The IP protocol resides in the Internet layer, as we have already said. The IP protocol is the protocol in the TCP/IP stack that is responsible for letting your machine, routers, switches and etcetera, know where a specific packet is going. This protocol is the very heart of the whole TCP/IP stack, and makes up the very foundation of everything in the Internet.
The IP protocol encapsulates the Transport layer packet with information about which Transport layer protocol it came from, what host it is going to, and where it came from, and a little bit of other useful information. All of this is, of course, extremely precisely standardized, down to every single bit. The same applies to every single protocol that we will discuss in this chapter.
The IP protocol has a couple of basic functionalities that it must be able to handle. It must be able to define the datagram, which is the next building block created by the transport layer (this may in other words be TCP, UDP or ICMP for example). The IP protocol also defines the Internet addressing system that we use today. This means that the IP protocol is what defines how to reach between hosts, and this also affects how we are able to route packets, of course. The addresses we are talking about are what we generally call an IP address. Usually when we talk about IP addresses, we talk about dotted quad numbers (e.g., 127.0.0.1). This is mostly to make the IP addresses more readable for the human eye, since the IP address is actually just a 32 bit field of 1's and 0's (127.0.0.1 would hence be read as 01111111000000000000000000000001 within the actual IP header).
The IP protocol has even more magic it must perform up it's sleeve. It must also be able to decapsulate and encapsulate the IP datagram (IP data) and send or receive the datagram from either the Network access layer, or the transport layer. This may seem obvious, but sometimes it is not. On top of all this, it has two big functions it must perform as well, that will be of quite interest for the firewalling and routing community. The IP protocol is responsible for routing packets from one host to another, as well as packets that we may receive from one host destined for another. Most of the time on single network access host, this is a very simple process. You have two different options, either the packet is destined for our locally attached network, or possibly through a default gateway. but once you start working with firewalls or security policies together with multiple network interfaces and different routes, it may cause quite some headache for many network administrators. The last of the responsibilities for the IP protocol is that it must fragment and reassemble any datagram that has previously been fragmented, or that needs to be fragmented to fit in to the packetsize of this specific network hardware topology that we are connected to. If these packet fragments are sufficiently small, they may cause a horribly annoying headache for firewall administrators as well. The problem is, that once they are fragmented to small enough chunks, we will start having problems to read even the headers of the packet, not to mention the actual data.
As of Linux kernel 2.4 series, and iptables, this should no longer be a problem for most linux firewalls. The connection tracking system used by iptables for state matching and NAT'ing etc must be able to read the packet defragmented. Because of this, conntrack automatically defragments all packets before they reach the netfilter/iptables structure in the kernel.
The IP protocol is also a connectionless protocol, which in turn means that IP does not "negotiate" a connection. a connection-oriented protocol on the other hand negotiates a "connection" (called a handshake) and then when all data has been sent, tears it down. TCP is an example of this kind of protocol, however, it is implemented on top of the IP protocol. The reason for not being connection-oriented just yet are several, but among others, a handshake is not required at this time yet since there are other protocols that this would add an unnecessarily high overhead to, and that is made up in such a way that if we don't get a reply, we know the packet was lost somewhere in transit anyways, and resend the original request. As you can see, sending the request and then waiting for a specified amount of time for the reply in this case, is much preferred over first sending one packet to say that we want to open a connection, then receive a packet letting us know it was opened, and finally acknowledge that we know that the whole connection is actually open, and then actually send the request, and after that send another packet to tear the connection down and wait for another reply.
IP is also known as an unreliable protocol, or simply put it does not know if a packet was received or not. It simply receives a packet from the transport layer and does its thing, and then passes it on to the network access layer, and then nothing more to it. It may receive a return packet, which traverses from network access layer to the IP protocol which does it's thing again, and then passes it on upwards to the Transport layer. However, it doesn't care if it gets a reply packet, or if the packet was received at the other end. Same thing applies for the unreliability of IP as for the connectionless-ness, since unreliability would require adding an extra reply packet to each packet that is sent. For example, let us consider a DNS lookup. As it is, we send a DNS request for servername.com. If we never receive a reply, we know something went wrong and re-request the lookup, but during normal use we would send out one request, and get one reply back. Adding reliability to this protocol would mean that the request would require two packets (one request, and one confirmation that the packet was received) and then two packets for the reply (one reply, and one reply to acknowledge the reply was received). In other words, we just doubled the amount of packets needed to send, and almost doubled the amount of data needed to be transmitted.