Re: IPv6 payload length check?

Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> Tue, 04 February 2020 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF7E120123 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=0.999, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3Uu-q7-wvJab for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3358E120074 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:40:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id c16so17691446oic.3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:40:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Z3oyfVY1etgqaegS+NeFCY+wpCsko3zOQW4epoo4b3U=; b=NJXP7A4dMhQSTW6SbFbvYyhsaa0UlGjBt+Vhk1sFkFbscft/l6bxPwCDTSyIWCtlcx DcF5L6eFaMG9Gse85dXAX7oRKW4jJE1rl5eSazXzajucL4M5hOv7/4TuF4D9SRxdsaWp v/98vdIHZ4vX3tU7OeyFiba4vPlEkug5rjI47tpJl8K1xXa7pj8fBbOA9BJO7c3xsoIi /qT26wK1GYXuvmSfUihDFvTfZlY6I60lUc4bebLtuw3MDjmK1/PqmwENMvVt0ssEiTnn aecfsEE6ARLrmapH+aIBJloRKEXFUlPDNQtWwubRUrhAFLHwLOcNSXSaSwLKvXWxd8TT 8L2Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Z3oyfVY1etgqaegS+NeFCY+wpCsko3zOQW4epoo4b3U=; b=EkGofQHznXpXPL7xK/uzYVbQxg++EI3n3mL6Sdd2bbV/Y/imuLpnn2mW+OAHIOCSHM mGIna3CXs+MvGW9ULOzZ1jbZBIi/MWd59ckfBhNh0amhBI6KhA9BI2qW012+RoF2zlc1 vWAigIzLNQi80G0QHcfJqjque5DSgBWMP3w1LWESNa0imjRn/P7OERn2b+Cr92O6syqw tmlo7Q3inkFHS+TI0fI7M9xnsKIqWCEKpbNaCzFgmota12IR1D1uZmonZGZvOgl+CH+P +Xax9RPsaDb7GYdC37kmjFI7JL58/Vj8ydRCKpFrfthBfUT1AC+j1xSb64SXOhce3X1m fFXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWoL06Y3JDNpo97SsU7fY10zWVb0yxIjtKi/ClDBbKo15jA2Ogf tPImiZJz5uRWjDW04H64sMJiChsU940cTfx/YMh91A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxk6c7L7WEH3aEGjJ87t06tdZ3m9HbKdNZIg1A5IrvID6q81vef9y67J5LiSpjLAxAsaZBTsJcsNMRcOqHByc0=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5746:: with SMTP id l67mr2776889oib.60.1580805657341; Tue, 04 Feb 2020 00:40:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <90342768-7f25-b9dd-eeae-29db6045b40a@intl.att.com> <77f55628-6f9d-d06a-4e38-f84d76e716bb@intl.att.com> <CAMGpriWVN0EGLz5PyeyL5LTo_+A1i+xHCD6kw0E0pCRCcGcY2g@mail.gmail.com> <21c14789-73b8-1347-98bf-9c70c3d31e76@intl.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <21c14789-73b8-1347-98bf-9c70c3d31e76@intl.att.com>
From: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:40:45 +1100
Message-ID: <CAO42Z2yDrdQBGyk97f3Op7KtRRfXjnYyAV3=qGY4E03+P2L3cw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IPv6 payload length check?
To: "Aitken, Paul" <paul.aitken@intl.att.com>
Cc: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa3296059dbbff0d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/PRTY9Ubj0HKrpoy53_cSvRURFMQ>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:41:00 -0000

On Tue, 4 Feb 2020, 18:43 Aitken, Paul, <paul.aitken@intl.att.com> wrote:

> Thanks Eric.
>
> In this case the packet is *not* larger than the MTU of the outgoing link.
> Rather a packet has been received (or possibly generated locally) with an
> IPv6 payload length greater than the link layer frame size.
>
> Probably this packet should not be forwarded.
>

It's better to forward it without checking.

These packets with this fault are going to be rare. Checking each and every
packet for this rare problem at each forwarding hop would impact forwarding
performance.

The fault with the packet will be detected at the final destination and
dealt with there.


However, I couldn't find anything to say that it's invalid.
>

When could it ever be valid?

With protocol specs, everything unspecified is implicitly invalid, because
it is out of specification or unspecified behaviour.



> Thanks,
> P.
>
>
> On 03/02/2020 22:05, Erik Kline wrote:
>
> Interestingly, 8200 contains this text in the Routing Header section (4.4):
>
> """
>    If, after processing a Routing header of a received packet, an
>    intermediate node determines that the packet is to be forwarded onto
>    a link whose link MTU is less than the size of the packet, the node
>    must discard the packet and send an ICMP Packet Too Big message to
>    the packet's Source Address.
> """
>
> Really that text would seem to apply even if a routing header is absent.
> 4443 on PTBs (3.2) has the text you might be looking for:
>
> """
>    A Packet Too Big MUST be sent by a router in response to a packet
>    that it cannot forward because the packet is larger than the MTU of
>    the outgoing link.
> """
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 7:31 AM Aitken, Paul <paul.aitken@intl.att.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone point me to a standards reference for the check to validate
>> that the IPv6 payload length is less than or equal to the link layer
>> frame size upon forwarding a packet?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Paul
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ipv6&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=ZfTZz_O9E1tN4KFtMYO2ZkKk5U5-6SlI-21vZEhzDuU&m=qBignlV2D2HjQ1OG98CXIFMbZryHbieyfesxKE4ZOfg&s=Hcp5fCXJd8pXcMtmqOUaw179roZQXSQntvE-zFdQYbY&e=>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>