path: root/doc/rfc/rfc9673.txt

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                         R. Hinden
Request for Comments: 9673                          Check Point Software
Updates: 8200                                               G. Fairhurst
Category: Standards Track                         University of Aberdeen
ISSN: 2070-1721                                             October 2024


             IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Processing Procedures

Abstract

   This document specifies procedures for processing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
   options in IPv6 routers and hosts.  It modifies the procedures
   specified in the IPv6 Protocol Specification (RFC 8200) to make
   processing of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header practical with the
   goal of making IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options useful to deploy and use at
   IPv6 routers and hosts.  This document updates RFC 8200.

Status of This Memo

   This is an Internet Standards Track document.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9673.

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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   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
   2.  Requirements Language
   3.  Terminology
   4.  Background
   5.  Hop-by-Hop Header Processing Procedures
     5.1.  Processing the Extension Header Carrying Hop-by-Hop Options
       5.1.1.  Configuration Enabling Hop-by-Hop Header Processing
     5.2.  Hop-by-Hop Options Processing
       5.2.1.  Router Alert Option
       5.2.2.  Configuration of Hop-by-Hop Options Processing
   6.  Defining New Hop-by-Hop Options
     6.1.  Example of Robust Usage
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  Security Considerations
   9.  Normative References
   10. Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   This document specifies procedures for processing IPv6 Hop-by-Hop
   options in IPv6 routers and hosts.  It modifies the procedures
   specified in the IPv6 Protocol Specification [RFC8200] to make
   processing of the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header practical with the
   goal of making IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options useful to deploy and use at
   IPv6 routers and hosts.

   An IPv6 packet includes Hop-by-Hop options by including a Hop-by-Hop
   Options header.  The current list of defined Hop-by-Hop options can
   be found at [IANA-HBH].  The focus for this document is to set the
   minimum requirements for router processing of Hop-by-Hop options.  It
   also discusses how Hop-by-Hop options are used by hosts.  This
   document does not propose a specific bound to the number or size of
   Hop-by-Hop options that ought to be processed.

   This document updates [RFC8200].

2.  Requirements Language

   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.

3.  Terminology

   This document uses the following loosely defined terms:

   Forwarding Plane:  IPv6 routers exchange user or applications data
      through the Forwarding Plane.  Routers process fields contained in
      IPv6 packet headers.  However, they do not process information
      contained in packet payloads.

   Control Plane:  IPv6 routers exchange control information through the
      Control Plane.  The Control Plane processes the management and
      routing information exchanged with other routers.

   Fast Path:  A path through a router that is optimized for forwarding
      packets.  The Fast Path might be supported by Application-Specific
      Integrated Circuits (ASICs), a Network Processor (NP), or other
      special purpose hardware.  This is the typical processing path
      within a router taken by the Forwarding Plane.

   Slow Path:  A path through a router that is capable of general
      purpose processing and is not optimized for any particular
      function.  This processing path is used for packets that require
      special processing or that differ from assumptions made in Fast
      Path heuristics or to process router control protocols used by the
      Control Plane.

   Full Forwarding Rate:  The rate at which a router can forward packets
      without adversely impacting the aggregate forwarding rate.  For
      example, a router could process packets with Hop-by-Hop options at
      a rate that allows it to maintain the full speed on its outgoing
      interfaces, which is sometimes called "wire speed".

   Source:  The node originating the packet.

   NOTE: [RFC6192] is an example of how designs can separate Control
   Plane and Forwarding Plane functions.  The separation between
   hardware and software processing described in [RFC6398] does not
   apply to all router architectures.  However, a router that performs
   all or most processing in software might still incur more processing
   cost when providing special processing for Hop-by-Hop options.

4.  Background

   In early versions of the IPv6 protocol specification [RFC1883]
   [RFC2460], Hop-by-Hop options were required to be processed by all
   nodes: routers and hosts.  This proved to not be practical in current
   high speed routers, as observed in Section 2.2 of [RFC7045]: "it is
   to be expected that high-performance routers will either ignore it or
   assign packets containing it to a slow processing path".  The reasons
   behind this include the following:

   *  The inability to process Hop-by-Hop options at the Full Forwarding
      Rate can result in issues.  In some cases, Hop-by-Hop options
      would be sent to the control/management components that run on the
      Slow Path.  This could degrade a router's performance and also its
      ability to process critical control traffic, both of which could
      be exploited as a Denial-of-Service (DoS) attack against the
      router.

   *  If a subset of packets within a flow includes Hop-by-Hop options,
      it could lead to an increased number of reordered packets and
      greater reordering distances for packets delivered to the
      destination.  Such reordering could occur if the Hop-by-Hop
      Options header is included only in some packets or if a specific
      Hop-by-Hop option results in different processing for some of the
      packets within the flow.  Significant reordering of packets within
      a flow can negatively impact the performance of upper-layer
      protocols and should therefore be avoided.

   *  Packets could include multiple Hop-by-Hop options.  Too many
      options could make the previous issues worse by increasing the
      resources required to process them.  The total size of the options
      determines the number of header bytes that might need to be
      processed.  Measurements [Cus23a] show that the probability of
      successful transmission across the public Internet is currently
      higher for packets that include Options that result in a short
      total Extension Header (EH) Chain size (i.e., less than 40 bytes).

   [RFC6564] specifies a uniform format for new IPv6 Extension Headers,
   and this update was incorporated into Section 4.8 of [RFC8200] (note
   that [RFC8200] obsoleted [RFC2460]).

   When the IPv6 protocol specification was updated and published in
   July 2017 as [RFC8200], the procedures relating to Hop-by-Hop options
   were specified (paragraphs 5 and 6 of Section 4 of [RFC8200]) as
   follows:

   |  The Hop-by-Hop Options header is not inserted or deleted, but may
   |  be examined or processed by any node along a packet's delivery
   |  path, until the packet reaches the node (or each of the set of
   |  nodes, in the case of multicast) identified in the Destination
   |  Address field of the IPv6 header.  The Hop-by-Hop Options header,
   |  when present, must immediately follow the IPv6 header.  Its
   |  presence is indicated by the value zero in the Next Header field
   |  of the IPv6 header.
   |  
   |  NOTE: While [RFC2460] required that all nodes must examine and
   |  process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that
   |  nodes along a packet's delivery path only examine and process the
   |  Hop-by-Hop Options header if explicitly configured to do so.

   The changes meant that an implementation complied with the IPv6
   protocol specification even if it did not process Hop-by-Hop options
   and that routers were expected to add configuration information to
   control whether they process the Hop-by-Hop Options header.  In
   practice, routers may include configuration options to control which
   Hop-by-Hop options they will process.

   The text regarding the processing of Hop-by-Hop options in [RFC8200]
   was not intended to change the processing of these options.  It
   documented how they were being used in the Internet at the time RFC
   8200 was published (see Appendix B of [RFC8200]).  This was a
   constraint on publishing the IPv6 protocol specification as an IETF
   Standard.

   The main issues remain:

   *  Routers can be configured to drop transit packets containing Hop-
      by-Hop Options that require processing by a processor that
      implements the Control Plane.  This could be done to protect
      against a DoS attack on the router [RFC9098] [RFC9288].

   *  IPv6 packets that include a Hop-by-Hop Options header are dropped
      by some Internet paths.  A survey in 2015 reported a high loss
      rate in transit Autonomous Systems (ASes) for packets that include
      Hop-by-Hop options [RFC7872].  The operational implications of
      IPv6 packets that include Extension Headers are discussed in
      [RFC9098].  Measurements taken in 2023 confirm this to still be
      the case for many types of network paths [Cus23b].

   *  Allowing multiple Hop-by-Hop options in a single packet in some
      cases consumes more router resources to process these packets.  It
      also adds complexity to the number of permutations that might need
      to be processed/configured.

   *  Including larger or multiple Hop-by-Hop options in a Hop-by-Hop
      Options header increases the number of bytes that need to be
      processed in forwarding, which in some designs can impact the cost
      of processing a packet, and in turn could increase the probability
      of drop [RFC7872].  A larger Extension Header could also reduce
      the probability of a router locating all the header bytes required
      to successfully process an access control list operating on fields
      after the Hop-by-Hop Options header.

