Internet DRAFT - draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options
TSVWG J. Touch
Internet Draft Independent Consultant
Intended status: Standards Track March 4, 2024
Intended updates: 768
Expires: September 2024
Transport Options for UDP
draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-31.txt
Abstract
Transport protocols are extended through the use of transport header
options. This document extends UDP by indicating the location,
syntax, and semantics for UDP transport layer options.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and 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.
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
https://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
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."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 4, 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Revised BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................3
2. Conventions used in this document .............................3
3. Terminology ...................................................3
4. Background ....................................................4
5. UDP Option Intended Uses ......................................5
6. UDP Option Design Principles ..................................6
7. The UDP Option Area ...........................................7
8. The UDP Surplus Area Structure ...............................10
9. The Option Checksum (OCS) ....................................10
10. UDP Options .................................................12
11. SAFE UDP Options ............................................16
11.1. End of Options List (EOL) ..............................17
11.2. No Operation (NOP) .....................................17
11.3. Alternate Payload Checksum (APC) .......................18
11.4. Fragmentation (FRAG) ...................................19
11.5. Maximum Datagram Size (MDS) ............................27
11.6. Maximum Reassembled Datagram Size (MRDS) ...............28
11.7. Echo request (REQ) and echo response (RES) .............28
11.8. Timestamps (TIME) ......................................29
11.9. Authentication (AUTH), RESERVED Only ...................31
11.10. Experimental (EXP) ....................................31
12. UNSAFE Options ..............................................32
12.1. UNSAFE Compression (UCMP) ..............................33
12.2. UNSAFE Encryption (UENC) ...............................33
12.3. UNSAFE Experimental (UEXP) .............................33
13. Rules for designing new options .............................33
14. Option inclusion and processing .............................34
15. UDP API Extensions ..........................................36
16. UDP Options are for Transport, Not Transit ..................38
17. UDP options vs. UDP-Lite ....................................38
18. Interactions with Legacy Devices ............................39
19. Options in a Stateless, Unreliable Transport Protocol .......40
20. UDP Option State Caching ....................................40
21. Updates to RFC 768 ..........................................41
22. Interactions with other RFCs (and drafts) ...................41
23. Multicast Considerations ....................................42
24. Security Considerations .....................................43
25. IANA Considerations .........................................45
26. References ..................................................46
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
26.1. Normative References ...................................46
26.2. Informative References .................................46
27. Acknowledgments .............................................49
Appendix A. Implementation Information ..........................51
1. Introduction
Transport protocols use options as a way to extend their
capabilities. TCP [RFC9293], SCTP [RFC9260], and DCCP [RFC4340]
include space for these options but UDP [RFC768] currently does not.
This document defines an extension to UDP that provides space for
transport options including their generic syntax and semantics for
their use in UDP's stateless, unreliable message protocol.
2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
In this document, the characters ">>" preceding an indented line(s)
indicates a statement using the key words listed above. This
convention aids reviewers in quickly identifying or finding the
portions of this RFC covered by these key words.
3. Terminology
The following terminology is used in this document:
o IP datagram [RFC791][RFC8200] - an IP packet, composed of the IP
header and an IP payload area
o User datagram - a UDP packet, composed of a UDP header and UDP
payload; as discussed herein, that payload need not extend to the
end of the IP datagram. In this document, the original intent
that a UDP datagram corresponds to the user portion of a single
IP datagram is redefined, where a UDP datagram can span more than
one IP datagram through UDP fragmentation.
o UDP packet - the more contemporary term used herein to refer to a
user datagram [RFC768]
o User - the upper layer application, protocol, or service that
produces and consumes content that UDP transfers
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
o Surplus area - the area of an IP payload that follows a UDP
packet; this area is used for UDP options in this document
o UDP fragment - one or more components of a UDP packet and its UDP
options that enables transmission over multiple IP payloads,
larger than permitted by the maximum size of a single IP; note
that each UDP fragment is itself transmitted as a UDP packet with
its own options
o (UDP) User data - the user data field of a UDP packet [RFC768]
o UDP Length - the length field of a UDP header [RFC768]
o Must-support options - UDP options that all implementations are
required to support. Their use in individual UDP packets is
optional.
4. Background
Many protocols include a default, invariant header and an area for
header options that varies from packet to packet. These options
enable the protocol to be extended for use in particular
environments or in ways unforeseen by the original designers.
Examples include TCP's Maximum Segment Size, Window Scale,
Timestamp, and Authentication Options [RFC9293][RFC5925][RFC7323].
Header options are used both in stateful (connection-oriented, e.g.,
TCP [RFC9293], SCTP [RFC9260], DCCP [RFC4340]) and stateless
(connectionless, e.g., IPv4 [RFC791], IPv6 [RFC8200]) protocols. In
stateful protocols they can help extend the way in which state is
managed. In stateless protocols their effect is often limited to
individual packets, but they can have an aggregate effect on a
sequence of packets as well.
UDP is one of the most popular protocols that lacks space for header
options [RFC768]. The UDP header was intended to be a minimal
addition to IP, providing only ports and a checksum for error
detection. This document extends UDP to provide a trailer area for
such options, located after the UDP user data.
UDP options are possible because UDP includes its own length field,
separate from that of the IP header. Other transport protocols infer
transport payload length from the IP datagram length (TCP, DCCP,
SCTP). There are a number of reasons why Internet historians suggest
that UDP includes this field, e.g., to support multiple UDP packets
within the same IP datagram or to indicate the length of the UDP
user data as distinct from zero padding required for systems that
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
require writes that are not byte-aligned. These suggestions are not
consistent with earlier versions of UDP or with concurrent design of
multi-segment multiplexing protocols, however, so the real reason
remains unknown. Regardless, this field presents an opportunity to
differentiate the UDP user data from the implied transport payload
length, which this document leverages to support a trailer options
field.
There are other ways to include additional header fields or options
in protocols that otherwise are not extensible. In particular, in-
band encoding can be used to differentiate transport payload from
additional fields, such as was proposed in [Hi15]. This approach can
cause complications for interactions with legacy devices, and is
thus not considered further in this document.
IPv6 Teredo extensions [RFC4380][RFC6081] use a similar
inconsistency between UDP and IPv6 packet lengths to support
trailers, but in this case the values differ between the UDP header
and an IPv6 length contained as the payload of the UDP user data.
This allows IPv6 trailers in the UDP user data, but have no relation
to the surplus area discussed in this document. As a consequence,
Teredo extensions are compatible with UDP options.
5. UDP Option Intended Uses
UDP options provide a soft control plane to UDP. They enable
capabilities available in other transport protocols, such as
fragmentation and reassembly, that enable UDP frames larger than the
IP MTU to traverse devices that rely on transport ports, e.g., NATs.
It adds features that may, in the future, protect transport
integrity and validate source identity (authentication), as well as
those that may also encrypt the user payload, while still protecting
the UDP transport header - unlike DTLS. They also enable
packetization-layer path MTU discovery (PLPMTUD) over UDP, providing
a means for probe packet validation without affecting the user data
plane, as well as providing explicit indication of the receiver
transport reassembly size.
UDP was originally intended to assume such capabilities could be
provided by the user or by a layer above UDP. However, enough
protocols have evolved to use UDP directly, so such an intermediate
layer would be difficult to deploy for legacy applications. UDP
options leverage the opportunity presented by the surplus area to
enable these extensions within the UDP transport layer itself.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
6. UDP Option Design Principles
UDP options have been designed based on the following core
principles. Each is an observation about (preexisting) UDP [RFC768]
in the absence of these extensions that this document does not
intend to change or a lesson learned from other protocol designs.
1. UDP is stateless; UDP options do not change that fact.
State required or maintained by the endpoints must be managed
either by the application or a layer/library on behalf of the
application. Reassembly of fragments is the only limited
exception where this document introduces a notion of state to
UDP.
2. UDP is unidirectional; UDP options do not change that fact.
Responses to options are initiated by the application or a
layer/library on behalf of the application. A mechanism that
requires bidirectionally needs to be defined in a separate
document.
3. UDP options have no length limit separate from that of the UDP
packet itself.
Past experience confirms that static length limits will always
need to be exceeded. Each implementation can limit how long/many
options there are, but the specification should not introduce
such a limit.
4. UDP options are not intended replace or replicate other
protocols.
This includes NTP, ICMP (notably echo), etc. UDP options are
intended to introduce features useful for applications, not to
either replace these other protocols nor to instrument UDP to
replace the need for network testing devices.
5. UDP options are a framework, not a protocol.
Options can be defined in this initial document even when the
details are not sufficient to specify a complete protocol. Uses
of such options may then be described or supplemented in other
documents. Examples herein include REQ/RES and TIME; in both
cases, the option format is defined, but the protocol that uses
these is specified elsewhere (REQ/RES for DPLPMTUD [Fa23])or left
undefined (TIME).
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
6. The UDP option mechanism and UDP options themselves should
default to the same behavior experienced by a legacy receiver.
By default, even when option checksums (OCS, APC),
authentication, or encryption fail, every received packet is
passed (possibly with an empty data payload) to the user
application. Options that do not modify user data should (by
default) result in the user data also being passed, even if,
e.g., option checksums or authentication fails. It is always the
user's obligation to override this default behavior explicitly.
These principles are intended to enable the design and use of UDP
options with minimal impact to legacy UDP endpoints, preferably
none. UDP is - and remains - a minimal transport protocol.
Additional capability is explicitly activated by user applications
or libraries acting on their behalf.
Finally, although not a strict principle, UDP options do not attempt
to match the number of zero-length UDP datagrams received by legacy
and option-aware receivers from a source using UDP options. Zero-
length UDP packets have been used as "liveness" indicators see
Section 5 of [RFC8085]), but such use is dangerous because they lack
unique identifiers (IPv6 has none, the IPv4 ID field is deprecated
for such use [RFC6994]).
7. The UDP Option Area
The UDP transport header includes demultiplexing and service
identification (port numbers), an error detection checksum, and a
field that indicates the UDP datagram length (including UDP header).
The UDP Length field is typically redundant with the size of the
maximum space available as a transport protocol payload, as
determined by the IP header (see detail in Section 18). The UDP
Option area is created when the UDP Length indicates a smaller
transport payload than implied by the IP header.
For IPv4, IP Total Length field indicates the total IP datagram
length (including IP header) and the size of the IP options is
indicated in the IP header (in 4-byte words) as the "Internet Header
Length" (IHL), as shown in Figure 1 [RFC791]. As a result, the
typical (and largest valid) value for UDP Length is:
UDP_Length = IPv4_Total_Length - IPv4_IHL * 4
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| IHL | Diff Svcs | Total Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification |Flags| Fragment Offset |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time to Live | Proto=17 (UDP)| Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Destination Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... zero or more IP Options (using space as indicated by IHL) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Source Port | UDP Destination Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1 IPv4 datagram with UDP header
For IPv6, the IP Payload Length field indicates the transport
payload after the base IPv6 header, which includes the IPv6
extension headers and space available for the transport protocol, as
shown in Figure 2 [RFC8200]. Note that the Next HDR field in IPv6
might not indicate UDP (i.e., 17), e.g., when intervening IP
extension headers are present. For IPv6, the lengths of any
additional IP extensions are indicated within each extension
[RFC8200], so the typical (and largest valid) value for UDP Length
is:
UDP_Length = IPv6_Payload_Length - sum(extension header lengths)
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Payload Length | Next Hdr | Hop Limit |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
| Source Address (128 bits) |
...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
...
| Destination Address (128 bits) |
...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
... zero or more IP Extension headers (each indicating size) ...
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Source Port | UDP Destination Port |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| UDP Length | UDP Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2 IPv6 datagram with UDP header
In both cases, the space available for the UDP packet is indicated
by IP, either directly in the base header (for IPv4) or by adding
information in the extensions (for IPv6). In either case, this
document will refer to this available space as the "IP transport
payload".
As a result of this redundancy, there is an opportunity to use the
UDP Length field as a way to break up the IP transport payload into
two areas - that intended as UDP user data and an additional
"surplus area" (as shown in Figure 3).
IP transport payload
<------------------------------------------------->
+--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
| IP Hdr | UDP Hdr | UDP user data | surplus area |
+--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+
<------------------------------>
UDP Length
Figure 3 IP transport payload vs. UDP Length
In most cases, the IP transport payload and UDP Length point to the
same location, indicating that there is no surplus area. This is not
a requirement of UDP [RFC768] (discussed further in Section 18).
This document uses the surplus area for UDP options.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
The surplus area can commence at any valid byte offset, i.e., it
need not be 16-bit or 32-bit aligned. In effect, this document
redefines the UDP "Length" field as a "trailer options offset".
8. The UDP Surplus Area Structure
UDP options use the entire surplus area, i.e., the contents of the
IP payload after the last byte of the UDP payload. They commence
with a 2-byte Option Checksum (OCS) field aligned to the first 2-
byte boundary (relative to the start of the IP datagram) of that
area, using zeroes for alignment. The UDP option area can be used
with any UDP payload length (including zero, i.e., a UDP Length of
8), as long as there remains enough space for the aligned OCS and
the options used.
>> UDP options MAY begin at any UDP length offset.
>> Option area bytes used for alignment before the OCS MUST be zero.
The OCS contains an optional ones-complement sum that detects errors
in the surplus area, which is not otherwise covered by the UDP
checksum, as detailed in Section 9.
The remainder of the surplus area consists of options defined using
a TLV (type, length, and optional value) syntax similar to that of
TCP [RFC9293], as detailed in Section 10. These options continue
until the end of the surplus area or can end earlier using the EOL
(end of list) option, followed by zeroes.
9. The Option Checksum (OCS)
The Option Checksum (OCS) option is conventional Internet checksum
[RFC791] that detects errors in the surplus area. The OCS option
contains a 16-bit checksum that is aligned to the first 2-byte
boundary, preceded by zeroes for padding (if needed), as shown in
Figure 4.
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| UDP data | 0 |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| OCS | UDP options... |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 4 UDP OCS format, here using one zero byte for alignment
The OCS consists of a 16-bit Internet checksum [RFC1071], computed
over the surplus area and including the length of the surplus area
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
as an unsigned 16-bit value. The OCS protects the surplus area from
errors in a similar way that the UDP checksum protects the UDP user
data (when not zero).
The primary purpose of the OCS is to detect existing non-standard
(i.e., non-option) uses of that area and accidental errors. It is
not intended to detect attacks, as discussed further in Section 24.
OCS is not intended to prevent future non-standard uses of the
surplus area, nor does it enable shared use with mechanisms that do
not comply with UDP options.
The design enables traversal of errant middleboxes that incorrectly
compute the UDP checksum over the entire IP payload [Fa18][Zu20],
rather than only the UDP header and UDP payload (as indicated by the
UDP header length). Because the OCS is computed over the surplus
area and its length and then inverted, OCS effectively negates the
effect that incorrectly including the surplus has on the UDP
checksum. As a result, when OCS is non-zero, the UDP checksum is the
same in either case.
>> OCS MUST be non-zero when the UDP checksum is non-zero.
>> When the UDP checksum is zero, the OCS MAY be unused, and is then
indicated by a zero OCS value.
>> UDP option implementations MUST default to using OCS (i.e., as a
non-zero value); users overriding that default take the risk of not
detecting nonstandard uses of the option area (of which there are
none currently known).
Like the UDP checksum, the OCS is optional under certain
circumstances and contains zero when not used. UDP checksums can be
zero for IPv4 [RFC791] and for IPv6 [RFC8200] when UDP payload
already covered by another checksum, as might occur for tunnels
[RFC6935]. The same exceptions apply to the OCS when used to detect
bit errors; an additional exception occurs for its use in the UDP
datagram prior to fragmentation or after reassembly (see Section
11.4).
The benefits are similar to allowing UDP checksums to be zero, but
the risks differ. OCS is additionally important to ensure packets
with UDP options can traverse errant middleboxes [Zu20]. When the
cost of computing OCS is negligible, it is better to use OCS to
ensure such traversal. In cases where such traversal risks can
safely be ignored, such as controlled environments, over paths where
traversal is validated, or where upper layer protocols
(applications, libraries, etc.) can adapt (by enabling OCS when
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
packet exchange fails), and when bit errors at the UDP layer would
be detected by other layers (as with the UDP checksum) OCS can be
disabled, e.g., to conserve energy or processing resources or when
it can improve performance. This is why zeroing OCS is only safe
when UDP checksum is also zero, but why OCS might still be used in
that case.
The OCS covers the surplus area as formatted for transmission and is
processed immediately upon reception.
>> If the OCS fails, all options MUST be ignored and the surplus
area silently discarded.
>> UDP user data that is validated by a correct UDP checksum MUST be
delivered to the application layer, even if the OCS fails, unless
the endpoints have negotiated otherwise for this UDP packet's socket
pair.
When not used (i.e., containing zero), the OCS is assumed to be
"correct" for the purpose of accepting UDP datagrams at a receiver
(see Section 14).
10. UDP Options
UDP options are typically a minimum of two bytes in length as shown
in Figure 5, excepting only the one-byte options "No Operation"
(NOP) and "End of Options List" (EOL) described below.
+--------+--------+-------
| Kind | Length | (remainder of option...)
+--------+--------+-------
Figure 5 UDP option default format
The Kind field is always one byte. The Length field is one byte for
all lengths below 255 (including the Kind and Length bytes). A
Length of 255 indicates use of the UDP option extended format shown
in Figure 6. The Extended Length field is a 16-bit field in network
standard byte order.
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind | 255 | Extended Length |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| (remainder of option...)
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 6 UDP option extended format
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> The UDP length MUST be at least as large as the UDP header (8)
and no larger than the IP transport payload. Datagrams with length
values outside this range MUST be silently dropped as invalid and
logged where rate-limiting permits.
>> Option Lengths (or Extended Lengths, where applicable) smaller
than the minimum for the corresponding Kind MUST be treated as an
error. Such errors call into question the remainder of the surplus
area and thus MUST result in all UDP options being silently
discarded.
>> Any UDP option other than EOL and NOP MAY use either the default
or extended option formats.
>> Any UDP option whose length is larger than 254 MUST use the UDP
option extended format shown in Figure 6.
>> For compactness, UDP options SHOULD use the smallest option
format possible.
>> UDP options MUST be interpreted in the order in which they occur
in the surplus area.
The following UDP options are currently defined:
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
Kind Length Meaning
----------------------------------------------
0* - End of Options List (EOL)
1* - No operation (NOP)
2* 6 Alternate payload checksum (APC)
3* 10/12 Fragmentation (FRAG)
4* 4 Maximum datagram size (MDS)
5* 4 Maximum reassembled datagram size (MRDS)
6* 6 Request (REQ)
7* 6 Response (RES)
8 10 Timestamps (TIME)
9 (varies) RESERVED for Authentication (AUTH)
10-126 (varies) UNASSIGNED (assignable by IANA)
127 (varies) RFC 3692-style experiments (EXP)
128-191 RESERVED
192 (varies) RESERVED for Compression (UCMP)
193 (varies) RESERVED for Encryption (UENC)
194-253 UNASSIGNED-UNSAFE (assignable by IANA)
254 (varies) RFC 3692-style experiments (UEXP)
255 RESERVED-UNSAFE
Options indicated by Kind values in the range 0..191 are known as
SAFE options because they do not alter the UDP data payload and thus
do not interfere with use of that data by legacy endpoints or when
the option is unsupported. Options indicated by Kind values in the
range 192..255 are known as UNSAFE options because they do alter the
UDP data payload and thus would interfere with legacy endpoints.
UNSAFE option nicknames are expected to begin with capital "U",
which should be avoided for SAFE option nicknames (see Section 25).
RESERVED and RESERVED-UNSAFE are not assignable by IANA and not
otherwise defined at this time. The AUTH, UCMP, and UENC
reservations are intended for all future options supporting
authentication, compression, and encryption, respectively, and
remain reserved until assigned for those uses.
Although the FRAG option modifies the original UDP payload contents
(i.e., is UNSAFE with respect to the original UDP payload), it is
used only in subsequent fragments with zero-length UDP user data
payloads, thus is SAFE in actual use, as discussed further in
Section 11.4.
These options are defined in the following subsections. Options 0
and 1 use the same values as for TCP.
>> An endpoint supporting UDP options MUST support those marked with
a "*" above: EOL, NOP, APC, FRAG, MDS, MRDS, REQ, and RES. This
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
includes both recognizing and being able to generate these options
if configured to do so. These are called "must-support" options.
>> An endpoint supporting UDP options MUST treat unsupported options
in the UNSAFE range as terminating all option processing.
>> All other SAFE options (without a "*") MAY be implemented, and
their use SHOULD be determined either out-of-band or negotiated,
notably if needed to detect when options are silently ignored by
legacy receivers.
>> Receivers supporting UDP options MUST silently ignore unknown
SAFE options (i.e., in the same way a legacy receiver would ignore
all UDP options). That includes options whose length does not
indicate the specified value(s), as long as the length is not
inherently invalid (i.e., smaller than 2 for the default and 4 for
the extended formats).
>> UNSAFE options MUST be used only with the FRAG option, in a
manner that prevents them from being silently ignored while still
passing up potentially modified UDP payload. This ensures their safe
use in environments that might include legacy receivers (See Section
12), because the UDP payload occurs inside the FRAG option area and
is silently discarded by legacy receivers.
>> Receivers supporting UDP options MUST silently drop all UDP
options in a datagram containing an UNSAFE option when any UNSAFE
option it contains is unknown. See Section 12 for further discussion
of UNSAFE options.
>> Each option SHOULD NOT occur more than once in a single UDP
datagram, the only exceptions being NOP, EXP, and UEXP. If an option
other than these occurs more than once, a receiver MUST interpret
only the first instance of that option and MUST ignore all others.
Section 24 provides additional advice for DOS issues that involve
large numbers of options, whether valid, unknown, or repeating.
>> EXP and UEXP MAY occur more than once, but SHOULD NOT occur more
than once using the same ExID (see Sections 11.10 and 12.3).
>> Only the OCS, AUTH, and UENC options include fields within the
options that depend on the contents of the surplus area. AUTH and
UENC are never used together, as UENC would serve both purposes.
AUTH and UENC are always computed as if their hash and the OCS are
zero; the OCS is always computed as if its contents are zero and
after the AUTH or UENC hash has been computed. Future options MUST
NOT be defined as having an option field value dependent on the
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
remaining contents of the surplus area, i.e., the area after the
last option (presumably EOL). Otherwise, interactions between those
values, the OCS, and the AUTH and UENC options could be
unpredictable. This does not prohibit future uses of the entire
surplus area; space that would have occurred after the EOL can be
used as a UDP option instead, i.e., rather than using the EOL option
and trying to defining meaning beyond it, define a new option that
uses the remaining surplus area as an option itself, in conjunction
with an assigned UDP option codepoint and length to unambiguously
indicate the meaning of that area. This also does not prohibit
options that modify later options (in order of appearance within a
packet), such as would typically be the case for compression (UCMP).
Receivers cannot generally treat unexpected option lengths as
invalid, as this would unnecessarily limit future revision of
options (e.g., defining a new APC that is defined by having a
different length). The exception is only for lengths that imply a
physical impossibility, e.g., smaller than two for conventional
options and four for extended length options.
>> Impossible lengths SHOULD be treated as an indication of a
malformed surplus area and all options SHOULD silently be discarded.
Lengths other than those expected MUST result in safe options being
ignored and skipped over, as with any other unknown safe option.
>> Option lengths MUST NOT exceed the IP length of the overall IP
datagram. If this occurs, the options MUST be treated as malformed
and all options dropped, and the event MAY be logged for diagnostics
(logging SHOULD be rate limited).
>> "Must-support" options other than NOP and EOL MUST come before
other options.
The requirement that must-support options come before others is
intended to allow for endpoints to implement DOS protection, as
discussed further in Section 24.
11. SAFE UDP Options
SAFE UDP options can be silently ignored by legacy receivers without
affecting the meaning of the UDP user data. They stand in contrast
to UNSAFE options, which modify UDP user data in ways that render it
unusable by legacy receivers (Section 12). The following subsections
describe SAFE options defined in this document.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
11.1. End of Options List (EOL)
The End of Options List (EOL, Kind=0) option indicates that there
are no more options. It is used to indicate the end of the list of
options without needing to use NOP options (see the following
section) as padding to fill all available option space.
+--------+
| Kind=0 |
+--------+
Figure 7 UDP EOL option format
>> When the UDP options do not consume the entire surplus area, the
last non-NOP option MUST be EOL.
>> NOPs SHOULD NOT be used as padding before the EOL option. As a
one-byte option, EOL need not be otherwise aligned.
>> All bytes in the surplus area after EOL MUST be set to zero on
transmit.
>> Bytes after EOL in the surplus area MAY be checked as being zero
on receipt, but MUST NOT be otherwise processed (except for OCS
calculation, which zeros would not affect) and MUST NOT be passed to
the user (e.g., as part of the surplus area).
Requiring the post-option surplus area to be zero prevents side-
channel uses of this area, requiring instead that all use of the
surplus area be UDP options supported by both endpoints. It is
useful to allow this area to be used for zero padding to increase
the UDP datagram length without affecting the UDP user data length,
e.g., for UDP DPLPMTUD (Section 4.1 of [Fa23]).
11.2. No Operation (NOP)
The No Operation (NOP, Kind=1) option is a one-byte placeholder,
intended to be used as padding, e.g., to align multi-byte options
along 16-bit, 32-bit, or 64-bit boundaries.
+--------+
| Kind=1 |
+--------+
Figure 8 UDP NOP option format
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> UDP packets SHOULD NOT use more than seven consecutive NOPs,
i.e., to support alignment up to 8-byte boundaries. UDP packets
SHOULD NOT use NOPs at the end of the options area as a substitute
for EOL followed by zero-fill. NOPs are intended to assist with
alignment, not as other padding or fill.
>> Receivers persistently experiencing packets with more than seven
consecutive NOPs SHOULD log such events, at least occasionally, as a
potential DOS indicator.
NOPs are not reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or per-
fragment (as defined in Section 11.4).
This issue is discussed further in Section 24.
11.3. Alternate Payload Checksum (APC)
The Alternate Payload Checksum (APC, Kind=2) option provides a
stronger alternative to the checksum in the UDP header, using a 32-
bit CRC of the conventional UDP user data payload only (excluding
the IP pseudoheader, UDP header, and surplus area). It is an
"alternate" to the UDP checksum that covers the user data - not to
the OCS (the latter covers the surplus area only). Unlike the UDP
checksum, APC does not include the IP pseudoheader or UDP header,
thus it does not need to be updated by NATs when IP addresses or UDP
ports are rewritten. Its purpose is to detect user data errors that
the UDP checksum, when used, might not detect.
A CRC32c has been chosen because of its ubiquity and use in other
Internet protocols, including iSCSI and SCTP. The option contains
the CRC32c in network standard byte order, as described in
[RFC3385].
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind=2 | Len=6 | CRC32c... |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| CRC32c (cont.) |
+--------+--------+
Figure 9 UDP APC option format
When present, the APC always contains a valid CRC checksum. There
are no reserved values, including the value of zero. If the CRC is
zero, this must indicate a valid checksum (i.e., it does not
indicate that the APC is not used; instead, the option would simply
not be included if that were the desired effect).
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
APC does not protect the UDP pseudoheader; only the current UDP
checksum provides that protection (when used). APC cannot provide
that protection because it would need to be updated whenever the UDP
pseudoheader changed, e.g., during NAT address and port translation;
because this is not the case, APC does not cover the pseudoheader.
>> UDP packets with incorrect APC checksums MUST be passed to the
application by default, e.g., with a flag indicating APC failure.
Like all SAFE UDP options, APC needs to be silently ignored when
failing by default, unless the receiver has been configured to do
otherwise. Although all UDP option-aware endpoints support APC
(being in the required set), this silently-ignored behavior ensures
that option-aware receivers operate the same as legacy receivers
unless overridden. Another reason is because APC may fail even where
the user data has not been corrupted, such as when its contents have
been overwritten. Such overwrites could be intentional and not
widely known; defaulting to silent ignore ensures that option-aware
endpoints do not change how users or applications operate unless
explicitly directed to do otherwise.
>> UDP packets with unrecognized APC lengths MUST receive the same
treatment as UDP packets with incorrect APC checksums.
Ensuring that unrecognized APC lengths are treated as incorrect
checksums enables future variants of APC to be treated as APC-like.
APC is reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or per-
fragment (as defined in Section 11.4). In the latter case, it is
indicated as success only if reassembly is complete.
11.4. Fragmentation (FRAG)
The Fragmentation (FRAG, Kind=3) option supports UDP fragmentation
and reassembly, which can be used to transfer UDP messages larger
than allowed by the IP receive MTU (EMTU_R [RFC1122]). FRAG includes
a copy of the same UDP transport ports in each fragment, enabling
them to traverse Network Address (and port) Translation (NAT)
devices, in contrast to the behavior of IP fragments. FRAG is
typically used with the UDP MDS and MRDS options to enable more
efficient use of large messages, both at the UDP and IP layers. The
design of FRAG is similar to that of the IPv6 Fragmentation Header
[RFC8200], except that the UDP variant uses a 16-bit Offset measured
in bytes, rather than IPv6's 13-bit Fragment Offset measured in 8-
byte units. This UDP variant avoids creating reserved fields.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
The FRAG header also enables use of options that modify the contents
of the UDP payload, such as encryption (UENC, see Sec. 12.2). Like
fragmentation, such options would not be safely used on UDP payloads
because they would be misinterpreted by legacy receivers. FRAG
allows use of these options, either on fragments or on a whole,
unfragmented message (i.e., an "atomic" fragment at the UDP layer,
similar to atomic IP datagrams [RFC6864]). This is safe because FRAG
hides the payload from legacy receivers by placing it within the
surplus area.
>> When FRAG is present, it SHOULD come as early as possible in the
UDP options list.
When present, placing FRAG first can simplify some implementations,
notably using hardware acceleration that assumes a fixed location
for the FRAG option. However, there are cases where FRAG cannot
occur first, such as when combined with per-fragment UENC or UCMP.
In those cases, encryption or compression (or both) would precede
FRAG when they also encrypt or compress the fragment option itself.
Additional cases could include recoding, such as may be used to
support forward error correction (FEC) over a group of fragments.
FRAG not being first might result in software (so-called "slow
path") option processing, or might also be accommodated via a small
set of known cases.
>> When FRAG is present, the UDP user data MUST be empty. If the
user data is not empty, all UDP options MUST be silently ignored and
the user data received sent to the user.
Legacy receivers interpret FRAG messages as zero-length user data
UDP packets (i.e., UDP Length field is 8, the length of just the UDP
header), which would not affect the receiver unless the presence of
the UDP packet itself were a signal (see Section 5 of [RFC8085]).
In this manner, the FRAG option also helps hide UNSAFE options so
they can be used more safely in the presence of legacy receivers.
The FRAG option has two formats; non-terminal fragments use the
shorter variant (Figure 10) and terminal fragments use the longer
(Figure 11). The latter includes stand-alone fragments, i.e., when
data is contained in the FRAG option but reassembly is not required.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind=3 | Len=10 | Frag. Start |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Identification |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Frag. Offset |
+--------+--------+
Figure 10 UDP non-terminal FRAG option format
Most fields are common to both FRAG option formats. The option Len
field indicates whether there are more fragments (Len=10) or no more
fragments (Len=12).
Frag. Start indicates the location of the beginning of the fragment
data, measured from the beginning of the UDP header of the fragment.
The fragment data follows the remainder of the UDP options and
continues to the end of the IP datagram (i.e., the end of the
surplus area). Those options (i.e., any that precede or follow the
FRAG option) are applied to this UDP fragment.
The Frag. Offset field indicates the location of this fragment
relative to the original UDP datagram (prior to fragmentation or
after reassembly), measured from the start of the original UDP
datagram's header.
The Identification field is a 32-bit value that, when used in
combination with the IP source address, UDP source port, IP
destination address, and UDP destination port, uniquely identifies
the original UDP datagram.
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind=3 | Len=12 | Frag. Start |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Identification |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Frag. Offset |Reass DgOpt Start|
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 11 UDP terminal FRAG option format
The terminal FRAG option format adds a Reassembled Datagram Option
Start (RDOS) pointer, measured from the start of the original UDP
datagram header, indicating the end of the reassembled data and the
start of the surplus area within the original UDP datagram. UDP
options that apply to the reassembled datagram are contained in the
partially reassembled surplus area, as indicated by RDOS. UDP
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
options that occur within the fragment are processed on the fragment
itself. This allows either pre-reassembly or post-reassembly UDP
option effects, such as using UENC on each fragment while also using
TIME on the reassembled datagram for round-trip latency
measurements.
An example showing the relationship between UDP fragments and the
original UDP datagram is provided in Figure 12. In this example, the
trailer containing per-datagram options resides entirely within the
terminal fragment, but this need not always be the case.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
Constituent UDP Fragments Original UDP Datagram
+-------------+------------+
| Src Port | Dst Port |
+-------------+------------+
| UDP Len (8) | UDP Chksum |
+-------------+------------+
| OCS | K=3 L=10 | +-------------+------------+
+-------------+------------+ | Src Port | Dst Port |
,--| Frag. Start | Identifi- ~ +-------------+------------+
| +-------------+------------+ | UDP L.(RDOS)| UDP Chksum |
| ~ cation | Frag. Off. |----->+-------------+------------+
| +-------------+------------+ | Frag Data from 1st Frag. |
| ~ Per Fragment Options ~ | . |
'->+-------------+------------+ ~ . ~
~ Fragment Data ~ | . |
+-------------+------------+ ,-->+-------------+------------+
| | Frag Data from 2nd Frag. |
+-------------+------------+ | | . |
| Src Port | Dst Port | | ~ . ~
+-------------+------------+ | | . |
| UDP Len (8) | UDP Chksum | | ,>+-------------+------------+
+-------------+------------+ | | | OCS | UDP Options|
| OCS | K=3 L=12 | | | +-------------+ +
+-------------+------------+ | | ~ . ~
,--| Frag. Start | Identifi- ~ | | +-------------+------------+
| +-------------+------------+ | |
| ~ cation | Frag. Off. |--' |
| +-------------+------------+ |
| | RDOS | Frag.Opts. | |
'->+--|----------+------------+ |
~ | Fragment Data ~ |
+--|----------+------------+ |
| |
'----------------------------'
Figure 12 UDP fragments and Original UDP datagram
The FRAG option does not need a "more fragments" bit because it
provides the same indication by using the longer, 12-byte variant,
as shown in Figure 11.
>> The FRAG option MAY be used on a single fragment, in which case
the Frag. Offset would be zero and the option would have the 12-byte
format.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> Endpoints supporting UDP options MUST be capable of fragmenting
and reassembling at least 2 fragments, for a total of at least 3,000
bytes (see MRDS in Section 11.6).
Use of the single fragment variant can be helpful in supporting use
of UNSAFE options without undesirable impact to receivers that do
not support either UDP options or the specific UNSAFE options.
During fragmentation, the UDP header checksum of each fragment
remains constant. It does not depend on the fragment data (which
appears in the surplus area) because all fragments have a zero-
length user data field.
>> The Identification field is a 32-bit value that MUST be unique
over the expected fragment reassembly timeout.
>> The Identification field SHOULD be generated in a manner similar
to that of the IPv6 Fragment ID [RFC8200].
>> UDP fragments MUST NOT overlap.
>> Similar to IPv6 reassembly [RFC8200], if any of the fragments
being reassembled overlap with any other fragments being reassembled
for the same UDP packet, reassembly of that UDP packet MUST be
abandoned and all the fragments that have been received for that UDP
packet must be discarded, and no ICMP error messages should be sent
in this case (to avoid a potential DOS attack turning into an ICMP
storm in the reverse direction).
>> Note that fragments might be duplicated in the network. Instead
of treating these exact duplicate fragments as overlapping
fragments, an implementation MAY choose to detect this case and drop
exact duplicate fragments while keeping the other fragments
belonging to the same UDP packet.
UDP fragmentation relies on a fragment expiration timer, which can
be preset or could use a value computed using the UDP Timestamp
option.
>> The default UDP reassembly expiration timeout SHOULD be no more
than 2 minutes.
>> UDP reassembly expiration MUST NOT generate an ICMP error. Such
events are not an IP error and can be addressed by the
user/application layer if desired.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> UDP reassembly space SHOULD be limited to reduce the impact of
DOS attacks on resource use.
>> UDP reassembly space limits SHOULD NOT be computed as a shared
resource across multiple sockets, to avoid cross-socketpair DOS
attacks.
>> Individual UDP fragments MUST NOT be forwarded to the user. The
reassembled datagram is received only after complete reassembly,
checksum validation, and continued processing of the remaining UDP
options.
Per-fragment UDP options, if used in addition to FRAG, occur before
the fragment data. They typically occur after the FRAG option,
except where they modify the FRAG option itself (e.g., UENC or
UCMP). Per-fragment options are processed before the fragment is
included in the reassembled datagram. Such options can be useful to
protect the reassembly process itself, e.g., to prevent the
reassembly cache from being polluted (using AUTH or UENC).
>> Fragments of a single datagram MAY use different sets of options.
It is expected to be prohibitive to validate uniformity across all
fragments and there may be legitimate reasons for including options
in a fragment but not all fragments (e.g., MDS, MRDS).
If an option is used per-fragment but defined as not usable per-
fragment, it is treated the same as any other unknown option.
Per-datagram UDP options, if used, reside in the surplus area of the
original UDP datagram. Processing of those options occurs after
reassembly is complete. This enables the safe use of UNSAFE options,
which are required to result in discarding the entire UDP datagram
if they are unknown to the receiver or otherwise fail (see Section
12).
In general, UDP packets are fragmented as follows:
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
1. Create a UDP packet with data and UDP options. This is the
original UDP datagram, which we will call "D". The UDP options
follow the UDP user data and occur in the surplus area, just as
in an unfragmented UDP datagram with UDP options.
>> UDP options for the original packet MUST be fully prepared
before the rest of the fragmentation steps that follow here.
>> The UDP checksum of the original packet SHOULD be set to zero
because it is never transmitted. Equivalent protection is
provided if each fragment has a non-zero OCS value, as will be
the case if each fragment's UDP checksum is non-zero. Similarly,
the OCS value of the original packet SHOULD be zero if each
fragment will have a non-zero OCS value, as will be the case if
each fragment's UDP checksum is non-zero.
2. Identify the desired fragment size, which we will call "S". This
value should take into account the path MTU (if known) and allow
space for per-fragment options.
3. Fragment "D" into chunks of size no larger than "S"-12 each (10
for the non-terminal FRAG option and 2 for OCS), with one final
chunk no larger no larger than "S"-14 (12 for the terminal FRAG
option and 2 for OCS). Note that all the per-datagram options in
step #1 need not be limited to the terminal fragment, i.e., the
RDOS pointer can indicate the start of the original surplus area
anywhere in the reassembled datagram.
Note: per packet options can occur either at the end of the
original user data or be placed after the FRAG option of the
first fragment, with the Reassembled Datagram Option Start (RDOS)
in the terminal FRAG option set accordingly. This includes its
use in atomic fragments, where the terminal option is the initial
and only fragment.
4. For each chunk of "D" in step #3, create a UDP packet with no
user data (UDP Length=8) followed by the word-aligned OCS, the
FRAG option, and any additional per-fragment UDP options,
followed by the FRAG data chunk.
5. Complete the processing associated with creating these additional
per-fragment UDP options for each fragment.
Receivers reverse the above sequence. They process all received
options in each fragment. When the FRAG option is encountered, the
FRAG data is used in reassembly. After all fragments are received,
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
the entire UDP packet is processed with any trailing UDP options
applying to the reassembled user data.
>> Reassembly failures at the receiver result in silent discard of
any per-fragment options and fragment contents. Such failures SHOULD
NOT generate zero-length frames to the user.
>> Finally, because fragmentation processing can be expensive, the
FRAG option SHOULD be avoided unless the original datagram requires
fragmentation or it is needed for "safe" use of UNSAFE options.
>> Users MAY also select the FRAG option to provide limited support
for UDP options in systems that have access to only the initial
portion of the data in incoming or outgoing packets, with the caveat
that such packets would be silently ignored by legacy receivers
(that do not support UDP options).
FRAG is not reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or per-
fragment (as defined in Section 11.4).
11.5. Maximum Datagram Size (MDS)
The Maximum Datagram Size (MDS, Kind=4) option is a 16-bit hint of
the largest unfragmented UDP packet that an endpoint believes can be
received. As with the TCP Maximum Segment Size (MSS) option
[RFC9293], the size indicated is the IP layer MTU decreased by the
fixed IP and UDP headers only [RFC9293]. The space needed for IP and
UDP options needs to be adjusted by the sender when using the value
indicated. The value transmitted is based on EMTU_R, the largest IP
datagram that can be received (i.e., reassembled at the receiver)
[RFC1122]. However, as with TCP, this value is only a hint at what
the receiver believes.
>> MDS does not indicate a known path MTU and thus MUST NOT be used
to limit transmissions.
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind=4 | Len=4 | MDS size |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 13 UDP MDS option format
>> The UDP MDS option MAY be used as a hint for path MTU discovery
[RFC1191][RFC8201], but this may be difficult because of known
issues with ICMP blocking [RFC2923] as well as UDP lacking automatic
retransmission.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
MDS is more likely to be useful when coupled with IP source
fragmentation or UDP fragmentation to limit the largest reassembled
UDP message as indicated by MRDS (see Section 11.6), e.g., when
EMTU_R is larger than the required minimums (576 for IPv4 [RFC791]
and 1500 for IPv6 [RFC8200]).
>> MDS can be used with DPLPMTUD [RFC8899] to provide a hint to the
packetization layer path MTU (PLPMTU) value, though it MUST NOT
prohibit transmission of larger UDP packets used as DPLPMTUD probes.
MDS is reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or per-
fragment (as defined in Section 11.4). When used per-fragment, the
report should be the minimum of the MDS values received per-
fragment.
11.6. Maximum Reassembled Datagram Size (MRDS)
The Maximum Reassembled Datagram Size (MRDS, Kind=5) option is a 16-
bit indicator of the largest reassembled UDP datagram that can be
received. MRDS is the UDP equivalent of IP's EMTU_R but the two are
not related [RFC1122]. Using the FRAG option (Section 11.4), UDP
packets can be transmitted as transport fragments, each in their own
(presumably not fragmented) IP datagram and be reassembled at the
UDP layer.
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Kind=5 | Len=4 | MRDS size |
+--------+--------+--------+--------+
Figure 14 UDP MRDS option format
>> Endpoints supporting UDP options MUST support a local MRDS of at
least 3,000 bytes.
NOPs are not reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or per-
fragment (as defined in Section 11.4).
MRDS is reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or per-
fragment (as defined in Section 11.4). When used per-fragment, the
report should be the minimum of the MRDS values received per-
fragment.
11.7. Echo request (REQ) and echo response (RES)
The echo request (REQ, Kind=6) and echo response (RES, Kind=7)
options provides UDP packet-level acknowledgements as a capability
for use by upper layer protocols, e.g., user applications,
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
libraries, operating systems, etc. Both the REQ and RES are under
the control of these upper layers, i.e., UDP itself never
automatically responds to a REQ with a RES. Instead, the REQ is
delivered to the upper layer, which decides whether and when to
issue a RES.
One such use is described as part of the UDP options variant of
packetization layer path MTU discovery (PLPMTUD) [Fa23]. The options
both have the format indicated in Figure 15, in which the token has
no internal structure or meaning.
+--------+--------+------------------+
| Kind | Len=6 | token |
+--------+--------+------------------+
1 byte 1 byte 4 bytes
Figure 15 UDP REQ and RES options format
>> As advice to upper layer protocol/library designers, when
supporting REQ/RES and responding with a RES, the upper layer SHOULD
respond with the most recently received REQ token.
>> REQ/RES MUST be disabled by default, i.e., arriving REQs are
silently ignored and RES cannot be issued unless REQ/RES is actively
enabled, e.g., for DPLPMTUD or other known use by an upper layer
mechanism.
For example, an application needs to explicitly enable the
generation of a RES response by DPLPMTUD when using UDP Options
[Fa23].
>> The token used in a RES option MUST be a token received in a REQ
option. This ensures that the response is to a received request.
REQ and RES option kinds appear at most once each in each UDP
packet, as with most other options. Note also that the FRAG option
is not used when sending DPLPMTUD probes to determine a PLPMTU
[Fa23].
REQ and RES are reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or
per-fragment (as defined in Section 11.4). When used per-fragment,
the report should indicate the most recently received token.
11.8. Timestamps (TIME)
The Timestamp (TIME, Kind=8) option exchanges two four-byte unsigned
timestamp fields. It serves a similar purpose to TCP's TS option
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
[RFC7323], enabling UDP to estimate the round-trip time (RTT)
between hosts. For UDP, this RTT can be useful for establishing UDP
fragment reassembly timeouts or transport-layer rate-limiting
[RFC8085].
+--------+--------+------------------+------------------+
| Kind=8 | Len=10 | TSval | TSecr |
+--------+--------+------------------+------------------+
1 byte 1 byte 4 bytes 4 bytes
Figure 16 UDP TIME option format
TS Value (TSval) and TS Echo Reply (TSecr) are used in a similar
manner to the TCP TS option [RFC7323]. On transmitted UDP packets
using the option, TS Value is always set based on the local "time"
value. Received TSval and TSecr values are provided to the
application, which can pass the TSval value to be used as TSecr on
UDP messages sent in response (i.e., to echo the received TSval). A
received TSecr of zero indicates that the TSval was not echoed by
the transmitter, i.e., from a previously received UDP packet.
>> TIME MAY use an RTT estimate based on nonzero Timestamp values as
a hint for fragmentation reassembly, rate limiting, or other
mechanisms that benefit from such an estimate.
>> an application MAY use TIME to compute this RTT estimate for
further use by the user.
UDP timestamps are modeled after TCP timestamps and have similar
expectations. In particular, they are expected to be:
o Values are monotonic and non-decreasing except for anticipated
number-space rollover events
o Values should "increase" (allowing for rollover, i.e., modulo the
field size excepting zero) according to a typical 'tick' time
o A request is defined as TSval being non-zero and a reply is
defined as TSecr being non-zero.
o A receiver should always respond to a request with the highest
TSval received (allowing for rollover), which is not necessarily
the most recently received.
Rollover can be handled as a special case or more completely using
sequence number extension [RFC9187], however zero values need to be
avoided explicitly.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> TIME values MUST NOT use zeros as valid time values, because they
are used as indicators of requests and responses.
TIME is reported to the user, whether used per-datagram or per-
fragment (as defined in Section 11.4). When used per-fragment, the
report should be the minimum and maximum of each of the timestamp
values received per-fragment.
>> Use of TIME per-fragment is NOT RECOMMENDED. Exceptions include
supporting diagnostics on the reassembly process itself, which may
be more appropriate to handle within the UDP option processing
implementation.
11.9. Authentication (AUTH), RESERVED Only
The Authentication (AUTH, Kind=9) option is reserved for all UDP
authentication mechanisms [To24]. AUTH is expected to cover the UDP
user data and UDP options, with possible additional coverage of
portions of the IP and UDP headers and potentially also support for
NAT traversal, in a similar manner as TCP-AO [RFC6978].
Like APC, AUTH is a SAFE option because it would not modify the UDP
user data. AUTH may fail even where the user data has not been
corrupted, such as when its contents have been overwritten. Such
overwrites could be intentional and not widely known; defaulting to
silent ignore ensures that option-aware endpoints do not change how
users or applications operate unless explicitly directed to do
otherwise.
11.10. Experimental (EXP)
The Experimental option (EXP, Kind=127) is reserved for experiments
[RFC3692]. Only one such value is reserved because experiments are
expected to use an Experimental ID (ExIDs) to differentiate
concurrent use for different purposes, using UDP ExIDs registered
with IANA according to the approach developed for TCP experimental
options [RFC6994].
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Kind=127 | Len | UDP ExID |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| (option contents, as defined)... |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Figure 17 UDP EXP option format
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> The length of the experimental option MUST be at least 4 to
account for the Kind, Length, and the minimum 16-bit UDP ExID
identifier (similar to TCP ExIDs [RFC6994]).
The UDP EXP option also includes an extended length format, where
the option LEN is 255 followed by two bytes of extended length.
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| Kind=127 | 255 | Extended Length |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| UDP ExID. |(option contents...) |
+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Figure 18 UDP EXP extended option format
Assigned UDP experimental IDs (ExIDs) assigned from a single
registry managed by IANA (see Section 25). Assigned ExIDs can be
used in either the EXP or UEXP options (see Section 12.3 for the
latter).
12. UNSAFE Options
UNSAFE options are not safe to ignore and can be used
unidirectionally or without soft-state confirmation of UDP option
capability. They are always used only when the user data occurs
inside a reassembled set of one or more UDP fragments, such that if
UDP fragmentation is not supported, the enclosed UDP user data would
be silently dropped anyway.
>> Applications using UNSAFE options SHOULD NOT also use zero-length
UDP packets as signals, because they will arrive when UNSAFE options
fail. Those that choose to allow such packets MUST account for such
events.
>> UNSAFE options MUST be used only as part of UDP fragments, used
either per-fragment or after reassembly.
>> Receivers supporting UDP options MUST silently drop the UDP user
data of the reassembled datagram if any fragment or the entire
datagram includes an UNSAFE option whose UKind is not supported or
if an UNSAFE option appears outside the context of a fragment or
reassembled fragments.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
12.1. UNSAFE Compression (UCMP)
The UNSAFE Compression (UENC, Kind=192) option is reserved for all
UDP compression mechanisms. UCMP is expected to cover the UDP user
data and some (e.g., later, in sequence) UDP options.
12.2. UNSAFE Encryption (UENC)
The UNSAFE Encryption (UENC, Kind=193) option is reserved for all
UDP encryption mechanisms. UENC is expected to cover the UDP user
data and some (e.g., later, in sequence) UDP options, with possible
additional protection of portions of the IP and UDP headers and
potentially also support for NAT traversal, in a similar manner as
TCP-AO [RFC6978].
12.3. UNSAFE Experimental (UEXP)
The UNSAFE Experimental option (UEXP, Kind=254) is reserved for
experiments [RFC3692]. As with EXP, only one such UEXP value is
reserved because experiments are expected to use an Experimental ID
(ExIDs) to differentiate concurrent use for different purposes,
using UDP ExIDs registered with IANA according to the approach
developed for TCP experimental options [RFC6994].
Assigned ExIDs can be used with either the UEXP or EXP options.
13. Rules for designing new options
The UDP option Kind space allows for the definition of new options,
however the currently defined options do not allow for arbitrary new
options. The following is a summary of rules for new options and
their rationales:
>> New options MUST NOT modify the content of options that precede
them (in order of appearance and thus processing).
>> The fields of new options MUST NOT depend on the content of other
options.
UNSAFE options can both depend on and vary user data content because
they are contained only inside UDP fragments and thus are processed
only by UDP option capable receivers.
>> New options MUST NOT declare their order relative to other
options, whether new or old, even as a preference.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> At the sender, new options MUST NOT modify UDP packet content
anywhere except within their option field, excepting only those
contained within the UNSAFE option; areas that need to remain
unmodified include the IP header, IP options, the UDP user data, and
the surplus area (i.e., other options).
>> Options MUST NOT be modified in transit. This includes those
already defined as well as new options.
>> New options MUST NOT require or allow that any UDP options
(including themselves) or the remaining surplus area be modified in
transit.
>> All options MUST indicate whether they can be used per-fragment,
and, if so, MUST also indicate how their success or failure is
reported to the user. This document RECOMMENDS that options be
useful per-fragment and also RECOMMENDS that options used per-
fragment be reported to the user as a finite aggregate (e.g., a sum,
a flag, etc.) rather than individually.
Note that only certain of the initially defined options violate
these rules:
o >> The FRAG option modifies UDP user data, splitting it across
multiple IP packets. UNSAFE options MAY modify the UDP user data,
e.g., by encryption, compression, or other transformations. All
other (SAFE) options MUST NOT modify the UDP user data.
The following recommendation helps enable efficient zero-copy
processing:
o >> FRAG SHOULD be the first option, when present.
14. Option inclusion and processing
The following rules apply to option inclusion by senders and
processing by receivers.
>> Senders MAY add any option, as configured by the API.
>> All "must-support" options MUST be processed by receivers, if
present (presuming UDP options are supported at that receiver).
>> Non-"must-support" options MAY be ignored by receivers, if
present, e.g., based on API settings.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> All options MUST be processed by receivers in the order
encountered in the options area.
>> All options except UNSAFE options MUST result in the UDP user
data being passed to the application layer, regardless of whether
all options are processed, supported, or succeed.
The basic premise is that, for options-aware endpoints, the sender
decides what options to add and the receiver decides what options to
handle. Simply adding an option does not force work upon a receiver,
with the exception of the "must-support" options.
Upon receipt, the receiver checks various properties of the UDP
packet and its options to decide whether to accept or drop the UDP
packet and whether to accept or ignore some of its options as
follows (in order):
if the UDP checksum fails then
silently drop the entire UDP packet (per RFC1122)
if the UDP checksum passes or is zero then
if ((OCS != 0 and fails or OCS == 0)
and UDP CS != 0) then
deliver the UDP user data but ignore other options
(this is required to emulate legacy behavior)
if (OCS != 0 and passes) or
(OCS == 0 and UDP CS == 0) then
deliver the UDP user data after parsing
and processing the rest of the options,
regardless of whether each is supported or succeeds
(again, this is required to emulate legacy behavior)
The design of the UNSAFE options as used only inside the FRAG area
ensures that the resulting UDP data will be silently dropped in both
legacy and options-aware receivers. Again, note that this still
results in the delivery of a zero-length UDP packet.
Options-aware receivers can drop UDP packets with option processing
errors via either an override of the default UDP processing or at
the application layer.
I.e., all options are treated the same, in that the transmitter can
add it as desired and the receiver has the option to require it or
not. Only if it is required (e.g., by API configuration) should the
receiver require it being present and correct.
I.e., for all options:
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
o if the option is not required by the receiver, then UDP packets
missing the option are accepted.
o if the option is required (e.g., by override of the default
behavior at the receiver) and missing or incorrectly formed,
silently drop the UDP packet.
o if the UDP packet is accepted (either because the option is not
required or because it was required and correct), then pass the
option with the UDP packet via the API. Note that FRAG, NOP, and
EOL are not passed to the user (see Section 15).
Any options whose length exceeds that of the UDP packet (i.e.,
intending to use data that would have been beyond the surplus area)
should be silently ignored (again to model legacy behavior).
15. UDP API Extensions
UDP currently specifies an application programmer interface (API),
summarized as follows (with Unix-style command as an example)
[RFC768]:
o Method to create new receive ports
o E.g., bind(handle, recvaddr(optional), recvport)
o Receive, which returns data octets, source port, and source
address
o E.g., recvfrom(handle, srcaddr, srcport, data)
o Send, which specifies data, source and destination addresses, and
source and destination ports
o E.g., sendto(handle, destaddr, destport, data)
This API is extended to support options as follows:
o Extend the method to create receive ports to include per-packet
and per-fragment receive options that are required or omitted as
indicated by the application.
>> Datagrams not containing these required options MUST be
silently dropped and MAY be logged.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
o Extend the receive function to indicate the per-packet options
and their parameters as received with the corresponding received
datagram. Note that per-fragment options are handled within the
processing of each fragment.
>> Options and their processing status (success/fail) MUST be
available to the user (i.e., application layer or upper layer
protocol/service), both for the packet and for the fragment set,
except for FRAG, NOP, and EOL; those three options are handled
within UDP option processing only.
o For fragments, success for an option is reported only when all
fragments succeed for that option.
>> Per-fragment option status reporting SHOULD default as needed
(e.g., not computed and/or not passed up to the upper layers) to
minimize overhead unless actively requested (e.g., by the
user/application layer).
o >> SAFE options associated with fragments are accumulated when
associated with the reassembled packet; values MAY be coalesced,
e.g., to indicate only that an AUTH failure of a fragment
occurred or not rather than indicating the AUTH status of each
fragment.
o Extend the send function to indicate the options to be added to
the corresponding sent datagram. This includes indicating which
options apply to individual fragments vs. which apply to the UDP
packet prior to fragmentation, if fragmentation is enabled. This
includes a minimum datagram length, such that the options list
ends in EOL and additional space is zero-filled as needed. It
also includes a maximum fragment size, e.g., as discovered by
DPLPMTUD, whether implemented at the application layer per
[RFC8899] or in conjunction with other UDP options [Fa23].
Examples of API instances for Linux and FreeBSD are provided in
Appendix A, to encourage uniform cross-platform implementations.
APIs are not intended to provide user control over option order,
especially on a per-packet basis, as this could create a covert
channel (see Section 24). Similarly, APIs are not intended to
provide user/application control over UDP fragment boundaries on a
per-packet basis, although they are expected to allow control over
which options, including fragmentation, are enabled (or disabled) on
a per-packet basis. Such control over when fragmentation is used is
critical to DPLPMTUD.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
16. UDP Options are for Transport, Not Transit
UDP options are indicated in the surplus area of the IP payload that
is not used by UDP. That area is really part of the IP payload, not
the UDP payload, and as such, it might be tempting to consider
whether this is a generally useful approach to extending IP.
Unfortunately, the surplus area exists only for transports that
include their own transport layer payload length indicator. TCP and
SCTP include header length fields that already provide space for
transport options by indicating the total length of the header area,
such that the entire remaining area indicated in the network layer
(IP) is transport payload. UDP-Lite already uses the UDP Length
field to indicate the boundary between data covered by the transport
checksum and data not covered, and so there is no remaining area
where the length of the UDP-Lite payload as a whole can be indicated
[RFC3828].
UDP options are intended for modification only by the transport
endpoints. They are no more (or less) appropriate to be modified in-
transit than any other portion of the transport datagram.
>> UDP options are transport options. Generally, transport headers,
options, and data are not intended to be modified in-transit. UDP
options are no exception and here are specified as "MUST NOT" be
altered in transit.
However, note that the UDP option mechanism provides no specific
protection against in-transit modification of the UDP header, UDP
payload, or surplus area, except as provided by the OCS or the
options selected (e.g., AUTH or UENC).
Unless protected by encryption (e.g., UENC or via other layers,
e.g., IPsec), UDP options remain visible to devices on the network
path.
17. UDP options vs. UDP-Lite
UDP-Lite provides partial checksum coverage, so that UDP packets
with errors in some locations can be delivered to the user
[RFC3828]. It uses a different transport protocol number (136) than
UDP (17) to interpret the UDP Length field as the prefix covered by
the UDP checksum.
UDP (protocol 17) already defines the UDP Length field as the limit
of the UDP checksum, but by default also limits the data provided to
the application as that which precedes the UDP Length. A goal of
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
UDP-Lite is to deliver data beyond UDP Length as a default, which is
why a separate transport protocol number was required.
UDP options do not use or need a separate transport protocol number
because the data beyond the UDP Length offset (surplus data) is not
provided to the application by default. That data is interpreted
exclusively within the UDP transport layer.
UDP-Lite cannot support UDP options, either as proposed here or in
any other form, because the entire payload of the UDP packet is
already defined as user data and there is no additional field in
which to indicate a surplus area for options. The UDP Length field
in UDP-Lite is already used to indicate the boundary between user
data covered by the checksum and user data not covered.
18. Interactions with Legacy Devices
It has always been permissible for the UDP Length to be inconsistent
with the IP transport payload length [RFC768]. Such inconsistency
has been utilized in UDP-Lite using a different transport number.
There are no known systems that use this inconsistency for UDP
[RFC3828]. It is possible that such use might interact with UDP
options, i.e., where legacy systems might generate UDP datagrams
that appear to have UDP options. The OCS provides protection against
such events and is stronger than a static "magic number".
UDP options have been tested as interoperable with Linux, macOS, and
Windows Cygwin, and worked through NAT devices. These systems
successfully delivered only the user data indicated by the UDP
Length field and silently discarded the surplus area.
One reported embedded device passes the entire IP datagram to the
UDP application layer. Although this feature could enable
application-layer UDP option processing, it would require that
conventional UDP user applications examine only the UDP user data.
This feature is also inconsistent with the UDP application interface
[RFC768] [RFC1122].
It has been reported that Alcatel-Lucent's "Brick" Intrusion
Detection System has a default configuration that interprets
inconsistencies between UDP Length and IP Length as an attack to be
reported. Note that other firewall systems, e.g., CheckPoint, use a
default "relaxed UDP length verification" to avoid falsely
interpreting this inconsistency as an attack.
There are known uses of UDP exchanges of zero-length UDP user data
packets, notably in the TIME protocol [RFC868]. The need to support
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
such packets is also noted in the UDP usage guidelines [RFC8085].
Some of the mechanisms in this document can generate more zero-
length UDP packets for a UDP option aware endpoint than for a legacy
(non-aware) endpoint (e.g., based some error conditions) and some
can generate fewer (e.g., fragment reassembly). Because such packets
inherently carry no unique transport header or transport content,
endpoints are already expected to be tolerant of their (inadvertent)
replication or loss by the network, so such variations are not
expected to be problematic.
19. Options in a Stateless, Unreliable Transport Protocol
There are two ways to interpret options for a stateless, unreliable
protocol -- an option is either local to the message or intended to
affect a stream of messages in a soft-state manner. Either
interpretation is valid for defined UDP options.
It is impossible to know in advance whether an endpoint supports a
UDP option.
>> All UDP options other than UNSAFE ones MUST be ignored if not
supported or upon failure (e.g., APC).
>> All UDP options that fail MUST result in the UDP data still being
sent to the application layer by default, to ensure equivalence with
legacy devices.
UDP options that rely on soft-state exchange need allow for message
reordering and loss, in the same way as UDP applications [RFC8085].
The above requirements prevent using any option that cannot be
safely ignored unless it is hidden inside the FRAG area (i.e.,
UNSAFE options). Legacy systems also always need to be able to
interpret the transport fragments as individual UDP packets.
20. UDP Option State Caching
Some TCP connection parameters, stored in the TCP Control Block, can
be usefully shared either among concurrent connections or between
connections in sequence, known as TCP Sharing [RFC9040]. Although
UDP is stateless, some of the options proposed herein may have
similar benefit in being shared or cached. We call this UCB Sharing,
or UDP Control Block Sharing, by analogy. Just as TCB sharing is not
a standard because it is consistent with existing TCP
specifications, UCB sharing would be consistent with existing UDP
specifications, including this one. Both are implementation issues
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
that are outside the scope of their respective specifications, and
so UCB sharing is outside the scope of this document.
21. Updates to RFC 768
This document updates RFC 768 as follows:
o This document defines the meaning of the IP payload area beyond
the UDP length but within the IP length as the surplus area used
herein for UDP options.
o This document extends the UDP API to support the use of UDP
options.
22. Interactions with other RFCs (and drafts)
This document clarifies the interaction between UDP Length and IP
length that is not explicitly constrained in either UDP or the host
requirements [RFC768] [RFC1122].
Teredo extensions (TE) define use of a similar difference between
these lengths for trailers [RFC4380][RFC6081]. TE defines the length
of an IPv6 payload inside UDP as pointing to less than the end of
the UDP payload, enabling trailing options for that IPv6 packet:
"..the IPv6 packet length (i.e., the Payload Length value in
the IPv6 header plus the IPv6 header size) is less than or
equal to the UDP payload length (i.e., the Length value in
the UDP header minus the UDP header size)"
UDP options are not affected by the difference between the UDP user
payload end and the payload IPv6 end; both would end at the UDP user
payload, which could end before the enclosing IPv4 or IPv6 header
indicates - allowing UDP options in addition to the trailer options
of the IPv6 payload. The result, if UDP options were used, is shown
in Figure 19.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
Outer IP Length
<---------------------------------------------------------->
+--------+---------+------------------------------+----------+
| IP Hdr | UDP Hdr | IPv6 packet/len | TE trailer | surplus |
+--------+---------+------------------------------+----------+
<--------------->
Inner IPv6 Length
<-------------------------------------->
UDP Length
Figure 19 TE trailers and UDP options used concurrently
UDP options cannot be supported when a UDP packet has no independent
UDP Length. The only known such case is when UDP Length==0 in IPv6,
intended for (but not limited to) IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675]. Note
that although this technique is "Standard", the specification did
not "update" UDP [RFC768]. The technique has been proposed for
deprecation [Jo19].
This document is consistent the UDP profile for Robust Header
Compression (ROHC)[RFC3095], noted here:
"The Length field of the UDP header MUST match the Length
field(s) of the preceding subheaders, i.e., there must not
be any padding after the UDP payload that is covered by the
IP Length."
ROHC compresses UDP headers only when this match succeeds. It does
not prohibit UDP headers where the match fails; in those cases, ROHC
default rules (Section 5.10) would cause the UDP header to remain
uncompressed. Upon receipt of a compressed UDP header, Section A.1.3
of that document indicates that the UDP length is "INFERRED"; in
uncompressed packets, it would simply be explicitly provided.
This issue of handling UDP header compression is more explicitly
described in more recent specifications, e.g., Sec. 10.10 of Static
Context Header Compression [RFC8724].
23. Multicast Considerations
UDP options are primarily intended for unicast use. Using these
options over multicast IP requires careful consideration, e.g., to
ensure that the options used are safe for different endpoints to
interpret differently (e.g., either to support or silently ignore)
or to ensure that all receivers of a multicast group confirm support
for the options in use.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
24. Security Considerations
There are a number of security issues raised by the introduction of
options to UDP. Some are specific to this variant, but others are
associated with any packet processing mechanism; all are discussed
in this section further.
Note that any user application that considers UDP options to affect
security need not enable them. However, their use does not impact
security in a way substantially different than TCP options; both
enable the use of a control channel that has the potential for
abuse. Similar to TCP, there are many options that, if unprotected,
could be used by an attacker to interfere with communication.
UDP options create new potential opportunities for DDOS attacks,
notably through the use of fragmentation. When enabled, UDP options
cause additional work at the receiver, however, of the "must-
support" options, only REQ (e.g., when used with DPLPMTUD [Fa23])
will cause the upper layer to initiate a UDP response in the absence
of user transmission.
The use of UDP packets with inconsistent IP and UDP Length fields
has the potential to trigger a buffer overflow error if not properly
handled, e.g., if space is allocated based on the smaller field and
copying is based on the larger. However, there have been no reports
of such vulnerability and it would rely on inconsistent use of the
two fields for memory allocation and copying.
UDP options are not covered by DTLS (datagram transport-layer
security). Despite the name, neither TLS [RFC8446] (transport layer
security, for TCP) nor DTLS [RFC9147] (TLS for UDP) protect the
transport layer. Both operate as a shim layer solely on the user
data of transport packets, protecting only their contents. Just as
TLS does not protect the TCP header or its options, DTLS does not
protect the UDP header or the new options introduced by this
document. Transport security is provided in TCP by the TCP
Authentication Option (TCP-AO [RFC5925]) and (when defined) in UDP
by the Authentication (AUTH) option (Section 11.9) and (when
defined) the UNSAFE Encryption (UENC) option (Section 12). Transport
headers are also protected as payload when using IP security (IPsec)
[RFC4301].
UDP options use the TLV syntax similar to that of TCP. This syntax
is known to require serial processing and may pose a DOS risk, e.g.,
if an attacker adds large numbers of unknown options that must be
parsed in their entirety, as is the case for IPv6 [RFC8504].
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
>> Implementations concerned with the potential for UDP options
introducing a vulnerability MAY implement only the required UDP
options and SHOULD also limit processing of TLVs, either in number
of non-padding options or total length, or both. The number of non-
zero TLVs allowed in such cases MUST be at least as many as the
number of concurrent options supported with an additional few to
account for unexpected unknown options, but should also consider
being adaptive and based on the implementation, to avoid locking in
that limit globally.
E.g., if a system supports 10 different option types that could
concurrently be used, it is expected to allow up to around 13-14
different options in the same packet. This document avoids
specifying a fixed minimum, but recognizes that a given system
should not expect to receive more than a few unknown option types
per packet.
Because required options come first and at most once each (with the
exception of NOPs, which should never need to come in sequences of
more than seven in a row), this limits their DOS impact. Note that
TLV formats for options does require serial processing, but any
format that allows future options, whether ignored or not, could
introduce a similar DOS vulnerability.
>> Implementations concerned with the potential for DOS attacks
involving large numbers of UDP options, either implemented or
unknown, or excessive sequences of valid repeating options (e.g.,
NOPs) SHOULD detect excessive numbers of such occurrences and limit
resources they use, either through silent packet drops. Such
responses MUST be logged. Specific thresholds for such limits will
vary based on implementation and are thus not included here.
>> Implementations concerned with the potential for UDP
fragmentation introducing a vulnerability SHOULD implement limits on
the number of pending fragments.
UDP security should never rely solely on transport layer processing
of options. UNSAFE options are the only type that share fate with
the UDP data, because of the way that data is hidden in the surplus
area until after those options are processed. All other options
default to being silently ignored at the transport layer but may be
dropped either if that default is overridden (e.g., by
configuration) or discarded at the application layer (e.g., using
information about the options processed that are passed along with
the UDP packet).
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
UDP fragmentation introduces its own set of security concerns, which
can be handled in a manner similar to IP reassembly or TCP segment
reordering [CERT18]. In particular, the number of UDP packets
pending reassembly and effort used for reassembly is typically
limited. In addition, it may be useful to assume a reasonable
minimum fragment size, e.g., that non-terminal fragments should
never be smaller than 500 bytes.
UDP options, like any options, have the potential to expose option
information to on-path attackers, unless the options themselves are
encrypted (as might be the case with some configurations of UENC,
when defined). Application protocol designers should ensure that
information in UDP options is not used with the assumption of
privacy unless UENC provides that capability. Application protocol
designers using secure payload contents (e.g., via DTLS) should be
aware that UDP options add information that is not inside the UDP
payload and thus not protected by the same mechanism, and that
alternate mechanisms (again, as might be the case with some
configurations of UENC) may be additionally required to protect
against information disclosure.
Some UDP options are never passed to the receiving application,
notably FRAG, NOP, and EOL. They are not intended to convey
information, either by their presence (FRAG, EOL) or number (NOP).
It may also be useful to provide the options received in a reference
order (i.e., sorted by option number), to avoid the order of options
being used as a covert channel.
>> Implementations concerned with the potential use of UDP options
as a covert channel MAY consider limiting use of some or all
options. Such implementations SHOULD ensure FRAG, NOP, and EOL are
not passed to the receiving user and SHOULD return options in an
order not related to their sequence in the received packet.
25. IANA Considerations
Upon publication, IANA is hereby requested to create a new registry
for UDP Option Kind numbers, similar to that for TCP Option Kinds;
this assumes the creation of a new UDP registry group in which UDP
Option Kinds would be the only entry.
Initial values of the UDP Option Kind registry are as listed in
Section 10, including those both assigned and reserved. Additional
values in this registry are to be assigned from the UNASSIGNED
values in Section 10 by IESG Approval or Standards Action [RFC8126].
Those assignments are subject to the conditions set forth in this
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
document, particularly (but not limited to) those in Section 13. The
r
>> Although option nicknames are not used in-band, new UNSAFE option
names SHOULD commence with the capital letter "U" and avoid either
uppercase or lowercase "U" as commencing safe options.
Upon publication, IANA is hereby requested to create a new registry
for UDP Experimental Option Experiment Identifiers (UDP ExIDs) for
use in a similar manner as TCP ExIDs [RFC6994]. UDP ExIDs can be
used in either (or both) the EXP or UEXP options. This registry is
initially empty. Values in this registry are to be assigned by IANA
using first-come, first-served (FCFS) rules [RFC8126]. Options using
these ExIDs are subject to the same conditions as new options, i.e.,
they too are subject to the conditions set forth in this document,
particularly (but not limited to) those in Section 13.
26. References
26.1. Normative References
[Fa23] Fairhurst, G., T. Jones, "Datagram PLPMTUD for UDP
Options," draft-ietf-tsvwg-udp-options-dplpmtud, Jun.
2023.
[RFC768] Postel, J., "User Datagram Protocol," RFC 768, August
1980.
[RFC791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol," RFC 791, Sept. 1981.
[RFC1122] Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts --
Communication Layers," RFC 1122, Oct. 1989.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., A. Mankin, R. Bonica, "The TCP Authentication
Option," RFC 5925, June 2010.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words," RFC 2119, May 2017.
26.2. Informative References
[Fa18] Fairhurst, G., T. Jones, R. Zullo, "Checksum Compensation
Options for UDP Options", draft-fairhurst-udp-options-cco,
Oct. 2018.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
[Hi15] Hildebrand, J., B. Trammel, "Substrate Protocol for User
Datagrams (SPUD) Prototype," draft-hildebrand-spud-
prototype-03, Mar. 2015.
[Jo19] Jones, T., G. Fairhurst, "Change Status of RFC 2675 to
Historic," draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675, May 2019.
[RFC868] Postel, J., K. Harrenstien, "Time Protocol," RFC 868, May
1983.
[RFC1071] Braden, R., D. Borman, C. Partridge, "Computing the
Internet Checksum," RFC 1071, Sept. 1988.
[RFC1191] Mogul, J., S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery," RFC 1191,
November 1990.
[RFC2923] Lahey, K., "TCP Problems with Path MTU Discovery," RFC
2923, September 2000.
[RFC3095] Bormann, C. (Ed), et al., "RObust Header Compression
(ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and
uncompressed," RFC 3095, July 2001.
[RFC3385] Sheinwald, D., J. Satran, P. Thaler, V. Cavanna, "Internet
Protocol Small Computer System Interface (iSCSI) Cyclic
Redundancy Check (CRC)/Checksum Considerations," RFC 3385,
Sep. 2002.
[RFC3692] Narten, T., "Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers
Considered Useful," RFC 3692, Jan. 2004.
[RFC3828] Larzon, L-A., M. Degermark, S. Pink, L-E. Jonsson (Ed.),
G. Fairhurst (Ed.), "The Lightweight User Datagram
Protocol (UDP-Lite)," RFC 3828, July 2004.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, Dec. 2005.
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., M. Handley, and S. Floyd, "Datagram Congestion
Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340, March 2006.
[RFC4380] Huitema, C., "Teredo: Tunneling IPv6 over UDP through
Network Address Translations (NATs)," RFC 4380, Feb. 2006.
[RFC6081] Thaler, D., "Teredo Extensions," RFC 6081, Jan 2011.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
[RFC6864] Touch, J., "Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field,"
RFC 6864, Feb. 2013.
[RFC6935] Eubanks, M., P. Chimento, M. Westerlund, "IPv6 and UDP
Checksums for Tunneled Packets," RFC 6935, April 2013.
[RFC6978] Touch, J., "A TCP Authentication Option Extension for NAT
Traversal", RFC 6978, July 2013.
[RFC6994] Touch, J., "Shared Use of Experimental TCP Options," RFC
6994, Aug. 2013.
[RFC7323] Borman, D., R. Braden, V. Jacobson, R. Scheffenegger
(Ed.), "TCP Extensions for High Performance," RFC 7323,
Sep. 2014.
[RFC8085] Eggert, L., G. Fairhurst, G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage
Guidelines," RFC 8085, Feb. 2017.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., B. Leiba, T. Narten, "Guidelines for Writing
an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs," RFC 8126, June
2017.
[RFC8200] Deering, S., R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol Version 6
(IPv6) Specification," RFC 8200, Jul. 2017.
[RFC8201] McCann, J., S. Deering, J. Mogul, R. Hinden (Ed.), "Path
MTU Discovery for IP version 6," RFC 8201, Jul. 2017.
[RFC8446] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
Version 1.3," RFC 8446, Aug. 2018.
[RFC8504] Chown, T., J. Loughney, T. Winters, "IPv6 Node
Requirements," RFC 8504, Jan. 2019.
[RFC8724] Minaburo, A., L. Toutain, C. Gomez, D. Barthel, JC.,
"SCHC: Generic Framework for Static Context Header
Compression and Fragmentation," RFC 8724, Apr. 2020.
[RFC8899] Fairhurst, G., T. Jones, M. Tuxen, I. Rungeler, T. Volker,
"Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery for Datagram
Transports," RFC 8899, Sep. 2020.
[RFC9040] Touch, J., M. Welzl, S. Islam, "TCP Control Block
Interdependence," RFC 9040, Jul. 2021.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
[RFC9147] Rescorla, E., H. Tschofenig, N. Modadugu, "Datagram
Transport Layer Security Version 1.3," RFC 9147, Apr.
2022.
[RFC9187] Touch, J., "Sequence Number Extension for Windowed
Protocols," RFC 9187, Jan. 2022.
[RFC9260] Stewart, R., M. Tuxen, K. Nielsen, "Stream Control
Transmission Protocol", RFC 9260, June 2022.
[RFC9293] Eddy, W. (Ed.), "Transmission Control Protocol," STD 7,
RFC 9293, Aug. 2022.
[CERT18] CERT Coordination Center, "TCP implementations vulnerable
to Denial of Service,", Vulnerability Note VU 962459,
Software Engineering Institute, CMU, 2018,
https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/962459.
[To18] Touch, J., "A TCP Authentication Option Extension for
Payload Encryption," draft-touch-tcp-ao-encrypt, Jul.
2018.
[To24] Touch, J., "The UDP Authentication Option," draft-touch-
udp-auth-option, Jul. 2018.
[Zu20] Zullo, R., T. Jones, and G. Fairhurst, "Overcoming the
Sorrows of the Young UDP Options," 2020 Network Traffic
Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA), IEEE, 2020.
27. Acknowledgments
This work benefitted from feedback from Erik Auerswald, Bob Briscoe,
Ken Calvert, Ted Faber, Gorry Fairhurst (including OCS for errant
middlebox traversal), C. M. Heard (including combining previous FRAG
and LITE options into the new FRAG, as well as Figure 12), Tom
Herbert, Tom Jones, Mark Smith, Carl Williams, and Raffaele Zullo,
as well as discussions on the IETF TSVWG and SPUD email lists.
This work was partly supported by USC/ISI's Postel Center.
This document was prepared using 2-Word-v2.0.template.dot.
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
Authors' Addresses
Joe Touch
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 USA
Phone: +1 (310) 560-0334
Email: touch@strayalpha.com
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
Appendix A.Implementation Information
The following information is provided to encourage interoperable API
implementations.
System-level variables (sysctl):
Name default meaning
----------------------------------------------------
net.ipv4.udp_opt 0 UDP options available
net.ipv4.udp_opt_ocs 1 Use OCS
net.ipv4.udp_opt_apc 0 Include APC
net.ipv4.udp_opt_frag 0 Fragment
net.ipv4.udp_opt_mds 0 Include MDS
net.ipv4.udp_opt_mrds 0 Include MRDS
net.ipv4.udp_opt_req 0 Include REQ
net.ipv4.udp_opt_resp 0 Include RES
net.ipv4.udp_opt_time 0 Include TIME
net.ipv4.udp_opt_auth 0 Include AUTH
net.ipv4.udp_opt_exp 0 Include EXP
net.ipv4.udp_opt_ucmp 0 Include UCMP
net.ipv4.udp_opt_uenc 0 Include UENC
net.ipv4.udp_opt_uexp 0 Include UEXP
Socket options (sockopt), cached for outgoing datagrams:
Name meaning
----------------------------------------------------
UDP_OPT Enable UDP options (at all)
UDP_OPT_OCS Use UDP OCS
UDP_OPT_APC Enable UDP APC option
UDP_OPT_FRAG Enable UDP fragmentation
UDP OPT MDS Enable UDP MDS option
UDP OPT MRDS Enable UDP MRDS option
UDP OPT REQ Enable UDP REQ option
UDP OPT RES Enable UDP RES option
UDP_OPT_TIME Enable UDP TIME option
UDP OPT AUTH Enable UDP AUTH option
UDP OPT EXP Enable UDP EXP option
UDP_OPT_UCMP Enable UDP UCMP option
UDP_OPT_UENC Enable UDP UENC option
UDP OPT UEXP Enable UDP UEXP option
Send/sendto parameters:
(Same as sysctl, with different prefixes)
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft Transport Options for UDP March 2024
Connection parameters (per-socketpair cached state, part UCB):
Name Initial value
----------------------------------------------------
opts_enabled net.ipv4.udp_opt
ocs_enabled net.ipv4.udp_opt_ocs
>> The JUNK option is included for debugging purposes, and MUST NOT
be enabled otherwise.
System variables
net.ipv4.udp_opt_junk 0
System-level variables (sysctl):
Name default meaning
----------------------------------------------------
net.ipv4.udp_opt_junk 0 Default use of junk
Socket options (sockopt):
Name params meaning
------------------------------------------------------
UDP_JUNK - Enable UDP junk option
UDP_JUNK_VAL fillval Value to use as junk fill
UDP_JUNK_LEN length Length of junk payload in bytes
Connection parameters (per-socketpair cached state, part UCB):
Name Initial value
----------------------------------------------------
junk_enabled net.ipv4.udp_opt_junk
junk_value 0xABCD
junk_len 4
Touch Expires September 4, 2024 [Page 52]
