GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc6023

Independent Submission Y. Nir Request for Comments: 6023 Check Point Category: Experimental H. Tschofenig ISSN: 2070-1721 NSN

                                                               H. Deng
                                                          China Mobile
                                                              R. Singh
                                                                 Cisco
                                                          October 2010
                     A Childless Initiation of

the Internet Key Exchange Version 2 (IKEv2) Security Association (SA)

Abstract

 This document describes an extension to the Internet Key Exchange
 version 2 (IKEv2) protocol that allows an IKEv2 Security Association
 (SA) to be created and authenticated without generating a Child SA.

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for examination, experimental implementation, and
 evaluation.
 This document defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
 community.  This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently
 of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
 document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
 implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
 the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet
 Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6023.

Nir, et al. Experimental [Page 1] RFC 6023 Childless IKEv2 Initiation October 2010

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2010 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
 (http://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.

1. Introduction

 IKEv2, as specified in [RFC5996], requires that the IKE_AUTH exchange
 try to create a Child SA along with the IKEv2 SA.  This requirement
 is sometimes inconvenient or superfluous, as some implementations
 need to use IKEv2 for authentication only, while others would like to
 set up the IKEv2 SA before there is any actual traffic to protect.
 The extension described in this document allows the creation of an
 IKEv2 SA without also attempting to create a Child SA.  The terms
 IKEv2, IKEv2 SA, and Child SA and the various IKEv2 exchanges are
 defined in [RFC5996]
 An IKEv2 SA without any Child SA is not a fruitless endeavor.  Even
 without Child SAs, an IKEv2 SA allows:
 o  Checking the liveness status of the peer via liveness checks.
 o  Quickly setting up Child SAs without public key operations and
    without user interaction.
 o  Authentication of the peer.
 o  Detection of NAT boxes between two hosts on the Internet.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

Nir, et al. Experimental [Page 2] RFC 6023 Childless IKEv2 Initiation October 2010

2. Usage Scenarios

 Several scenarios motivated this proposal:
 o  Interactive remote access VPN: the user tells the client to
    "connect", which may involve interactive authentication.  There is
    still no traffic, but some may come later.  Since there is no
    traffic, it is impossible for the gateway to know what selectors
    to use (how to narrow down the client's proposal).
 o  Location-aware security, as in [SecureBeacon].  The user is
    roaming between trusted and untrusted networks.  While in an
    untrusted network, all traffic should be encrypted, but on the
    trusted network, only the IKEv2 SA needs to be maintained.
 o  An IKEv2 SA may be needed between peers even when there is not
    IPsec traffic.  Such IKEv2 peers use liveness checks, and report
    to the administrator the status of the "VPN links".
 o  IKEv2 may be used on some physically secure links, where
    authentication is necessary but traffic protection is not.  An
    example of this is the Passive Optical Network (PON) links as
    described in [3GPP.33.820].
 o  Childless IKEv2 can be used for [RFC5106] where we use IKEv2 as a
    method for user authentication.
 o  A node receiving IPsec traffic with an unrecognized Security
    Parameter Index (SPI) should send an INVALID_SPI notification.  If
    this traffic comes from a peer, which it recognizes based on its
    IP address, then this node may set up an IKEv2 SA so as to be able
    to send the notification in a protected INFORMATIONAL exchange.
 o  A future extension may have IKEv2 SAs used for generating keying
    material for applications, without ever requiring Child SAs.  This
    is similar to what [RFC5705] is doing in Transport Layer Security
    (TLS).
 In some of these cases, it may be possible to create a dummy Child SA
 and then remove it, but this creates undesirable side effects and
 race conditions.  Moreover, the IKEv2 peer might see the deletion of
 the Child SA as a reason to delete the IKEv2 SA.

Nir, et al. Experimental [Page 3] RFC 6023 Childless IKEv2 Initiation October 2010

3. Protocol Outline

 The decision of whether or not to support an IKE_AUTH exchange
 without the piggy-backed Child SA negotiation is ultimately up to the
 responder.  A supporting responder MUST include the Notify payload,
 described in Section 4, within the IKE_SA_INIT response.
 A supporting initiator MAY send the modified IKE_AUTH request,
 described in Section 5, if the notification was included in the
 IKE_SA_INIT response.  The initiator MUST NOT send the modified
 IKE_AUTH request if the notification was not present.
 A supporting responder that has advertised support by including the
 notification in the IKE_SA_INIT response MUST process a modified
 IKE_AUTH request, and MUST reply with a modified IKE_AUTH response.
 Such a responder MUST NOT reply with a modified IKE_AUTH response if
 the initiator did not send a modified IKE_AUTH request.
 A supporting responder that has been configured not to support this
 extension to the protocol MUST behave as the same as if it didn't
 support this extension.  It MUST NOT advertise the capability with a
 notification, and it SHOULD reply with an INVALID_SYNTAX Notify
 payload if the client sends an IKE_AUTH request that is modified as
 described in Section 5.