   *  Any option that can be used to force packets into the processor
      that implements the router's Control Plane can be exploited as a
      DoS attack on a transit router by saturating the resources needed
      for router management protocols (routing protocols, network
      management protocols, etc.), which could cause adverse router
      operation.  This is an issue for the Router Alert Option
      [RFC2711], which intentionally forwards packets to the Control
      Plane as discussed in [RFC6398].  This impact could be mitigated
      by limiting the use of Control Plane resources by a specific
      packet and/or by using per-function rate-limiters for packets
      processed by the Control Plane.

   Section 3 of [RFC6398] includes a summary of processing the IP Router
   Alert Option:

   |  In a nutshell, the IP Router Alert Option does not provide a
   |  convenient universal mechanism to accurately and reliably
   |  distinguish between IP Router Alert packets of interest and
   |  unwanted IP Router Alert packets.  This, in turn, creates a
   |  security concern when the IP Router Alert Option is used, because,
   |  short of appropriate router-implementation-specific mechanisms,
   |  the router slow path is at risk of being flooded by unwanted
   |  traffic.

   This is an example of the need to limit the resources that can be
   consumed when a particular function is executed and to avoid
   consuming Control Plane resources where support for a function has
   not been configured.

   There has been research that has discussed the general problem with
   dropping packets containing IPv6 Extension Headers, including the
   Hop-by-Hop Options header.  For example, [Hendriks] states that
   "Dropping all packets that contain Extension Headers is a bad
   practice" and that "The share of traffic containing more than one EH
   however, is very small.  For the design of hardware able to handle
   the dynamic nature of EHs, we therefore recommend to support at least
   one EH".  Operational aspects of the topics discussed in this section
   are further discussed in [HBH].

   "Transmission and Processing of IPv6 Extension Headers" [RFC7045]
   clarifies how intermediate nodes should process Extension Headers.
   This document is generally consistent with [RFC7045] and addresses an
   issue that was raised for discussion when [RFC2460] was updated and
   replaced by [RFC8200].  This document updates [RFC8200] as described
   in the next section and consequently clarifies the description in
   Section 2.2 of [RFC7045], using the language of BCP 14 [RFC2119]
   [RFC8174].

   This document defines a set of procedures for the Hop-by-Hop Options
   header that are intended to make the processing of Hop-by-Hop options
   practical in modern routers.  The common cases are that some Hop-by-
   Hop options will be processed across the Internet, while others will
   only be processed within a limited domain [RFC8799] (e.g., where a
   specific service is made available in that network segment that
   relies on one or more Hop-by-Hop options).

5.  Hop-by-Hop Header Processing Procedures

   This section describes several changes to [RFC8200].  Section 5.1
   describes the processing of the Hop-by-Hop options Extension Header,
   and Section 5.2 describes the processing of individual Hop-by-Hop
   options.  These sections update the text in paragraph 6 of Section 4
   of [RFC8200] and, as noted in Section 5.2, modify Section 4.2 of
   [RFC8200].

5.1.  Processing the Extension Header Carrying Hop-by-Hop Options

   When a packet includes one or more Extension Headers, the Next Header
   field of the IPv6 Header identifies the type of Extension Header.  It
   does not identify the transport protocol.

   The Extension Header used to carry Hop-by-Hop options is defined in
   Section 4.3 of [RFC8200] and is identified by a Next Header value of
   0 in the IPv6 header.  Section 4.1 of [RFC8200] requires this Hop-by-
   Hop Options header to appear immediately after the IPv6 header.
   [RFC8200] also requires that a Hop-by-Hop Options header only appear
   at most once in a packet.

   The Hop-by-Hop Options header as defined in [RFC8200] can contain one
   or more Hop-by-Hop options.

   Routers that process the Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD do so using
   the method defined in this document.  Exceptions to this SHOULD
   include routers that are configured to drop packets with a Hop-by-Hop
   Options header to protect downstream devices that do not comply with
   this specification (see [RFC9288]).

