idnits 2.17.1 draft-templin-6man-jumbofrag-00.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The 'Updates: ' line in the draft header should list only the _numbers_ of the RFCs which will be updated by this document (if approved); it should not include the word 'RFC' in the list. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (November 17, 2021) is 889 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) No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology 4 Updates: RFC2675 (if approved) November 17, 2021 5 Intended status: Standards Track 6 Expires: May 21, 2022 8 Transmission of IPv6 Jumbograms as Atomic Fragments 9 draft-templin-6man-jumbofrag-00 11 Abstract 13 Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) provides a service for 14 transmission of IPv6 packets larger than 65,535 octets known as 15 "jumbograms". Such large packets are not eligible for fragmentation, 16 and the current specification forbids the inclusion of a fragment 17 header of any kind. However, some implementations may wish to 18 include an Identification value with each jumbogram; hence this 19 document proposes the transmission of IPv6 jumbograms as "atomic 20 fragments". 22 Status of This Memo 24 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 25 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 27 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 28 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 29 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 30 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 32 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 33 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 34 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 35 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 37 This Internet-Draft will expire on May 21, 2022. 39 Copyright Notice 41 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 42 document authors. All rights reserved. 44 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 45 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 46 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 47 publication of this document. Please review these documents 48 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 49 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 50 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 51 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 52 described in the Simplified BSD License. 54 Table of Contents 56 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 57 2. RFC2675 Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 58 3. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 59 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 61 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 62 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 1. Introduction 69 Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) [RFC8200] provides a jumbogram 70 service for transmission of IPv6 packets larger than 65,535 octets 71 [RFC2675]. Such large packets are not eligible for fragmentation, 72 and the current specification forbids sources from including a 73 Fragment Header of any kind. However, some implementations may wish 74 to include an unpredictable Identification value with each jumbogram 75 [RFC7739]. This document therefore proposes the transmission of IPv6 76 jumbograms as "atomic fragments" and in the process updates 77 [RFC2675]. 79 Atomic fragments are defined as "IPv6 packets that contain a Fragment 80 Header with the Fragment Offset set to 0 and the M flag set to 0" 81 [RFC6946]. Such Fragment Headers may be inserted by the original 82 source only and may not be modified by any intermediate IPv6 nodes on 83 the path. Hence, an atomic fragment generated by the original source 84 will remain as an atomic fragment along the entire path up to and 85 including the final destination. The original source should 86 therefore be permitted to include an atomic fragment Fragment Header 87 in the jumbograms it produces. The following section recommends 88 updates to [RFC2675] to permit the transmission of IPv6 jumbograms as 89 atomic fragments. 91 2. RFC2675 Updates 93 The following updates to [RFC2675] are requested: 95 o Section 3, third paragraph, change: "The Jumbo Payload option must 96 not be used in a packet that carries a Fragment header" to: "The 97 Jumbo Payload option must not be used in a packet that carries a 98 non-atomic Fragment header [RFC6946]". 100 o Section 3, in the list of errors, change: "error: Jumbo Payload 101 option present and Fragment header present" to: "error: Jumbo 102 Payload option present and non-atomic Fragment header present". 104 o Add [RFC6946] to Informative References. 106 3. Implementation Status 108 TBD. 110 4. IANA Considerations 112 This document has no IANA considerations. 114 5. Security Considerations 116 Communications networking security is necessary to preserve 117 confidentiality, integrity and availability. 119 6. Acknowledgements 121 This work was inspired by ongoing AERO/OMNI/DTN investigations. 123 . 125 7. References 127 7.1. Normative References 129 [RFC2675] Borman, D., Deering, S., and R. Hinden, "IPv6 Jumbograms", 130 RFC 2675, DOI 10.17487/RFC2675, August 1999, 131 . 133 [RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 134 (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200, 135 DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017, 136 . 138 7.2. Informative References 140 [RFC6946] Gont, F., "Processing of IPv6 "Atomic" Fragments", 141 RFC 6946, DOI 10.17487/RFC6946, May 2013, 142 . 144 [RFC7739] Gont, F., "Security Implications of Predictable Fragment 145 Identification Values", RFC 7739, DOI 10.17487/RFC7739, 146 February 2016, . 148 Author's Address 150 Fred L. Templin (editor) 151 Boeing Research & Technology 152 P.O. Box 3707 153 Seattle, WA 98124 154 USA 156 Email: fltemplin@acm.org