|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 8304
Last modified on Thursday, February 8th, 2018
 Permanent link to RFC 8304
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 8304
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 8304
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) G. Fairhurst
Request for Comments: 8304 T. Jones
Category: Informational University of Aberdeen
ISSN: 2070-1721 February 2018
Transport Features of the User Datagram Protocol (UDP)
and Lightweight UDP (UDP-Lite)
 Abstract
This is an informational document that describes the transport
protocol interface primitives provided by the User Datagram Protocol
(UDP) and the Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) transport
protocols. It identifies the datagram services exposed to
applications and how an application can configure and use the
features offered by the Internet datagram transport service. RFC
8303 documents the usage of transport features provided by IETF
transport protocols, describing the way UDP, UDP-Lite, and other
transport protocols expose their services to applications and how an
application can configure and use the features that make up these
services. This document provides input to and context for that
document, as well as offers a road map to documentation that may help
users of the UDP and UDP-Lite protocols.
Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
published for informational purposes.
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Not all documents
approved by the IESG are a candidate 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/RFC 8304.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 1 
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 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. 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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. UDP and UDP-Lite Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Primitives Provided by UDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1.1. Excluded Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2. Primitives Provided by UDP-Lite . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Multicast Primitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1. Introduction
This document presents defined interactions between transport
protocols and applications in the form of 'primitives' (function
calls) for the User Datagram Protocol (UDP) [RFC 768] and the
Lightweight User Datagram Protocol (UDP-Lite) [RFC 3828]. In this
usage, the word application refers to any program built on the
datagram interface, including tunnels and other upper-layer protocols
that use UDP and UDP-Lite.
UDP is widely implemented and deployed. It is used for a wide range
of applications. A special class of applications can derive benefit
from having partially damaged payloads delivered, rather than
discarded, when using paths that include error-prone links.
Applications that can tolerate payload corruption can choose to use
UDP-Lite instead of UDP and use the application programming interface
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 2
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
(API) to control checksum protection. Conversely, UDP applications
could choose to use UDP-Lite, but this is currently less widely
deployed, and users could encounter paths that do not support
UDP-Lite. These topics are discussed more in Section 3.4 of "UDP
Usage Guidelines" [RFC 8085].
The IEEE standard API for TCP/IP applications is the "socket"
interface [POSIX]. An application can use the recv() and send()
POSIX functions as well as the recvfrom(), sendto(), recvmsg(), and
sendmsg() functions. The UDP and UDP-Lite sockets API differs from
that for TCP in several key ways. (Examples of usage of this API are
provided in [STEVENS].) In UDP and UDP-Lite, each datagram is a
self-contained message of a specified length, and options at the
transport layer can be used to set properties for all subsequent
datagrams sent using a socket or changed for each datagram. For
datagrams, this can require the application to use the API to set
IP-level information (IP Time To Live (TTL), Differentiated Services
Code Point (DSCP), IP fragmentation, etc.) for the datagrams it sends
and receives. In contrast, when using TCP and other connection-
oriented transports, the IP-level information normally either remains
the same for the duration of a connection or is controlled by the
transport protocol rather than the application.
Socket options are used in the sockets API to provide additional
functions. For example, the IP_RECVTTL socket option is used by some
UDP multicast applications to return the IP TTL field from the IP
header of a received datagram.
Some platforms also offer applications the ability to directly
assemble and transmit IP packets through "raw sockets" or similar
facilities. The raw sockets API is a second, more cumbersome, method
to send UDP datagrams. The use of this API is discussed in the RFC
series in the UDP Guidelines [RFC 8085].
The list of transport service features and primitives in this
document is strictly based on the parts of protocol specifications in
the RFC series that relate to what the transport protocol provides to
an application that uses it and how the application interacts with
the transport protocol. Primitives can be invoked by an application
or a transport protocol; the latter type is called an "event".
The description in Section 3 follows the methodology defined by the
IETF TAPS Working Group in [RFC 8303]. Specifically, this document
provides the first pass of this process, which discusses the relevant
RFC text describing primitives for each protocol. [RFC 8303] uses
this input to document the usage of transport features provided by
IETF transport protocols, describing the way UDP, UDP-Lite, and other
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 3
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
transport protocols expose their services to applications and how an
application can configure and use the features that make up these
services.
The presented road map to documentation of the transport interface
may also help developers working with UDP and UDP-Lite.
2. Terminology
This document provides details for the pass 1 analysis of UDP and
UDP-Lite that is used in "On the Usage of Transport Features Provided
by IETF Transport Protocols" [RFC 8303]. It uses common terminology
defined in that document and also quotes RFCs that use the
terminology of RFC 2119 [RFC 2119].
3. UDP and UDP-Lite Primitives
UDP [RFC 768] [RFC 8200] and UDP-Lite [RFC 3828] are IETF Standards
Track transport protocols. These protocols provide unidirectional,
datagram services, supporting transmit and receive operations that
preserve message boundaries.
This section summarizes the relevant text parts of the RFCs
describing the UDP and UDP-Lite protocols, focusing on what the
transport protocols provide to the application and how the transport
is used (based on abstract API descriptions, where they are
available). It describes how UDP is used with IPv4 or IPv6 to send
unicast or anycast datagrams and is used to send broadcast datagrams
for IPv4. A set of network-layer primitives required to use UDP or
UDP-Lite with IP multicast (for IPv4 and IPv6) have been specified in
the RFC series. Appendix A describes where to find documentation for
network-layer primitives required to use UDP or UDP-Lite with IP
multicast (for IPv4 and IPv6).
3.1. Primitives Provided by UDP
"User Datagram Protocol" [RFC 768] states:
This User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is defined to make available a
datagram mode of packet-switched computer communication in the
environment of an interconnected set of computer networks...This
protocol provides a procedure for application programs to send
messages to other programs with a minimum of protocol mechanism.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 4
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
The User Interface section of RFC 768 states that the user interface
to an application should allow
the creation of new receive ports, receive operations on the
receive ports that return the data octets and an indication of
source port and source address, and an operation that allows a
datagram to be sent, specifying the data, source and destination
ports and addresses to be sent.
UDP has been defined for IPv6 [RFC 8200], together with API extensions
for "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6" [RFC 3493].
[RFC 6935] and [RFC 6936] define an update to the UDP transport
originally specified in [RFC 2460] (note that RFC 2460 has been
obsoleted by RFC 8200). This enables use of a zero UDP checksum mode
with a tunnel protocol, providing that the method satisfies the
requirements in the corresponding applicability statement [RFC 6936].
UDP offers only a basic transport interface. UDP datagrams may be
directly sent and received, without exchanging messages between the
endpoints to set up a connection (i.e., no handshake is performed by
the transport protocol prior to communication). Using the sockets
API, applications can receive packets from more than one IP source
address on a single UDP socket. Common support allows specification
of the local IP address, destination IP address, local port, and
destination port values. Any or all of these can be indicated, with
defaults supplied by the local system when these are not specified.
The local endpoint address is set using the BIND call. At the remote
end, the remote endpoint address is set using the CONNECT call. The
CLOSE function has local significance only. It does not impact the
status of the remote endpoint.
Neither UDP nor UDP-Lite provide congestion control, retransmission,
or mechanisms for application-level packetization that would avoid IP
fragmentation and other transport functions. This means that
applications using UDP need to provide additional functions on top of
the UDP transport API [RFC 8085]. Some transport functions require
parameters to be passed through the API to control the network layer
(IPv4 or IPv6). These additional primitives could be considered a
part of the network layer (e.g., control of the setting of the Don't
Fragment (DF) flag on a transmitted IPv4 datagram) but are
nonetheless essential to allow a user of the UDP API to implement
functions that are normally associated with the transport layer (such
as probing for the path maximum transmission size). This document
includes such primitives.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 5
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
Guidance on the use of the services provided by UDP is provided in
the UDP Guidelines [RFC 8085]. This also states that
many operating systems also allow a UDP socket to be connected,
i.e., to bind a UDP socket to a specific pair of addresses and
ports. This is similar to the corresponding TCP sockets API
functionality. However, for UDP, this is only a local operation
that serves to simplify the local send/receive functions and to
filter the traffic for the specified addresses and ports. Binding
a UDP socket does not establish a connection -- UDP does not
notify the remote end when a local UDP socket is bound. Binding a
socket also allows configuring options that affect the UDP or IP
layers, for example, use of the UDP checksum or the IP Timestamp
option. On some stacks, a bound socket also allows an application
to be notified when ICMP error messages are received for its
transmissions [RFC 1122].
The POSIX Base Specifications [POSIX] define an API that offers
mechanisms for an application to receive asynchronous data events at
the socket layer. Calls such as "poll", "select", or "queue" allow
an application to be notified when data has arrived at a socket or
when a socket has flushed its buffers.
A callback-driven API to the network interface can be structured on
top of these calls. Implicit connection setup allows an application
to delegate connection life management to the transport API. The
transport API uses protocol primitives to offer the automated service
to the application via the sockets API. By combining UDP primitives
(CONNECT.UDP and SEND.UDP), a higher-level API could offer a similar
service.
The following datagram primitives are specified:
CONNECT: The CONNECT primitive allows the association of source and
destination port sets to a socket to enable creation of a
'connection' for UDP traffic. This UDP connection allows an
application to be notified of errors received from the network
stack and provides a shorthand access to the SEND and RECEIVE
primitives. Since UDP is itself connectionless, no datagrams are
sent because this primitive is executed. A further connect call
can be used to change the association.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 6
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
The roles of a client and a server are often not appropriate for
UDP, where connections can be peer-to-peer. The listening
functions are performed using one of the forms of the CONNECT
primitive:
1. bind(): A bind operation sets the local port either
implicitly, triggered by a "sendto" operation on an unbound
unconnected socket using an ephemeral port, or by an explicit
"bind" to use a configured or well-known port.
2. bind(); connect(): A bind operation that is followed by a
CONNECT primitive. The bind operation establishes the use of
a known local port for datagrams rather than using an
ephemeral port. The connect operation specifies a known
address port combination to be used by default for future
datagrams. This form either is used after receiving a
datagram from an endpoint that causes the creation of a
connection or can be triggered by a third-party configuration
or a protocol trigger (such as reception of a UDP Service
Description Protocol (SDP) [RFC 4566] record).
SEND: The SEND primitive hands over a provided number of bytes that
UDP should send to the other side of a UDP connection in a UDP
datagram. The primitive can be used by an application to directly
send datagrams to an endpoint defined by an address/port pair. If
a connection has been created, then the address/port pair is
inferred from the current connection for the socket. Connecting a
socket allows network errors to be returned to the application as
a notification on the SEND primitive. Messages passed to the SEND
primitive that cannot be sent atomically in an IP packet will not
be sent by the network layer, generating an error.
RECEIVE: The RECEIVE primitive allocates a receiving buffer to
accommodate a received datagram. The primitive returns the number
of bytes provided from a received UDP datagram. Section 4.1.3.5
of the requirements of Internet hosts [RFC 1122] states "When a UDP
datagram is received, its specific-destination address MUST be
passed up to the application layer."
CHECKSUM_ENABLED: The optional CHECKSUM_ENABLED primitive controls
whether a sender enables the UDP checksum when sending datagrams
[RFC 768] [RFC 6935] [RFC 6936] [RFC 8085]. When unset, this
overrides the default UDP behavior, disabling the checksum on
sending. Section 4.1.3.4 of the requirements for Internet hosts
[RFC 1122] states that "An application MAY optionally be able to
control whether a UDP checksum will be generated, but it MUST
default to checksumming on."
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 7
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
REQUIRE_CHECKSUM: The optional REQUIRE_CHECKSUM primitive determines
whether UDP datagrams received with a zero checksum are permitted
or discarded; UDP defaults to requiring checksums.
Section 4.1.3.4 of the requirements for Internet hosts [RFC 1122]
states that "An application MAY optionally be able to control
whether UDP datagrams without checksums should be discarded or
passed to the application." Section 3.1 of the specification for
UDP-Lite [RFC 3828] requires that the checksum field be non-zero;
hence, the UDP-Lite API must discard all datagrams received with a
zero checksum.
SET_IP_OPTIONS: The SET_IP_OPTIONS primitive requests the network
layer to send a datagram with the specified IP options.
Section 4.1.3.2 of the requirements for Internet hosts [RFC 1122]
states that an "application MUST be able to specify IP options to
be sent in its UDP datagrams, and UDP MUST pass these options to
the IP layer."
GET_IP_OPTIONS: The GET_IP_OPTIONS primitive retrieves the IP
options of a datagram received at the network layer.
Section 4.1.3.2 of the requirements for Internet hosts [RFC 1122]
states that a UDP receiver "MUST pass any IP option that it
receives from the IP layer transparently to the application
layer."
SET_DF: The SET_DF primitive allows the network layer to fragment
packets using the Fragment Offset in IPv4 [RFC 6864] and a host to
use Fragment Headers in IPv6 [RFC 8200]. The SET_DF primitive sets
the Don't Fragment (DF) flag in the IPv4 packet header that
carries a UDP datagram, which allows routers to fragment IPv4
packets. Although some specific applications rely on
fragmentation support, in general, a UDP application should
implement a method that avoids IP fragmentation (Section 4 of
[RFC 8085]). NOTE: In many other IETF transports (e.g., TCP and
the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP)), the transport
provides the support needed to use DF. However, when using UDP,
the application is responsible for the techniques needed to
discover the effective Path MTU (PMTU) allowed on the network
path, coordinating with the network layer. Classical Path MTU
Discovery (PMTUD) [RFC 1191] relies upon the network path returning
ICMP Fragmentation Needed or ICMPv6 Packet Too Big messages to the
sender. When these ICMP messages are not delivered (or filtered),
a sender is unable to learn the actual PMTU, and UDP datagrams
larger than the PMTU will be "black holed". To avoid this, an
application can instead implement Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery (PLPMTUD) [RFC 4821] that does not rely upon network
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 8
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
support for ICMPv6 messages and is therefore considered more
robust than standard PMTUD, as recommended in [RFC 8085] and
[RFC 8201].
GET_MMS_S: The GET_MMS_S primitive retrieves a network-layer value
that indicates the maximum message size (MMS) that may be sent at
the transport layer using a non-fragmented IP packet from the
configured interface. This value is specified in Section 6.1 of
[RFC 1191] and Section 5.1 of [RFC 8201]. It is calculated from
Effective MTU for Sending (EMTU_S) and the link MTU for the given
source IP address. This takes into account the size of the IP
header plus space reserved by the IP layer for additional headers
(if any). UDP applications should use this value as part of a
method to avoid sending UDP datagrams that would result in IP
packets that exceed the effective PMTU allowed across the network
path. The effective PMTU (specified in Section 1 of [RFC 1191]) is
equivalent to the EMTU_S (specified in [RFC 1122]). The
specification of PLPMTUD [RFC 4821] states:
If PLPMTUD updates the MTU for a particular path, all
Packetization Layer sessions that share the path representation
(as described in Section 5.2) SHOULD be notified to make use of
the new MTU and make the required congestion control
adjustments.
GET_MMS_R: The GET_MMS_R primitive retrieves a network-layer value
that indicates the MMS that may be received at the transport layer
from the configured interface. This value is specified in
Section 3.1 of [RFC 1191]. It is calculated from Effective MTU for
Receiving (EMTU_R) and the link MTU for the given source IP
address, and it takes into account the size of the IP header plus
space reserved by the IP layer for additional headers (if any).
SET_TTL: The SET_TTL primitive sets the Hop Limit (TTL field) in the
network layer that is used in the IPv4 header of a packet that
carries a UDP datagram. This is used to limit the scope of
unicast datagrams. Section 3.2.2.4 of the requirements for
Internet hosts [RFC 1122] states that "An incoming Time Exceeded
message MUST be passed to the transport layer."
GET_TTL: The GET_TTL primitive retrieves the value of the TTL field
in an IP packet received at the network layer. An application
using the Generalized TTL Security Mechanism (GTSM) [RFC 5082] can
use this information to trust datagrams with a TTL value within
the expected range, as described in Section 3 of RFC 5082.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 9
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
SET_MIN_TTL: The SET_MIN_TTL primitive restricts datagrams delivered
to the application to those received with an IP TTL value greater
than or equal to the passed parameter. This primitive can be used
to implement applications such as GTSM [RFC 5082] too, as described
in Section 3 of RFC 5082, but this RFC does not specify this
method.
SET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS: The SET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS primitive sets the
network-layer Hop Limit field in an IPv6 packet header [RFC 8200]
carrying a UDP datagram. For IPv6 unicast datagrams, this is
functionally equivalent to the SET_TTL IPv4 function.
GET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS: The GET_IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS primitive is a
network-layer function that reads the hop count in the IPv6 header
[RFC 8200] information of a received UDP datagram. This is
specified in Section 6.3 of RFC 3542. For IPv6 unicast datagrams,
this is functionally equivalent to the GET_TTL IPv4 function.
SET_DSCP: The SET_DSCP primitive is a network-layer function that
sets the DSCP (or the legacy Type of Service (ToS)) value
[RFC 2474] to be used in the field of an IP header of a packet that
carries a UDP datagram. Section 2.4 of the requirements for
Internet hosts [RFC 1123] states that "Applications MUST select
appropriate ToS values when they invoke transport layer services,
and these values MUST be configurable." The application should be
able to change the ToS during the connection lifetime, and the ToS
value should be passed to the IP layer unchanged. Section 4.1.4
of [RFC 1122] also states that on reception the "UDP MAY pass the
received ToS up to the application layer." The Diffserv model
[RFC 2475] [RFC 3260] replaces this field in the IP header assigning
the six most significant bits to carry the DSCP field [RFC 2474].
Preserving the intention of the host requirements [RFC 1122] to
allow the application to specify the "Type of Service" should be
interpreted to mean that an API should allow the application to
set the DSCP. Section 3.1.8 of the UDP Guidelines [RFC 8085]
describes the way UDP applications should use this field.
Normally, a UDP socket will assign a single DSCP value to all
datagrams in a flow, but a sender is allowed to use different DSCP
values for datagrams within the same flow in certain cases
[RFC 8085]. There are guidelines for WebRTC that illustrate this
use [RFC 7657].
SET_ECN: The SET_ECN primitive is a network-layer function that sets
the Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) field in the IP header
of a UDP datagram. The ECN field defaults to a value of 00. When
the use of the ToS field was redefined by Diffserv [RFC 3260], 2
bits of the field were assigned to support ECN [RFC 3168].
Section 3.1.5 of the UDP Guidelines [RFC 8085] describes the way
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 10
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
UDP applications should use this field. NOTE: In many other IETF
transports (e.g., TCP), the transport provides the support needed
to use ECN; when using UDP, the application or higher-layer
protocol is itself responsible for the techniques needed to use
ECN.
GET_ECN: The GET_ECN primitive is a network-layer function that
returns the value of the ECN field in the IP header of a received
UDP datagram. Section 3.1.5 of [RFC 8085] states that a UDP
receiver "MUST check the ECN field at the receiver for each UDP
datagram that it receives on this port", requiring the UDP
receiver API to pass the received ECN field up to the application
layer to enable appropriate congestion feedback.
ERROR_REPORT: The ERROR_REPORT event informs an application of "soft
errors", including the arrival of an ICMP or ICMPv6 error message.
Section 4.1.4 of the requirements for Internet hosts [RFC 1122]
states that "UDP MUST pass to the application layer all ICMP error
messages that it receives from the IP layer." For example, this
event is required to implement ICMP-based Path MTU Discovery
[RFC 1191] [RFC 8201]. UDP applications must perform a CONNECT to
receive ICMP errors.
CLOSE: The CLOSE primitive closes a connection. No further
datagrams can be sent or received. Since UDP is itself
connectionless, no datagrams are sent when this primitive is
executed.
3.1.1. Excluded Primitives
In the requirements for Internet hosts [RFC 1122], Section 3.4
describes GET_MAXSIZES and ADVISE_DELIVPROB, and Section 3.3.4.4
describes GET_SRCADDR. These mechanisms are no longer used. It also
specifies use of the Source Quench ICMP message, which has since been
deprecated [RFC 6633].
The IPV6_V6ONLY function is a network-layer primitive that applies to
all transport services, as defined in Section 5.3 of the basic socket
interface for IPv6 [RFC 3493]. This restricts the use of information
from the name resolver to only allow communication of AF_INET6
sockets to use IPv6 only. This is not considered part of the
transport service.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 11
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
3.2. Primitives Provided by UDP-Lite
UDP-Lite [RFC 3828] provides similar services to UDP. It changed the
semantics of the UDP "payload length" field to that of a "checksum
coverage length" field. UDP-Lite requires the pseudo-header checksum
to be computed at the sender and checked at a receiver. Apart from
the length and coverage changes, UDP-Lite is semantically identical
to UDP.
The sending interface of UDP-Lite differs from that of UDP by the
addition of a single (socket) option that communicates the checksum
coverage length. This specifies the intended checksum coverage, with
the remaining unprotected part of the payload called the "error-
insensitive part".
The receiving interface of UDP-Lite differs from that of UDP by the
addition of a single (socket) option that specifies the minimum
acceptable checksum coverage. The UDP-Lite Management Information
Base (MIB) [RFC 5097] further defines the checksum coverage method.
Guidance on the use of services provided by UDP-Lite is provided in
the UDP Guidelines [RFC 8085].
UDP-Lite requires use of the UDP or UDP-Lite checksum; hence, it is
not permitted to use the DISABLE_CHECKSUM function to disable use of
a checksum, nor is it possible to disable receiver checksum
processing using the REQUIRE_CHECKSUM function. All other primitives
and functions for UDP are permitted.
In addition, the following are defined:
SET_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE: The SET_CHECKSUM_COVERAGE primitive sets the
coverage area for a sent datagram. UDP-Lite traffic uses this
primitive to set the coverage length provided by the UDP checksum.
Section 3.3 of the UDP-Lite specification [RFC 3828] states that
"Applications that wish to define the payload as partially
insensitive to bit errors...should do this by an explicit system
call on the sender side." The default is to provide the same
coverage as for UDP.
SET_MIN_COVERAGE: The SET_MIN_COVERAGE primitive sets the minimum
acceptable coverage protection for received datagrams. UDP-Lite
traffic uses this primitive to set the coverage length that is
checked on receive. (Section 1.1 of [RFC 5097] describes the
corresponding MIB entry as udpliteEndpointMinCoverage.)
Section 3.3 of the UDP-Lite specification [RFC 3828] states that
"Applications that wish to receive payloads that were only
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 12
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
partially covered by a checksum should inform the receiving system
by an explicit system call." The default is to require only
minimal coverage of the datagram payload.
4. IANA Considerations
This document does not require any IANA actions.
5. Security Considerations
Security considerations for the use of UDP and UDP-Lite are provided
in the referenced RFCs. Security guidance for application usage is
provided in the UDP Guidelines [RFC 8085].
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC 768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol", STD 6, RFC 768,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 768, August 1980,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 768>.
[RFC 1112] Deering, S., "Host extensions for IP multicasting", STD 5,
RFC 1112, DOI 10.17487/RFC 1112, August 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1112>.
[RFC 1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 1122, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1122>.
[RFC 1123] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts -
Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 1123, October 1989,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1123>.
[RFC 1191] Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 1191, November 1990,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1191>.
[RFC 2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2119>.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 13
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
[RFC 3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3168, September 2001,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3168>.
[RFC 3493] Gilligan, R., Thomson, S., Bound, J., McCann, J., and W.
Stevens, "Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6",
RFC 3493, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3493, February 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3493>.
[RFC 3828] Larzon, L-A., Degermark, M., Pink, S., Jonsson, L-E., Ed.,
and G. Fairhurst, Ed., "The Lightweight User Datagram
Protocol (UDP-Lite)", RFC 3828, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3828, July
2004, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3828>.
[RFC 6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field",
RFC 6864, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6864, February 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6864>.
[RFC 6935] Eubanks, M., Chimento, P., and M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and
UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets", RFC 6935,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 6935, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6935>.
[RFC 6936] Fairhurst, G. and M. Westerlund, "Applicability Statement
for the Use of IPv6 UDP Datagrams with Zero Checksums",
RFC 6936, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6936, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6936>.
[RFC 8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8085,
March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8085>.
[RFC 8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8200>.
[RFC 8201] McCann, J., Deering, S., Mogul, J., and R. Hinden, Ed.,
"Path MTU Discovery for IP version 6", STD 87, RFC 8201,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 8201, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8201>.
[RFC 8303] Welzl, M., Tuexen, M., and N. Khademi, "On the Usage of
Transport Features Provided by IETF Transport Protocols",
RFC 8303, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8303, February 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8303>.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 14
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
6.2. Informative References
[POSIX] IEEE, "Standard for Information Technology - Portable
Operating System Interface (POSIX(R)) Base
Specifications", Issue 7, IEEE 1003.1,
<http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7582338/>.
[RFC 2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2460,
December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2460>.
[RFC 2474] Nichols, K., Blake, S., Baker, F., and D. Black,
"Definition of the Differentiated Services Field (DS
Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers", RFC 2474,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 2474, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2474>.
[RFC 2475] Blake, S., Black, D., Carlson, M., Davies, E., Wang, Z.,
and W. Weiss, "An Architecture for Differentiated
Services", RFC 2475, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2475, December 1998,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2475>.
[RFC 3260] Grossman, D., "New Terminology and Clarifications for
Diffserv", RFC 3260, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3260, April 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3260>.
[RFC 3376] Cain, B., Deering, S., Kouvelas, I., Fenner, B., and A.
Thyagarajan, "Internet Group Management Protocol, Version
3", RFC 3376, DOI 10.17487/RFC 3376, October 2002,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3376>.
[RFC 3678] Thaler, D., Fenner, B., and B. Quinn, "Socket Interface
Extensions for Multicast Source Filters", RFC 3678,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3678, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3678>.
[RFC 3810] Vida, R., Ed. and L. Costa, Ed., "Multicast Listener
Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6", RFC 3810,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 3810, June 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 3810>.
[RFC 4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4566,
July 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4566>.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 15
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
[RFC 4604] Holbrook, H., Cain, B., and B. Haberman, "Using Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) for Source-
Specific Multicast", RFC 4604, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4604,
August 2006, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4604>.
[RFC 4821] Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
Discovery", RFC 4821, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4821, March 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4821>.
[RFC 5082] Gill, V., Heasley, J., Meyer, D., Savola, P., Ed., and C.
Pignataro, "The Generalized TTL Security Mechanism
(GTSM)", RFC 5082, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5082, October 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5082>.
[RFC 5097] Renker, G. and G. Fairhurst, "MIB for the UDP-Lite
protocol", RFC 5097, DOI 10.17487/RFC 5097, January 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5097>.
[RFC 5790] Liu, H., Cao, W., and H. Asaeda, "Lightweight Internet
Group Management Protocol Version 3 (IGMPv3) and Multicast
Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) Protocols", RFC 5790,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 5790, February 2010,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 5790>.
[RFC 6633] Gont, F., "Deprecation of ICMP Source Quench Messages",
RFC 6633, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6633, May 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6633>.
[RFC 7657] Black, D., Ed. and P. Jones, "Differentiated Services
(Diffserv) and Real-Time Communication", RFC 7657,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7657, November 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7657>.
[STEVENS] Stevens, W., Fenner, B., and A. Rudoff, "UNIX Network
Programming, The sockets Networking API", Volume 1,
ISBN-13: 9780131411555, October 2003.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 16
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
Appendix A. Multicast Primitives
This appendix describes primitives that are used when UDP and
UDP-Lite support IPv4/IPv6 multicast. Multicast services are not
considered by the IETF TAPS WG, but the currently specified
primitives are included for completeness in this appendix. Guidance
on the use of UDP and UDP-Lite for multicast services is provided in
the UDP Guidelines [RFC 8085].
IP multicast may be supported by using the Any Source Multicast (ASM)
model or the Source-Specific Multicast (SSM) model. The latter
requires use of a Multicast Source Filter (MSF) when specifying an IP
multicast group destination address.
Use of multicast requires additional primitives at the transport API
that need to be called to coordinate operation of the IPv4 and IPv6
network-layer protocols. For example, to receive datagrams sent to a
group, an endpoint must first become a member of a multicast group at
the network layer. Local multicast reception is signaled for IPv4 by
the Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) [RFC 3376] [RFC 4604].
IPv6 uses the equivalent Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) protocol
[RFC 3810] [RFC 5790], carried over ICMPv6. A lightweight version of
these protocols has also been specified [RFC 5790].
The following are defined:
JoinHostGroup: Section 7.1 of "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting"
[RFC 1112] provides a function that allows receiving traffic from
an IP multicast group.
JoinLocalGroup: Section 7.3 of "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting"
[RFC 1112] provides a function that allows receiving traffic from a
local IP multicast group.
LeaveHostGroup: Section 7.1 of "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting"
[RFC 1112] provides a function that allows leaving an IP multicast
group.
LeaveLocalGroup: Section 7.3 of "Host Extensions for IP
Multicasting" [RFC 1112] provides a function that allows leaving a
local IP multicast group.
IPV6_MULTICAST_IF: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC 3493] states that this sets the interface that will be
used for outgoing multicast packets.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 17
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
IP_MULTICAST_TTL: This sets the time-to-live field t to use for
outgoing IPv4 multicast packets. This is used to limit the scope
of multicast datagrams. Methods such as "The Generalized TTL
Security Mechanism (GTSM)" [RFC 5082] set this value to ensure
link-local transmission. GTSM also requires the UDP receiver API
to pass the received value of this field to the application.
IPV6_MULTICAST_HOPS: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC 3493] states that this sets the hop count to use for
outgoing multicast IPv6 packets. (This is equivalent to
IP_MULTICAST_TTL used for IPv4 multicast.)
IPV6_MULTICAST_LOOP: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC 3493] states that this sets whether a copy of a datagram
is looped back by the IP layer for local delivery when the
datagram is sent to a group to which the sending host itself
belongs).
IPV6_JOIN_GROUP: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for IPv6
[RFC 3493] provides a function that allows an endpoint to join an
IPv6 multicast group.
SIOCGIPMSFILTER: Section 8.1 of the socket interface for MSF
[RFC 3678] provides a function that allows reading the multicast
source filters.
SIOCSIPMSFILTER: Section 8.1 of the socket interface for MSF
[RFC 3678] provides a function that allows setting/modifying the
multicast source filters.
IPV6_LEAVE_GROUP: Section 5.2 of the basic socket extensions for
IPv6 [RFC 3493] provides a function that allows leaving an IPv6
multicast group.
The socket interface extensions for MSF [RFC 3678] updates the
multicast interface to add support for MSF for IPv4 and IPv6 required
by IGMPv3. Section 3 defines both basic and advanced APIs, and
Section 5 describes protocol-independent versions of these APIs.
Four sets of API functionality are therefore defined:
1. IPv4 Basic (Delta-based) API. "Each function call specifies a
single source address which should be added to or removed from
the existing filter for a given multicast group address on which
to listen."
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 18
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
2. IPv4 Advanced (Full-state) API. "This API allows an application
to define a complete source-filter comprised of zero or more
source addresses, and replace the previous filter with a new
one."
3. Protocol-Independent Basic MSF (Delta-based) API.
4. Protocol-Independent Advanced MSF (Full-state) API.
It specifies the following primitives:
IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to join an ASM group.
IP_BLOCK_SOURCE: This MSF can block data from a given multicast
source to a given ASM or SSM group.
IP_UNBLOCK_SOURCE: This updates an MSF to undo a previous call to
IP_UNBLOCK_SOURCE for an ASM or SSM group.
IP_DROP_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to leave an ASM or SSM group. (In
SSM, this drops all sources that have been joined for a
particular group and interface. The operations are the same as
if the socket had been closed.)
Section 4.1.2 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC 3678] updates the
interface to add IPv4 MSF support to IGMPv3 using ASM:
IP_ADD_SOURCE_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to join an SSM group.
IP_DROP_SOURCE_MEMBERSHIP: This is used to leave an SSM group.
Section 4.2 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC 3678] defines the
Advanced (Full-state) API:
setipv4sourcefilter: This is used to join an IPv4 multicast group or
to enable multicast from a specified source.
getipv4sourcefilter: This is used to leave an IPv4 multicast group
or to filter multicast from a specified source.
Section 5.1 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC 3678] specifies
Protocol-Independent Multicast API functions:
MCAST_JOIN_GROUP: This is used to join an ASM group.
MCAST_JOIN_SOURCE_GROUP: This is used to join an SSM group.
MCAST_BLOCK_SOURCE: This is used to block a source in an ASM group.
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 19
RFC 8304 UDP Transport Features February 2018
MCAST_UNBLOCK_SOURCE: This removes a previous MSF set by
MCAST_BLOCK_SOURCE.
MCAST_LEAVE_GROUP: This leaves an ASM or SSM group.
MCAST_LEAVE_SOURCE_GROUP: This leaves an SSM group.
Section 5.2 of the socket interface for MSF [RFC 3678] specifies the
Protocol-Independent Advanced MSF (Full-state) API applicable for
both IPv4 and IPv6:
setsourcefilter: This is used to join an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast
group or to enable multicast from a specified source.
getsourcefilter: This is used to leave an IPv4 or IPv6 multicast
group or to filter multicast from a specified source.
The Lightweight IGMPv3 (LW_IGMPv3) and MLDv2 protocol [RFC 5790]
updates this interface (in Section 7.2 of RFC 5790).
Acknowledgements
This work was partially funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 644334
(NEAT). Thanks to all who have commented or contributed, including
Joe Touch, Ted Hardie, Aaron Falk, Tommy Pauly, and Francis Dupont.
Authors' Addresses
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Fraser Noble Building Aberdeen AB24 3UE
United Kingdom
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Tom Jones
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen AB24 3UE
United Kingdom
Email: tom@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Fairhurst & Jones Informational PAGE 20
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 49343 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, February 8th, 2018
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