   Even if a router does not process the Hop-by-Hop Options header (for
   example, when based on configuration), it MUST forward the packet
   normally based on the remaining Extension Header(s) after the Hop-by-
   Hop Options header.  A router MUST NOT drop a packet solely because
   it contains an Extension Header carrying Hop-by-Hop options.  A
   configuration could control whether normal processing skips any or
   all of the Hop-by-Hop options carried in the Hop-by-Hop Options
   header.

   It is expected that the Hop-by-Hop Options header will be processed
   by the destination(s).  Hosts SHOULD process the Hop-by-Hop Options
   header in received packets.  A constrained host is an example of a
   node that does not process the Hop-by-Hop Options header.  If a
   destination does not process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it MUST
   process the remainder of the packet normally.

5.1.1.  Configuration Enabling Hop-by-Hop Header Processing

   Section 4 of [RFC8200] allows a router to control its processing of
   IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options by local configuration.  The text is:

   |  NOTE: While [RFC2460] required that all nodes must examine and
   |  process the Hop-by-Hop Options header, it is now expected that
   |  nodes along the path only examine and process the Hop-by-Hop
   |  Options header if explicitly configured to do so.

   This document clarifies that a configuration could control whether
   processing skips any specific Hop-by-Hop options carried in the Hop-
   by-Hop Options header.  A router that does not process the contents
   of the Hop-by-Hop Options header does not process any of the Option
   Types contained in the Hop-by-Hop Options header.

5.2.  Hop-by-Hop Options Processing

   A Source creating packets with a Hop-by-Hop Options header SHOULD use
   a method that is robust to network nodes selectively processing only
   some of the Hop-by-Hop options that are included in the packet or
   that forward packets without the option(s) being processed (see
   Section 6.1).  A Source MAY, based on local configuration, allow only
   one Hop-by-Hop option to be included in a packet, or it could allow
   more than one Hop-by-Hop option but limit their size to increase the
   likelihood of successful transfer across a network path.  Because
   some routers might only process one or a limited number of options in
   the Hop-by-Hop Options header, Sources are motivated to order the
   placement of Hop-by-Hop options within the Hop-by-Hop Options header
   in decreasing order of importance for their processing by nodes on
   the path.

   A router configuration needs to avoid vulnerabilities that arise when
   it cannot process the first Hop-by-Hop option at the Full Forwarding
   Rate.  Therefore, a router SHOULD NOT be configured to process the
   first Hop-by-Hop option if this adversely impacts the aggregate
   forwarding rate.  A router SHOULD process additional Hop-by-Hop
   options, if configured to do so, providing that these also do not
   adversely impact the aggregate forwarding rate.

   If a router is unable to process a specific Hop-by-Hop option (or is
   not configured to do so), it SHOULD behave in the same way specified
   for an unrecognized Option Type when the action bits are set to "00",
   and it SHOULD skip the remaining options using the "Hdr Ext Len"
   field in the Hop-by-Hop Options header.  This field specifies the
   length of the Options Header in 8-octet units.  After skipping an
   option, the router continues processing the remaining options in the
   header.  Skipped options do not need to be verified.

   The Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is an exception to this because it
   is designed to tell a router that the packet needs additional
   processing, which is usually done in the Control Plane; see
   Section 5.2.1.

   Section 4.2 of [RFC8200] defines the Option Type identifiers as
   internally encoded such that their highest-order 2 bits specify the
   action that must be taken if the processing IPv6 node does not
   recognize the Option Type.  The text is:

      00 - skip over this option and continue processing the header.

      01 - discard the packet.

      10 - discard the packet and, regardless of whether or not the
           packet's Destination Address was a multicast address,
           send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 2, message to the
           packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized
           Option Type.

      11 - discard the packet and, only if the packet's Destination
           Address was not a multicast address, send an ICMP Parameter
           Problem, Code 2, message to the packet's Source Address,
           pointing to the unrecognized Option Type.

   This document modifies this behavior for the "01", "10", and "11"
   action bits so that if a router is unable to process a specific Hop-
   by-Hop option (or is not configured to do so), it SHOULD behave in
   the same way specified for an unrecognized Option Type when the
   action bits are set to "00".  It also modifies the behavior for
   values "10" and "11" in the case where the packet is discarded and
   the node MAY send an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 2 [RFC4443],
   message to the packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized
   Option Type.

   The modified text for values "01", "10", and "11" is:

      01 - MAY discard the packet, if so configured. Nodes should not
           rely on routers dropping these unrecognized Option Types.

      10 - MAY discard the packet, if so configured, regardless of
           whether or not the packet's Destination Address was a
           multicast address. If the packet was discarded, an ICMP
           Parameter Problem, Code 2, message MAY be sent to the
           packet's Source Address, pointing to the unrecognized
           Option Type.

      11 - MAY discard the packet, if so configured. If the packet
           was discarded and the packet's Destination Address was
           not a multicast address, an ICMP Parameter Problem,
           Code 2, message MAY be sent to the packet's Source
           Address, pointing to the unrecognized Option Type.

   When an ICMP Parameter Problem, Code 2, message is delivered to the
   Source, it indicates that at least one node on the path has failed to
   recognize the option [RFC4443].  Generating any ICMP message incurs
   additional router processing.  Reception of this message is not
   guaranteed; routers might be unable to be configured so that they do
   not generate these messages, and they are not always forwarded to the
   Source.  The motivation here is to loosen the requirement to send an
   ICMPv6 Parameter Problem message when a router forwards a packet
   without processing the list of all options.

5.2.1.  Router Alert Option

   The purpose of the Router Alert Option [RFC2711] is to tell a router
   that the packet needs additional processing in the Control Plane.

   The Router Alert Option includes a two-octet Value field that
   describes the protocol that is carried in the packet.  The current
   specified values can be found in the "IPv6 Router Alert Option
   Values" IANA registry [IANA-RA].

   DISCUSSION

      The function of a Router Alert Option can result in the processing
      that this specification is proposing to eliminate, that is,
      instructing a router to process the packet in the Control Plane.
      This processing causes concerns, which are discussed in Section 4.
      One approach would be to deprecate this, because current usage
      beyond the local network appears to be limited, and packets
      containing Hop-by-Hop options are frequently dropped.  Deprecation
      would allow current implementations to continue, and its use could
      be phased out over time.

      The Router Alert Option could potentially be used with new
      functions that have to be processed in the Control Plane.  Keeping
      this as the single exception for processing in the Control Plane
      with the restrictions that follow is a reasonable compromise to
      allow future flexibility.  These restrictions are compatible with
      Section 5 of [RFC6398].

   As noted in [RFC6398], "Implementations of the IP Router Alert Option
   SHOULD offer the configuration option to simply ignore the presence
   of 'IP Router Alert' in IPv4 and IPv6 packets."

   A node that is configured to process a Router Alert Option MUST
   protect itself from an infrastructure attack that could result from
   processing in the Control Plane.  This might include some combination
   of an access control list to only permit access from trusted nodes,
   rate limiting of processing, or other methods [RFC6398].

   As specified in [RFC2711], the top two bits of the Option Type for
   the Router Alert Option are always set to "00", indicating that the
   node should skip over this option as if it does not recognize the
   Option Type and continue processing the header.  An implementation
   that does recognize the Router Alert Option SHOULD verify that the
   Router Alert Option contains a protocol, as indicated by the Value
   field in the Router Alert Option, that is configured as a protocol of
   interest to that router.  A verified packet SHOULD be sent to the
   Control Plane for further processing [RFC6398].  Otherwise, the
   router implementation SHOULD forward this packet subject to all
   normal policies and forwarding rules.

5.2.2.  Configuration of Hop-by-Hop Options Processing

   A router can be configured to process a specific Option.  The set of
   enabled options SHOULD be configurable by the operator of the router.

   A possible approach to implementing this is to maintain a lookup
   table based on an Option Type of the IPv6 options that can be
   processed at the Full Forwarding Rate.  This would allow a router to
   quickly determine if an option is supported and can be processed.  If
   the option is not supported, then the router processes the option as
   described in Section 5.1 of this document.

   The actions of the lookup table should be configurable by the
   operator of the router.

6.  Defining New Hop-by-Hop Options

   This section updates Section 4.8 of [RFC8200].

   Any future new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options should be designed to be
   processed at the Full Forwarding Rate and should have the following
   characteristics:

   *  New Hop-by-Hop options should be designed to ensure the router can
      process the options at the Full Forwarding Rate.  That is, they
      should be simple to process.

   *  New Hop-by-Hop options should be defined with the Action type
      (highest-order 2 bits of the Option Type) set to "00", which
      enables skipping over this option and continuing with the
      processing of the header if a router does not recognize the
      option.

   *  The size of Hop-by-Hop options should not extend beyond what can
      be expected to be executed at the Full Forwarding Rate.  A larger
      Hop-by-Hop Options header can increase the likelihood that a
      packet will be dropped [Cus23b].

   *  New Hop-by-Hop options should be designed with the expectation
      that a router might be configured to only process a subset of Hop-
      by-Hop options (e.g., the first option) in the Hop-by-Hop Options
      header.

   *  The design of protocols that use new Hop-by-Hop options should
      consider that a router may drop packets containing the new Hop-by-
      Hop option.

   If a new Hop-by-Hop option does not meet these criteria, its
   specification must include a detailed explanation why that is the
   case and show that there is a reasonable expectation that the option
   can still proceed at the Full Forwarding Rate.  This is consistent
   with [RFC6564].  This is consistent with [RFC6564].

   The general issue of robust operation of packets with new Hop-by-Hop
   options is described in Section 6.1.

6.1.  Example of Robust Usage

   Recent measurement surveys (e.g., [Cus23a]) show that packets that
   include Extension Headers can cause the packets to be dropped by some
   Internet paths.  In a limited domain, routers can be configured or
   updated to provide support for any required Hop-by-Hop options.

   The primary motivation of this document is to make it more practical
   to use Hop-by-Hop options beyond such a limited domain, with the
   expectation that applications can improve the quality of or add new
   features to their offered service when the path successfully forwards
   packets with the required Hop-by-Hop options and otherwise refrains
   from using these options.  The focus is on incremental deployability.
   A protocol feature (such as using Hop-by-Hop options) is
   incrementally deployable if early adopters gain some benefit on the
   paths being used, even though other paths do not support the protocol
   feature.  A Source ought to order the Hop-by-Hop options that are
   carried in the Hop-by-Hop Options header in decreasing order of
   importance for processing by nodes on the path.

   Methods can be developed that do not rely upon all routers to
   implement a specific Hop-by-Hop option (e.g., [RFC9268]) and that are
   robust when the current path drops packets that contain a Hop-by-Hop
   option (e.g., [RFC9098]).

   For example, an application can be designed to first send a test
   packet that includes the required option or combination of options
   and then send other packets without including the option.  The
   application does not send additional packets that include this option
   (or set of options) until the test packet(s) is acknowledged.  The
   need for potential loss recovery when a path drops these test packets
   can be avoided by choosing packets that do not carry application data
   that needs to be reliably delivered.

   Since the set of nodes forming a path can change with time, this
   discovery process ought to be repeated from time to time.  The
   process of sending packets both with and without a specific header to
   discover whether a path can support a specific header is sometimes
   called "racing".  Transport protocol racing is explained in
   [TAPS-ARCH], and A/B protocol feature testing is described in
   [Tram17].

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document updates the processing of Hop-by-Hop options.  IANA has
   added this document as an additional reference for the "Destination
   Options and Hop-by-Hop Options" registry in the "Internet Protocol
   Version 6 (IPv6) Parameters" registry group [IANA-HBH].

8.  Security Considerations

   Security issues caused by including IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options are well
   known and have been documented in several places, including
   [RFC6398], [RFC6192], [RFC7045], and [RFC9098].  The main issue, as
   noted in Section 4, is that any mechanism that can be used to force
   packets into the router's Control Plane or Slow Path can be exploited
   as a DoS attack on a router by saturating the resources needed for
   router management (routing protocols, network management protocols,
   etc.), and this can cause the router to fail or perform suboptimally.

   While Hop-by-Hop options are not required to be processed in the
   Control Plane, the Router Alert Option is the one exception that is
   designed to be processed in the Control Plane.

   Some IPv6 nodes implement features that access more of the protocol
   information than a typical IPv6 router (e.g., [RFC9098]).  Examples
   are nodes that provide DoS mitigation, firewall/access control,
   traffic engineering, or traffic normalization.  These nodes could be
   configured to drop packets when they are unable to access and process
   all Extension Headers or are unable to locate and process the higher-
   layer packet information.  This document provides guidance on the
   requirements concerning Hop-by-Hop options.

   Finally, this document notes that Internet protocol processing needs
   to be robust for malformed/malicious protocol fields.  For example, a
   packet with an excessive number of options could consume significant
   resources; inclusion of a large Extension Header could potentially
   cause an on-path router to be unable to utilize hardware
   optimizations to process later headers (e.g., to perform equal cost
   multipath forwarding or port filtering).  This requirement is not
   specific to Hop-by-Hop options.  It is important that implementations
   fail gracefully when a malformed or malicious Hop-by-Hop option is
   encountered.

   This document changes how the Hop-by-Hop Options header is processed,
   which significantly reduces the attack surface.  These changes
   include the following:

   *  A router configuration needs to avoid vulnerabilities that arise
      when it cannot process a Hop-by-Hop option at the Full Forwarding
      Rate; therefore, it SHOULD NOT be configured to process the Hop-
      by-Hop option if it adversely impacts the aggregate forwarding
      rate.  Instead, it SHOULD behave in the same way specified for an
      unrecognized Option Type when the action bits are set to "00", as
      specified in Section 5.2.

   *  This document adds criteria for the Router Alert Option
      (Section 5.2.1) to allow control over how it is processed and
      describes how a node configured to support these options must
      protect itself from attacks by using the Router Alert Option.

   *  This document sets the expectation that if a packet includes a
      Hop-by-Hop Options header, the packet will be forwarded across the
      network path.

   *  A Source MAY include a single Hop-by-Hop option (based on local
      configuration) or MAY be configured to include more Hop-by-Hop
      options.  The configuration of intermediate nodes determines
      whether a node processes any of these options, and if so, which
      ones and how many.

   *  This document adds guidance for the design of any future new Hop-
      by-Hop option that reduces the computational requirements and
      encourages a limit to their size.

   The intent of this document is to highlight that these changes
   significantly reduce the security issues relating to processing the
   IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options header and enable Hop-by-Hop options to be
   safely used in the Internet.

9.  Normative References

   [IANA-HBH] IANA, "Destination Options and Hop-by-Hop Options",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters/>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

10.  Informative References

   [Cus23a]   Custura, A. and G. Fairhurst, "Internet Measurements: IPv6
              Extension Header Edition", IEPG Meeting: IETF 116, March
              2023, <http://www.iepg.org/2023-03-26-ietf116/eh.pdf>.

   [Cus23b]   Custura, A., Secchi, R., Boswell, E., and G. Fairhurst,
              "Is it possible to extend IPv6?", Computer Communications,
              vol. 214, pp. 90-99, DOI 10.1016/j.comcom.2023.10.006,
              January 2024,
              <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
              S0140366423003705>.

   [HBH]      Peng, S., Li, Z., Xie, C., Qin, Z., and G. S. Mishra,
              "Operational Issues with Processing of the Hop-by-Hop
              Options Header", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-v6ops-hbh-10, 16 February 2024,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-
              hbh-10>.

   [Hendriks] Hendriks, L., Velan, P., Schmidt, RO., Boer, P., and A.
              Aiko, "Threats and Surprises behind IPv6 Extension
              Headers", 2017 Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis
              Conference (TMA), DOI 10.23919/TMA.2017.8002912, August
              2017, <http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/tma/tma2017/
              tma2017_paper22.pdf>.

   [IANA-RA]  IANA, "IPv6 Router Alert Option Values",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-routeralert-
              values/>.

   [RFC1883]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 1883, DOI 10.17487/RFC1883,
              December 1995, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1883>.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460,
              December 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2460>.

   [RFC2711]  Partridge, C. and A. Jackson, "IPv6 Router Alert Option",
              RFC 2711, DOI 10.17487/RFC2711, October 1999,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2711>.

   [RFC4443]  Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet
              Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet
              Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", STD 89,
              RFC 4443, DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4443>.

   [RFC6192]  Dugal, D., Pignataro, C., and R. Dunn, "Protecting the
              Router Control Plane", RFC 6192, DOI 10.17487/RFC6192,
              March 2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6192>.

   [RFC6398]  Le Faucheur, F., Ed., "IP Router Alert Considerations and
              Usage", BCP 168, RFC 6398, DOI 10.17487/RFC6398, October
              2011, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6398>.

   [RFC6564]  Krishnan, S., Woodyatt, J., Kline, E., Hoagland, J., and
              M. Bhatia, "A Uniform Format for IPv6 Extension Headers",
              RFC 6564, DOI 10.17487/RFC6564, April 2012,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6564>.

   [RFC7045]  Carpenter, B. and S. Jiang, "Transmission and Processing
              of IPv6 Extension Headers", RFC 7045,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7045, December 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7045>.

   [RFC7872]  Gont, F., Linkova, J., Chown, T., and W. Liu,
              "Observations on the Dropping of Packets with IPv6
              Extension Headers in the Real World", RFC 7872,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7872, June 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7872>.

   [RFC8799]  Carpenter, B. and B. Liu, "Limited Domains and Internet
              Protocols", RFC 8799, DOI 10.17487/RFC8799, July 2020,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8799>.

   [RFC9098]  Gont, F., Hilliard, N., Doering, G., Kumari, W., Huston,
              G., and W. Liu, "Operational Implications of IPv6 Packets
              with Extension Headers", RFC 9098, DOI 10.17487/RFC9098,
              September 2021, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9098>.

   [RFC9268]  Hinden, R. and G. Fairhurst, "IPv6 Minimum Path MTU Hop-
              by-Hop Option", RFC 9268, DOI 10.17487/RFC9268, August
              2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9268>.

   [RFC9288]  Gont, F. and W. Liu, "Recommendations on the Filtering of
              IPv6 Packets Containing IPv6 Extension Headers at Transit
              Routers", RFC 9288, DOI 10.17487/RFC9288, August 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9288>.

   [TAPS-ARCH]
              Pauly, T., Ed., Trammell, B., Ed., Brunstrom, A.,
              Fairhurst, G., and C. Perkins, "Architecture and
              Requirements for Transport Services", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-taps-arch-19, 9 November 2023,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-taps-
              arch-19>.

   [Tram17]   Trammell, B., Kühlewind, M., De Vaere, P., Learmonth, I.,
              and G. Fairhurst, "Tracking Transport-Layer Evolution with
              PATHspider", ANRW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Applied
              Networking Research Workshop, DOI 10.1145/3106328.3106336,
              July 2017,
              <https://irtf.org/anrw/2017/anrw17-final16.pdf>.

Acknowledgments

   Helpful comments were received from Brian Carpenter, Ron Bonica, Ole
   Troan, Mike Heard, Tom Herbert, Cheng Li, Éric Vyncke, Greg Mirsky,
   Xiao Min, Fernando Gont, Darren Dukes, Peng Shuping, Dave Thaler, Ana
   Custura, Tim Winters, Jingrong Xie, Lorenzo Colitti, Toerless Eckert,
   Suresh Krishnan, Mikael Abrahamsson, Adrian Farrel, Jie Dong, Jen
   Linkova, Erik Kline, and other members of the 6MAN Working Group.

Authors' Addresses

   Robert M. Hinden
   Check Point Software
   100 Oracle Parkway, Suite 800
   Redwood City, CA 94065
   United States of America
   Email: bob.hinden@gmail.com


   Godred Fairhurst
   University of Aberdeen
   School of Engineering
   Fraser Noble Building
   Aberdeen
   AB24 3UE
   United Kingdom
   Email: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk