Network Working Group W. Eddy
Internet-Draft NASA GRC/Verizon FNS
Expires: January 2, 2009 A. Langley
Google Inc
July 1, 2008
Extending the Space Available for TCP Options
draft-eddy-tcp-loo-04
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
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 January 2, 2009.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
Abstract
This document describes a method for increasing the space available
for TCP options. Two new TCP options (LO and SLO) are detailed which
reduce the limitations imposed by the TCP header's Data Offset field.
The LO option provides this extension after connection establishment,
and the SLO option aids in transmission of lengthy connection
initialization and configuration options.
Table of Contents
1. Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The Long Options (LO) Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. The SYN Long Options (SLO) Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Middlebox Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Comparison to Extended Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix A. Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 18
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
1. Requirements Notation
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
2. Introduction
Every TCP segment's header contains a 4-bit Data Offset (DO) field
that implies the length of that segment's TCP header. The DO field
has been specified as: "The number of 32-bit words in the TCP Header.
This indicates where the data begins. The TCP header (even one
including options) is an integral number of 32 bits long" [RFC0793].
For a TCP implementation, this means that the boundary separating TCP
control data and application data is always exactly DO * 4 bytes from
the beginning of the TCP header.
As a 4-bit unsigned integer, DO's value is bounded between 0 and 15.
This allows for a maximum TCP header length of 60 bytes (15 * 4
bytes). The required fields in a TCP header occupy a fixed 20 bytes,
leaving 40 bytes as the maximum amount of space for use by TCP
options.
While 40 bytes is a reasonable amount of space, sufficient for the
concurrent use of several presently defined TCP options, there are
cases where more space might be useful. For example, the Selective
Acknowledgement (SACK) option [RFC2018] uses a fixed 2 bytes for its
kind and length fields, and requires an additional 8 bytes per SACK
block. Thus, the maximum number of SACK blocks a TCP acknowledgement
may carry is limited to 4 (with 6 bytes left over). Since SACK is
commonly used with the Timestamp option [RFC1323], which uses 10
bytes, this further limits the number of SACK blocks that may be
carried to 3. For specific scenarios involving large windows and
combinations of data and acknowledgement loss, additional capacity
for SACK blocks is known to be useful [more-sack].
Creation of new TCP options is also hindered by the lack of space
left over after currently-used options are accounted for. For long
options that must be present at connection-startup time, this is a
particular problem, as all negotiable options need to share 40 bytes
of space in a SYN segment. One method that has been used to get
around this limitation is overloading the Timestamp bytes in the SYN
segments [migrate]. There are other header fields that might be
similarly overloaded (e.g. the urgent pointer), but this approach is
of obviously limited utility, as it does not address the fundamental
limitation imposed by the DO field, and there are a finite number of
overloadable header bits.
This document specifies two new TCP options, LO and SLO. The Long
Options (LO) option allows two hosts to negotiate for the ability to
use TCP headers longer than 60 bytes (and thus options space of
greater than 40 bytes) on subsequent segments. This is accomplished
by ignoring the DO field's value and adding a 16-bit field at a fixed
location in the header's options to replace it. The format and usage
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
of the LO option is detailed in Section 3.
Attempting to process initial SYN segments with greater than 60 bytes
of TCP headers might cause errors if received by hosts that consider
anything past the DO-specified boundary to be application data. For
backwards compatibility reasons, the maximum length of options on a
connection-initiating SYN segment remains 40. The SYN Long Options
(SLO) option is used in the case where these 40 bytes are not enough
space to carry the desired startup configuration options, and
negotiates for later reliable delivery of the left-off options.
Section 4 describes the format and usage of the SLO option.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
3. The Long Options (LO) Option
A host might implement some set of TCP options allowing it to predict
that greater than 40 bytes of TCP options space may be useful (for
example SACK, Timestamps, alternate checksums, etc). In this case, a
host MAY implement the LO option. When initiating connections
through an active open, hosts implementing the LO option SHOULD place
a LO option of the form shown in Figure 1 somewhere in the SYN
segment's options. The 16-bit field labelled "Header Length" should
be filled in with the same value as the DO field in the required
portion of the TCP header, left-padded with zeros.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Kind = | Length = 4 | Header Length |
| TDB-IANA-KIND1| | (in 4 byte words) |
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
TCP Long Options (LO) Option
Figure 1
Receipt of an acknowledgement covering the SYN and also containing an
LO option means that future segments MAY include an LO option which
expands the length of the TCP header beyond the limit of the DO
field. The LO option MUST be the first option and the DO field MUST
be set to 6. The value 6 represents the length of the required
portions of the TCP header plus the LO option.
An LO option SHOULD NOT be used when not required by the options in a
given segment. A host MUST reject any non-SYN segment containing an
LO option if the DO field is not equal to 6.
Since a LO option's Header Length field has greater range than the IP
header's Total Length field [RFC0791], this allows TCP options to
consume an entire maximum-sized IP datagram's length (minus the IP
header and required TCP header fields). No matter what size the
options section of a TCP header is, it must still be appended with
zero-padding to make the total header a multiple of 32 bits, per RFC
793 [RFC0793].
Listening hosts that implement the LO option, after reception of a
SYN segment with the LO option present, SHOULD reply with a LO option
in their SYN-ACK. It can be seen that in both the normal case where
one host passively opens and another actively opens, and the more
rare case where two hosts simultaneously initiate active opens, the
LO option's use can be successfully negotiated.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
4. The SYN Long Options (SLO) Option
If the LO option has been successfully negotiated, an active-opening
host that has more bytes of initialization options than would fit in
the SYN, can use the SYN Long Options (SLO) option. If a host
supports the LO option, then it MUST support the SLO option.
Any option bytes transmitted using the SLO option will be treated as
if they were carried on the SYN segment. Since there is no guarantee
that the LO option will be successfully negotiated, the additional 36
bytes left over aside from the 4 byte LO option on a SYN segment
should be filled with the most important remaining options that will
fit, as determined by the particular implementation. A host issuing
a passive open, MUST NOT use the SLO option, as it can use the LO
option on SYN-ACK segments if it needs to send long initialization
options. The SLO option only serves the needs of an active-opening
host that, for backwards compatibility reasons, could not send more
than 40 bytes of options on the SYN segment.
After successful LO negotiation, if a host has any options that did
not fit on the SYN, then additional data or acknowledgement segments
MUST carry a SLO option until the first data byte has been
acknowledged. The SLO option's format is shown in figure Figure 2.
The trailing 2 bytes hold a 16-bit unsigned count of the additional
bytes that would have been in the SYN segment's options, if they had
been possible to include. This represents an offset from the end of
the SLO option, to the last byte that should be considered a SYN
option. The next "Additional Byte Count"-number of bytes trailing
the SLO option MUST be the ones that did not fit in the SYN segment.
The SLO option should always immediately follow the LO option,
followed by the additional SYN options, and then by normal options,
and finally application data.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
| Kind = | Length = 4 | Additional Byte Count |
| TDB-IANA-KIND2|
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
TCP SYN Long Options (SLO) Option
Figure 2
Since TCP connection establishment is often concluded by a pure
acknowledgement (carrying no data), only placing the SLO option and
additional SYN options in such a single, unreliable segment would be
risky. This is why a host MUST continue transmitting SLO options on
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
all segments until its first byte of sent data is acknowledged.
Acknowledgement of the first data-byte implicitly covers the SLO and
trailing options, as these must have been received end-to-end with
the first data byte.
If a host does not send any data bytes, but if by some means (perhaps
through the received options) it is possible to derive either an
explicit or implicit acknowledgement of even a single option
transmitted in a SLO-carrying segment (for example via a Timestamp
echo), then a host MAY choose to stop transmitting the SLO data.
This special case overrides the previously specified MUST condition.
A host SHOULD NOT continue sending SLO options after it has received
acknowledgement of the first data byte, nor should a host process
incoming SLO options other than on the first valid segment it
receives that carries them.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
5. Middlebox Interactions
The large number of middleboxes (firewalls, proxies, protocol
scrubbers, etc) currently present in the Internet pose some
difficulty for deploying new TCP options. Some firewalls may block
segments that carry unknown options. For instance, if the LO option
is not understood by a firewall, incoming SYNs advertising LO support
may be dropped, preventing connection establishment. This is similar
to the ECN blackhole problem, where certain faulty hosts and routers
throw away packets with ECN bits set [RFC3168]. Some recent results
indicate that for new TCP options, this may not be a significant
threat, with only 0.2% of web requests failing when carrying an
unknown option [transport-middlebox].
More problematic, are the implications of TCP connection-splitting
middleboxes and protocol scrubbers that do not understand the LO
option. Since such middleboxes may operate on a packet's contents
(aggregating application data between multiple segments, rewriting
sequence numbers, etc), if the LO option is not understood, then
there may be a mangling of the data passed to the application, as
control data could end up inter-mingled with the application data.
Such errors could be difficult to detect at the transport layer, and
many applications might not perform their own integrity checks. An
encouraging fact is that some of these devices reset connection
attempts when they see TCP options that they do not understand.
Hosts that implement the TCP options described in this document MAY
retry connection attempts without LO options on the SYNs, if their
first attempt with LO options fails.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
6. Comparison to Extended Segments
Another proposal that solves the same problem as the LO and SLO
options is that of TCP "extended segments" [ex-segs]. The extended
segments technique was proposed following the initial introduction
and discussion of the LO and SLO options within the IETF's TCP
Maintenance and Minor Extensions working group. The two methods
solve the same problem in rather different ways, and have several
minor comparative advantages and disadvantages.
The LO and SLO options are designed using the philosophy of using the
TCP options space to compensate for insufficiency of the standard
header. This is in keeping with the way that several currently-used
options work. For example, the Window Scale option deals with the
limited space in the advertised receive window field, and the
Selective Acknowledgement option solves the lack of information in
the cumulative acknowledgement field. Extended segments approach
overloads the meaning of the standard Data Offset field, keeping its
original meaning for values of 5 and greater, but redefining it for
values less than 5. This is seen as acceptable since values less
than 5 are currently impossible, illegal, and unusable. Extended
segments avoid the need for new options by changing the way that the
existing standard header is parsed.
A key advantage of the extended segments approach is that it does not
increase the TCP header size, whereas the LO option adds 4 bytes of
space to TCP headers. The severity or triviality of this bloat in
header overhead depends entirely upon the network properties and
application traffic for particular use cases.
It is also not altogether clear that extended segments will always
save space in comparison to LO options. The granularity of option
lengths that extended segments can support is limited to the number
of unusable Data Offset values (5, 0 through 4). Currently, the
extended segments proposal defines 4 fixed lengths, and one
"infinite" length that means the entire segment is options, with no
application data. The fixed option lengths are 48, 64, 128, and 256
bytes. If the required per-data-segment options space for some
extension or combination of extensions does not map to exactly these
values, then padding bytes are required. If 129 bytes of options are
required on a data segment, then a length of 256 must be used, and
127 bytes of useless padding are added. The LO option has a single-
byte granularity and avoids the need for all wasteful padding, aside
from that mandated to make the header a perfect multiple of 4-bytes.
It is possible that the overhead on a single extended segment could
be more than that of several segments using the LO option.
Some networkers have found the SLO mechanism that is required for
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
processing of long initialization options to be somewhat "ugly".
Extended segments avoid this by sending long initialization options
on the initial SYN and SYN-ACK segments. If the other side does not
support extended segments, this adds needless confusion and delay in
connection setup. The protocol dance to negotiate use of extended
segments is arguably much worse than using SLO. If an extended SYN
is not understood, a non-reliably transmitted RST segment signals the
initiating host to retry without extended segments. Such a retry
mechanism is not commonly found in existing TCP implementations. If
the LO option is not understood, a SYN-ACK is still immediately
generated and the connection goes on uninterrupted, without any
additional retry mechanisms. Furthermore, extended SYN-ACKs may be
sent in response to non-extended SYNs. This complicates the recovery
procedure even more, if not understood, and goes against the way that
all current negotiable TCP extensions operate (only used on SYN-ACK
if advertised on SYN).
Over-zealous middleboxes are immensely troublesome for the deployment
of most transport layer extensions. It is unclear whether LO and
extended segments have any real difference in robustness in the
presence of different types of middleboxes. Both types of segments
may appear as invalid to some middleboxes, and both may be mangled if
rewritten by a middlebox.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
7. Security Considerations
The TCP options presented in this document open no additional
vulnerabilities that we are aware of.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
8. IANA Considerations
This document does not create any new registries or modify the rules
for any existing registries managed by IANA.
This document requires IANA to update values in its registry of TCP
options numbers to assign two new entries, referred herein as
"TBD-IANA-KIND1" and "TBD-IANA-KIND2".
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
9. Acknowledgements
This document benefitted specifically from discussions with Josh
Blanton and Shawn Ostermann. Some comments from Eddie Kohler
motivated the discussion of middlebox interactions. Valuable
feedback was obtained from Mark Allman and other participants in the
TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions (TCPM) Working Group.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
10. References
10.1. Normative References
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, September 1981.
[RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
September 1981.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10.2. Informative References
[RFC1323] Jacobson, V., Braden, B., and D. Borman, "TCP Extensions
for High Performance", RFC 1323, May 1992.
[RFC2018] Mathis, M., Mahdavi, J., Floyd, S., and A. Romanow, "TCP
Selective Acknowledgment Options", RFC 2018, October 1996.
[more-sack]
Srijith, K., Jacob, L., and A. Ananda, "Worst-case
Performance Limitation of TCP SACK and a Feasible
Solution", Proceedings of 8th IEEE International
Conference on Communications Systems (ICCS),
November 2002.
[migrate] Snoeren, A. and H. Balakrishnan, "An End-to-End Approach
to Host Mobility", Proc. of the Sixth Annual ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Mobile Computing and
Networking, August 2000.
[RFC3168] Ramakrishnan, K., Floyd, S., and D. Black, "The Addition
of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP",
RFC 3168, September 2001.
[transport-middlebox]
Medina, A., Allman, M., and S. Floyd, "Measuring
Interactions Between Transport Protocols and Middleboxes",
ACM SIGCOMM/USENIX Internet Measurement Conference,
October 2004.
[ex-segs] Kohler, E., "Extended Option Space for TCP", Internet
Draft (work in progress), September 2004.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
Appendix A. Changes
To be removed by RFC Editor before publication
Changes since 03
1. Change the option numbers specified to placeholders:
"TBD-IANA-KIND1" and "TBD-IANA-KIND2".
2. Change the requirement that all segments include the LO option,
if negotiated, to a SHOULD NOT unless the options require it.
The reasoning behind the initial requirement was for
implementation ease but, having implemented it myself, the
ability to use the fast path processing for LO connections
outweighs that.
3. Change the units of the LO option from bytes to words. This was
ambiguous in the 03 draft and, since padding to four bytes was
required anyway, it seemed best to remove one extra way that the
option could be invalid.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
Authors' Addresses
Wesley M. Eddy
NASA GRC/Verizon FNS
21000 Brookpark Rd, MS 54-5
Cleveland, OH 44135
Phone: 216-433-6682
Email: weddy@grc.nasa.gov
Adam Langley
Google Inc
Email: agl@imperialviolet.org
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft TCP Long Options July 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Eddy & Langley Expires January 2, 2009 [Page 18]