IPv6 Operations (v6ops) Working Group E. Vasilenko
Internet Draft X. Xiao
Intended status: Informational Huawei Technologies
Expires: September 2021 D. Khaustov
Rostelecom
March 19, 2021
IPv6 Oversized Packets Analysis
draft-vasilenko-v6ops-ipv6-oversized-analysis-00
Abstract
The IETF has many new initiatives relying on IPv6 Enhanced Headers
added in transit: SRv6, SFC, BIERv6, iOAM. Additionally, some recent
developments are overlays (SRv6, VxLAN) over IPv6. It could create
oversized packets that need to be dealt with. This document analyzes
available standards for the resolution of oversized packet drops.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology and pre-requisite..................................2
2. Problem statement..............................................3
3. Solutions......................................................5
3.1. Provision links with big enough MTU.......................5
3.2. Frugal usage of Extension Headers.........................7
3.3. Fragmentation and reassembly at the tunnel ends...........8
3.4. PMTUD by original packet source..........................12
3.5. Packetization Layer MTU Discovery........................14
4. Conclusion....................................................15
5. Security Considerations.......................................15
6. IANA Considerations...........................................15
7. References....................................................16
7.1. Normative References.....................................16
7.2. Informative References...................................18
8. Acknowledgments...............................................19
1. Terminology and pre-requisite
We do assume good knowledge or frequent references to [PMTUD] and
[IPv6 Tunneling]. Terminology is inherited from [PMTUD].
Link MTU - the maximum transmission unit, i.e., maximum packet size
in octets that can be conveyed over a link.
Path MTU (PMTU) - the minimum link MTU of all links in a path
between a source node and a destination node.
Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) - the process by which a node learns the
PMTU of a path.
EMTU_S - Effective MTU for sending; used by upper-layer protocols to
limit the size of IP packets they queue for sending.
EMTU_R - Effective MTU for receiving; the largest packet that can be
reassembled at the receiver.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
Packetization Layer - the layer of the network stack that segments
data into packets.
PLPMTUD - Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery, the method of
detecting path MTU at packetization layer, which is an
extension of classical PMTU Discovery.
PTB (Packet Too Big) message - an ICMPv6 message reporting that an
IPv6 packet is too large to forward through some link.
MSS - the TCP Maximum Segment Size, the maximum payload size
available to the TCP layer. This is typically the Path MTU
minus the size of the IP and TCP headers.
2. Problem statement
IPv6 is strict regarding fragmentation - it must NOT be done in
transit (section 4.5 of [IPv6]).
IPv6 sees rapid developments in recent years. A lot of additional
functionality has been added primarily by adding options to
Extension Headers and/or using overlay encapsulation. All of the
above expand the packet size. This could lead to oversized packets
that would be dropped on some links.
Massive parallelism in traffic delivery is the additional challenge
developed in the last 10 years: ECMP on one hop could reach 16 (or
even more), which creates the end-to-end possibility for 64k paths
on just 5 hops (example from big production network). Different
paths could have a different set of Extension Headers and different
PMTU as a result. PMTU is effectively becoming dynamic: we could
never know how many additional headers would be added at a
particular time to the particular packet on the particular path.
The old classical PMTUD problems are still with us: filtered ICMPv6
messages, drops related to Extension Headers before next hop MTU has
been evaluated (no Packet Too Big message sent).
Standards have two important numbers that we would need for our
discussion:
o [IPv6] chapter 5 requires that every link should have the MTU of
1280 octets or greater (2^10+2^8 - it probably explains the
choice of this size)
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
o [IPv6] requests minimum EMTU_R (reassembly buffer) in 1500
octets. An upper-layer protocol or application that depends on
IPv6 fragmentation to send packets larger than the MTU of a path
should not send packets larger than 1500 octets unless it has the
assurance that the destination is capable of reassembling packets
of that larger size
There is only one solution by [IPv6] architecture for the PMTU
problem - decrease packet size on the original source. It is
workable up to the minimum limit for IPv6 packet (1280B). The
typical transit link had MTU not much bigger than 1500B for a long
time, only the space for a few additional MPLS labels was reserved.
220B left could be considered as guaranteed for additional
functionality in Enhanced and Encapsulation headers. It could be
enough for the next decade if we would make some precautions - see
discussion below.
[Huston-2016] did an investigation on a different topic, but he has
good statistics related to MTU drops up to 1500B that did show a 5%
drop for MTU as small as 1455B. Additionally, [Huston-2016] has
found the big drop spike (69% from all drops!) at 1480B, 20B less is
presumable for IPv6 encapsulation into IPv4. As you can see - 1500B
is not always available now, probably because of the different forms
of tunneling. Hence, we do not have 220B for additional headers in
all situations. We could be reasonably optimistic that such type of
tunneling would disappear in the long term. Our optimistic approach
is that we expect 220B to be available in most situations. It is
still possible to have the more pessimistic estimation (200B? 175B?)
and keep it in mind reading the rest of the document.
The hungriest protocol known is SRv6 that could add 40B of IPv6
underlay tunnel header (called "outer IP header" in [SRH]), 16B of
SRH header itself, and additionally up to 10 IPv6 addresses in the
SID stack (potentially even more). It is already 216B - very close
to 220B optimistic limit. It makes the introduction of any
additional functionality without rigorous expansion of all links to
bigger MTU quite challenging.
Initial SRv6 implementations that trespassed safe limit in 220B are
the reason for recent activities in MTU problem research. We see
many recent efforts to improve Path MTU Discovery (which would be
mentioned in the document) - let us find the rationale behind it.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
3. Solutions
There is a low probability that the Internet community would agree
to decrease the minimal IPv6 packet size (1280B). Minimal buffer for
packet reassembly (1500B) is potentially possible to increase in new
standard updates, but then would be the problem with the transition,
because this limitation is programmed into billions of hosts - it
would need big time to be sure that we do not have old
implementation anymore.
There is no good solution for the problem of bloating headers above
220B for hosts. We need to keep headers below the 220B limit.
Fortunately, we are far from this problem yet - very limited
additional functionality is implemented directly on the hosts (like
[PMTU by HbH] or APN6). This problem should be looked at again in 5
years, it may be that in the future we would have to increase
default EMTU_R on all hosts to give the possibility for new
functionality.
It is possible to partially alleviate the MTU problem in some
network zones where all transit nodes have big enough MTU. Transit
nodes should delete enhanced headers before packets would leave
"high MTU network zone". Leakage of a big header to a host could
overflow EMTU_R buffer. The majority of RFCs recommend carriers
delete additional headers before forwarding traffic to the client -
this practice should be strictly followed.
The SPRING working group is actively developing a compressed version
of SRv6 that should leave space for other functionality, even on
current transit routers that sometimes do not support much above
1500B.
All solutions for packet drop avoidance as a result of oversized
packets could be classified into 4 classes. They are examined one by
one.
3.1. Provision links with big enough MTU
MTU supported by the host's links is typically 1500 Bytes.
Backbone link's MTU could be up to 9000 Bytes on modern hardware.
PMTUD is not needed in an ideal world.
Reality is not that good:
o Some old devices still support just a few additional MPLS labels
above 1500B on Ethernet. It was historically a problem to cross
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
1536B because IEEE specification for 802.3 assumes that a bigger
number in the Length field means Type of the payload.
o We could have middleboxes that would not support MTU much bigger
than 1500B MTU for a long time.
o Ethernet is very mature now in the relation of big MTU support,
but that could be a challenge for other link-layer technologies
(for example WiFi, satellite links, radio links, etc.).
o Packet Links could be rented from 3rd party - no possibility to
change the MTU.
o Big MTU influences buffer size - see below.
o The majority of vendors set the default MTU to 1500B (with
variations on what is counted inside MTU). It is time-consuming
to change the MTU, as it should be coordinated at least on one
link.
o Some hosts (especially for storage traffic in Data Centers) could
use 2500B or 9000B MTU that challenges the possibility of having
a bigger MTU in the backbone.
Cost-optimized equipment architecture (especially used for switches,
but applicable for many routers as well) would not split packets in
the buffer memory. So small packet would occupy a bigger buffer
space reserved for the packet with maximum MTU. This limitation
effectively decreases the potential number of packets that could be
buffered. Most of host packets are still limited to 1500B size. MTU
9000B would just lead to wasting buffer memory about 6:1 in the
worst case. Buffer memory could be up to 30% of the router cost. It
is not acceptable to increase buffer memory cost 6 times. Hence, in
many cases, it does not make sense to increase MTU to the maximum
supported by the switch or router. One should always check with the
vendor the impact of using a big MTU on buffering for the particular
product. MTU should be increased to the number that is bigger than
the maximum MTU expected from hosts + the size of all possible
network overhead + underlay IPv6 header (if present).
