GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc3792

Network Working Group P. Nesser, II Request for Comments: 3792 Nesser & Nesser Consulting Category: Informational A. Bergstrom, Ed.

                                            Ostfold University College
                                                             June 2004
          Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed
   IETF Security Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents

Status of this Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).

Abstract

 This document seeks to document all usage of IPv4 addresses in
 currently deployed IETF Security Area documented standards.  In order
 to successfully transition from an all IPv4 Internet to an all IPv6
 Internet, many interim steps will be taken.  One of these steps is
 the evolution of current protocols that have IPv4 dependencies.  It
 is hoped that these protocols (and their implementations) will be
 redesigned to be network address independent, but failing that will
 at least dually support IPv4 and IPv6.  To this end, all Standards
 (Full, Draft, and Proposed) as well as Experimental RFCs will be
 surveyed and any dependencies will be documented.

Table of Contents

 1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 2.  Document Organisation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 3.  Full Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 4.  Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
 5.  Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
 6.  Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 7.  Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     7.1.  Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.2.  Draft Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.3.  Proposed Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
     7.4.  Experimental RFCs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 8.  Security Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 9.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 1] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 10. Normative Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 11. Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
 12. Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

1.0. Introduction

 This document is part of a document set aiming to document all usage
 of IPv4 addresses in IETF standards.  In an effort to have the
 information in a manageable form, it has been broken into 7 documents
 conforming to the current IETF areas (Application, Internet,
 Operations and Management, Routing, Security, Sub-IP, and Transport).
 For a full introduction, please see the introduction [1].

2.0. Document Organization

 Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 each describe the raw analysis of Full,
 Draft, and Proposed Standards, and Experimental RFCs.  Each RFC is
 discussed in its turn starting with RFC 1 and ending with (around)
 RFC 3100. The comments for each RFC are "raw" in nature.  That is,
 each RFC is discussed in a vacuum and problems or issues discussed do
 not "look ahead" to see if the problems have already been fixed.
 Section 7 is an analysis of the data presented in Sections 3, 4, 5,
 and 6.  It is here that all of the results are considered as a whole
 and the problems that have been resolved in later RFCs are
 correlated.

3.0. Full Standards

 Full Internet Standards (most commonly simply referred to as
 "Standards") are fully mature protocol specification that are widely
 implemented and used throughout the Internet.

3.1. RFC 2289 A One-Time Password System

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.0. Draft Standards

 Draft Standards represent the penultimate standard level in the IETF.
 A protocol can only achieve draft standard when there are multiple,
 independent, interoperable implementations.  Draft Standards are
 usually quite mature and widely used.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 2] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

4.1. RFC 1864 The Content-MD5 Header Field

 There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

4.2. RFC 2617 HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access

    Authentication
    Section 3.2.1 The WWW-Authenticate Response Header include he
    following text:
       (Note: including the IP address of the client in the nonce
       would appear to offer the server the ability to limit the reuse
       of the nonce to the same client that originally got it.
       However, that would break proxy farms, where requests from a
       single user often go through different proxies in the farm.
       Also, IP address spoofing is not that hard.)
    Section 4.5 Replay Attacks contains the text:
       Thus, for some purposes, it is necessary to protect against
       replay attacks.  A good Digest implementation can do this in
       various ways.  The server created "nonce" value is
       implementation dependent, but if it contains a digest of the
       client IP, a time-stamp, the resource ETag, and a private
       server key (as recommended above) then a replay attack is not
       simple.  An attacker must convince the server that the request
       is coming from a false IP address and must cause the server to
       deliver the document to an IP address different from the
       address to which it believes it is sending the document.  An
       attack can only succeed in the period before the time-stamp
       expires.  Digesting the client IP and time-stamp in the nonce
       permits an implementation which does not maintain state between
       transactions.
 Both of these statements are IP version independent and must rely on
 the implementers discretion.

