One document matched: draft-richardson-ipsec-fragment-00.txt

Independent submission                                     M. Richardson
Internet-Draft                                                       SSW
Expires: May 14, 2004                                  November 14, 2003


    An interim solution to the Path MTU discovery problem for IPsec
                                gateways
                 draft-richardson-ipsec-fragment-00.txt

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://
   www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 14, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   Path MTU discovery depends upon proper respect for the Don't Fragment
   (DF) bit.  IPsec gateways often present an Maximum Transmission Unit
   (MTU) constraint, and therefore must send ICMP Fragment Needed
   messages when the DF bit is set.  This document proposes to ignore it
   in certain cases.









Richardson                Expires May 14, 2004                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                opportunistic                November 2003


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Heuristic  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1 Step 0 - selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.2 Step 1 - tracking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.3 Step 2 - size check  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.4 Step 3 - error throttling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.5 Step 4 - send  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Example  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7






































Richardson                Expires May 14, 2004                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                opportunistic                November 2003


1. Introduction

   Path MTU discovery [1] depends upon proper respect for the Don't
   Fragment (DF) bit.  IPsec gateways often present an Maximum
   Transmission Unit (MTU) constraint, and therefore must send ICMP
   Fragment Needed messages when the DF bit is set.

   At the same time, increasing numbers of firewalls and networks are
   misconfigured, and drop all ICMP messages.  For road-warriors that
   operate on an extruded IP address (i.e.  one from behind their
   security gateway, and route all traffic through the corporate
   firewall), they find that they can not reach certain sites.  When
   full size datagrams arrive at the VPN gateway with the DF bit set
   (such as from a web server's response), they are too big to enter the
   tunnel.  An ICMP is sent (rate limited) and the oversize datagram is
   discarded.  The ICMP is filtered out, and the sender never reduces
   its segment size.  The result is that the web site stalls.
   Ironically, this occurs more often for more efficient web servers, as
   they tend to fill the datagram more regularly.

   Although the site in question is misconfigured, the IPsec system is
   blamed, since the site "works fine" when the IPsec tunnel is removed.
   The result is that many IPsec security gateway vendors are resorting
   to ignoring the DF bit, and fragmenting the datagram anyway (either
   before encapsulation, or fragmenting the resulting ESP packet).

   To complicate the situation, the PMTUD WG, realizing the
   proliferation of misconfigured systems wrt ICMP, is going to propose
   a new method of determining the MTU.  The new method will not rely on
   ICMPs, but rather on occasionals probes.  This method requires that
   all systems respect the DF bit, otherwise the probes would be
   incorrect.  Further, for high speed networks, that employ larger TCP
   windows, the result of the fragmentation can cause TCP segments to
   become corrupted.  {ref please}

   This document proposes a heuristic for IPsec security gateways to
   observe such that they will interop with the both the current PMTU
   methods (given that ICMP is broken) and new mechanisms.













Richardson                Expires May 14, 2004                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                opportunistic                November 2003


2. Heuristic

   Summary: If the system is keeping per flow state, preferentially
   error packets that suddenly reach a new high-water mark for each
   particular flow, because they arelikely to be probes, or classic
   PMTUD.

   For systems that have per-flow [Host to Host] (Ed.  per-microflow -
   5-tuple?) tracking, step 1 is included.  Otherwise, it is skipped.

2.1 Step 0 - selection

   Is the datagram is too big for the tunnel, and has the DF bit set? If
   not, encapsulate as normal.

2.2 Step 1 - tracking

   Keep track of the largest datagram size received.  When there is a
   new high water mark, do standard ICMP Need Fragment processing.  If
   this is the first time the datagram was too big, then goto step 4.
   If not, then drop datagram.

2.3 Step 2 - size check

   Is the amount that the packet is too big exactly due to the tunnel
   overhead? (In particular, this would never apply when the media on
   both sides is dissimilar).  If not, do standard ICMP processing, and
   drop the datagram.

2.4 Step 3 - error throttling

   Does error rate limiting permit an ICMP error message be sent at this
   time? (rate limited to about 1 packet per second) If so, then do
   standard ICMP Need Fragment processing, and drop the datagram.

2.5 Step 4 - send

   Fragment the datagram prior to encapsulation.  Divide the datagram
   into two equal pieces and encapsulate each one seperately.  No
   attempt to send an ICMP is made.











Richardson                Expires May 14, 2004                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                opportunistic                November 2003


3. Example

   A 1500 packet to which a 20 byte IP and 28 byte ESP header is added,
   trying to fit on a 1500 byte network is fragmented anyway.

   A 9000 byte packet with a 20 byte IP and 28 byte ESP header trying to
   fit on a 1500 byte network is dropped.












































Richardson                Expires May 14, 2004                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                opportunistic                November 2003


Normative references

   [1]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
        November 1990.


Author's Address

   Michael C. Richardson
   Sandelman Software Works
   470 Dawson Avenue
   Ottawa, ON  K1Z 5V7
   CA

   EMail: mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
   URI:   http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/



































Richardson                Expires May 14, 2004                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                opportunistic                November 2003


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003).  All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION
   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.



















Richardson                Expires May 14, 2004                  [Page 7]