Simple Internet Protocol (SIP) Specification
RFC 8507
| Document | Type |
RFC - Historic
(December 2018; No errata)
Was draft-historic-simple-ip (individual)
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Steve Deering , Bob Hinden | ||
| Last updated | 2018-12-21 | ||
| Replaces | draft-deering-sip | ||
| Stream | Independent Submission | ||
| Formats | plain text html pdf htmlized bibtex | ||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-historic-simple-ip | ||
| Stream | ISE state | Published RFC | |
| Consensus Boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | Adrian Farrel | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show (last changed 2018-09-06) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 8507 (Historic) | |
| Telechat date | |||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | Adrian Farrel <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org> | ||
| IANA | IANA review state | IANA OK - No Actions Needed | |
| IANA action state | No IANA Actions | ||
Independent Submission S. Deering
Request for Comments: 8507 Retired
Category: Historic R. Hinden, Ed.
ISSN: 2070-1721 Check Point Software
December 2018
Simple Internet Protocol (SIP) Specification
Abstract
This document is published for the historical record. The Simple
Internet Protocol was the basis for one of the candidates for the
IETF's Next Generation (IPng) work that became IPv6.
The publication date of the original Internet-Draft was November 10,
1992. It is presented here substantially unchanged and is neither a
complete document nor intended to be implementable.
The paragraph that follows is the Abstract from the original draft.
This document specifies a new version of IP called SIP, the Simple
Internet Protocol. It also describes the changes needed to ICMP,
IGMP, and transport protocols such as TCP and UDP, in order to work
with SIP. A companion document [SIP-ADDR] describes the addressing
and routing aspects of SIP, including issues of auto-configuration,
host and subnet mobility, and multicast.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for the historical record.
This document defines a Historic Document for the Internet community.
This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by
the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard;
see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8507.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 1]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Preface .........................................................3
2. Introduction ....................................................3
3. Terminology .....................................................4
4. SIP Header Format ...............................................5
5. Addresses .......................................................6
5.1. Text Representation of Addresses ...........................6
5.2. Unicast Addresses ..........................................6
5.3. Multicast Addresses ........................................8
5.4. Special Addresses ..........................................9
6. Packet Size Issues .............................................12
7. Source Routing Header ..........................................13
8. Fragmentation Header ...........................................14
9. Changes to Other Protocols .....................................16
9.1. Changes to ICMP ...........................................16
9.2. Changes to IGMP ...........................................20
9.3. Changes to Transport Protocols ............................21
9.4. Changes to Link-Layer Protocols ...........................22
10. Security Considerations .......................................22
11. Acknowledgments ...............................................23
12. Informative References ........................................23
Appendix A. SIP Design Rationale ..................................25
Appendix B. Future Directions .....................................25
Authors' Addresses ................................................26
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 2]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
1. Preface
This document is published for the historical record.
Simple IP (SIP) was the basis for one of the candidates for the
IETF's Next Generation (IPng) work; see "The Recommendation for the
IP Next Generation Protocol" [RFC1752]. The original 1992
Internet-Draft describing SIP is published here as part of the record
of that work.
SIP evolved into SIP Plus [RFC1710], which was assessed as a
candidate for IPng [RFC1752] and led eventually to the development of
IPv6, first published as [RFC1883]. The current specification for
IPv6 is [RFC8200].
The original Internet-Draft describing the Simple Internet Protocol
was written by Steve Deering, and the Internet-Draft was posted on
November 10, 1992. The contents of this document are unchanged from
that Internet-Draft, except for clarifications in the Abstract, the
addition of this section, modifications to the authors' information,
the updating of references, removal of the IANA considerations, and
minor formatting changes.
It should be noted that the original draft was not complete and that
no attempt has been made to complete it. This document is not
intended to be implementable.
2. Introduction
SIP is a new version of IP. Its salient differences from IP
version 4 [RFC791], subsequently referred to as "IPv4", are:
o expansion of addresses to 64 bits,
o simplification of the IP header by eliminating some
inessential fields, and
o relaxation of length restrictions on optional data, such as
source-routing information.