4.3. RFC 2865 Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS)

    Section 3.  Packet Format has the following notes:
    Identifier
       The Identifier field is one octet, and aids in matching
       requests and replies.  The RADIUS server can detect a duplicate
       request if it has the same client source IP address and source
       UDP port and Identifier within a short span of time.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 3] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

    and
       A RADIUS server MUST use the source IP address of the RADIUS
       UDP packet to decide which shared secret to use, so that RADIUS
       requests can be proxied.
 This text is version neutral but implementers should allow for the
 use of both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
    Section 5.  Attributes defines a number of IP specific attributes:
           4      NAS-IP-Address
           8      Framed-IP-Address
           9      Framed-IP-Netmask
          10      Framed-Routing
          14      Login-IP-Host
          22      Framed-Route
    and definitions for the "value" field of the following type:
       address   32 bit value, most significant octet first.
 The attributes are further defined as follows:
    5.4.  NAS-IP-Address
       Description
          This Attribute indicates the identifying IP Address of the
          NAS which is requesting authentication of the user, and
          SHOULD be unique to the NAS within the scope of the RADIUS
          server.  NAS-IP-Address is only used in Access-Request
          packets.  Either NAS-IP-Address or NAS-Identifier MUST be
          present in an Access-Request packet.
          Note that NAS-IP-Address MUST NOT be used to select the
          shared secret used to authenticate the request.  The source
          IP address of the Access-Request packet MUST be used to
          select the shared secret.
          A summary of the NAS-IP-Address Attribute format is shown
          below.  The fields are transmitted from left to right.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 4] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |     Type      |    Length     |            Address
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
           Address (cont)         |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Type
    4 for NAS-IP-Address.
 Length
    6
 Address
    The Address field is four octets.
 5.8.  Framed-IP-Address
    Description
       This Attribute indicates the address to be configured for the
       user.  It MAY be used in Access-Accept packets.  It MAY be used
       in an Access-Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server
       that it would prefer that address, but the server is not
       required to honor the hint.
 A summary of the Framed-IP-Address Attribute format is shown below.
 The fields are transmitted from left to right.
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     Type      |    Length     |            Address
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          Address (cont)         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Type
    8 for Framed-IP-Address.
 Length
    6

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 5] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 Address
    The Address field is four octets.  The value 0xFFFFFFFF indicates
    that the NAS Should allow the user to select an address (e.g.,
    Negotiated).  The value 0xFFFFFFFE indicates that the NAS should
    select an address for the user (e.g., Assigned from a pool of
    addresses kept by the NAS).  Other valid values indicate that the
    NAS should use that value as the user's IP address.
 5.9.  Framed-IP-Netmask
    Description
       This Attribute indicates the IP netmask to be configured for
       the user when the user is a router to a network.  It MAY be
       used in Access-Accept packets.  It MAY be used in an Access-
       Request packet as a hint by the NAS to the server that it would
       prefer that netmask, but the server is not required to honor
       the hint.
 A summary of the Framed-IP-Netmask Attribute format is shown below.
 The fields are transmitted from left to right.
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     Type      |    Length     |            Address
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          Address (cont)         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Type
    9 for Framed-IP-Netmask.
 Length
    6
 Address
    The Address field is four octets specifying the IP netmask of the
    user.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 6] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.14.  Login-IP-Host
    Description
       "This Attribute indicates the system with which to connect the
       user, when the Login-Service Attribute is included.  It MAY be
       used in Access-Accept packets.  It MAY be used in an Access-
       Request packet as a hint to the server that the NAS would
       prefer to use that host, but the server is not required to
       honor the hint."
 A summary of the Login-IP-Host Attribute format is shown below.  The
 fields are transmitted from left to right.
  0                   1                   2                   3
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |     Type      |    Length     |            Address
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
          Address (cont)         |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 Type
    14 for Login-IP-Host.
 Length
    6
 Address
    The Address field is four octets.  The value 0xFFFFFFFF indicates
    that the NAS SHOULD allow the user to select an address.  The
    value 0 indicates that the NAS SHOULD select a host to connect the
    user to.  Other values indicate the address the NAS SHOULD connect
    the user to.
    5.22.  Framed-Route
    Description
       This Attribute provides routing information to be configured
       for the user on the NAS.  It is used in the Access-Accept
       packet and can appear multiple times.
 A summary of the Framed-Route Attribute format is shown below.  The
 fields are transmitted from left to right.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 7] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

