Discovering Path MTU Black Holes Using RIPE Atlas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MSC.SYSTEMS &NETWORK ENGINEERING Discovering Path MTU black holes on the Internet using RIPE Atlas Commissioned by: Authors: Supervisors: Maikel DE BOER Benno OVEREINDER [email protected] [email protected] Jeffrey BOSMA Willem TOOROP [email protected] [email protected] July 23, 2012 This page is intentionally left blank. Abstract The Internet as we know it today is a complex system that works because of the many different protocols standardized by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) defined in Request for Comments (RFC). If people intentionally or unintentionally do not comply with these standards problems are inevitable. Due to some network administrators that have configured their firewalls to filter Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) Packet Too Big (PTB) packets and Internet Protocol (IP) fragments and some Customer- premises equipment (CPE) devices which does this by default, several of the protocols on the Internet do not work as they are supposed to do. By filteringICMPPTB packets andIP fragments, Path MTU (PMTU) black holes can occur. The effect of these particular black holes in a networked path is that packets, that are larger than the smallest link can assimilate, are forever lost because of the Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of this link. Such an event results in a situation where a typical end user thinks is caused by outage of their application, the remote service, or the connection in between. To determine the scale of the problem and where it occurs we have build an experimental setup and in our experiments use RIPE Atlas as a worldwide measurement. We have conducted several different experiments for nine periods of four hours using an average of between 1134 and 1365 Internet Protocol version 4 (IPV4) vantage points and an average of between 397 and 502 Internet Protocol version 6 (IPV6) vantage points. We observed that forIP V4 between 4% and 6% of the paths between the vantage points and our experimental setup filter ICMP PTB packets. ForIP V6 this was between 0.77% and 1.07%. Furthermore, we found that whenIP V4 Domain Name System (DNS) servers do not act on the receipt of ICMP PTB packets, between 11% and 14% of the answers from these DNS servers are lost. ForIP V6 DNS servers this was between 40% and 42%. Lastly, we found that forIP V4 approximately 6% of the paths between the vantage points and our experimental setup filterIP fragments. ForIP V6 this was approximately 10%. Both ICMP PTB packet and IP fragment filtering seems to be happening close to the end users and not in or near the core of the Internet. The amount of ICMP PTB packet filtering is larger inIP V4 than inIP V6, although it is not likely many users will notice any problems because of this. The results forIP fragment filtering inIP V6 are more troublesome since it is likely that protocols like Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) are not going to work as smoothly on the Internet as it exists today. Luckily it looks like the problems do not occur in or near the core of the Internet. This means that there is a high probability that everyone would be able to fix their own networks if these are not configured correctly. ii Acknowledgements We, Maikel de Boer and Jeffrey Bosma, enjoyed working together with several people that helped us to achieve the results that are described in this thesis. We are grateful to Benno Overeinder and Willem Toorop from NLnet Labs for their their insight, sugges- tions, feedback and (technical) support. We would also like to thank Olaf Kolkman, the director of NLnet Labs, for providing us with the opportunity to work on this project. Furthermore, we thank Vesna Manojlovic, Philip Homburg, Andreas Strikos and Emile Aben from RIPE NCC for their helpful and much appreciated work. Without them the project would not have been possible. Contents Abstract ii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Path MTU black holes..........................................1 1.2 Research objective.............................................2 1.3 Research questions............................................2 1.4 Thesis outline...............................................2 2 Related work 3 3 Background and concepts 4 3.1 Terminology................................................4 3.2 MTU and MSS..............................................4 3.3 PMTUD..................................................5 3.4 PMTU black holes............................................7 4 Experiments 10 4.1 RIPE Atlas................................................. 10 4.2 Experimental setup............................................ 11 4.3 Measurement periods........................................... 14 5 Results 15 5.1 Number of probes............................................. 15 5.2 ICMP PTB filtering............................................ 15 5.3 IP fragment filtering........................................... 18 5.4 Location determination.......................................... 21 5.5 PMTU determination........................................... 24 6 Discussion 25 7 Conclusion 27 8 Future work 28 9 Recommendations 29 Bibliography 31 Glossary 32 Appendices A RIPE Atlas probes per country 33 B PMTU determination 34 List of Figures 1 PMTUD: successful HTTP POST - MTU: 1280.............................6 2 PMTU black hole: ICMP PTB filtering.................................7 3 PMTU: successful DNS query - MTU: 1280..............................8 4 PMTU black hole: IP fragment filtering................................9 5 RIPE Atlas number of active probes.................................. 10 6 RIPE Atlas active probes map...................................... 11 7 ICMP PTB filtering setup......................................... 12 8 IP fragment filtering setup........................................ 13 9 PMTU determination setup....................................... 14 10 ICMPv4 PTB filtering - MTU: 1500................................... 15 11 ICMPv6 PTB filtering - MTU: 1500................................... 16 12 ICMP PTB filtering percentages - MTU: 1500............................. 16 13 ICMPv4 PTB filtering - MTU: 1280................................... 17 14 ICMPv6 PTB filtering - MTU: 1280................................... 17 15 ICMP PTB filtering percentages - MTU: 1280............................. 18 16 IPv4 fragment filtering - MTU: 1500.................................. 18 17 IPv6 fragment filtering - MTU: 1500.................................. 19 18 IP fragment filtering percentages - MTU: 1500............................. 19 19 IPv4 fragment filtering - MTU: 576................................... 20 20 IPv6 fragment filtering - MTU: 1280.................................. 20 21 IP fragment filtering percentages - MTU: IP minimum........................ 21 22 Hop counting algorithm......................................... 22 23 IPv4 common Path MTUs........................................ 24 24 IPv6 common Path MTUs........................................ 24 25 RIPE Atlas probes per country (high).................................. 33 26 RIPE Atlas probes per country (low).................................. 33 27 IP Path MTUs (complete)......................................... 34 Listings 1 Location of ICMPv4 PTB packets filtering............................... 22 2 Location of ICMPv6 PTB packets filtering............................... 23 3 Location of IPv4 fragment filtering................................... 23 4 Location of IPv6 fragment filtering................................... 23 List of Tables 1 Experiment measurement periods................................... 14 2 Average number of probes per experiment.............................. 15 Introduction Chapter 1 1 Introduction With the ever increasing number of nodes on the Internet, the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPV4) is pushed more and more towards its addressing capability limits. This limit restricts the number of on-line users that can be connected without the use of translation mechanisms such as Network Address Translation (NAT). The use of such translation mechanisms in, e.g. the core of the Internet, adversely affects the growth of the Internet as a whole. The Internet Protocol version 6 (IPV6) is intended to be the next generation Internet protocol, succeeding the more than 30 years old IPV4 because of its deficiencies. The main limitation is the number of addressable nodes. WithIP V4, a 32-bit addressing space is available which allows for the addressing of 4.294.967.296 individual nodes. Certain parts of this address space cannot be used because of predefined purposes ranging from local private networks to completeIP-blocks reserved for experimental or future usage. In theIP V6 address space several parts are also marked as unusable. However,IP V6 defines a 128-bit address space and therefore it is possible to address 2128 nodes, leaving an immense amount of usable addresses. Now that the pool of unallocatedIP V4 addresses is exhausting, or is even already entirely depleted for vari- ous regions, an increasing number of organizations are pushed towards the use ofIP V6. Unfortunately, the transition fromIP V4 toIP V6 is not at all considered a smooth deployment and has given rise to anomalies inIP V6-enabled services in the Internet. Some of these anomalies are unique toIP V6 regardless of its im- plementation, however, others occur due to a specific implementation ofIP V6 and may as well occur with IPV4. The focus of this research is on Path MTU (PMTU) black holes, a type of anomalies that occur in both theIP V4 andIP V6-driven Internet. 1.1 Path MTU black holes The Internet