There is some potential to use 9000B as the primary packet size in
DC and cross-DC environment.
[MTU issues in Tunneling] section 3.3 discusses the opposite
solution: decrease MTU on links to hosts to be sure that a host
would always generate small enough MTU for the backbone. This
solution was possible for small tunnel overhead, but now we are
talking about the situation when 220B margin is not enough.
[L3VPN] and [EVPN] do attach an additional label and could create
oversized packets. Still, the MPLS header cannot point to the
original MPLS router that has an attached service label.
Additionally, VPN IP packet could use private address space or no IP
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
address at all (for EVPN). It blocks the possibility to properly
organize the PMTUD process. Hence, [L3VPN] and [EVPN] have been
developed under the assumption that all MTUs on the path would be
expanded for at least 8 bytes that are needed for services over the
MPLS data plane.
We have recent [Generic Fragmentation] that may permit fragmentation
for MPLS services, but it is a personal draft yet.
[Pseudowire Fragmentation] is the rear case when fragmentation is
available over MPLS for one type of service.
[VxLAN] section 4.3 also uses the approach: "it is RECOMMENDED that
the MTUs across the physical network infrastructure be set to a
value that accommodates the larger frame size due to the
encapsulation".
Packet drop statistics and big activity in IETF prove that the PMTUD
problem persists.
"Raise MTU on transit" is the best solution, if it is available.
3.2. Frugal usage of Extension Headers
Some new functionality (especially source routing with a big SID
stack) could decrease headers size without a big loss of
functionality (for example, use loose node appointment in SID
stack). Some functionality (like iFIT or iOAM) could be completely
omitted in the situation that would lead to packet drop. It is
effectively "the tradeoff of functionality to PMTU control".
The important point here is that the transit node attaching an
additional header should be aware of all MTUs along the assumed
packet path to predict how big MTU is still acceptable.
[PMTUD] is readily available for tunneling interfaces - tunnel
source should be aware of PMTU of the tunnel (by PTB feedback
messages). But we have cases when it is not enough:
o SDN controller (or management system in general) could assist in
provisioning of extension headers (including iFiT, iOAM, BIER)
and encapsulation headers (SRv6, VxLAN) - should be the way to
report MTUs to Controller.
o Some new protocols (iOAM, iFIT, APN6, BIERv6) do not have a sub-
interface structure on transit nodes where to store PMTU.
It is not a good idea in general to keep in the backbone
additional information about states.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
o ICMPv6 PTB would be directed to the transit control plane only in
the case of problems inside the tunnel. PTB messages from outside
of the tunnel would be directed to the source node. It is
difficult to snoop PTB on transit nodes.
Hence, we see many initiatives to collect and manage MTU by many
popular protocols for routing and traffic engineering: [PMTU by
ISIS], [PMTU by BGP-LS], [PMTU by PCEP], [PMTU by SR-Policy].
Moreover, these protocol extensions would become even more useful in
the future when it will not be possible to squeeze all extension
headers into 220B anymore. Frugal attachment of new headers on
transit nodes would increase the need for awareness of PMTU - it
should stimulate MTU collection by all other popular protocols
(OSPF, normal BGP on peering borders).
This approach has a fundamental problem: full knowledge about all
MTUs in the domain could not help to estimate the real path for a
packet, because of massive ECMP used by many networks (at least by
all Carriers). Non-routing protocols do not have a proper engine to
estimate traffic paths and predict PMTU as well. And even more, if
L2 ECMP is used or some links are rented from another carrier it
will again be impossible to predict the exact path and the PMTU.
The second problem of this approach could be classified as "chicken
and egg". We already have a much better solution for MTU drop -
increase MTU (see the previous section). We are looking for other
solutions only because upgrading equipment (to better MTU) is not
possible for some reasons. But new protocols introduction would also
demand equipment upgrade and thus making frugal headers meaningless.
However, upgrade for control plane should be cheaper than upgrade
for data plane, if the vendor would support such an approach.
Hence, the solution discussed in this section has only limited
applicability.
3.3. Fragmentation and reassembly at the tunnel ends
The tunnel source behaves like a host in respect to the tunnel
header. It is possible to properly adjust PMTU for the tunnel by
[PMTUD], so it is potentially possible to fragment all packets
bigger than PMTU.
[IP Encapsulation] is the earliest standard for IP-in-IP
encapsulation. Section 5.1 discusses that it is possible to fragment
IP packets before tunnel encapsulation, so there is no need to
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
reassemble packets on other tunnel end - reassembly could happen on
the destination host. It does not have additional cost implications
on tunnel ends. This approach did work for IPv4 in the case of the
"don't fragment" bit cleared. It fully contradicts IPv6 architecture
that does not permit to fragment packets on transit - no standard
has risked proposing such a solution for IPv6.
Some standards do propose IPv6 fragmentation (primarily for packets
1280B and below), but fragmentation is recommended after
encapsulation. It would lead to packet reassembly on other tunnel
end to hide (from destination host) the fact of transit
fragmentation. It does minimize IPv6 architecture disruption.
Many standards discussed below ([MPLS Encapsulation], [L2TPv3],
[VxLAN], [NVO3]) forgot to mention that packets 1280 and below
should be fragmented. This inaccuracy did not create any problem in
real production networks because we typically have 220B for all
headers - it is big enough for many tunnels nested into each other.
The situation could change in the next years because of Enhanced
Headers expansion by different functions. It could create pressure
to return to many mature standards and clarify the situation: what
to do when 1280B packet could not go through the tunnel.
The Fragmentation has a few issues that make it not popular:
o Fragmentation could double buffer requirements (we assume split
only in 2 fragments). We could ignore small additional buffer
requirements for packets that may be lost and need to wait some
time before reassembly, the Internet is not productive anyway
after a few percentages of packet drops. The buffer memory is
about 30% of the router cost. A 30% cost increase would not be
accepted by the majority of owners. Albeit, some middleboxes
already have enough buffer memory that could be reused for packet
reassembly.
o In general, IPv6 architecture does not approve fragmentation in
transit in all standards (except recent draft [IP Tunnels] - see
below). [PMTUD] section 5.1: "packetization layers are encouraged
to avoid sending messages that will require fragmentation".
We would discuss in this section some situations when tunnel
fragmentation is inevitable.
o [Fragile Fragmentation] has a good collection of all problems
related to fragmentation (additionally to the above: breaks ECMP,
stateful processing, policy routing, and has many security attack
vectors). [Fragile Fragmentation] strongly recommends avoiding
fragmentation, but not deprecating yet.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
The primary RFC for tunneling is [IPv6 Tunneling] - it is the oldest
standard that was later reused by many other standards (including
the latest SRH). It permits fragmentation only for the case when the
original packet is already minimal (1280B or less) - see section
7.1. It mandates dropping the packet and signaling ICMPv6 PTB to the
source (request to decrease the PMTU size at the source) for all
other cases.
[MPLS Encapsulation] Section 5.1 has the name: "Preventing
Fragmentation and Reassembly". It does stress again: "IPv6
intermediate nodes do not perform fragmentation in any event".
[L2TPv3] section 4.1.4 has a similar comment: "Note that IPv6 does
not support "in-flight" fragmentation of data packets".
[VxLAN] section 4.3 is strict: "VTEPs MUST NOT fragment VXLAN
packets."
[NVO3] section 4.4.4 is strict too: "It is strongly RECOMMENDED that
Path MTU Discovery ([PMTUD]) be used to prevent or minimize
fragmentation."
[IPv6 GRE] section 3.3 does recommend fragmentation only for packets
that are less than 1280B.
The most recent draft for all types of tunnels is [IP Tunnels]. It
is already referenced by many IETF documents. It is complicated to
cover all use cases (any IP over any IP in any situation), but the
net result is: much bigger part of the traffic proposed to be
fragmented into the tunnel. Section 3.3: "The path between ingress
and egress interfaces has a path MTU, but the endpoints can exchange
messages as large as can be reassembled at the destination (egress
interface), i.e., the EMTU_R of the egress interface".
The short explanation of proposed functionality: original host would
try to transmit biggest flows (by volume) on maximum PMTU, that
tunnel source would not try to correct by PTB messages up to 1500B.
Hence, the tunnel source would not have any option except to
fragment. The principal problem here is the absence of PTB messages
for the packet size between real PMTU and statically appointed
EMTU_R.
Let's see how it has been formulated in more detail.
[IP Tunnels] introduces a new variable "Tunnel MTU" that should not
change as a result of PMTUD. The procedure to change "Tunnel MTU" is
out of the draft discussion - it is pushed to specifications of
particular tunnels in the last paragraph of section 4.2.2. Moreover,
it is even assumed that PLPMTUD could be used on the router for
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
"Tunnel MTU" discovery because this parameter is considered as an
above network layer (like transport layer on the host). Separate
section 4.2.3 is dedicated to the explanation that the newly
introduced "Tunnel MTU" cannot be adjusted dynamically. There is a
recommendation for the default "Tunnel MTU": typical host EMTU_R
(1500B) minus tunnel outer headers overhead. The good question could
be: if it is so difficult to manage "Tunnel MTU" dynamically, then
why this variable was introduced?
The real MTU of the tunnel is renamed into MAP (maximum atomic
packet), MAP should be corrected by PMTUD feedback from inside the
tunnel.
Section 4.2.2 states that everything up to "Tunnel MTU" should be
accepted to the tunnel, one long packet (with inner and outer
headers) should be created. Then it should be split into fragments
below MAP size.
Initially, "tunnel MTU" and MAP could be manually synchronized by
the administrator (with the difference in tunnel overhead). But any
additional overhead on the tunnel path (nested tunnel, smallest
Enhanced Header) would result in PMTUD that decreases MAP, but would
not change "Tunnel MTU". It would turn on fragmentation for all bulk
traffic. This situation is quite probable now (see [Huston-2016] on
really available MTU on the Internet) and it would be even more
probable in the future when many additional extension headers would
be used. Hence, the requirement in section 5.3.1 "do NOT try to
deprecate fragmentation" is indeed important.
Section 3.6 has the same approach as all other standards to the
question when fragmentation should happen: "this document assumes
that only outer fragmentation is viable because it is the only
approach that works for both IPv4 datagrams with DF=1 and IPv6".
a considerable increase in fragmentation is proposed for the reasons
of academic purity: the router part of the router should behave as a
router, the host part of the router should behave as a host without
any deviations.
Additional fragmentations would create all of the problems discussed
in [Fragile Fragmentation] and substantially increase the cost of
tunnel endpoints. There is a high probability that draft [IP
Tunnels] would be rejected by the market for cost reasons.
It makes sense to remind that fragmentation is not a universal
solution for oversized packets, because it is not possible for non-
tunneling cases (BIERv6, iFIT, iOAM, APN6). It would be a very bad
idea to fragment packets intercepted from the general traffic flow.
Additionally, we should point that statistics for fragmented packet
drop in the Internet is still very high (20-40% and increased over
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
the last years) - see [Huston-2020]. Some other researchers report
even more (50-55%).
Fragmentation is the least probable solution for oversized packet
drops.
3.4. PMTUD by original packet source
[PMTUD] is mandatory in IPv6 architecture, because IPv6 does not
have fragmentation in transit. We could see recommendations in many
RFCs not to block ICMPv6 PTB completely (it could be rate-limited -
see [ICMPv6] section 2.4). [DPLPMTUD] section 1.1 has a very good
collection of reasons why PTB message may not be delivered to the
source - it is used as justification to augment PMTUD by [DPLPMTUD].
We should not see this problem for all non-tunneling protocols in
the majority of environments. ICMPv6 PTB should be delivered to
packet source, packet source would dynamically decrease PMTU to
adapt to new realities. PMTU could change dynamically because some
transit nodes could introduce additional extension header ad-hoc or
ECMP could switch flow to a different path.
[IPv6 Tunneling] mandates to relay ICMPv6 PTB by tunnel ends for
ICMPv6 messages received from the inside tunnel. [IPv6 Tunneling]
does not use "relay" terminology, but section 8 explains in detail
how to reconstruct and retransmit ICMP messages to the original
packet source (delete all tunnel-related information).
[MTU issues in Tunneling] section 3.2 discusses the same approach.
[L2TPv3] section 4.1.4 refers to the [IPv6 Tunneling]. We could
assume it as the request for PTB messages relay too.
[SRH] section 5.4 confirms full adherence to ICMPv6 PTB relay
approach: "For IP packets encapsulated in an outer IPv6 header, ICMP
error handling is as defined in [IPv6 Tunneling]".
[VxLAN] section 4.3 proposes to use PMTUD: "Path MTU discovery MAY
be used to address this requirement as well".
[NVO3] section 4.4.4 assumes PMTUD too: "It is strongly RECOMMENDED
that Path MTU Discovery ([PMTUD]) be used to prevent or minimize
fragmentation".
[IPSec] section 8.2.1 requests that PMTU should be maintained for
tunnel and signaled to real packet source as soon as any new packet
would arrive.
[IPv6 GRE] section 3.3 clearly instructs developers to drop the
oversized packets and send PTB for packets bigger than tunnel MTU.
The method of PMTU detection is fully IPv6 compliant: "the GMTU is
equal to the PMTU associated with the path between the GRE ingress
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
and the GRE egress, minus the GRE overhead".
[MPLS Encapsulation] section 5.1 specifies the same approach: tunnel
head-end should use [PMTUD] to understand tunnel MTU, then "the
packet will have to be discarded, but the tunnel head should send
the IP source of the discarded packet the proper ICMP error
message".
[VxLAN], [NVO3], [IPSec], [IPv6 GRE], and [MPLS Encapsulation] do
not request for tunnel endpoint to relay PTB messages. PMTUD should
be used to set proper MTU for the tunnel, then subsequent packet
could trigger PTB message to packet source. It would create an
additional round trip delay compared to the original [IPv6
Tunneling] relay approach for the first PTB message. This small
deficiency could be partially explained by the desire of many
standards to be universal for IPv6 as well as IPv4. As a reminder,
IPv4 may not have enough information in the ICMP message to properly
reconstruct a relay message (64bits of source packet by RFC 792).
[IP Tunnels] is the only draft that contradicts to [IPv6 Tunneling]
(and every other protocol based on top) - it does clearly prohibit
relay PTB messages. It states in section 3.3: "When such messages
(PTB) arrive at the ingress interface ("ingress interface" is the
tunnel interface in this draft), they may affect the properties of
that interface (e.g., its MTU), but they should never directly cause
new ICMPs in the outer network". This idea is generalized in section
5.1 as "ICMP messages MUST NOT be generated by the tunnel (as a
link)". The motivation assumed in the draft is to fully mimic host
behavior on the router virtual (tunnel) interface, because the host
would not retranslate PTB messages.
We see that "Flow Label" is gaining popularity. [IPv6 Tunneling] and
[ICMPv6] do not have strong recommendations for "Flow Label" - it
was not the important topic at that time. The only small improvement
that makes sense to do for [IPv6 Tunneling] is to recommend coping
"Flow Label" from source packet to tunnel packet and from source
packet to ICMPv6 PTB message. It would permit to properly load
balance PTB messages to the same path as original traffic - see the
problem [ICMPv6 PTB in ECMP] about hash-based load balancing between
many hosts. Copy "Flow Label" to PTB message would not contradict
neither IPv6 architecture nor any RFC - it is not mandatory to
develop a special standard update for it.
[MTU issues in Tunneling] section 3.2 has a concern that in the case
of Lawful Intercept additional encapsulation could produce PTB
messages that would show the fact to the monitored host. It is not a
very realistic concern, because PMTU could change for many other
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
reasons (especially with the proliferation of new protocols). If it
is still a concern, then it makes sense to use another solution for
this case: bigger MTU (better) or even fragmentation.
[MTU issues in Tunneling] section 3.2 raises the question about the
applicability of "MSS Clamping". The transit node could snoop
transport layer and change MSS exchanged between nodes. This "hack"
is not recommended because it breaks the layered model of IETF or
OSI.
[PMTUD] is the only mechanism that is universal for all cases and
fully compliant with IPv6 architecture. Vendors just need to use it,
despite some challenges to relay PTB messages on tunnel ends.
Moreover, it makes sense to standardize the relay of PTB messages on
tunnel ends - it would improve PMTUD time on original traffic
sources for round trip time.
[IPv6] RFC: "It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement
Path MTU Discovery [PMTUD]".
3.5. Packetization Layer MTU Discovery
[PLPMTUD] and [DPLPMTUD] have been greatly developed in recent
years. Packetization Layer (UDP/TCP) (1) has much more visibility
(could see the size of transport layer buffers); (2) could operate
under the absence of ICMPv6 PTB (too much filtering); (3) could be
very granular (per-flow). It does have its use cases.
Albeit, PLPMTUD/DPLPMTUD have their restrictions as they: (1) are
not universal for all transport protocols; (2) need more resources
from the host; (3) are challenging to share PMTU information between
applications; (4) need much more round trip times to find suitable
PMTU; (5) do not work well on congested paths (difficult to
understand the reason for packet loss).
Hence, PLPMTUD is not a replacement for PMTUD - both are needed. As
a reminder from [PLPMTUD]: "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery
(PLPMTUD) is most efficient when used in conjunction with the ICMP-
based Path MTU Discovery".
PLPMTUD could play as a replacement for PMTUD in the worst-case
scenario (ICMP is filtered). It would lead to the original host PMTU
decrease too. PLPMTUD could be considered as a redundancy mechanism
for PMTUD.
Strictly speaking, [PMTU by HbH] is a network layer mechanism, not a
packetization layer. It is mentioned in this section because its
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
usage is very similar to PLPMTUD, [PMTU by HbH] could be considered
to some degree as the extension to PLPMTUD. It is not expected to
principally change the conclusions of this document.
4. Conclusion
It is better not to have a problem with oversized packets in the
first place. One should upgrade all links to a bigger MTU, if
possible.
The host could have MTU as big as transit node. It would be never
possible to deprecate PMTUD. It is important to follow the
recommendations of [PMTUD] and [IPv6 Tunneling] for ICMPv6 PTB
message delivery to the original traffic source. Tunnel sources
should perform the relay function to make sure that the original
traffic source would get the PTB message faster.
The temporary 220B limit for all headers pushes us to the frugal
implementation of new extension headers. This limit would be
alleviated after all backbone links would be upgraded to a much
bigger MTU than 1500B. Additional protocols to collect MTU
information could help in the transition period to attach additional
headers frugally. It is true for all new protocols: SRv6, SFC,
BIERv6, iFIT, iOAM, APN6.
[PLPMTUD] and [DPLPMTUD] are not the replacement for [PMTUD], but
could help in some scenarios.
Fragmentation is not at all a solution for oversized packet drops.
5. Security Considerations
[PMTUD], [PLPMTUD], [DPLPMTUD], and [Fragile Fragmentation] have
some attack vectors discussed. This document does not introduce
additional security vulnerabilities.
6. IANA Considerations
This document has no request to IANA.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[IPv6] S. Deering, R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6)
Specification", RFC 8200, DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[ICMPv6] A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, "Internet Control Message
Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443,
March 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.
[PMTUD] J. McCann, S. Deering, J. Mogul, R. Hinden, "Path MTU
Discovery for IP version 6", RFC 8201, DOI
10.17487/RFC8201, July 2017, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8201>.
[IPv6 Tunneling] A. Conta, S. Deering, "Generic Packet Tunneling in
IPv6 Specification", RFC 2473, DOI 10.17487/RFC2473,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2473>.
[ICMPv6 PTB in ECMP] M. Byerly, M. Hite, J. Jaeggli, "Close
Encounters of the ICMP Type 2 Kind", RFC 7690, DOI
10.17487/RFC7690, January 2016, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7690>.
[MTU issues in Tunneling] P. Savola, "MTU and Fragmentation Issues
with In-the-Network Tunneling", RFC 4459, DOI
10.17487/RFC4459, April 2006, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc4459>.
[IP Tunnels] J. Touch, M. Townsley, "IP Tunnels in the Internet
Architecture", draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels-10 (work in
progress), September 2019.
[IP Encapsulation] C. Perkins, "IP Encapsulation within IP", RFC
2003, DOI 10.17487/RFC2003, October 1996,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2003>.
[IPSec] S. Kent, K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the Internet
Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, December 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4301>.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
[IPv6 GRE] C. Pignataro, R. Bonica, S. Krishnan, "IPv6 Support for
Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 7676, DOI
10.17487/RFC7676, October 2015, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7676>.
[MPLS Encapsulation] T. Worster, Y. Rekhter, E. Rosen,
"Encapsulating MPLS in IP or Generic Routing Encapsulation
(GRE)", RFC 4023, DOI 10.17487/RFC4023, March 2005,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4023>.
[L2TPv3] J. Lau, M. Townsley, I. Goyret, "Layer Two Tunneling
Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC 3931, DOI
10.17487/RFC3931, March 2005, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc3931>.
[VxLAN] M. Mahalingam, D. Dutt, K. Duda, P. Agarwal, L. Kreeger, T.
Sridhar, M. Bursell, C. Wright, "Virtual eXtensible Local
Area Network (VXLAN): A Framework for Overlaying
Virtualized Layer 2 Networks over Layer 3 Networks", RFC
7348, DOI 10.17487/RFC7348, August 2014, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc7348>.
[NVO3] J. Gross, I. Ganga, T. Sridhar, "Geneve: Generic Network
Virtualization Encapsulation", RFC 8926, DOI
10.17487/RFC8926, November 2020, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8926>.
[L3VPN] E. Rosen, Y. Rekhter, "BGP/MPLS IP Virtual Private Networks
(VPNs)", RFC 4364, DOI 10.17487/RFC4364, February 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4364>.
[EVPN] A. Sajassi, R. Aggarwal, N. Bitar, A. Isaac, J. Uttaro, J.
Drake, W. Henderickx, "BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN", RFC
7432, DOI 10.17487/RFC7432, February 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7432>.
[Huston-2020] Huston, G., "Measurement of IPv6 Extension Header
Support", NPS/CAIDA 2020 Virtual IPv6 Workshop, 2020,
<https://www.cmand.org/workshops/202006-v6/slides/2020-06-
16-xtn-hdrs.pdf>.
[Huston-2016] Huston, G., "Fragmenting IPv6", Blog Post, 2016,
<https://blog.apnic.net/2016/05/19/fragmenting-ipv6/>.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
[Fragile Fragmentation] R. Bonica, F. Baker, G. Huston, R. Hinden,
O. Troan, F. Gont, "IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile",
RFC 8900, DOI 10.17487/RFC8900, September 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8900>.
7.2. Informative References
[PLPMTUD] M. Mathis, J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4821>.
[DPLPMTUD] G. Fairhurst, T. Jones, M. Tuexen, I. Ruengeler, T.
Voelker, "Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for
Datagram Transports", RFC 8899, DOI 10.17487/RFC8899,
March 2020, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8899>.
[SRH] C. Filsfils, D. Dukes, S. Previdi, J. Leddy, S. Matsushima, D.
Voyer, "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)", RFC 8754, DOI
10.17487/RFC8754, March 2020, <https://www.rfc-
editor.org/info/rfc8754>.
[PMTU by HbH] R. Hinden, G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-
by-Hop Option", draft-hinden-6man-mtu-option-02 (work in
progress), July 2019.
[PMTU by ISIS] Z. Hu, Y. Zhu, Z. Li, L. Dai, "IS-IS Extensions for
Path MTU", draft-hu-lsr-isis-path-mtu-00 (work in
progress), June 2018.
[PMTU by PCEP] S. Peng, C. Li, L. Han, "Support for Path MTU (PMTU)
in the Path Computation Element (PCE)communication
Protocol (PCEP)", draft-li-pce-pcep-pmtu-03 (work in
progress), October 2020.
[PMTU by BGP-LS] Y. Zhu, Z. Hu, G. Yan, J. Yao, "BGP-LS Extensions
for Advertising Path MTU", draft-zhu-idr-bgp-ls-path-mtu-
05 (work in progress), November 2020.
[PMTU by SR-Policy] C. Li, Y. Zhu, A. Sawaf, Z. Li, "Segment Routing
Path MTU in BGP", draft-li-idr-sr-policy-path-mtu-03 (work
in progress), November 2019.
[Generic Fragmentation] Z. Zhang, R. Bonica, K. Kompella," Generic
Transport Functions", draft-zzhang-tsvwg-generic-
transport-functions-00 (work in progress), November 2020.
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Oversized Analysis March 2021
[Pseudowire Fragmentation] A. Malis, M. Townsley, "Pseudowire
Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Fragmentation and
Reassembly", RFC 4623, DOI 10.17487/RFC4623, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4623>.
8. Acknowledgments
Thanks to v6ops working group for problem discussion
Authors' Addresses
Eduard Vasilenko
Huawei Technologies
17/4 Krylatskaya st, Moscow, Russia 121614
Email: Vasilenko.Eduard@huawei.com
Xiao Xipeng
Huawei Technologies
205 Hansaallee, 40549 Dusseldorf, Germany
Email: Xipengxiao@huawei.com
Dmitriy Khaustov
Rostelecom
13/2 Nikoloyamskaya st, Moscow, Russia 109240
Email: Dmitriy.Khaustov@rt.ru
Vasilenko Expires September 19, 2021 [Page 19]