  0                   1                   2
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 |     Type      |    Length     |  Text ...
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 Type
    22 for Framed-Route.
 Length
     >= 3
 Text
    The Text field is one or more octets, and its contents are
    implementation dependent.  It is intended to be human readable and
    MUST NOT affect operation of the protocol.  It is recommended that
    the message contain UTF-8 encoded 10646 [7] characters.
    For IP routes, it SHOULD contain a destination prefix in dotted
    quad form optionally followed by a slash and a decimal length
    specifier stating how many high order bits of the prefix to use.
    That is followed by a space, a gateway address in dotted quad
    form, a space, and one or more metrics separated by spaces.  For
    example, "192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.1 1 2 -1 3 400".  The length
    specifier may be omitted, in which case it defaults to 8 bits for
    class A prefixes, 16 bits for class B prefixes, and 24 bits for
    class C prefixes.  For example, "192.168.1.0 192.168.1.1 1".
    Whenever the gateway address is specified as "0.0.0.0" the IP
    address of the user SHOULD be used as the gateway address.
 There are also several example authentication sequences that use the
 attributes discussed above and hence have IPv4 addresses.
 Although the definitions in this RFC are limited to IPv4 addresses,
 the specification is easily extensible for new attribute types.  It
 is therefore relatively simple to create new IPv6 specific
 attributes.

5.0. Proposed Standards

 Proposed Standards are introductory level documents.  There are no
 requirements for even a single implementation.  In many cases
 Proposed are never implemented or advanced in the IETF standards
 process.  They therefore are often just proposed ideas that are