4. CHILDLESS_IKEV2_SUPPORTED Notification

 The Notify payload is as described in [RFC5996]
                          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
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     ! Next Payload  !C!  RESERVED   !         Payload Length        !
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     !  Protocol ID  !   SPI Size    ! Childless Notify Message Type !
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 o  Protocol ID (1 octet) MUST be 1, as this message is related to an
    IKEv2 SA.
 o  SPI Size (1 octet) MUST be zero, in conformance with section 3.10
    of [RFC5996].
 o  Childless Notify Message Type (2 octets) - MUST be 16418, the
    value assigned for CHILDLESS_IKEV2_SUPPORTED.

Nir, et al. Experimental [Page 4] RFC 6023 Childless IKEv2 Initiation October 2010

5. Modified IKE_AUTH Exchange

 For brevity, only the Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP)
 version of an AUTH exchange will be presented here.  The non-EAP
 version is very similar.  The figures below are based on Appendix C.3
 of [RFC5996].
  first request       --> IDi,
                          [N(INITIAL_CONTACT)],
                          [[N(HTTP_CERT_LOOKUP_SUPPORTED)], CERTREQ+],
                          [IDr],
                          [CP(CFG_REQUEST)],
                          [V+][N+]
  first response      <-- IDr, [CERT+], AUTH,
                          EAP,
                          [V+][N+]
                    / --> EAP
  repeat 1..N times |
                    \ <-- EAP
  last request        --> AUTH
  last response       <-- AUTH,
                          [CP(CFG_REPLY)],
                          [V+][N+]
 Note what is missing:
 o  The optional notifications: IPCOMP_SUPPORTED, USE_TRANSPORT_MODE,
    ESP_TFC_PADDING_NOT_SUPPORTED, and NON_FIRST_FRAGMENTS_ALSO.
 o  The SA payload.
 o  The traffic selector payloads.
 o  Any notification, extension payload or VendorID that has to do
    with Child SA negotiation.

6. Security Considerations

 This protocol variation inherits all the security properties of
 regular IKEv2 as described in [RFC5996].
 The new notification carried in the initial exchange advertises the
 capability, and cannot be forged or added by an adversary without
 being detected, because the response to the initial exchange is

Nir, et al. Experimental [Page 5] RFC 6023 Childless IKEv2 Initiation October 2010

 authenticated with the AUTH payload of the IKE_AUTH exchange.
 Furthermore, both peers have to be configured to use this variation
 of the exchange in order for the responder to accept a childless
 proposal from the initiator.

7. IANA Considerations

 IANA has assigned a notify message type from the "IKEv2 Notify
 Message Types" registry with the name "CHILDLESS_IKEV2_SUPPORTED" and
 the value "16418".

8. References

8.1. Normative References

 [RFC2119]       Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
 [RFC5996]       Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
                 "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
                 RFC 5996, September 2010.

8.2. Informative References

 [3GPP.33.820]   3GPP, "Security of H(e)NB", 3GPP TR 33.820 8.0.0,
                 March 2009.
 [RFC5106]       Tschofenig, H., Kroeselberg, D., Pashalidis, A.,
                 Ohba, Y., and F. Bersani, "The Extensible
                 Authentication Protocol-Internet Key Exchange
                 Protocol version 2 (EAP-IKEv2) Method", RFC 5106,
                 February 2008.
 [RFC5705]       Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for
                 Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705,
                 March 2010.
 [SecureBeacon]  Sheffer, Y. and Y. Nir, "Secure Beacon: Securely
                 Detecting a Trusted Network", Work in Progress,
                 June 2009.

Nir, et al. Experimental [Page 6] RFC 6023 Childless IKEv2 Initiation October 2010

Authors' Addresses

 Yoav Nir
 Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
 5 Hasolelim st.
 Tel Aviv  67897
 Israel
 EMail: ynir@checkpoint.com
 Hannes Tschofenig
 Nokia Siemens Networks
 Linnoitustie 6
 Espoo  02600
 Finland
 Phone: +358 (50) 4871445
 EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
 URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at
 Hui Deng
 China Mobile
 53A,Xibianmennei Ave.
 Xuanwu District
 Beijing  100053
 China
 EMail: denghui02@gmail.com
 Rajeshwar Singh Jenwar
 Cisco Systems, Inc.
 O'Shaugnessy Road
 Bangalore, Karnataka  560025
 India
 Phone: +91 80 4103 3563
 EMail: rsj@cisco.com

Nir, et al. Experimental [Page 7]

/home/gen.uk/domains/wiki.gen.uk/public_html/data/pages/rfc/rfc6023.txt · Last modified: 2010/10/10 23:00 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki