet. 891 6.1.3.3. Pad Data Block 893 1 2 3 894 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 1 895 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 896 | 0x0 | Padding ... 897 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- 899 Type: 900 A 4-bit value of 0x0 indicating a padding data block. 902 Padding: 903 Extends to end of the encapsulating packet. 905 6.1.4. IKEv2 USE_AGGFRAG Notification Message 907 As discussed in Section 5.1, a notification message USE_AGGFRAG is 908 used to negotiate use of the ESP AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Next Header value. 910 The USE_AGGFRAG Notification Message State Type is (TBD2). 912 The notification payload contains 1 octet of requirement flags. 913 There are currently 2 requirement flags defined. This may be revised 914 by later specifications. 916 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 917 |0|0|0|0|0|0|C|D| 918 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 920 0: 921 6 bits - reserved, MUST be zero on send, unless defined by later 922 specifications. 924 C: 925 Congestion Control bit. If set, then the sender is requiring that 926 congestion control information MUST be returned to it periodically 927 as defined in Section 3. 929 D: 930 Don't Fragment bit. If set, indicates the sender of the notify 931 message does not support receiving packet fragments (i.e., inner 932 packets MUST be sent using a single "Data Block"). This value 933 only applies to what the sender is capable of receiving; the 934 sender MAY still send packet fragments unless similarly restricted 935 by the receiver in it's USE_AGGFRAG notification. 937 7. IANA Considerations 939 7.1. AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Sub-Type Registry 941 This document requests IANA create a registry called "AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD 942 Sub-Type Registry" under a new category named "ESP AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD 943 Parameters". The registration policy for this registry is "Expert 944 Review" ([RFC8126] and [RFC7120]). 946 Name: 947 AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Sub-Type Registry 949 Description: 950 AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD Payload Formats. 952 Reference: 953 This document 955 This initial content for this registry is as follows: 957 Sub-Type Name Reference 958 -------------------------------------------------------- 959 0 Non-Congestion Control Format This document 960 1 Congestion Control Format This document 961 3-255 Reserved 963 7.2. USE_AGGFRAG Notify Message Status Type 965 This document requests a status type USE_AGGFRAG be allocated from 966 the "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types" registry. 968 Value: 969 TBD2 971 Name: 972 USE_AGGFRAG 974 Reference: 975 This document 977 8. Security Considerations 979 This document describes an aggregation and fragmentation mechanism 980 and it use to add TFC to IP traffic. The use described is expected 981 to increase the security of the traffic being transported. Other 982 than the additional security afforded by using this mechanism, IP-TFS 983 utilizes the security protocols [RFC4303] and [RFC7296] and so their 984 security considerations apply to IP-TFS as well. 986 As noted in (Section 3.1) the ECN bits are not protected by IPsec and 987 thus may constitute a covert channel. For this reason, ECN use 988 SHOULD NOT be enabled by default. 990 As noted previously in Section 2.4.2, for TFC to be fully maintained 991 the encapsulated traffic flow should not be affecting network 992 congestion in a predictable way, and if it would be then non- 993 congestion controlled mode use should be considered instead. 995 9. References 997 9.1. Normative References 999 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 1000 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 1001 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 1002 . 1004 [RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", 1005 RFC 4303, DOI 10.17487/RFC4303, December 2005, 1006 . 1008 [RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. 1009 Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 1010 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 1011 2014, . 1013 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 1014 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 1015 May 2017, . 1017 9.2. Informative References 1019 [AppCrypt] 1020 Schneier, B., "Applied Cryptography: Protocols, 1021 Algorithms, and Source Code in C", 11 2017. 1023 [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, 1024 DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, 1025 . 1027 [RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191, 1028 DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990, 1029 . 1031 [RFC2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black, 1032 "Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS 1033 Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474, 1034 DOI 10.17487/RFC2474, December 1998, 1035 . 1037 [RFC2914] Floyd, S., "Congestion Control Principles", BCP 41, 1038 RFC 2914, DOI 10.17487/RFC2914, September 2000, 1039 . 1041 [RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition 1042 of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP", 1043 RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC3168, September 2001, 1044 . 1046 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 1047 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, 1048 December 2005, . 1050 [RFC4342] Floyd, S., Kohler, E., and J. Padhye, "Profile for 1051 Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) Congestion 1052 Control ID 3: TCP-Friendly Rate Control (TFRC)", RFC 4342, 1053 DOI 10.17487/RFC4342, March 2006, 1054 . 1056 [RFC4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU 1057 Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007, 1058 . 1060 [RFC5348] Floyd, S., Handley, M., Padhye, J., and J. Widmer, "TCP 1061 Friendly Rate Control (TFRC): Protocol Specification", 1062 RFC 5348, DOI 10.17487/RFC5348, September 2008, 1063 . 1065 [RFC7120] Cotton, M., "Early IANA Allocation of Standards Track Code 1066 Points", BCP 100, RFC 7120, DOI 10.17487/RFC7120, January 1067 2014, . 1069 [RFC7510] Xu, X., Sheth, N., Yong, L., Callon, R., and D. Black, 1070 "Encapsulating MPLS in UDP", RFC 7510, 1071 DOI 10.17487/RFC7510, April 2015, 1072 . 1074 [RFC8084] Fairhurst, G., "Network Transport Circuit Breakers", 1075 BCP 208, RFC 8084, DOI 10.17487/RFC8084, March 2017, 1076 . 1078 [RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for 1079 Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, 1080 RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017, 1081 . 1083 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 1084 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, 1085 DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, 1086 . 1088 [RFC8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed., 1089 "Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201, 1090 DOI 10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, 1091 . 1093 [RFC8229] Pauly, T., Touati, S., and R. Mantha, "TCP Encapsulation 1094 of IKE and IPsec Packets", RFC 8229, DOI 10.17487/RFC8229, 1095 August 2017, . 1097 [RFC8546] Trammell, B. and M. Kuehlewind, "The Wire Image of a 1098 Network Protocol", RFC 8546, DOI 10.17487/RFC8546, April 1099 2019, . 1101 [RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., Jones, T., Tuexen, M., Ruengeler, I., and 1102 T. Voelker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for 1103 Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899, 1104 September 2020, . 1106 Appendix A. Example Of An Encapsulated IP Packet Flow 1108 Below an example inner IP packet flow within the encapsulating tunnel 1109 packet stream is shown. Notice how encapsulated IP packets can start 1110 and end anywhere, and more than one or less than 1 may occur in a 1111 single encapsulating packet. 1113 Offset: 0 Offset: 100 Offset: 2900 Offset: 1400 1114 [ ESP1 (1500) ][ ESP2 (1500) ][ ESP3 (1500) ][ ESP4 (1500) ] 1115 [--800--][--800--][60][-240-][--4000----------------------][pad] 1117 Figure 3: Inner and Outer Packet Flow 1119 The encapsulated IP packet flow (lengths include IP header and 1120 payload) is as follows: an 800 octet packet, an 800 octet packet, a 1121 60 octet packet, a 240 octet packet, a 4000 octet packet. 1123 The "BlockOffset" values in the 4 AGGFRAG payload headers for this 1124 packet flow would thus be: 0, 100, 2900, 1400 respectively. The 1125 first encapsulating packet ESP1 has a zero "BlockOffset" which points 1126 at the IP data block immediately following the AGGFRAG header. The 1127 following packet ESP2s "BlockOffset" points inward 100 octets to the 1128 start of the 60 octet data block. The third encapsulating packet 1129 ESP3 contains the middle portion of the 4000 octet data block so the 1130 offset points past its end and into the forth encapsulating packet. 1131 The fourth packet ESP4s offset is 1400 pointing at the padding which 1132 follows the completion of the continued 4000 octet packet. 1134 Appendix B. A Send and Loss Event Rate Calculation 1136 The current best practice indicates that congestion control SHOULD be 1137 done in a TCP friendly way. A TCP friendly congestion control 1138 algorithm is described in [RFC5348]. For this IP-TFS use case (as 1139 with [RFC4342]) the (fixed) packet size is used as the segment size 1140 for the algorithm. The main formula in the algorithm for the send 1141 rate is then as follows: 1143 1 1144 X = ----------------------------------------------- 1145 R * (sqrt(2*p/3) + 12*sqrt(3*p/8)*p*(1+32*p^2)) 1147 Where "X" is the send rate in packets per second, "R" is the round 1148 trip time estimate and "p" is the loss event rate (the inverse of 1149 which is provided by the receiver). 1151 In addition the algorithm in [RFC5348] also uses an "X_recv" value 1152 (the receiver's receive rate). For IP-TFS one MAY set this value 1153 according to the sender's current tunnel send-rate ("X"). 1155 The IP-TFS receiver, having the RTT estimate from the sender can use 1156 the same method as described in [RFC5348] and [RFC4342] to collect 1157 the loss intervals and calculate the loss event rate value using the 1158 weighted average as indicated. The receiver communicates the inverse 1159 of this value back to the sender in the AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD payload 1160 header field "LossEventRate". 1162 The IP-TFS sender now has both the "R" and "p" values and can 1163 calculate the correct sending rate. If following [RFC5348] the 1164 sender should also use the slow start mechanism described therein 1165 when the IP-TFS SA is first established. 1167 Appendix C. Comparisons of IP-TFS 1169 C.1. Comparing Overhead 1171 For comparing overhead the overhead of ESP for both normal and 1172 AGGFRAG tunnel packets must be calculated, and so an algorithm for 1173 encryption and authentication must be chosen. For the data below 1174 AES-GCM-256 was selected. This leads to an IP+ESP overhead of 54. 1176 54 = 20 (IP) + 8 (ESPH) + 2 (ESPF) + 8 (IV) + 16 (ICV) 1178 Additionally, for IP-TFS, non-congestion control AGGFRAG_PAYLOAD 1179 headers were chosen which adds 4 octets for a total overhead of 58. 1181 C.1.1. IP-TFS Overhead 1183 For comparison the overhead of AGGFRAG payload is 58 octets per outer 1184 packet. Therefore the octet overhead per inner packet is 58 divided 1185 by the number of outer packets required (fractional allowed). The 1186 overhead as a percentage of inner packet size is a constant based on 1187 the Outer MTU size. 1189 OH = 58 / Outer Payload Size / Inner Packet Size 1190 OH % of Inner Packet Size = 100 * OH / Inner Packet Size 1191 OH % of Inner Packet Size = 5800 / Outer Payload Size 1193 Type IP-TFS IP-TFS IP-TFS 1194 MTU 576 1500 9000 1195 PSize 518 1442 8942 1196 ------------------------------- 1197 40 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1198 576 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1199 1500 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1200 9000 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1202 Figure 4: IP-TFS Overhead as Percentage of Inner Packet Size 1204 C.1.2. ESP with Padding Overhead 1206 The overhead per inner packet for constant-send-rate padded ESP 1207 (i.e., traditional IPsec TFC) is 36 octets plus any padding, unless 1208 fragmentation is required. 1210 When fragmentation of the inner packet is required to fit in the 1211 outer IPsec packet, overhead is the number of outer packets required 1212 to carry the fragmented inner packet times both the inner IP overhead 1213 (20) and the outer packet overhead (54) minus the initial inner IP 1214 overhead plus any required tail padding in the last encapsulation 1215 packet. The required tail padding is the number of required packets 1216 times the difference of the Outer Payload Size and the IP Overhead 1217 minus the Inner Payload Size. So: 1219 Inner Paylaod Size = IP Packet Size - IP Overhead 1220 Outer Payload Size = MTU - IPsec Overhead 1222 Inner Payload Size 1223 NF0 = ---------------------------------- 1224 Outer Payload Size - IP Overhead 1226 NF = CEILING(NF0) 1228 OH = NF * (IP Overhead + IPsec Overhead) 1229 - IP Overhead 1230 + NF * (Outer Payload Size - IP Overhead) 1231 - Inner Payload Size 1233 OH = NF * (IPsec Overhead + Outer Payload Size) 1234 - (IP Overhead + Inner Payload Size) 1236 OH = NF * (IPsec Overhead + Outer Payload Size) 1237 - Inner Packet Size 1239 C.2. Overhead Comparison 1241 The following tables collect the overhead values for some common L3 1242 MTU sizes in order to compare them. The first table is the number of 1243 octets of overhead for a given L3 MTU sized packet. The second table 1244 is the percentage of overhead in the same MTU sized packet. 1246 XXX rerun these. 1248 Type ESP+Pad ESP+Pad ESP+Pad IP-TFS IP-TFS IP-TFS 1249 L3 MTU 576 1500 9000 576 1500 9000 1250 PSize 522 1446 8946 518 1442 8942 1251 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1252 40 482 1406 8906 4.5 1.6 0.3 1253 128 394 1318 8818 14.3 5.1 0.8 1254 256 266 1190 8690 28.7 10.3 1.7 1255 518 4 928 8428 58.0 20.8 3.4 1256 576 576 870 8370 64.5 23.2 3.7 1257 1442 286 4 7504 161.5 58.0 9.4 1258 1500 228 1500 7446 168.0 60.3 9.7 1259 8942 1426 1558 4 1001.2 359.7 58.0 1260 9000 1368 1500 9000 1007.7 362.0 58.4 1262 Figure 5: Overhead comparison in octets 1264 Type ESP+Pad ESP+Pad ESP+Pad IP-TFS IP-TFS IP-TFS 1265 MTU 576 1500 9000 576 1500 9000 1266 PSize 522 1446 8946 518 1442 8942 1267 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1268 40 1205.0% 3515.0% 22265.0% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1269 128 307.8% 1029.7% 6889.1% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1270 256 103.9% 464.8% 3394.5% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1271 518 0.8% 179.2% 1627.0% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1272 576 100.0% 151.0% 1453.1% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1273 1442 19.8% 0.3% 520.4% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1274 1500 15.2% 100.0% 496.4% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1275 8942 15.9% 17.4% 0.0% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1276 9000 15.2% 16.7% 100.0% 11.20% 4.02% 0.65% 1278 Figure 6: Overhead as Percentage of Inner Packet Size 1280 C.3. Comparing Available Bandwidth 1282 Another way to compare the two solutions is to look at the amount of 1283 available bandwidth each solution provides. The following sections 1284 consider and compare the percentage of available bandwidth. For the 1285 sake of providing a well understood baseline normal (unencrypted) 1286 Ethernet as well as normal ESP values are included. 1288 C.3.1. Ethernet 1290 In order to calculate the available bandwidth the per packet overhead 1291 is calculated first. The total overhead of Ethernet is 14+4 octets 1292 of header and CRC plus and additional 20 octets of framing (preamble, 1293 start, and inter-packet gap) for a total of 38 octets. Additionally 1294 the minimum payload is 46 octets. 1296 Size E + P E + P E + P IPTFS IPTFS IPTFS Enet ESP 1297 MTU 590 1514 9014 590 1514 9014 any any 1298 OH 92 92 92 96 96 96 38 74 1299 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1300 40 614 1538 9038 47 42 40 84 114 1301 128 614 1538 9038 151 136 129 166 202 1302 256 614 1538 9038 303 273 258 294 330 1303 518 614 1538 9038 614 552 523 574 610 1304 576 1228 1538 9038 682 614 582 614 650 1305 1442 1842 1538 9038 1709 1538 1457 1498 1534 1306 1500 1842 3076 9038 1777 1599 1516 1538 1574 1307 8942 11052 10766 9038 10599 9537 9038 8998 9034 1308 9000 11052 10766 18076 10667 9599 9096 9038 9074 1310 Figure 7: L2 Octets Per Packet 1312 Size E + P E + P E + P IPTFS IPTFS IPTFS Enet ESP 1313 MTU 590 1514 9014 590 1514 9014 any any 1314 OH 92 92 92 96 96 96 38 74 1315 -------------------------------------------------------------- 1316 40 2.0M 0.8M 0.1M 26.4M 29.3M 30.9M 14.9M 11.0M 1317 128 2.0M 0.8M 0.1M 8.2M 9.2M 9.7M 7.5M 6.2M 1318 256 2.0M 0.8M 0.1M 4.1M 4.6M 4.8M 4.3M 3.8M 1319 518 2.0M 0.8M 0.1M 2.0M 2.3M 2.4M 2.2M 2.1M 1320 576 1.0M 0.8M 0.1M 1.8M 2.0M 2.1M 2.0M 1.9M 1321 1442 678K 812K 138K 731K 812K 857K 844K 824K 1322 1500 678K 406K 138K 703K 781K 824K 812K 794K 1323 8942 113K 116K 138K 117K 131K 138K 139K 138K 1324 9000 113K 116K 69K 117K 130K 137K 138K 137K 1326 Figure 8: Packets Per Second on 10G Ethernet 1328 Size E + P E + P E + P IPTFS IPTFS IPTFS Enet ESP 1329 590 1514 9014 590 1514 9014 any any 1330 92 92 92 96 96 96 38 74 1331 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1332 40 6.51% 2.60% 0.44% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 47.62% 35.09% 1333 128 20.85% 8.32% 1.42% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 77.11% 63.37% 1334 256 41.69% 16.64% 2.83% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 87.07% 77.58% 1335 518 84.36% 33.68% 5.73% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 93.17% 87.50% 1336 576 46.91% 37.45% 6.37% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 93.81% 88.62% 1337 1442 78.28% 93.76% 15.95% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 97.43% 95.12% 1338 1500 81.43% 48.76% 16.60% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 97.53% 95.30% 1339 8942 80.91% 83.06% 98.94% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 99.58% 99.18% 1340 9000 81.43% 83.60% 49.79% 84.36% 93.76% 98.94% 99.58% 99.18% 1342 Figure 9: Percentage of Bandwidth on 10G Ethernet 1344 A sometimes unexpected result of using an AGGFRAG tunnel (or any 1345 packet aggregating tunnel) is that, for small to medium sized 1346 packets, the available bandwidth is actually greater than native 1347 Ethernet. This is due to the reduction in Ethernet framing overhead. 1348 This increased bandwidth is paid for with an increase in latency. 1349 This latency is the time to send the unrelated octets in the outer 1350 tunnel frame. The following table illustrates the latency for some 1351 common values on a 10G Ethernet link. The table also includes 1352 latency introduced by padding if using ESP with padding. 1354 ESP+Pad ESP+Pad IP-TFS IP-TFS 1355 1500 9000 1500 9000 1357 ------------------------------------------ 1358 40 1.12 us 7.12 us 1.17 us 7.17 us 1359 128 1.05 us 7.05 us 1.10 us 7.10 us 1360 256 0.95 us 6.95 us 1.00 us 7.00 us 1361 518 0.74 us 6.74 us 0.79 us 6.79 us 1362 576 0.70 us 6.70 us 0.74 us 6.74 us 1363 1442 0.00 us 6.00 us 0.05 us 6.05 us 1364 1500 1.20 us 5.96 us 0.00 us 6.00 us 1366 Figure 10: Added Latency 1368 Notice that the latency values are very similar between the two 1369 solutions; however, whereas IP-TFS provides for constant high 1370 bandwidth, in some cases even exceeding native Ethernet, ESP with 1371 padding often greatly reduces available bandwidth. 1373 Appendix D. Acknowledgements 1375 We would like to thank Don Fedyk for help in reviewing and editing 1376 this work. We would also like to thank Michael Richardson, Sean 1377 Turner and Valery Smyslov for reviews and many suggestions for 1378 improvements, as well as Joseph Touch for the transport area review 1379 and suggested improvements. 1381 Appendix E. Contributors 1383 The following people made significant contributions to this document. 1385 Lou Berger 1386 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 1388 Email: lberger@labn.net 1390 Author's Address 1392 Christian Hopps 1393 LabN Consulting, L.L.C. 1395 Email: chopps@chopps.org