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 8] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 presented to the Internet community.  Sometimes flaws are exposed or
 they are one of many competing solutions to problems.  In these later
 cases, no discussion is presented as it would not serve the purpose
 of this discussion.
 5.001.  RFC 1413 Identification Protocol
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.002.  RFC 1421 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail:
         Part I
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.003.  RFC 1422 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail:
         Part II
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.004.  RFC 1423 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail:
         Part III
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.005.  RFC 1424 Privacy Enhancement for Internet Electronic Mail:
         Part IV
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.006.  RFC 1510 The Kerberos Network Authentication Service (V5)
    Although this specification specifies optional use of host
    addresses, there are no specific requirements that the addresses
    be IPv4.  The specification has no IPv4 dependencies, but
    implementations might have issues.
 5.007.  RFC 1731 IMAP4 Authentication Mechanisms
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.008.  RFC 1734 POP3 AUTHentication command
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 9] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.009.  RFC 1828 IP Authentication using Keyed MD5
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.  The
    operations described operate on the entire IP packet without
    specifying that the IP packet be IPv4 or IPv6.
 5.010.  RFC 1829 The ESP DES-CBC Transform
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.  The
    operations described operate on the entire IP packet without
    specifying that the IP packet be IPv4 or IPv6.
 5.011.  RFC 1847 Security Multiparts for MIME: Multipart/Signed and
         Multipart/Encrypted
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.012.  RFC 1848 MIME Object Security Services
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.013.  RFC 1928 SOCKS Protocol Version
    This specification is IPv6 aware and will function normally on
    either IPv4 and IPv6.
 5.014.  RFC 1929 Username/Password Authentication for SOCKS V5
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.015.  RFC 1961 GSS-API Authentication Method for SOCKS Version 5
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.016.  RFC 1964 The Kerberos Version 5 GSS-API Mechanism
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.017.  RFC 1968 The PPP Encryption Control Protocol (ECP)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.018.  RFC 2015 MIME Security with Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 10] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.019.  RFC 2025 The Simple Public-Key GSS-API Mechanism (SPKM)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.020.  RFC 2082 RIP-2 MD5 Authentication
    This RFC documents a security mechanism for an IPv4 only routing
    specification.  It is expected that a similar (or better)
    mechanism will be developed for RIPng.
 5.021.  RFC 2085 HMAC-MD5 IP Authentication with Replay Prevention
    This document defines an IP version independent specification and
    has no IPv4 dependencies.
 5.022.  RFC 2195 IMAP/POP AUTHorize Extension for Simple Challenge/
         Response
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.023.  RFC 2203 RPCSEC_GSS Protocol Specification
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.024.  RFC 2222 Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.025.  RFC 2228 FTP Security Extensions
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.026.  RFC 2243 OTP Extended Responses
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.027.  RFC 2245 Anonymous SASL Mechanism
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.028.  RFC 2246 The TLS Protocol Version 1.0
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.029.  RFC 2284 PPP Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 11] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.030.  RFC 2385 Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
         Signature Option
    Although the specification enhancements have no IPv4 dependencies,
    it is an update to an IPv4 only routing specification.
 5.031.  RFC 2401 Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol
    This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
 5.032.  RFC 2402 IP Authentication Header
    This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
 5.033.  RFC 2403 The Use of HMAC-MD5-96 within ESP and AH
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.034.  RFC 2404 The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.035.  RFC 2405 The ESP DES-CBC Cipher Algorithm With Explicit IV
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.036.  RFC 2406 IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)
    This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
 5.037.  RFC 2407 The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation
         for ISAKMP
    This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
 5.038.  RFC 2408 Internet Security Association and Key Management
         Protocol (ISAKMP)
    This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
 5.039.  RFC 2409 The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.040.  RFC 2410 The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its Use With
         IPsec
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 12] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.041.  RFC 2419 The PPP DES Encryption Protocol, Version 2
         (DESE-bis)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.042.  RFC 2420 The PPP Triple-DES Encryption Protocol (3DESE)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.043.  RFC 2440 OpenPGP Message Format
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.044.  RFC 2444 The One-Time-Password SASL Mechanism
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.045.  RFC 2451 The ESP CBC-Mode Cipher Algorithms
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.046.  RFC 2478 The Simple and Protected GSS-API Negotiation
         Mechanism
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.047.  RFC 2510 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
         Certificate Management Protocols
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.048.  RFC 2511 Internet X.509 Certificate Request Message
         Format
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.049.  RFC 2535 Domain Name System Security Extensions
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.  There are
    discussions of A and AAAA records in the document, but have no
    real implications on IPv4 dependency or on any IP related address
    records.
 5.050.  RFC 2536 DSA KEYs and SIGs in the Domain Name System (DNS)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 13] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.051.  RFC 2538 Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System
        (DNS)
    Section 3.1 X.509 CERT RR Names
    Some X.509 versions permit multiple names to be associated with
    subjects and issuers under "Subject Alternate Name" and "Issuer
    Alternate Name".  For example, x.509v3 has such Alternate Names
    with an ASN.1 specification as follows:
          GeneralName ::= CHOICE {
             otherName                  [0] INSTANCE OF OTHER-NAME,
             rfc822Name                 [1] IA5String,
             dNSName                    [2] IA5String,
             x400Address                [3] EXPLICIT OR-ADDRESS.&Type,
             directoryName              [4] EXPLICIT Name,
             ediPartyName               [5] EDIPartyName,
             uniformResourceIdentifier  [6] IA5String,
             iPAddress                  [7] OCTET STRING,
             registeredID               [8] OBJECT IDENTIFIER
          }
    uses a potential IPv4 only address.  It goes on with the following
    example:
       Example 2:  Assume that an X.509v3 certificate is issued to
       /CN=James Hacker/L=Basingstoke/O=Widget Inc/C=GB/ with Subject
       Alternate names of (a) domain name widget.foo.example,
       (b) IPv4 address 10.251.13.201, and (c) string "James Hacker
       <hacker@mail.widget.foo.example>".  Then the storage locations
       recommended, in priority order, would be
           (1) widget.foo.example,
           (2) 201.13.251.10.in-addr.arpa, and
           (3) hacker.mail.widget.foo.example.
 Since the definition of X.509v3 certificates is not discussed in this
 document it is unclear if IPv6 addresses are also supported in the
 above mentioned field.  The document does however refer to RFC 2459
 for the definition of a certificate, and RFC 2459 is IPv6 and IPv4
 aware -- so it seems this specification is IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
 5.052.  RFC 2539 Storage of Diffie-Hellman Keys in the Domain
         Name System (DNS)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 14] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.053.  RFC 2560 X.509 Internet Public Key Infrastructure Online
         Certificate Status Specification - OCSP
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.054.  RFC 2585 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Operational
         Protocols: FTP and HTTP
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.055.  RFC 2587 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
         LDAPv2 Schema
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.056.  RFC 2623 NFS Version 2 and Version 3 Security Issues and the
         NFS Protocol's Use of RPCSEC_GSS and Kerberos V5
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.057.  RFC 2631 Diffie-Hellman Key Agreement Method
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.058.  RFC 2632 S/MIME Version 3 Certificate Handling
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.059.  RFC 2633 S/MIME Version 3 Message Specification
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.060.  RFC 2634 Enhanced Security Services for S/MIME
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.061.  RFC 2712 Addition of Kerberos Cipher Suites to Transport
         Layer Security (TLS)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.062.  RFC 2743 Generic Security Service Application Program
         Interface Version 2 Update 1
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 15] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.063.  RFC 2744 Generic Security Service API Version 2:
         C-bindings
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.064.  RFC 2747 RSVP Cryptographic Authentication
    This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
    changes.
 5.065.  RFC 2797 Certificate Management Messages over CMS
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.066.  RFC 2817 Upgrading to TLS Within HTTP/1.1
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.067.  RFC 2829 Authentication Methods for LDAP
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.068.  RFC 2830 Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (v3):
         Extension for Transport Layer Security (LDAP)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.069.  RFC 2831 Using Digest Authentication as a SASL Mechanism
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.070.  RFC 2845 Secret Key Transaction Authentication for DNS (TSIG)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.071.  RFC 2847 LIPKEY - A Low Infrastructure Public Key
         Mechanism Using SPKM
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.072.  RFC 2853 Generic Security Service API Version 2 :
         Java Bindings
    The document uses the InetAddress variable which does not
    necessarily limit it to IPv4 addresses so there are no IPv4
    dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 16] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.073.  RFC 2857 The Use of HMAC-RIPEMD-160-96 within ESP and AH
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.074.  RFC 2875 Diffie-Hellman Proof-of-Possession Algorithms
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.075.  RFC 2930 Secret Key Establishment for DNS (TKEY RR)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.076.  RFC 2931 DNS Request and Transaction
         Signatures (SIG(0)s)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.077.  RFC 2935 Internet Open Trading Protocol (IOTP)
         HTTP Supplement
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.078.  RFC 2941 Telnet Authentication Option
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.079.  RFC 2942 Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 5
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.080.  RFC 2943 TELNET Authentication Using DSA
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.081.  RFC 2944 Telnet Authentication: SRP
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.082.  RFC 2945 The SRP Authentication and Key
         Exchange System
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.083.  RFC 2946 Telnet Data Encryption Option
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 17] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.084.  RFC 2947 Telnet Encryption: DES3 64 bit Cipher
         Feedback
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.085.  RFC 2948 Telnet Encryption: DES3 64 bit Output
         Feedback
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.086.  RFC 2949 Telnet Encryption: CAST-128 64 bit Output
         Feedback
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.087.  RFC 2950 Telnet Encryption: CAST-128 64 bit Cipher
         Feedback
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.088.  RFC 2984 Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in CMS
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.089.  RFC 3007 Secure Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.090.  RFC 3008 Domain Name System Security (DNSSEC) Signing
         Authority
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.091.  RFC 3012 Mobile IPv4 Challenge/Response Extensions
    This document is specifically designed for IPv4.
 5.092.  RFC 3039 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
         Qualified Certificates Profile
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.093.  RFC 3041 Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
         Autoconfiguration in IPv6
    This is an IPv6 related document and is not discussed in this
    document.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 18] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 5.094.  RFC 3062 LDAP Password Modify Extended Operation
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.095.  RFC 3090 DNS Security Extension Clarification on Zone
         Status
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.096.  RFC 3097 RSVP Cryptographic Authentication --
         Updated Message Type Value
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.097.  RFC 3110 RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain
         Name System (DNS)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.098.  RFC 3118 Authentication for DHCP Messages
    This document is only designated for IPv4.  It is expected that
    similar functionality is available in DHCPv6.
 5.099.  RFC 3207 SMTP Service Extension for Secure SMTP over
         Transport Layer Security
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.100.  RFC 3275 (Extensible Markup Language) XML-Signature
         Syntax and Processing
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 5.101.  RFC 3280 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure
         Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile
    This specification is IPv4 and IPv6 aware.
 5.102.  RFC 3369 Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 19] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

6.0. Experimental RFCs

 Experimental RFCs typically define protocols that do not have
 widescale implementation or usage on the Internet.  They are often
 propriety in nature or used in limited arenas.  They are documented
 to the Internet community in order to allow potential
 interoperability or some other potential useful scenario.  In a few
 cases they are presented as alternatives to the mainstream solution
 to an acknowledged problem.
 6.01.  RFC 1004 Distributed-protocol authentication scheme
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.02.  RFC 1411 Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 4
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.03.  RFC 1412 Telnet Authentication: SPX
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.04.  RFC 1507 DASS - Distributed Authentication Security Service
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.05.  RFC 1851 The ESP Triple DES Transform
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.06.  RFC 1949 Scalable Multicast Key Distribution (SMKD)
    This specification assumes the use of IGMP and is therefore
    limited to IPv4 multicast.  It is assumed that a similar mechanism
    may be defined for IPv6 multicasting.
 6.07.  RFC 2093 Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Specification
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.08.  RFC 2094 Group Key Management Protocol (GKMP) Architecture
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.09.  RFC 2154 OSPF with Digital Signatures
    This OSPF option is IPv4 limited.  See the following packet
    format:

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 20] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

    7.2.  Router Public Key Certificate
       A router public key certificate is a package of data signed by
       a Trusted Entity.  This certificate is included in the router
       PKLSA and in the router configuration information.  To change
       any of the values in the certificate, a new certificate must be
       obtained from a TE.
                         1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Router Id                            |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |     TE Id     |   TE Key Id   |   Rtr Key Id  |    Sig Alg    |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          Create Time                          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |        Key Field Length       |  Router Role  |  #Net Ranges  |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                          IP Address                           |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Address Mask                          |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |           IP Address/Address Mask for each Net Range ...      /
    | ...                                                           /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                       Router Public Key                       |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                         Certification                         /
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-*-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       #NET RANGES     The number of network ranges that follow.  A
                       network range is defined to be an IP Address
                       and an Address Mask.  This list of ranges
                       defines the addresses that the Router is
                       permitted to advertise in its Router Links LSA.
                       Valid values are 0-255.  If there are 0 ranges
                       the router cannot advertise anything.  This is
                       not generally useful.  One range with address=0
                       and mask=0 will allow a router to advertise any
                       address.
       IP ADDRESS & ADDRESS MASK Define a range of addresses that this
                       router may advertise.  Each is a 32 bit value.
                       One range with address=0 and mask=0 will allow
                       a router to advertise any address.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 21] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 6.10.  RFC 2522 Photuris: Session-Key Management Protocol
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.11.  RFC 2523 Photuris: Extended Schemes and Attributes
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.12.  RFC 2659 Security Extensions For HTML
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.13.  RFC 2660 The Secure HyperText Transfer Protocol
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.14.  RFC 2692 SPKI Requirements
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.15.  RFC 2693 SPKI Certificate Theory
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.16.  RFC 2716 PPP EAP TLS Authentication Protocol
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.
 6.17.  RFC 2773 Encryption using KEA and SKIPJACK
    This specification is both IPv4 and IPv6 aware and needs no
    changes.
 6.18.  RFC 3029 Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Data
        Validation and Certification Server Protocols
    There are no IPv4 dependencies in this specification.

