]> Orange

Rennes 35000 France mohamed.boucadair@orange.com

Operations and Management OPSAWG surplus area UDP options This document specifies a new IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Information Element for UDP options. Discussion Venues Discussion of this document takes place on the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group mailing list (opsawg@ietf.org), which is archived at . Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at .

Introduction IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) is a protocol that is widely deployed in operators networks for traffic management purposes. The protocol specifies the encoding of a set of basic data types and how the various Information Elements (IEs) are transmitted. In order to support the export of new flow-related measurement data, new IEs can be defined and registered in a dedicated IANA registry for interoperability. This document specifies a new IPFIX Information Element for UDP options (). A brief overview of UDP option is provided in .

Conventions and Definitions 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 when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. This document uses the terms defined in Section 3 of and .

UDP Options at a Glance UDP does not support an extension mechanism similar to the options supported by other transport protocols, such as TCP , SCTP , or DCCP . Such a mechanism can be useful for various applications, e.g., discover a path MTU or share timestamps. To fill that void, extends UDP with a mechanism to insert extensions in datagrams. To do so, and unlike the conventional approach that relies upon transport headers, uses trailers. Concretely, UDP options are placed in the surplus area (that is, the area of an IP payload that follows a UDP packet). See . An example of the use of UDP options is described in .

Surplus Area +--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+ | IP Hdr | UDP Hdr | UDP user data | surplus area | +--------+---------+----------------------+------------------+ <------------------------------> UDP Length ]]>

This document does not intend to elaborate operational guidance/implications of UDP options. The document focuses exclusively on exporting observed UDP options in datagrams. The motivation for exporting such data is similar to the one for exporting TCP options (tcpOptions IE) or IPv6 Extension Headers (ipv6ExtensionHeaders).

Security Considerations This document does not introduce new security considerations other than those already discussed in .

IANA Considerations This document requests IANA to add the following new IE to the IANA registry entitled "IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) Entities" .

• Name: udpOptions
• ElementID: TBD1
• Description: Observed UDP options of a Flow. The information is encoded in a set of bit fields. Options are mapped to bits according to their option numbers. Option number X is mapped to bit X. A bit is set to 1 (or 0) if the corresponding UDP option is observed (or not).
• Abstract Data Type: unsigned8
• Data Type Semantics: flags
• Additional Information: . See the assignments in the "xxxx" IANA registry at URL_IANA_UDP_OPTIONS.
• Reference: [This-Document]

References Normative References This document specifies the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol, which serves as a means for transmitting Traffic Flow information over the network. In order to transmit Traffic Flow information from an Exporting Process to a Collecting Process, a common representation of flow data and a standard means of communicating them are required. This document describes how the IPFIX Data and Template Records are carried over a number of transport protocols from an IPFIX Exporting Process to an IPFIX Collecting Process. This document obsoletes RFC 5101. In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. RFC 2119 specifies common key words that may be used in protocol specifications. This document aims to reduce the ambiguity by clarifying that only UPPERCASE usage of the key words have the defined special meanings. Independent Consultant 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. This document defines the data types and management policy for the information model for the IP Flow Information Export (IPFIX) protocol. This information model is maintained as the IANA "IPFIX Information Elements" registry, the initial contents of which were defined by RFC 5102. This information model is used by the IPFIX protocol for encoding measured traffic information and information related to the traffic Observation Point, the traffic Metering Process, and the Exporting Process. Although this model was developed for the IPFIX protocol, it is defined in an open way that allows it to be easily used in other protocols, interfaces, and applications. This document obsoletes RFC 5102. Informative References n.d. This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. This document describes the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and obsoletes RFC 4960. It incorporates the specification of the chunk flags registry from RFC 6096 and the specification of the I bit of DATA chunks from RFC 7053. Therefore, RFCs 6096 and 7053 are also obsoleted by this document. In addition, RFCs 4460 and 8540, which describe errata for SCTP, are obsoleted by this document. SCTP was originally designed to transport Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) signaling messages over IP networks. It is also suited to be used for other applications, for example, WebRTC. SCTP is a reliable transport protocol operating on top of a connectionless packet network, such as IP. It offers the following services to its users: The design of SCTP includes appropriate congestion avoidance behavior and resistance to flooding and masquerade attacks. The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP) is a transport protocol that provides bidirectional unicast connections of congestion-controlled unreliable datagrams. DCCP is suitable for applications that transfer fairly large amounts of data and that can benefit from control over the tradeoff between timeliness and reliability. [STANDARDS-TRACK] University of Aberdeen University of Aberdeen This document specifies how a UDP Options sender implements Datagram Packetization Layer Path Maximum Transmission Unit Discovery (DPLPMTUD) as a robust method for Path Maximum Transmission Unit discovery. This method uses the UDP Options packetization layer. It allows a datagram application to discover the largest size of datagram that can be sent across a specific network path.

Acknowledgments TODO acknowledge.