One document matched: draft-generic-6man-tunfrag-05.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<?rfc strict='yes'?>
<?rfc iprnotified='no'?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-generic-6man-tunfrag-05.txt"
ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="IPv6 Path MTU Updates">IPv6 Path MTU Updates</title>
<author fullname="Fred L. Templin" initials="F. L." role="editor"
surname="Templin">
<organization>Boeing Research & Technology</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>P.O. Box 3707</street>
<city>Seattle</city>
<region>WA</region>
<code>98124</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<email>fltemplin@acm.org</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="13" month="July" year="2012" />
<keyword>I-D</keyword>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>IPv6 intentionally deprecates fragmentation by routers in the
network. Instead, links with restricting MTUs must either drop each
too-large packet and return an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) message or
perform link-specific fragmentation and reassembly (also known as "link
adaptation") at a layer below IPv6. This latter category of links is
often performance-challenged to accommodate steady-state link
adaptation. A common case that exhibits these link characteristics is
seen for IPv6-within-IP tunnels. Additionally, IPv6 nodes can avoid path
MTU discovery issues even when no link adaptation is necessary by
performing a small amount of fragmentation and/or by probing the path as
necessary. This document therefore proposes an update to the base IPv6
specification to better accommodate path MTU issues.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>IPv6 intentionally deprecates fragmentation by routers in the
network. Instead, links with restricting MTUs must either drop each
too-large packet and return an ICMPv6 Packet Too Big (PTB) message or
perform link-specific fragmentation and reassembly (also known as "link
adaptation") at a layer below IPv6. This latter category of links is
often performance-challenged to accommodate steady-state link
adaptation. A common case that exhibits these link characteristics is
seen for IPv6-within-IP tunnels <xref
target="I-D.generic-v6ops-tunmtu"></xref>. Additionally, IPv6 nodes can
avoid path MTU discovery issues even when no link adapation is necessary
by performing a small amount of fragmentation and/or by probing the path
as necessary. This document therefore proposes an update to the base
IPv6 specification to better accommodate path MTU issues.</t>
</section>
<section title="Problem Statement">
<t>The current "Internet cell size" is effectively 1500 bytes, i.e., the
minimum MTU configured by the vast majority of links in the Internet.
IPv6 constrains this even further by specifying a minimum link MTU of
1280 bytes <xref target="RFC2460"></xref>. However, due to operational
issues with Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) <xref target="RFC1981"></xref>
these sizes can often only be accommodated when links with smaller
link-layer segment sizes are permitted to perform link adaptation. A
common example of such links is seen for IPv6-within-IP tunnels.</t>
<t>Unfortunately, link adaptation can present a significant burden to
the link endpoints, i.e., especially when the link supports high data
rates and/or is located nearer the "middle" of the network instead of
nearer the "edge". An alternative therefore is to ask the originating
IPv6 node to perform fragmentation for the packets it sends, in which
case reassembly would be performed by the final destination.</t>
<t>In addition to the above considerations, it is becoming more and more
evident that PMTUD uncertainties can be encountered even when there are
no tunnels nor other links in the path that must perform link
adaptation. This is due to the fact that the PTB messages required for
PMTUD can be lost due to network filters that block ICMPv6 messages
<xref target="RFC2923"></xref><xref target="WAND"></xref><xref
target="SIGCOMM"></xref>. Originating IPv6 node are therefore advised to
take precautions to avoid path MTU related failure modes.</t>
<t>This document updates the IPv6 protocol specification <xref
target="RFC2460"></xref> to better accommodate paths with various MTUs
as described in the following sections.</t>
</section>
<section title="Considerations for Small MTU Paths">
<t>Section 5 of <xref target="RFC2460"></xref> states:</t>
<t>"IPv6 requires that every link in the internet have an MTU of 1280
octets or greater. On any link that cannot convey a 1280-octet packet in
one piece, link-specific fragmentation and reassembly must be provided
at a layer below IPv6."</t>
<t>This document does not propose to change this requirement, but notes
that link adaptation can be burdensome for some links (e.g.,
IPv6-within-IP tunnels) to the point that it would be highly desirable
to push the fragmentation and reassembly responsibility to the IPv6
communication endpoints. In order to accommodate this, when the router
at the link ingress performs link adaptation on a packet it should also
send an ICMPv6 PTB message back to the original source (subject to rate
limiting) with a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280 and with a Code field set
to 1 <xref target="RFC4443"></xref>. (Note that these PTB messages are
advisory in nature and do not necessarily indicate packet loss.)</t>
<t>As a result, the originating IPv6 node may receive this "new kind" of
PTB message and should modify its behavior accordingly. This is
accomplished by modifying the final paragraph of Section 5 of <xref
target="RFC2460"></xref> as follows:</t>
<t>"In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to a destination located
beyond an IPv6-within-IP tunnel or an IPv6 link that must perform link
adaptation, the originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big
message reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280 and with Code=1. In that
case, the IPv6 node is not required to reduce the size of subsequent
packets to less than 1500, but must perform IPv6 fragmentation on those
packets using the Next-Hop MTU as the maximum fragment size. These
fragments will be reassembled by the destination."</t>
<t>An example tunnel protocol that invokes this behavior appears in:
<xref target="I-D.templin-intarea-seal"></xref>.</t>
<section title="Accommodating Legacy Nodes">
<t>Legacy IPv6 nodes observe the current final paragraph of Section 5
of <xref target="RFC2460"></xref>:</t>
<t>"In response to an IPv6 packet that is sent to an IPv4 destination
(i.e., a packet that undergoes translation from IPv6 to IPv4), the
originating IPv6 node may receive an ICMP Packet Too Big message
reporting a Next-Hop MTU less than 1280. In that case, the IPv6 node
is not required to reduce the size of subsequent packets to less than
1280, but must include a Fragment header in those packets so that the
IPv6-to-IPv4 translating router can obtain a suitable Identification
value to use in resulting IPv4 fragments. Note that this means the
payload may have to be reduced to 1232 octets (1280 minus 40 for the
IPv6 header and 8 for the Fragment header), and smaller still if
additional extension headers are used."</t>
<t>For those nodes, the receipt of a PTB message with a Next-Hop MTU
less than 1280 will result in the above behavior regardless of the
value in the Code field. As a result, an IPv6 link that returns this
new kind of PTB message may receive future packets up to 1280 bytes in
length and containing a Fragment header with MF=0 and Offest=0. The
link should process these packets as an indication that the
originating IPv6 node is a legacy node, and should not send further
PTB messages.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Considerations for Medium MTU Paths">
<t>Regardless of whether there is a link in the path that performs link
adaptation, when an originating IPv6 node receives a PTB message
reporting a Next-Hop MTU value between 1280 and 1500 bytes, the node
need not reduce the size of the packets it sends but may instead invoke
fragmentation for packets up to 1500 bytes using a maximum fragment size
of 1280 bytes. These fragments will again be reassembled by the final
destination.</t>
<t>A more interesting situation arises when PTB messages are lost on the
return path to the originating IPv6 node. Since the node has no way of
discerning which paths may exhibit this condition, it may be better
served to assume the worst case for all paths and take precautionary
measures to avoid silent packet loss.</t>
<t>In one approach, an originating IPv6 node that wishes to ensure that
packets between 1281 and 1500 bytes in length will reach the destination
can use "proactive fragmentation" to fragment the packets into two
pieces that are no larger than 1280 bytes. In a second approach, the
node can use Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery (PLPMTUD) <xref
target="RFC4821"></xref> without fragmentation to verify that packets
larger than 1280 bytes are reaching the final destination.</t>
</section>
<section title="Considerations for Large MTU Paths">
<t>An originating IPv6 node connected to a link that supports an MTU of
1500 bytes or larger is permitted to send packets larger than 1500 bytes
without fragmentation, but should implement <xref
target="RFC4821"></xref> to verify that these larger packets are
reaching the final destination.</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>There are no IANA considerations for this document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>The security considerations for <xref target="RFC2460"></xref> apply
also to this document.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="acknowledge" title="Acknowledgments">
<t>This method was inspired through discussion on the IETF v6ops and
NANOG mailing lists in the May through July 2012 timeframe.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2460"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4443"?>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.templin-intarea-seal"?>
<?rfc include="reference.I-D.generic-v6ops-tunmtu"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.4821"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.1981"?>
<?rfc include="reference.RFC.2923"?>
<reference anchor="WAND">
<front>
<title>Inferring and Debugging Path MTU Discovery Failures</title>
<author fullname="Matthew Luckie" initials="M" surname="Luckie">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Kenjiro Cho" initials="K" surname="Cho">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Bill Owens" initials="B" surname="Owens">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="October" year="2005" />
</front>
</reference>
<reference anchor="SIGCOMM">
<front>
<title>Measuring Path MTU Discovery Behavior</title>
<author fullname="Matthew Luckie" initials="M" surname="Luckie">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<author fullname="Ben Stasiewicz" initials="B" surname="Stasiewicz">
<organization></organization>
</author>
<date month="November" year="2010" />
</front>
</reference>
</references>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 08:19:35 |