diffedge handling of fragments
mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca Wed, 06 October 1999 11:48 UTC
Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by mail.imc.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA12736; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 04:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id GAA26413 Wed, 6 Oct 1999 06:00:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca
Message-Id: <199910060955.FAA05040@pzero.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
To: diffserv@ops.ietf.org
CC: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: diffedge handling of fragments
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 05:55:32 -0400
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- If a non-initial fragment arrives at a marking point (i.e. at the entry point to a diffserv cloud), and no previous initial fragment has been received for that (destination,fragmentID), should the fragment be: 1) delayed until an initial fragment arrives (how long?) 2) sent with best effort 3) dropped In the pathological case, the fragment offset is such that one has to reassemble the packet in order to make the MF classication decision. I believe that in these cases it may be prudent to drop the fragment as it may simply be an attempt to do a denial of service attack. Otherwise, #3 is evil, as it causes outages that are very hard to debug. #1 turns into #3 if there is no timer involved. One possibility is to send it with best effort, *and* queue it for a period such that it gets sent with the appropriate flag. Two notes: 1. I don't think that IPsec has yet to agree on anything specific to say about this particular case other than noting that the TCP/UDP ports may be "OPAQUE" in section 4.4.2 of RFC2401. This hasn't been an issue since most deployment has so far involved subnet<->subnet or host<->host and not port<->port SAs done by a security gateway. For IPsec, replace #2 with "sent with a host<->host SA" 2. RFC2205 (RSVP) specifically says on page 8: "1. It is necessary to avoid IP fragmentation of a data flow for which a resource reservation is desired." So, this would argue also for #2. ] Train travel features AC outlets with no take-off restrictions| firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[ ] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQB1AwUBN/sckI5hrHmwwFrtAQH+JgL+NbVcRLefglM05IjaKrfYA+ZisLogy2HO 76ZscNfd6Ywfjm/0RsKWs/Aut6IA48APi5Z/u7i6PSJ2pZ75NmhlWdUw/YbygclS /ksmxfvhFmPzolGIMJxj4MbPGD4OM3sF =+8wL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- diffedge handling of fragments mcr
- RE: diffedge handling of fragments Sumit Vakil
- Re: diffedge handling of fragments Michael Richardson
- RE: diffedge handling of fragments Sumit Vakil