SIP retains the IP model of globally-unique addresses,
hierarchically-structured for efficient routing. Increasing the
address size from 32 to 64 bits allows more levels of hierarchy to be
encoded in the addresses, enough to enable efficient routing in an
internet with tens of thousands of addressable devices in every
office, every residence, and every vehicle in the world. Keeping the
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 3]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
addresses fixed-length and relatively compact facilitates
high-performance router and host implementation, and keeps the
bandwidth overhead of the SIP headers almost as low as IPv4.
The elimination of inessential fields also contributes to
high-performance implementation, and to the likelihood of correct
implementation. A change in the way that optional data, such as
source-routing information, is encoded allows for more efficient
forwarding and less stringent limits on the length of such data.
Despite these changes, SIP remains very similar to IPv4. This
similarity makes it easy to understand SIP (for those who already
understand IPv4), makes it possible to reuse much of the code and
data structures from IPv4 in an implementation of SIP (including
almost all of ICMP and IGMP), and makes it straightforward to
translate between SIP packets and IPv4 packets for transition
purposes [IPAE].
The subsequent sections of this document specify SIP and its
associated protocols without much explanation of why the design
choices were made the way they were. Appendix A presents the
rationale for those aspects of SIP that differ from IPv4.
3. Terminology
system - a device that implements SIP.
router - a system that forwards SIP packets.
host - any system that is not a router.
link - a communication facility or medium over which systems
can communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer
immediately below SIP.
interface - a system's attachment point to a link.
address - a SIP-layer identifier for an interface or a group of
interfaces.
subnet - in the SIP unicast addressing hierarchy, a
lowest-level (finest-grain) cluster of addresses,
sharing a common address prefix (i.e., high-order
address bits). Typically, all interfaces attached to
the same link have addresses in the same subnet;
however, in some cases, a single link may support more
than one subnet, or a single subnet may span more than
one link.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 4]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
link MTU - the maximum transmission unit, i.e., maximum packet
size in octets, that can be conveyed in one piece over
a link (where a packet is a SIP header plus payload).
path MTU - the minimum link MTU of all the links in a path
between a source system and a destination system.
packetization
layer - any protocol layer above SIP that is responsible for
packetizing data to fit within outgoing SIP packets.
Typically, transport-layer protocols, such as TCP, are
packetization protocols, but there may also be
higher-layer packetization protocols, such as
protocols implemented on top of UDP.
4. SIP Header Format
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | Payload Type | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Source Address +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Destination Address +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Version 4-bit IP version number = decimal 6.
<to be confirmed>
Reserved 28-bit reserved field. Initialized to zero
for transmission; ignored on reception.
Payload Length 16-bit unsigned integer. Length of payload,
i.e., the rest of the packet following the
SIP header, in octets.
Payload Type 8-bit selector. Identifies the type of
payload, e.g., TCP.
Hop Limit 8-bit unsigned integer. Decremented by 1
by each system that forwards the packet.
The packet is discarded if Hop Limit is
decremented to zero.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 5]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
Source Address 64 bits. See "Addresses" section, following.
Destination Address 64 bits. See "Addresses" section, following.
5. Addresses
5.1. Text Representation of Addresses
SIP addresses are 64 bits (8 octets) long. The text representation
of a SIP addresses is 16 hexadecimal digits, with a colon between the
4th and 5th digits, and optional colons between any subsequent pair
of digits. Leading zeros must not be dropped. Examples:
0123:4567:89AB:CDEF
0123:456789ABCDEF
0123:456789AB:CDE:F
Programs that read the text representation of SIP addresses must be
insensitive to the presence or absence of optional colons. Programs
that write the text representation of a SIP address should use the
first format above (i.e., colons after the 4th, 8th, and 12th
digits), in the absence of any knowledge of the structure or
preferred format of the address, such as knowledge of the format in
which it was originally read.
The presence of at least one colon in the text representation allows
SIP addresses to be easily distinguished from both domain names and
the text representation of IPv4 addresses.
5.2. Unicast Addresses
A SIP unicast address is a globally-unique identifier for a single
interface, i.e., no two interfaces in a SIP internet may have the
same unicast address. A single interface may, however, have more
than one unicast address.
A system considers its own unicast address(es) to have the following
structure, where different addresses may have different values for n:
| n bits | 64-n bits |
+----------------------------------------------------+------------+
| subnet prefix |interface ID|
+----------------------------------------------------+------------+
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 6]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
To know the length of the subnet prefix, the system is required to
associate with each of its addresses a 'subnet mask' of the following
form:
| n bits | 64-n bits |
+----------------------------------------------------+------------+
|1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111|000000000000|
+----------------------------------------------------+------------+
A system may have a subnet mask of all-ones, which means that the
system belongs to a subnet containing exactly one system -- itself.
A system acquires its subnet mask(s) at the same time, and by the
same mechanism, as it acquires its address(es), for example, by
manual configuration or by a dynamic configuration protocol such as
BOOTP [RFC951].
Hosts are ignorant of any further structure in a unicast address.
Routers may acquire, through manual configuration or the operation of
routing protocols, additional masks that identify higher-level
clusters in a hierarchical addressing plan. For example, the routers
within a single site would typically have a 'site mask', such as the
following:
| m bits | 64-m bits |
+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------+
|11111111111111111111111111111111111111111|00000000000000000000000|
+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------+
by which they could deduce the following structure in the site's
addresses:
| m bits | p bits | 64-m-p bits|
+-----------------------------------------+----------+------------+
| site prefix |subnet ID|interface ID|
+-----------------------------------------+----------+------------+
All knowledge by SIP systems of the structure of unicast addresses is
based on possession of such masks -- there is no "wired-in" knowledge
of unicast address formats.
The SIP Addressing and Routing document [SIP-ADDR] proposes two
hierarchical addressing plans, one based on a hierarchy of SIP
service providers, and one based on a geographic hierarchy.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 7]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
5.3. Multicast Addresses
A SIP multicast address is an identifier for a group of interfaces.
An interface may belong to any number of multicast groups. Multicast
addresses have the following format:
|1| 7 | 4 | 4 | 48 bits |
+-+-------+----+----+---------------------------------------------+
|C|1111111|flgs|scop| group ID |
+-+-------+----+----+---------------------------------------------+
where:
C = IPv4 compatibility flag; see [IPAE].
1111111 in the rest of the first octet identifies the address as
being a multicast address.
+-+-+-+-+
flgs is a set of 4 flags: |0|0|0|T|
+-+-+-+-+
the high-order 3 flags are reserved, and must be initialized
to 0.
T = 0 indicates a permanently-assigned ("well-known") multicast
address, assigned by the global internet numbering
authority.
T = 1 indicates a non-permanently-assigned ("transient")
multicast address.
scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value:
0 reserved
1 intra-system scope
2 intra-link scope
3 (unassigned)
4 (unassigned)
5 intra-site scope
6 (unassigned)
7 (unassigned)
8 intra-metro scope
9 (unassigned)
A (unassigned)
B intra-country scope
C (unassigned)
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 8]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
D (unassigned)
E global scope
F reserved
group ID identifies the multicast group, either permanent or
transient, within the given scope.
The "meaning" of a permanently-assigned multicast address is
independent of the scope value. For example, if the "NTP servers
group" is assigned a permanent multicast address with a group ID of
43 (hex), then:
7F01:000000000043 means all NTP servers on the same system as the
sender.
7F02:000000000043 means all NTP servers on the same link as the
sender.
7F05:000000000043 means all NTP servers at the same site as the
sender.
7F0E:000000000043 means all NTP servers in the internet.
Non-permanently-assigned multicast addresses are meaningful only
within a given scope. For example, a group identified by the
non-permanent, intra-site multicast address 7F15:000000000043 at one
site bears no relationship to a group using the same address at a
different site, nor to a non-permanent group using the same group ID
with different scope, nor to a permanent group with the same
group ID.
5.4. Special Addresses
There are a number of "special purpose" SIP addresses:
The Unspecified Address: 0000:0000:0000:0000
This address shall never be assigned to any system. It may be
used wherever an address appears, to indicate the absence of an
address. One example of its use is in the Source Address field
of a SIP packet sent by an initializing host, before it has
learned its own address.
The Loopback Address: 0000:0000:0000:0001
This address may be used by a system to send a SIP packet to
itself.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 9]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
Anyone Addresses: <prefix><zero>
Addresses of this form may be used to send to the "nearest"
system (according the routing protocols' measure of distance)
that "knows" it has a unicast address prefix of <prefix>.
Since hosts know only their subnet prefix(es), and no
higher-level prefixes, a host with the following address:
+----------------------------------------------+----------------+
| subnet prefix = A |interface ID = B|
+----------------------------------------------+----------------+
shall recognize only the following Anyone address as identifying
itself:
+----------------------------------------------+----------------+
| subnet prefix = A |0000000000000000|
+----------------------------------------------+----------------+
An intra-site router that knows that one of its addresses has the
format:
+-------------------------------+--------------+----------------+
| site prefix = X |subnet ID = Y|interface ID = Z|
+-------------------------------+--------------+----------------+
shall accept packets sent to either of the following two Anyone
addresses as if they had been sent to the router's own address:
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| site prefix = X |0000000000000000000000000000000|
+-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
+-------------------------------+--------------+----------------+
| site prefix = X |subnet ID = Y|0000000000000000|
+-------------------------------+--------------+----------------+
Anyone Addresses work as follows:
If any system belonging to subnet A sends a packet to
subnet A's Anyone address, the packet shall be looped-back
within the sending system itself, since it is the nearest
system to itself with the subnet A prefix. If a system outside
of subnet A sends a packet to subnet A's Anyone address, the
packet shall be accepted by the first router on subnet A that
the packet reaches.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 10]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
Similarly, a packet sent to site X's Anyone address from
outside of site X shall be accepted by the first encountered
router belonging to site X, i.e., one of site X's boundary
routers. If a higher-level prefix P identifies, say, a
particular service provider, then a packet sent to <P> <zero>
from outside of provider P's facilities shall be delivered to
the nearest entry router into P's facilities.
Anyone addresses are most commonly used in conjunction with the
SIP source routing header, to cause a packet to be routed via one
or more specified "transit domains", without the need to identify
individual routers in those domains.
The value zero is reserved at each level of every unicast address
hierarchy, to serve as an Anyone address for that level.
The Reserved Multicast Address: 7F0s:0000:0000:0000
This multicast address (with any scope value, s) is reserved, and
shall never be assigned to any multicast group.
The All Systems Addresses: 7F01:0000:0000:0001
7F02:0000:0000:0001
These multicast addresses identify the group of all SIP systems,
within scope 1 (intra-system) or 2 (intra-link).
The All Hosts Addresses: 7F01:0000:0000:0002
7F02:0000:0000:0002
These multicast addresses identify the group of all SIP hosts,
within scope 1 (intra-system) or 2 (intra-link).
The All Routers Addresses: 7F01:0000:0000:0003
7F02:0000:0000:0003
These multicast addresses identify the group of all SIP routers,
within scope 1 (intra-system) or 2 (intra-link).
A host is required to recognize the following addresses as
identifying itself: its own unicast addresses, the Anyone addresses
with the same subnet prefixes as its unicast addresses, the Loopback
address, the All Systems and All Hosts addresses, and any other
multicast addresses to which the host belongs.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 11]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
A router is required to recognize the following addresses as
identifying itself: its own unicast addresses, the Anyone addresses
with the same subnet or higher-level prefixes as its unicast
addresses, the Loopback address, the All Systems and All Routers
addresses, and any other multicast addresses to which the host
belongs.
6. Packet Size Issues
SIP requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 576
octets or greater. On any link that cannot convey a 576-octet packet
in one piece, link-specific fragmentation and reassembly must be
provided at a layer below SIP.
(Note: this minimum link MTU is NOT the same as the one in IPv4.
In IPv4, the minimum link MTU is 68 octets [ [RFC791], page 25 ];
576 octets is the minimum reassembly buffer size required in an
IPv4 system, which has nothing to do with link MTUs.)
From each link to which a system is directly attached, the system
must be able to accept packets as large as that link's MTU. Links
that have a configurable MTU, such as PPP links [RFC1661], should be
configured with an MTU of 600 octets or greater.
SIP systems are expected to implement Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191],
in order to discover and take advantage of paths with MTU greater
than 576 octets. However, a minimal SIP implementation (e.g., in a
boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to sending packets no larger
than 576 octets, and omit implementation of Path MTU Discovery.
Path MTU Discovery requires support both in the SIP layer and in the
packetization layers. A system that supports Path MTU Discovery at
the SIP layer may serve packetization layers that are unable to adapt
to changes of the path MTU. Such packetization layers must limit
themselves to sending packets no longer than 576 octets, even when
sending to destinations that belong to the same subnet.
(Note: Unlike IPv4, it is unnecessary in SIP to set a "Don't
Fragment" flag in the packet header in order to perform Path MTU
Discovery; that is an implicit attribute of every SIP packet.
Also, those parts of the RFC-1191 procedures that involve use of
a table of MTU "plateaus" do not apply to SIP, because the SIP
version of the "Datagram Too Big" message always identifies the
exact MTU to be used.)
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 12]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
7. Source Routing Header
A Payload Type of <TBD> in the immediately preceding header indicates
the presence of this Source Routing header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Num Addrs | Next Addr | Payload Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Address[0] +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Address[1] +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. . .
. . .
. . .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Address[Num Addrs - 1] +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Reserved Initialized to zero for transmission; ignored
on reception.
Num Addrs Number of addresses in the Source Routing
header.
Next Addr Index of next address to be processed;
initialized to 0 by the originating system.
Payload Type Identifies the type of payload following the
Source Routing header.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 13]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
A Source Routing header is not examined or processed until it reaches
the system identified in the Destination Address field of the SIP
header. In that system, dispatching on the Payload Type of the SIP
(or subsequent) header causes the Source Routing module to be
invoked, which performs the following algorithm:
o If Next Addr < Num Addrs, swap the SIP Destination Address and
Address[Next Addr], increment Next Addr by one, and re-submit
the packet to the SIP module for forwarding to the next
destination.
o If Next Addr = Num Addrs, dispatch to the local protocol
module identified by the Payload Type field in the Source
Routing header.
o If Next Addr > Num Addrs, send an ICMP Parameter Problem
message to the Source Address, pointing to the Num Addrs
field.
8. Fragmentation Header
A Payload Type of <TBD> in the immediately preceding header indicates
the presence of this Fragmentation header:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|0 0 M| Fragment Offset | Payload Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Identification A value that changes on each packet sent with
the same Source Address, Destination Address,
and preceding Payload Type.
M flag 1 = more fragments; 0 = last fragment.
Fragment Offset The offset, in 8-octet chunks, of the
following payload, relative to the original,
unfragmented payload.
Payload Type Identifies the type of payload following the
Fragmentation header.
Reserved Initialized to zero for transmission; ignored
on reception.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 14]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
The Fragmentation header is NOT intended to support general,
SIP-layer fragmentation. In particular, SIP routers shall not
fragment a SIP packet that is too big for the MTU of its next hop,
except in the special cases described below; in the normal case, such
a packet results in an ICMP Packet Too Big message being sent back to
its source, for use by the source system's Path MTU Discovery
algorithm.
The special cases for which the Fragmentation header is intended are
the following:
o A SIP packet that is "tunneled", either by encapsulation
within another SIP packet or by insertion of a Source Routing
header en-route, may, after the addition of the extra header
fields, exceed the MTU of the tunnel's path; if the original
packet is 576 octets or less in length, the tunnel entry
system cannot respond to the source with a Packet Too Big
message, and therefore must insert a Fragmentation header and
fragment the packet to fit within the tunnel's MTU.
o An IPv4 fragment that is translated into a SIP packet, or an
unfragmented IPv4 packet that is translated into too long a
SIP packet to fit in the remaining path MTU, must include the
SIP Fragmentation header, so that it may be properly
reassembled at the destination SIP system.
Every SIP system must support SIP fragmentation and reassembly, since
any system may be configured to serve as a tunnel entry or exit
point, and any SIP system may be destination of IPv4 fragments. All
SIP systems must be capable of reassembling, from fragments, a SIP
packet of up to 1024 octets in length, including the SIP header; a
system may be capable of assembling packets longer than 1024 octets.
Routers do not examine or process Fragmentation headers of packets
that they forward; only at the destination system is the
Fragmentation header acted upon (i.e., reassembly performed), as a
result of dispatching on the Payload Type of the preceding header.
Fragmentation and reassembly employ the same algorithm as IPv4, with
the following exceptions:
o All headers up to and including the Fragmentation header are
repeated in each fragment; no headers or data following the
Fragmentation header are repeated in each fragment.
o the Identification field is increased to 32 bits, to decrease
the risk of wraparound of that field within the maximum packet
lifetime over very high-throughput paths.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 15]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
The similarity of the algorithm and the field layout to that of IPv4
enables existing IPv4 fragmentation and reassembly code and data
structures to be re-used with little modification.
9. Changes to Other Protocols
Upgrading IPv4 to SIP entails changes to the associated control
protocols, ICMP and IGMP, as well as to the transport layer, above,
and possibly to the link-layer, below. This section identifies those
changes.
9.1. Changes to ICMP
SIP uses a subset of ICMP [[RFC792], [RFC950], [RFC1122], [RFC1191],
[RFC1256]], with a few minor changes and some additions. The
presence of an ICMP header is indicated by a Payload Type of 1.
One change to all ICMP messages is that, when used with SIP, the ICMP
checksum includes a pseudo-header, like TCP and UDP, consisting of
the SIP Source Address, Destination Address, Payload Length, and
Payload Type (see section 8.3).
There are a set of ICMP messages called "error messages", each of
which, for IPv4, carries the IPv4 header plus 64 bits or more of data
from the packet that invoked the error message. When used with SIP,
ICMP error messages carry the first 256 octets of the invoking SIP
packet, or the entire invoking packet if it is shorter than
256 octets.
For most of the ICMP message types, the packets retain the same
format and semantics as with IPv4; however, some of the fields are
given new names to match SIP terminology.
The changes to specific message types are as follows:
Destination Unreachable
The following Codes have different names when used with SIP:
1 - destination address unreachable (IPv4 "host unreachable")
7 - destination address unknown (IPv4 "dest. host unknown")
2 - payload type unknown (IPv4 "protocol unreachable")
4 - packet too big (IPv4 "fragmentation needed and DF set")
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 16]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
The following Codes retain the same names when used with SIP:
3 - port unreachable
5 - source route failed
8 - source host isolated
13 - communication administratively prohibited
The following Codes are not used with SIP:
0 - net unreachable
6 - destination network unknown
9 - comm. with dest. network administratively prohibited
10 - comm. with dest. host administratively prohibited
11 - network unreachable for type of service
12 - host unreachable for type of service
For "packet too big" messages (Code 4), the minimum legal value
in the Next-Hop MTU field [RFC1191] is 576.
Time Exceeded
The name of Code 0 is changed to "hop limit exceeded in transit".
Parameter Problem
The Pointer field is extended to 16 bits and moved to the
low-order end of the second 32-bit word, as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved | Pointer |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| first 256 octets of the invoking packet |
| |
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 17]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
Redirect
Only Code 1 is used for SIP, meaning "redirect packets for the
destination address".
The Redirect header is modified for SIP, to accommodate the
64-bit address of the "preferred router" and to retain 64-bit
alignment, as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Preferred Router +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| first 256 octets of the invoking packet |
| |
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 18]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
Router Advertisement
The format of the Router Advertisement message is changed to:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Code | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Num Addrs |Addr Entry Size| Lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Router Address[0] +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference Level[0] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved[0] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Router Address[1] +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference Level[1] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved[1] |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| . |
| . |
| . |
The value in the Addr Entry Size field is 4, and all of the
Reserved fields are initialized to zero by senders and ignored by
receivers.
Router Solicitation
No changes.
Echo and Echo Reply
No changes.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 19]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
The following ICMP message types are not used with SIP:
Source Quench
Timestamp
Timestamp Reply
Information Request
Information Reply
Address Mask Request
Address Mask Reply
9.2. Changes to IGMP
SIP uses the Internet Group Management Protocol, IGMP [RFC1112]. The
presence of an IGMP header is indicated by a Payload Type of 2.
When used with SIP, the IGMP checksum includes a pseudo-header, like
TCP and UDP, consisting of the SIP Source Address, Destination
Address, Payload Length, and Payload Type (see section 8.3).
The format of an IGMP Host Membership Query message becomes:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Type | Reserved | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The format of an IGMP Host Membership Report message becomes:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Type | Reserved | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ Multicast Address +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
For both message types, the Version number remains 1, and the
Reserved fields are set to zero by senders and ignored by receivers.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 20]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
9.3. Changes to Transport Protocols
The service interface to SIP has some differences from IPv4's service
interface. Existing transport protocols that use IPv4 must be
changed to operate over SIP's service interface. The differences
from IPv4 are:
o Any addresses passed across the interface are 64 bits long,
rather than 32 bits.
o The following IPv4 variables are not passed across the
interface: Precedence, Type-of-Service, Identifier,
Don't Fragment Flag
o SIP options have a different format than IPv4 options. (For
SIP, "options" are all headers between, and not including, the
SIP header and the transport header. The only IPv4 option
currently specified for SIP is Loose Source Routing.
o ICMP error messages for SIP that are passed up to the
transport layer carry the first 256 octets of the invoking SIP
packet.
Transport protocols that use IPv4 addresses for their own purposes,
such as identifying connection state or inclusion in a pseudo-header
checksum, must be changed to use 64-bit SIP addresses for those
purposes instead.
For SIP, the pseudo-header checksums of TCP, UDP, ICMP, and IGMP
include the SIP Source Address, Destination Address, Payload Length,
and Payload Type, with the following caveats:
o If the packet contains a Source Routing header, the
destination address used in the pseudo-header checksum is that
of the final destination.
o The Payload Length used in the pseudo-header checksum is the
length of the transport-layer packet, including the transport
header.
o The Payload Type used in the pseudo-header checksum is the
Payload Type from the header immediately preceding the
transport header.
o When added to the pseudo-header checksum, the Payload Type is
treated as the left octet of a 16-bit word, with zeros in the
the right octet, when viewed in IP standard octet order.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 21]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
o If either of the two addresses used in the pseudo-header
checksum has its high-order bit set to 1, only the low-order
32-bits of that address shall be used in the sum. The
high-order bit is used to indicate that the addressed system
is an IPv4 system, and that the low-order 32-bits of the
address contain that system's IPv4 address [IPAE].
The semantics of SIP service differ from IPv4 service in three ways
that may affect some transport protocols:
(1) SIP does not enforce maximum packet lifetime. Any transport
protocol that relies on IPv4 to limit packet lifetime must
take this change into account, for example, by providing its
own mechanisms for detecting and discarding obsolete packets.
(2) SIP does not checksum its own header fields. Any transport
protocol that relies on IPv4 to assure the integrity of the
source and destinations addresses, packet length, and
transport protocol identifier must take this change into
account. In particular, when used with SIP, the UDP checksum
is mandatory, and ICMP and IGMP are changed to use a
pseudo-header checksum.
(3) SIP does not (except in special cases) fragment packets that
exceed the MTU of their delivery paths. Therefore, a
transport protocol must not send packets longer than
576 octets unless it implements Path MTU Discovery [RFC1191]
and is capable of adapting its transmitted packet size in
response to changes of the path MTU.
9.4. Changes to Link-Layer Protocols
Link-layer media that have an MTU less than 576 must be enhanced
with a link-specific fragmentation and reassembly mechanism, to
support SIP.
For links on which ARP is used by IPv4, the identical ARP protocol is
used for SIP. The low-order 32-bits of SIP addresses are used
wherever IPv4 addresses would appear; since ARP is used only among
systems on the same subnet, the high-order 32-bits of the SIP
addresses may be inferred from the subnet prefix (assuming the subnet
prefix is at least 32 bits long). [This is subject to change -- see
Appendix B.]
10. Security Considerations
<to be done>
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 22]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
11. Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the many helpful suggestions and the words of
encouragement from Dave Clark, Dave Crocker, Deborah Estrin, Bob
Hinden, Christian Huitema, Van Jacobson, Jeff Mogul, Dave Nichols,
Erik Nordmark, Dave Oran, Craig Partridge, Scott Shenker, Paul
Tsuchiya, Lixia Zhang, the members of End-to-End Research Group and
the IPAE Working Group, and the participants in the big-internet and
sip mailing lists. He apologizes to those whose names he has not
explicitly listed. [If you want to be on the list in the next draft,
just let him know!]
Editor's note: Steve Deering was employed by the Xerox Palo Alto
Research Center in Palo Alto, CA USA when this work was done.
12. Informative References
[IPAE] Crocker, D. and R. Hinden, "IP Address Encapsulation
(IPAE): A Mechanism for Introducing a New IP", Work in
Progress, draft-crocker-ip-encaps-01, November 1992.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc791>.
[RFC792] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol", STD 5,
RFC 792, DOI 10.17487/RFC0792, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc792>.
[RFC950] Mogul, J. and J. Postel, "Internet Standard Subnetting
Procedure", STD 5, RFC 950, DOI 10.17487/RFC0950,
August 1985, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc950>.
[RFC951] Croft, W. and J. Gilmore, "Bootstrap Protocol", RFC 951,
DOI 10.17487/RFC0951, September 1985,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc951>.
[RFC1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC1112, August 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1112>.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1122>.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 23]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
[RFC1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1191>.
[RFC1256] Deering, S., Ed., "ICMP Router Discovery Messages",
RFC 1256, DOI 10.17487/RFC1256, September 1991,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1256>.
[RFC1661] Simpson, W., Ed., "The Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)",
STD 51, RFC 1661, DOI 10.17487/RFC1661, July 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1661>.
[RFC1710] Hinden, R., "Simple Internet Protocol Plus White Paper",
RFC 1710, DOI 10.17487/RFC1710, October 1994,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1710>.
[RFC1752] Bradner, S. and A. Mankin, "The Recommendation for the IP
Next Generation Protocol", RFC 1752, DOI 10.17487/RFC1752,
January 1995, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1752>.
[RFC1883] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, DOI 10.17487/RFC1883,
December 1995, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1883>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
[SIP-ADDR] Deering, S., "Simple Internet Protocol (SIP) Addressing
and Routing", Work in Progress, November 1992.
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 24]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
Appendix A. SIP Design Rationale
<this section still to be done>
Fields present in IPv4, but absent in SIP:
Header Length Not needed; SIP header length is fixed.
Precedence &
Type of Service Not used; transport-layer Port fields (or perhaps
a to-be-defined value in the Reserved field of the
SIP header) may be used for classifying packets at
a granularity finer than host-to-host, as required
for special handling.
Header Checksum Not used; transport pseudo-header checksum
protects destinations from accepting corrupted
packets.
Need to justify:
change of Total Length -> Payload Length, excluding header
change of Protocol -> Payload Type
change of Time to Live -> Hop Limit
movement of fragmentation fields out of fixed header
bigger minimum MTU, and reliance on PMTU Discovery
Appendix B. Future Directions
SIP as specified above is a fully functional replacement for IPv4,
with a number of improvements, particularly in the areas of
scalability of routing and addressing, and performance. Some
additional improvements are still under consideration:
o ARP may be modified to carry full 64-bit addresses, and to use
link-layer multicast addresses, rather than broadcast
addresses.
o The 28-bit Reserved field in the SIP header may be defined as
a "Flow ID", or partitioned into a Type of Service field and a
Flow ID field, for classifying packets deserving of special
handling, e.g., non-default quality of service or real-time
service. On the other hand, the transport-layer port fields
may be adequate for performing any such classification. (One
possibility would be simply to remove the port fields from TCP
& UDP and append them to the SIP header, as in XNS.)
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 25]
RFC 8507 Simple IP (SIP) December 2018
o A new ICMP "destination has moved" message may defined, for
re-routing to mobile hosts or subnets, and to domains that
have changed their address prefixes.
o An explicit Trace Route message or option may be defined; the
current IPv4 traceroute scheme will work fine with SIP, but it
does not work for multicast, for which it has become very
apparent that management and debugging tools are needed.
o A new Host-to-Router protocol may be specified, encompassing
the requirements of router discovery, black-hole detection,
auto- configuration of subnet prefixes, "beaconing" for mobile
hosts, and, possibly, address resolution. The OSI End System
To Intermediate System Protocol may serve as a good model for
such a protocol.
o The requirement that SIP addresses be strictly bound to
interfaces may be relaxed, so that, for example, a system
might have fewer addresses than interfaces. There is some
experience with this approach in the current Internet, with
the use of "unnumbered links" in routing protocols such as
OSPF.
o Authentication and integrity-assurance mechanisms for all
clients of SIP, including ICMP and IGMP, may be specified,
possibly based on the Secure Data Network System (SNDS) SP-3
or SP-4 protocol.
Authors' Addresses
Stephen E. Deering
Retired
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada
Robert M. Hinden (editor)
Check Point Software
959 Skyway Road
San Carlos, CA 94070
USA
Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com
Deering & Hinden Historic [Page 26]