7.0. Summary of Results

 In the initial survey of RFCs 4 positives were identified out of a
 total of 124, broken down as follows:
       Standards:                              0 out of   1 or  0.00%
       Draft Standards:                        1 out of   3 or 33.33%
       Proposed Standards:                     1 out of 102 or  0.98%
       Experimental RFCs:                      2 out of  18 or 11.11%

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 22] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

 Of those identified many require no action because they document
 outdated and unused protocols, while others are document protocols
 that are actively being updated by the appropriate working groups.
 Additionally there are many instances of standards that should be
 updated but do not cause any operational impact if they are not
 updated.  The remaining instances are documented below.

7.1. Standards

7.2. Draft Standards

 7.2.1.  RADIUS (RFC 2865)
    The problems have been resolved in RFC 3162, RADIUS and IPv6.

7.3. Proposed Standards

 7.3.1.  RIPv2 MD5 Authentication (RFC 2082)
    This functionality has been assumed by the use of the IPsec AH
    header as defined in RFC 2402, IP Authentication Header.
 7.3.2.  Mobile IPv4 Challenge Response Extension (RFC 3012)
    The problems are not being addressed and similar functions may be
    needed in Mobile IPv6.
 7.3.3.  Authentication for DHCP Messages (RFC 3118)
    This problem has been fixed in RFC 3315, Dynamic Host
    Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6).

7.4. Experimental RFCs

 7.4.1.  Scalable Multicast Key Distribution (RFC 1949)
    This specification relies on IPv4 IGMP Multicast and a new
    specification may be produced; however, the SMKD is not believed
    to be in use.
 7.4.2.  OPSF with Digital Signatures (RFC 2154)
    This specification is IPv4-only, and relies on an IPv4-only
    routing protocol, OSPFv2.  Due to increased focus on routing
    security, this specification may need to be revisited, and in that
    case it should support both OSPFv2 and OPSFv3.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 23] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

8.0. Security Considerations

 This memo examines the IPv6-readiness of specifications; this does
 not have security considerations in itself.

9.0. Acknowledgements

 The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Internet
 Society in the research and production of this document.
 Additionally the author, Philip J. Nesser II, would like to thanks
 his partner in all ways, Wendy M. Nesser.
 The editor, Andreas Bergstrom, would like to thank Pekka Savola for
 guidance and collection of comments for the editing of this document.

10.0. Normative Reference

 [1]  Nesser, II, P. and A. Bergstrom, Editor, "Introduction to the
      Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards",
      RFC 3789, June 2004.

11.0. Authors' Addresses

 Please contact the author with any questions, comments or suggestions
 at:
 Philip J. Nesser II
 Principal
 Nesser & Nesser Consulting
 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202
 Kirkland, WA 98034
 Phone:  +1 425 481 4303
 Fax:    +1 425 48
 EMail:  phil@nesser.com
 Andreas Bergstrom (Editor)
 Ostfold University College
 Rute 503 Buer
 N-1766 Halden
 Norway
 EMail: andreas.bergstrom@hiof.no

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 24] RFC 3792 IPv4 Addresses in the IETF Security Area June 2004

12.0. Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004).  This document is subject
 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Nesser II & Bergstrom Informational [Page 25]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc3792.txt · Last modified: 2004/06/08 00:02 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki