|
|
|
|
|
|
IETF RFC 9673
Last modified on Thursday, October 31st, 2024
 Permanent link to RFC 9673
 Search GitHub Wiki for RFC 9673
 Show other RFCs mentioning RFC 9673
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) R. Hinden
Request for Comments: 9673 Check Point Software
Updates: 8200 G. Fairhurst
Category: Standards Track University of Aberdeen
ISSN: 2070-1721 October 2024
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing Procedures
 Abstract
This document specifies procedures for processing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
options in IPv6 routers and hosts. It modifies the procedures
specified in the IPv6 Protocol Specification (RFC 8200) to make
processing of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header practical with the
goal of making IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options useful to deploy and use at
IPv6 routers and hosts. This document updates RFC 8200.
Status of This Memo
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
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). Further information on
Internet Standards is available in 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 9673.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 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 Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the
Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described
in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Requirements Language
3. Terminology
4. Background
5. Hop-by-Hop Header Processing Procedures
5.1. Processing the Extension Header Carrying Hop-by-Hop Options
5.1.1. Configuration Enabling Hop-by-Hop Header Processing
5.2. Hop-by-Hop Options Processing
5.2.1. Router Alert Option
5.2.2. Configuration of Hop-by-Hop Options Processing
6. Defining New Hop-by-Hop Options
6.1. Example of Robust Usage
7. IANA Considerations
8. Security Considerations
9. Normative References
10. Informative References
Acknowledgments
Authors' Addresses
1. Introduction
This document specifies procedures for processing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
options in IPv6 routers and hosts. It modifies the procedures
specified in the IPv6 Protocol Specification [RFC 8200] to make
processing of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header practical with the
goal of making IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options useful to deploy and use at
IPv6 routers and hosts.
An IPv6 packet includes Hop-by-Hop options by including a Hop-by-Hop
Options header. The current list of defined Hop-by-Hop options can
be found at [IANA-HBH]. The focus for this document is to set the
minimum requirements for router processing of Hop-by-Hop options. It
also discusses how Hop-by-Hop options are used by hosts. This
document does not propose a specific bound to the number or size of
Hop-by-Hop options that ought to be processed.
This document updates [RFC 8200].
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC 2119] [RFC 8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
3. Terminology
This document uses the following loosely defined terms:
Forwarding Plane: IPv6 routers exchange user or applications data
through the Forwarding Plane. Routers process fields contained in
IPv6 packet headers. However, they do not process information
contained in packet payloads.
Control Plane: IPv6 routers exchange control information through the
Control Plane. The Control Plane processes the management and
routing information exchanged with other routers.
Fast Path: A path through a router that is optimized for forwarding
packets. The Fast Path might be supported by Application-Specific
Integrated Circuits (ASICs), a Network Processor (NP), or other
special purpose hardware. This is the typical processing path
within a router taken by the Forwarding Plane.
Slow Path: A path through a router that is capable of general
purpose processing and is not optimized for any particular
function. This processing path is used for packets that require
special processing or that differ from assumptions made in Fast
Path heuristics or to process router control protocols used by the
Control Plane.
Full Forwarding Rate: The rate at which a router can forward packets
without adversely impacting the aggregate forwarding rate. For
example, a router could process packets with Hop-by-Hop options at
a rate that allows it to maintain the full speed on its outgoing
interfaces, which is sometimes called "wire speed".
Source: The node originating the packet.
NOTE: [RFC 6192] is an example of how designs can separate Control
Plane and Forwarding Plane functions. The separation between
hardware and software processing described in [RFC 6398] does not
apply to all router architectures. However, a router that performs
all or most processing in software might still incur more processing
cost when providing special processing for Hop-by-Hop options.
4. Background
In early versions of the IPv6 protocol specification [RFC 1883]
[RFC 2460], Hop-by-Hop options were required to be processed by all
nodes: routers and hosts. This proved to not be practical in current
high speed routers, as observed in Section 2.2 of [RFC 7045]: "it is
to be expected that high-performance routers will either ignore it or
assign packets containing it to a slow processing path". The reasons
behind this include the following:
* The inability to process Hop-by-Hop options at the Full Forwarding
Rate can result in issues. In some cases, Hop-by-Hop options
would be sent to the control/management components that run on the
Slow Path. This could degrade a router's performance and also its
ability to process critical control traffic, both of which could
be exploited as a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack against the
router.
* If a subset of packets within a flow includes Hop-by-Hop options,
it could lead to an increased number of reordered packets and
greater reordering distances for packets delivered to the
destination. Such reordering could occur if the Hop-by-Hop
Options header is included only in some packets or if a specific
Hop-by-Hop option results in different processing for some of the
packets within the flow. Significant reordering of packets within
a flow can negatively impact the performance of upper-layer
protocols and should therefore be avoided.
* Packets could include multiple Hop-by-Hop options. Too many
options could make the previous issues worse by increasing the
resources required to process them. The total size of the options
determines the number of header bytes that might need to be
processed. Measurements [Cus23a] show that the probability of
successful transmission across the public Internet is currently
higher for packets that include Options that result in a short
total Extension Header (EH) Chain size (i.e., less than 40 bytes).
[RFC 6564] specifies a uniform format for new IPv6 Extension Headers,
and this update was incorporated into Section 4.8 of [RFC 8200] (note
that [RFC 8200] obsoleted [RFC 2460]).
When the IPv6 protocol specification was updated and published in
July 2017 as [RFC 8200], the procedures relating to Hop-by-Hop options
were specified (paragraphs 5 and 6 of Section 4 of [RFC 8200]) as
follows:
| The Hop-by-Hop Options header is not inserted or deleted, but may
| be examined or processed by any node along a packet's delivery
| path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of
| nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination
| Address field of the IPv6 header. The Hop-by-Hop Options header,
| when present, must immediately follow the IPv6 header. Its
| presence is indicated by the value zero in the Next Header field
| of the IPv6 header.
|
| NOTE: While [RFC 2460] required that all nodes must examine and
| process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that
| nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the
| Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so.
The changes meant that an implementation complied with the IPv6
protocol specification even if it did not process Hop-by-Hop options
and that routers were expected to add configuration information to
control whether they process the Hop-by-Hop Options header. In
practice, routers may include configuration options to control which
Hop-by-Hop options they will process.
The text regarding the processing of Hop-by-Hop options in [RFC 8200]
was not intended to change the processing of these options. It
documented how they were being used in the Internet at the time RFC
8200 was published (see Appendix B of [RFC 8200]). This was a
constraint on publishing the IPv6 protocol specification as an IETF
Standard.
The main issues remain:
* Routers can be configured to drop transit packets containing Hop-
by-Hop Options that require processing by a processor that
implements the Control Plane. This could be done to protect
against a DoS attack on the router [RFC 9098] [RFC 9288].
* IPv6 packets that include a Hop-by-Hop Options header are dropped
by some Internet paths. A survey in 2015 reported a high loss
rate in transit Autonomous Systems (ASes) for packets that include
Hop-by-Hop options [RFC 7872]. The operational implications of
IPv6 packets that include Extension Headers are discussed in
[RFC 9098]. Measurements taken in 2023 confirm this to still be
the case for many types of network paths [Cus23b].
* Allowing multiple Hop-by-Hop options in a single packet in some
cases consumes more router resources to process these packets. It
also adds complexity to the number of permutations that might need
to be processed/configured.
* Including larger or multiple Hop-by-Hop options in a Hop-by-Hop
Options header increases the number of bytes that need to be
processed in forwarding, which in some designs can impact the cost
of processing a packet, and in turn could increase the probability
of drop [RFC 7872]. A larger Extension Header could also reduce
the probability of a router locating all the header bytes required
to successfully process an access control list operating on fields
after the Hop-by-Hop Options header.
* Any option that can be used to force packets into the processor
that implements the router's Control Plane can be exploited as a
DoS attack on a transit router by saturating the resources needed
for router management protocols (routing protocols, network
management protocols, etc.), which could cause adverse router
operation. This is an issue for the Router Alert Option
[RFC 2711], which intentionally forwards packets to the Control
Plane as discussed in [RFC 6398]. This impact could be mitigated
by limiting the use of Control Plane resources by a specific
packet and/or by using per-function rate-limiters for packets
processed by the Control Plane.
Section 3 of [RFC 6398] includes a summary of processing the IP Router
Alert Option:
| In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does not provide a
| convenient universal mechanism to accurately and reliably
| distinguish between IP Router Alert packets of interest and
| unwanted IP Router Alert packets. This, in turn, creates a
| security concern when the IP Router Alert Option is used, because,
| short of appropriate router-implementation-specific mechanisms,
| the router slow path is at risk of being flooded by unwanted
| traffic.
This is an example of the need to limit the resources that can be
consumed when a particular function is executed and to avoid
consuming Control Plane resources where support for a function has
not been configured.
There has been research that has discussed the general problem with
dropping packets containing IPv6 Extension Headers, including the
Hop-by-Hop Options header. For example, [Hendriks] states that
"Dropping all packets that contain Extension Headers is a bad
practice" and that "The share of traffic containing more than one EH
however, is very small. For the design of hardware able to handle
the dynamic nature of EHs, we therefore recommend to support at least
one EH". Operational aspects of the topics discussed in this section
are further discussed in [HBH].
"Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers" [RFC 7045]
clarifies how intermediate nodes should process Extension Headers.
This document is generally consistent with [RFC 7045] and addresses an
issue that was raised for discussion when [RFC 2460] was updated and
replaced by [RFC 8200]. This document updates [RFC 8200] as described
in the next section and consequently clarifies the description in
Section 2.2 of [RFC 7045], using the language of BCP 14 [RFC 2119]
[RFC 8174].
This document defines a set of procedures for the Hop-by-Hop Options
header that are intended to make the processing of Hop-by-Hop options
practical in modern routers. The common cases are that some Hop-by-
Hop options will be processed across the Internet, while others will
only be processed within a limited domain [RFC 8799] (e.g., where a
specific service is made available in that network segment that
relies on one or more Hop-by-Hop options).
5. Hop-by-Hop Header Processing Procedures
This section describes several changes to [RFC 8200]. Section 5.1
describes the processing of the Hop-by-Hop options Extension Header,
and Section 5.2 describes the processing of individual Hop-by-Hop
options. These sections update the text in paragraph 6 of Section 4
of [RFC 8200] and, as noted in Section 5.2, modify Section 4.2 of
[RFC 8200].
5.1. Processing the Extension Header Carrying Hop-by-Hop Options
When a packet includes one or more Extension Headers, the Next Header
field of the IPv6 Header identifies the type of Extension Header. It
does not identify the transport protocol.
The Extension Header used to carry Hop-by-Hop options is defined in
Section 4.3 of [RFC 8200] and is identified by a Next Header value of
0 in the IPv6 header. Section 4.1 of [RFC 8200] requires this Hop-by-
Hop Options header to appear immediately after the IPv6 header.
[RFC 8200] also requires that a Hop-by-Hop Options header only appear
at most once in a packet.
The Hop-by-Hop Options header as defined in [RFC 8200] can contain one
or more Hop-by-Hop options.
Routers that process the Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD do so using
the method defined in this document. Exceptions to this SHOULD
include routers that are configured to drop packets with a Hop-by-Hop
Options header to protect downstream devices that do not comply with
this specification (see [RFC 9288]).
Even if a router does not process the Hop-by-Hop Options header (for
example, when based on configuration), it MUST forward the packet
normally based on the remaining Extension Header(s) after the Hop-by-
Hop Options header. A router MUST NOT drop a packet solely because
it contains an Extension Header carrying Hop-by-Hop options. A
configuration could control whether normal processing skips any or
all of the Hop-by-Hop options carried in the Hop-by-Hop Options
header.
It is expected that the Hop-by-Hop Options header will be processed
by the destination(s). Hosts SHOULD process the Hop-by-Hop Options
header in received packets. A constrained host is an example of a
node that does not process the Hop-by-Hop Options header. If a
destination does not process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it MUST
process the remainder of the packet normally.
5.1.1. Configuration Enabling Hop-by-Hop Header Processing
Section 4 of [RFC 8200] allows a router to control its processing of
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options by local configuration. The text is:
| NOTE: While [RFC 2460] required that all nodes must examine and
| process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that
| nodes along the path only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop
| Options header if explicitly configured to do so.
This document clarifies that a configuration could control whether
processing skips any specific Hop-by-Hop options carried in the Hop-
by-Hop Options header. A router that does not process the contents
of the Hop-by-Hop Options header does not process any of the Option
Types contained in the Hop-by-Hop Options header.
5.2. Hop-by-Hop Options Processing
A Source creating packets with a Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD use
a method that is robust to network nodes selectively processing only
some of the Hop-by-Hop options that are included in the packet or
that forward packets without the option(s) being processed (see
Section 6.1). A Source MAY, based on local configuration, allow only
one Hop-by-Hop option to be included in a packet, or it could allow
more than one Hop-by-Hop option but limit their size to increase the
likelihood of successful transfer across a network path. Because
some routers might only process one or a limited number of options in
the Hop-by-Hop Options header, Sources are motivated to order the
placement of Hop-by-Hop options within the Hop-by-Hop Options header
in decreasing order of importance for their processing by nodes on
the path.
A router configuration needs to avoid vulnerabilities that arise when
it cannot process the first Hop-by-Hop option at the Full Forwarding
Rate. Therefore, a router SHOULD NOT be configured to process the
first Hop-by-Hop option if this adversely impacts the aggregate
forwarding rate. A router SHOULD process additional Hop-by-Hop
options, if configured to do so, providing that these also do not
adversely impact the aggregate forwarding rate.
If a router is unable to process a specific Hop-by-Hop option (or is
not configured to do so), it SHOULD behave in the same way specified
for an unrecognized Option Type when the action bits are set to "00",
and it SHOULD skip the remaining options using the "Hdr Ext Len"
field in the Hop-by-Hop Options header. This field specifies the
length of the Options Header in 8-octet units. After skipping an
option, the router continues processing the remaining options in the
header. Skipped options do not need to be verified.
The Router Alert Option [RFC 2711] is an exception to this because it
is designed to tell a router that the packet needs additional
processing, which is usually done in the Control Plane; see
Section 5.2.1.
Section 4.2 of [RFC 8200] defines the Option Type identifiers as
internally encoded such that their highest-order 2 bits specify the
action that must be taken if the processing IPv6 node does not
recognize the Option Type. The text is:
00 - skip over this option and continue processing the header.
01 - discard the packet.
10 - discard the packet and, regardless of whether or not the
packet's Destination Address was a multicast address,
send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 2, message to the
packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized
Option Type.
11 - discard the packet and, only if the packet's Destination
Address was not a multicast address, send an ICMP Parameter
Problem, Code 2, message to the packet's Source Address,
pointing to the unrecognized Option Type.
This document modifies this behavior for the "01", "10", and "11"
action bits so that if a router is unable to process a specific Hop-
by-Hop option (or is not configured to do so), it SHOULD behave in
the same way specified for an unrecognized Option Type when the
action bits are set to "00". It also modifies the behavior for
values "10" and "11" in the case where the packet is discarded and
the node MAY send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 2 [RFC 4443],
message to the packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized
Option Type.
The modified text for values "01", "10", and "11" is:
01 - MAY discard the packet, if so configured. Nodes should not
rely on routers dropping these unrecognized Option Types.
10 - MAY discard the packet, if so configured, regardless of
whether or not the packet's Destination Address was a
multicast address. If the packet was discarded, an ICMP
Parameter Problem, Code 2, message MAY be sent to the
packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized
Option Type.
11 - MAY discard the packet, if so configured. If the packet
was discarded and the packet's Destination Address was
not a multicast address, an ICMP Parameter Problem,
Code 2, message MAY be sent to the packet's Source
Address, pointing to the unrecognized Option Type.
When an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 2, message is delivered to the
Source, it indicates that at least one node on the path has failed to
recognize the option [RFC 4443]. Generating any ICMP message incurs
additional router processing. Reception of this message is not
guaranteed; routers might be unable to be configured so that they do
not generate these messages, and they are not always forwarded to the
Source. The motivation here is to loosen the requirement to send an
ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message when a router forwards a packet
without processing the list of all options.
5.2.1. Router Alert Option
The purpose of the Router Alert Option [RFC 2711] is to tell a router
that the packet needs additional processing in the Control Plane.
The Router Alert Option includes a two-octet Value field that
describes the protocol that is carried in the packet. The current
specified values can be found in the "IPv6 Router Alert Option
Values" IANA registry [IANA-RA].
DISCUSSION
The function of a Router Alert Option can result in the processing
that this specification is proposing to eliminate, that is,
instructing a router to process the packet in the Control Plane.
This processing causes concerns, which are discussed in Section 4.
One approach would be to deprecate this, because current usage
beyond the local network appears to be limited, and packets
containing Hop-by-Hop options are frequently dropped. Deprecation
would allow current implementations to continue, and its use could
be phased out over time.
The Router Alert Option could potentially be used with new
functions that have to be processed in the Control Plane. Keeping
this as the single exception for processing in the Control Plane
with the restrictions that follow is a reasonable compromise to
allow future flexibility. These restrictions are compatible with
Section 5 of [RFC 6398].
As noted in [RFC 6398], "Implementations of the IP Router Alert Option
SHOULD offer the configuration option to simply ignore the presence
of 'IP Router Alert' in IPv4 and IPv6 packets."
A node that is configured to process a Router Alert Option MUST
protect itself from an infrastructure attack that could result from
processing in the Control Plane. This might include some combination
of an access control list to only permit access from trusted nodes,
rate limiting of processing, or other methods [RFC 6398].
As specified in [RFC 2711], the top two bits of the Option Type for
the Router Alert Option are always set to "00", indicating that the
node should skip over this option as if it does not recognize the
Option Type and continue processing the header. An implementation
that does recognize the Router Alert Option SHOULD verify that the
Router Alert Option contains a protocol, as indicated by the Value
field in the Router Alert Option, that is configured as a protocol of
interest to that router. A verified packet SHOULD be sent to the
Control Plane for further processing [RFC 6398]. Otherwise, the
router implementation SHOULD forward this packet subject to all
normal policies and forwarding rules.
5.2.2. Configuration of Hop-by-Hop Options Processing
A router can be configured to process a specific Option. The set of
enabled options SHOULD be configurable by the operator of the router.
A possible approach to implementing this is to maintain a lookup
table based on an Option Type of the IPv6 options that can be
processed at the Full Forwarding Rate. This would allow a router to
quickly determine if an option is supported and can be processed. If
the option is not supported, then the router processes the option as
described in Section 5.1 of this document.
The actions of the lookup table should be configurable by the
operator of the router.
6. Defining New Hop-by-Hop Options
This section updates Section 4.8 of [RFC 8200].
Any future new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options should be designed to be
processed at the Full Forwarding Rate and should have the following
characteristics:
* New Hop-by-Hop options should be designed to ensure the router can
process the options at the Full Forwarding Rate. That is, they
should be simple to process.
* New Hop-by-Hop options should be defined with the Action type
(highest-order 2 bits of the Option Type) set to "00", which
enables skipping over this option and continuing with the
processing of the header if a router does not recognize the
option.
* The size of Hop-by-Hop options should not extend beyond what can
be expected to be executed at the Full Forwarding Rate. A larger
Hop-by-Hop Options header can increase the likelihood that a
packet will be dropped [Cus23b].
* New Hop-by-Hop options should be designed with the expectation
that a router might be configured to only process a subset of Hop-
by-Hop options (e.g., the first option) in the Hop-by-Hop Options
header.
* The design of protocols that use new Hop-by-Hop options should
consider that a router may drop packets containing the new Hop-by-
Hop option.
If a new Hop-by-Hop option does not meet these criteria, its
specification must include a detailed explanation why that is the
case and show that there is a reasonable expectation that the option
can still proceed at the Full Forwarding Rate. This is consistent
with [RFC 6564]. This is consistent with [RFC 6564].
The general issue of robust operation of packets with new Hop-by-Hop
options is described in Section 6.1.
6.1. Example of Robust Usage
Recent measurement surveys (e.g., [Cus23a]) show that packets that
include Extension Headers can cause the packets to be dropped by some
Internet paths. In a limited domain, routers can be configured or
updated to provide support for any required Hop-by-Hop options.
The primary motivation of this document is to make it more practical
to use Hop-by-Hop options beyond such a limited domain, with the
expectation that applications can improve the quality of or add new
features to their offered service when the path successfully forwards
packets with the required Hop-by-Hop options and otherwise refrains
from using these options. The focus is on incremental deployability.
A protocol feature (such as using Hop-by-Hop options) is
incrementally deployable if early adopters gain some benefit on the
paths being used, even though other paths do not support the protocol
feature. A Source ought to order the Hop-by-Hop options that are
carried in the Hop-by-Hop Options header in decreasing order of
importance for processing by nodes on the path.
Methods can be developed that do not rely upon all routers to
implement a specific Hop-by-Hop option (e.g., [RFC 9268]) and that are
robust when the current path drops packets that contain a Hop-by-Hop
option (e.g., [RFC 9098]).
For example, an application can be designed to first send a test
packet that includes the required option or combination of options
and then send other packets without including the option. The
application does not send additional packets that include this option
(or set of options) until the test packet(s) is acknowledged. The
need for potential loss recovery when a path drops these test packets
can be avoided by choosing packets that do not carry application data
that needs to be reliably delivered.
Since the set of nodes forming a path can change with time, this
discovery process ought to be repeated from time to time. The
process of sending packets both with and without a specific header to
discover whether a path can support a specific header is sometimes
called "racing". Transport protocol racing is explained in
[TAPS-ARCH], and A/B protocol feature testing is described in
[Tram17].
7. IANA Considerations
This document updates the processing of Hop-by-Hop options. IANA has
added this document as an additional reference for the "Destination
Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry in the "Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry group [IANA-HBH].
8. Security Considerations
Security issues caused by including IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options are well
known and have been documented in several places, including
[RFC 6398], [RFC 6192], [RFC 7045], and [RFC 9098]. The main issue, as
noted in Section 4, is that any mechanism that can be used to force
packets into the router's Control Plane or Slow Path can be exploited
as a DoS attack on a router by saturating the resources needed for
router management (routing protocols, network management protocols,
etc.), and this can cause the router to fail or perform suboptimally.
While Hop-by-Hop options are not required to be processed in the
Control Plane, the Router Alert Option is the one exception that is
designed to be processed in the Control Plane.
Some IPv6 nodes implement features that access more of the protocol
information than a typical IPv6 router (e.g., [RFC 9098]). Examples
are nodes that provide DoS mitigation, firewall/access control,
traffic engineering, or traffic normalization. These nodes could be
configured to drop packets when they are unable to access and process
all Extension Headers or are unable to locate and process the higher-
layer packet information. This document provides guidance on the
requirements concerning Hop-by-Hop options.
Finally, this document notes that Internet protocol processing needs
to be robust for malformed/malicious protocol fields. For example, a
packet with an excessive number of options could consume significant
resources; inclusion of a large Extension Header could potentially
cause an on-path router to be unable to utilize hardware
optimizations to process later headers (e.g., to perform equal cost
multipath forwarding or port filtering). This requirement is not
specific to Hop-by-Hop options. It is important that implementations
fail gracefully when a malformed or malicious Hop-by-Hop option is
encountered.
This document changes how the Hop-by-Hop Options header is processed,
which significantly reduces the attack surface. These changes
include the following:
* A router configuration needs to avoid vulnerabilities that arise
when it cannot process a Hop-by-Hop option at the Full Forwarding
Rate; therefore, it SHOULD NOT be configured to process the Hop-
by-Hop option if it adversely impacts the aggregate forwarding
rate. Instead, it SHOULD behave in the same way specified for an
unrecognized Option Type when the action bits are set to "00", as
specified in Section 5.2.
* This document adds criteria for the Router Alert Option
(Section 5.2.1) to allow control over how it is processed and
describes how a node configured to support these options must
protect itself from attacks by using the Router Alert Option.
* This document sets the expectation that if a packet includes a
Hop-by-Hop Options header, the packet will be forwarded across the
network path.
* A Source MAY include a single Hop-by-Hop option (based on local
configuration) or MAY be configured to include more Hop-by-Hop
options. The configuration of intermediate nodes determines
whether a node processes any of these options, and if so, which
ones and how many.
* This document adds guidance for the design of any future new Hop-
by-Hop option that reduces the computational requirements and
encourages a limit to their size.
The intent of this document is to highlight that these changes
significantly reduce the security issues relating to processing the
IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header and enable Hop-by-Hop options to be
safely used in the Internet.
9. Normative References
[IANA-HBH] IANA, "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/>.
[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>.
[RFC 8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8174>.
[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>.
10. Informative References
[Cus23a] Custura, A. and G. Fairhurst, "Internet Measurements: IPv6
Extension Header Edition", IEPG Meeting: IETF 116, March
2023, <http://www.iepg.org/2023-03-26-ietf116/eh.pdf>.
[Cus23b] Custura, A., Secchi, R., Boswell, E., and G. Fairhurst,
"Is it possible to extend IPv6?", Computer Communications,
vol. 214, pp. 90-99, DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2023.10.006,
January 2024,
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0140366423003705>.
[HBH] Peng, S., Li, Z., Xie, C., Qin, Z., and G. S. Mishra,
"Operational Issues with Processing of the Hop-by-Hop
Options Header", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ietf-v6ops-hbh-10, 16 February 2024,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-
hbh-10>.
[Hendriks] Hendriks, L., Velan, P., Schmidt, RO., Boer, P., and A.
Aiko, "Threats and Surprises behind IPv6 Extension
Headers", 2017 Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis
Conference (TMA), DOI 10.23919/TMA.2017.8002912, August
2017, <http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/tma/tma2017/
tma2017_paper22.pdf>.
[IANA-RA] IANA, "IPv6 Router Alert Option Values",
<https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-
values/>.
[RFC 1883] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, DOI 10.17487/RFC 1883,
December 1995, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 1883>.
[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 2711] Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC 2711, October 1999,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 2711>.
[RFC 4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC 4443, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 4443>.
[RFC 6192] Dugal, D., Pignataro, C., and R. Dunn, "Protecting the
Router Control Plane", RFC 6192, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6192,
March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6192>.
[RFC 6398] Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6398, October
2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6398>.
[RFC 6564] Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC 6564, April 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 6564>.
[RFC 7045] Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7045, December 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7045>.
[RFC 7872] Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
"Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
DOI 10.17487/RFC 7872, June 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 7872>.
[RFC 8799] Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC 8799, July 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 8799>.
[RFC 9098] Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston,
G., and W. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets
with Extension Headers", RFC 9098, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9098,
September 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9098>.
[RFC 9268] Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-
by-Hop Option", RFC 9268, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9268, August
2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9268>.
[RFC 9288] Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Recommendations on the Filtering of
IPv6 Packets Containing IPv6 Extension Headers at Transit
Routers", RFC 9288, DOI 10.17487/RFC 9288, August 2022,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/RFC 9288>.
[TAPS-ARCH]
Pauly, T., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., Brunstrom, A.,
Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins, "Architecture and
Requirements for Transport Services", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-taps-arch-19, 9 November 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-taps-
arch-19>.
[Tram17] Trammell, B., Kühlewind, M., De Vaere, P., Learmonth, I.,
and G. Fairhurst, "Tracking Transport-Layer Evolution with
PATHspider", ANRW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Applied
Networking Research Workshop, DOI 10.1145/3106328.3106336,
July 2017,
<https://irtf.org/anrw/2017/anrw17-final16.pdf>.
Acknowledgments
Helpful comments were received from Brian Carpenter, Ron Bonica, Ole
Troan, Mike Heard, Tom Herbert, Cheng Li, Éric Vyncke, Greg Mirsky,
Xiao Min, Fernando Gont, Darren Dukes, Peng Shuping, Dave Thaler, Ana
Custura, Tim Winters, Jingrong Xie, Lorenzo Colitti, Toerless Eckert,
Suresh Krishnan, Mikael Abrahamsson, Adrian Farrel, Jie Dong, Jen
Linkova, Erik Kline, and other members of the 6MAN Working Group.
Authors' Addresses
Robert M. Hinden
Check Point Software
100 Oracle Parkway, Suite 800
Redwood City, CA 94065
United States of America
Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com
Godred Fairhurst
University of Aberdeen
School of Engineering
Fraser Noble Building
Aberdeen
AB24 3UE
United Kingdom
Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
RFC TOTAL SIZE: 41510 bytes
PUBLICATION DATE: Thursday, October 31st, 2024
LEGAL RIGHTS: The IETF Trust (see BCP 78)
|
