IKEv2 negotiation for Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET) mode ESP
draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D).
Anyone may submit an I-D to the IETF.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Antony Antony , Steffen Klassert | ||
| Last updated | 2024-04-23 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-beet-mode | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode-00
IPSECME Working Group A. Antony
Internet-Draft S. Klassert
Intended status: Standards Track secunet
Expires: 25 October 2024 23 April 2024
IKEv2 negotiation for Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET) mode ESP
draft-antony-ipsecme-iekv2-beet-mode-00
Abstract
This document specifies a new Notify Message Type Payload for the
Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2), to negotiate IPsec
ESP Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET) mode. BEET mode combines the
benefits of tunnel mode with reduced overhead, making it suitable for
applications requiring minimalistic end-to-end tunnels, mobility
support, and multi-address multi-homing capabilities. The
introduction of the USE_BEET_MODE Notify Message enables the
negotiation and establishment of BEET mode security associations.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 October 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IKv2 for BEET mode ESP April 2024
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://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. Code Components
extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. IKEv2 Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. USE_BEET_MODE Notify Message Payload . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.1. Linux XFRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. strongSwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5.3. iproute2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
8. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix A. Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Introduction
The Bound End-to-End Tunnel (BEET) mode, specified in the appendix B
of [RFC7402] (Author's note: we propose to write BIZ document for
RFC7402 Appendix B, an updated document only for ESP BEET mode)
presents an optimized approach for deploying IPsec Encapsulating
Security Payload (ESP) by blending the benefits of tunnel and
transport modes while minimizing their overhead. The current,
[RFC7402] does not specify the negotiation process for establishing
BEET mode using the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2).
This document addresses this gap by proposing a new Notify Message
Type Payload, USE_BEET_MODE, specifically designed to enable the
negotiation and establishment of BEET mode security associations in
IKEv2.
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IKv2 for BEET mode ESP April 2024
The introduction of a negotiation mechanism for BEET mode aims to
enhance the flexibility and applicability of IPsec, particularly in
environments that demand efficient end-to-end security with minimal
overhead, such as mobile and multi-homed networks. By providing a
standardized method for negotiating BEET mode, this document seeks to
facilitate wider adoption and integration into the broader IPsec
framework.
1.1. Requirements Language
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 RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
1.2. Background
For over a decade, a minimalist IPsec tunnel mode, BEET, has been in
use for end-to-end security in HIP environments without IKE
negotiation, [RFC7401] and in many environments using IKE negotiation
using a private Notification. (strongSWAN ref)
Once IKEv2 negotiation for BEET mode is standardized its potential
for enhancing secure communications would increase along with
interoperability.
Additionally, BEET is valuable for low-power devices, as it reduces
power consumption [RFC9333] and complexity. In situations where
devices or IPsec connections are dedicated to a single application or
transport protocol. In this use case BEET mode simplifies packet
processing and conserves energy, especially for lower-powered
devices.
2. IKEv2 Negotiation
When negotiating a Child SA using using IKEv2, the initiator may use
the new "USE_BEET_MODE" Notify Message to request a Child SA pair
with BEET mode support. The method used is similar to how
USE_TRANSPORT_MODE is negotiated, as described in [RFC7296]
To request a BEET-mode SA on the Child SA pair, the initiator MUST
include the USE_BEET_MODE Notify Message when requesting a new Child
SA, either during the IKE_AUTH or CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges. If the
request is accepted, the response MUST also include a USE_BEET_MODE
Notification. If the responder declines and does not include the
USE_BEET_MODE notification in the response, the child SA may be
established without BEET mode enabled. If this is unacceptable to
the initiator, the initiator MUST delete the child SA.
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IKv2 for BEET mode ESP April 2024
2.1. USE_BEET_MODE Notify Message Payload
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 ! Notify Message Type !
+---------------+---------------+-------------------------------+
Figure 1
* Payload Length - MUST be 0.
* Protocol ID (1 octet) - MUST be 0. MUST be ignored if not 0.
* SPI Size (1 octet) - MUST be 0. MUST be ignored if not 0.
As the use of the USE_BEET_MODE mode payload is currently only
defined for non-transport-mode tunnels, the USE_BEET_MODE
notification MUST NOT be combined with the USE_TRANSPORT
notification.
3. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new IKEv2 Notify Message Type payloads for
the IANA "IKEv2 Notify Message Types - Status Types" registry.
Value Notify Type Messages - Status Types Reference
----- ------------------------------ ---------------
[TBD1] USE_BEET_MODE [this document]
Figure 2
4. Security Considerations
In this section we discuss the security properties of the BEET mode,
discussing some and point out some of its limitations [RFC3552].
There are no known new vulnerabilities that the addition of the BEET
mode to IKEv2 would create.
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IKv2 for BEET mode ESP April 2024
Since the BEET security associations have the semantics of a fixed,
point-to-point tunnel between two IP addresses, it is possible to
place one or both of the tunnel end points into other nodes but those
that actually "possess" the inner IP addresses, i.e., to implement a
BEET mode proxy. However, since such usage defeats the security
benefits of combined ESP processing, as discussed in
[I-D.nikander-esp-beet-mode], the implementations SHOULD NOT support
such usage.
5. Implementation Status
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section and the reference to
[RFC6982] before publication.]
This section records the status of known implementations of the
protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this
Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in [RFC7942].
The description of implementations in this section is intended to
assist the IETF in its decision processes in progressing drafts to
RFCs. Please note that the listing of any individual implementation
here does not imply endorsement by the IETF. Furthermore, no effort
has been spent to verify the information presented here that was
supplied by IETF contributors. This is not intended as, and must not
be construed to be, a catalog of available implementations or their
features. Readers are advised to note that other implementations may
exist.
According to [RFC7942], "this will allow reviewers and working groups
to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of
running code, which may serve as evidence of valuable experimentation
and feedback that have made the implemented protocols more mature.
It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as
they see fit".
Authors are requested to add a note to the RFC Editor at the top of
this section, advising the Editor to remove the entire section before
publication, as well as the reference to [RFC7942].
5.1. Linux XFRM
Linux
Organization: Linux kernel Project
Name: Linux Kernel https://www.kernel.org/
Description: Implements BEET mode in ESP. The initial support was
added in 2006. It is widely used
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IKv2 for BEET mode ESP April 2024
Level of maturity: Stable and used for over 15 years
Licensing: GPLv2
Implementation experience: There is no support for IPv4 fragments
yet. IPv6 fragments appears to work. The BEE mode code is in
production for over a decade
Contact: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/
5.2. strongSwan
Organization: The strongSwan Project
Name: strongSwan https://docs.strongswan.org/docs/5.9/swanctl/
swanctlConf.html
Description: Implements IKE negotiation and and ESP support for BEET
mode Linux
Level of maturity: Stable for a long time
Coverage: Implements negotiating BEET mode support in Child SA
negotiations and using it in ESP. The initial support was added
in 2006.
Licensing: GPLv2
Implementation experience strongSwan use a private space
notification value for IKE negotiation. USE_BEET_MODE (40961).
As far we know BEET is widely used.
Contact Tobias Brunner tobias@strongswan.org
5.3. iproute2
Organization: The iproute2 Project
Name: iproute2 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/
iproute2.git
Description: Implements BEET mode support in ESP. e.g. command
support "ip xfrm policy ... mode beet" . and "ip xfrm state ..
mode beet". The initial support was added in 2006
Level of maturity: Stable
Licensing: GPLv2
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IKv2 for BEET mode ESP April 2024
Implementation experience: TBD
Contact: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/ or Stephen Hemminger
stephen@networkplumber.org
6. Acknowledgments
We extend our sincere gratitude to the authors and contributors who
contributed to the standardization of BEET mode. Their insights and
dedication have significantly influenced our work, as well as their
contributions to the implementation of BEET mode many years ago.
7. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October
2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[RFC7402] Jokela, P., Moskowitz, R., and J. Melen, "Using the
Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) Transport Format with
the Host Identity Protocol (HIP)", RFC 7402,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7402, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7402>.
8. Informative References
[I-D.nikander-esp-beet-mode]
Nikander, P. and J. Melen, "A Bound End-to-End Tunnel
(BEET) mode for ESP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-nikander-esp-beet-mode-09, 5 August 2008,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nikander-esp-
beet-mode-09>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC6982] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", RFC 6982,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6982, July 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6982>.
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IKv2 for BEET mode ESP April 2024
[RFC7401] Moskowitz, R., Ed., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T.
Henderson, "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)",
RFC 7401, DOI 10.17487/RFC7401, April 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7401>.
[RFC7942] Sheffer, Y. and A. Farrel, "Improving Awareness of Running
Code: The Implementation Status Section", BCP 205,
RFC 7942, DOI 10.17487/RFC7942, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7942>.
[RFC9333] Migault, D. and T. Guggemos, "Minimal IP Encapsulating
Security Payload (ESP)", RFC 9333, DOI 10.17487/RFC9333,
January 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9333>.
Appendix A. Additional Stuff
This becomes an Appendix.
Authors' Addresses
Antony Antony
secunet Security Networks AG
Email: antony.antony@secunet.com
Steffen Klassert
secunet Security Networks AG
Email: steffen.klassert@secunet.com
Antony & Klassert Expires 25 October 2024 [Page 8]