Network Performance Measurement for IPsec
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-03

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ippm WG)
Last updated 2014-06-05
Replaces draft-bi-ippm-ipsec
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd Brian Trammell
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
IPPM WG                                              K. Pentikousis, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                                      EICT
Intended status: Standards Track                                  Y. Cui
Expires: December 7, 2014                                       E. Zhang
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            June 5, 2014

               Network Performance Measurement for IPsec
                        draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-03

Abstract

   The O/TWAMP security mechanism requires that both the client and
   server endpoints possess a shared secret.  Since the currently-
   standardized O/TWAMP security mechanism only supports a pre-shared
   key mode, large scale deployment of O/TWAMP is hindered
   significantly.  At the same time, recent trends point to wider IKEv2
   deployment which, in turn, calls for mechanisms and methods that
   enable tunnel end-users, as well as operators, to measure one-way and
   two-way network performance in a standardized manner.  This document
   discusses the use of keys derived from an IKEv2 SA as the shared key
   in O/TWAMP.  If the shared key can be derived from the IKEv2 SA, O/
   TWAMP can support certificate-based key exchange, which would allow
   for more operational flexibility and efficiency.  The key derivation
   presented in this document can also facilitate automatic key
   management.

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 http://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 December 7, 2014.

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  O/TWAMP Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  O/TWAMP-Control Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  O/TWAMP-Test Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     3.3.  O/TWAMP Security Root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  O/TWAMP for IPsec Networks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.1.  Shared Key Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     4.2.  Server Greeting Message Update  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.3.  Set-Up-Response Update  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     4.4.  O/TWAMP over an IPsec tunnel  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   The One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] and the
   Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] can be used to
   measure network performance parameters, such as latency, bandwidth,
   and packet loss by sending probe packets and monitoring their
   experience in the network.  In order to guarantee the accuracy of
   network measurement results, security aspects must be considered.
   Otherwise, attacks may occur and the authenticity of the measurement
   results may be violated.  For example, if no protection is provided,
   an adversary in the middle may modify packet timestamps, thus
   altering the measurement results.

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

   The currently-standardized O/TWAMP security mechanism [RFC4656]
   [RFC5357] requires that endpoints (i.e. both the client and the
   server) possess a shared secret.  In today's network deployments,
   however, the use of pre-shared keys is far from optimal.  For
   example, in wireless infrastructure networks, certain network
   elements, which can be seen as the two endpoints from an O/TWAMP
   perspective, support certificate-based security.  For instance,
   consider the case in which one wants to measure IP performance
   between an eNB and SeGW.  Both eNB and SeGW are 3GPP LTE nodes and
   support certificate mode and IKEv2.  Since the currently standardized
   O/TWAMP security mechanism only supports pre-shared key mode, large
   scale deployment of O/TWAMP is hindered significantly.  Furthermore,
   deployment and management of "shared secrets" for massive equipment
   installation consumes a tremendous amount of effort and is prone to
   human error.

   With IKEv2 widely used, employing keys derived from IKEv2 SA as
   shared key can be considered as a viable alternative.  In mobile
   telecommunication networks, the deployment rate of IPsec exceeds 95%
   with respect to the LTE serving network.  In older-technology
   cellular networks, such as UMTS and GSM, IPsec use penetration is
   lower, but still quite significant.  If the shared key can be derived
   from the IKEv2 SA, O/TWAMP can support cert-based key exchange and
   make it more flexible in practice and more efficient.  The use of
   IKEv2 also makes it easier to extend automatic key management.  In
   general, O/TWAMP measurement packets can be transmitted inside the
   IPsec tunnel, as it occurs with typical user traffic, or transmitted
   outside the IPsec tunnel.  This may depend on the operator's policy
   and is orthogonal to the mechanism described in this document.

   The remainder of this document is organized as follows.  Section 3
   summarizes O/TWAMP protocol operation with respect to security.
   Section 4 presents a method of binding O/TWAMP and IKEv2 for network
   measurements between the client and the server which both support
   IKEv2.  Finally, Section 5 discusses the security considerations
   arising from the proposed mechanisms.

2.  Terminology

   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].

3.  O/TWAMP Security

   Security for O/TWAMP-Control and O/TWAMP-Test are briefly reviewed in
   the following subsections.

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

3.1.  O/TWAMP-Control Security

   O/TWAMP uses a simple cryptographic protocol which relies on

   o  AES in Cipher Block Chaining (AES-CBC) for confidentiality

   o  HMAC-SHA1 truncated to 128 bits for message authentication

   Three modes of operation are supported in the OWAMP-Control protocol:
   unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted.  In addition to these
   modes, the TWAMP-Control protocol also supports a mixed mode, i.e.
   the TWAMP-Control protocol operates in encrypted mode while TWAMP-
   Test protocol operates in unauthenticated mode.  The authenticated,
   encrypted and mixed modes require that endpoints possess a shared
   secret, typically a passphrase.  The secret key is derived from the
   passphrase using a password-based key derivation function PBKDF2
   (PKCS#5) [RFC2898].

   In the unauthenticated mode, the security parameters are left unused.
   In the authenticated, encrypted and mixed modes, the security
   parameters are negotiated during the control connection
   establishment.

   Figure 1 illustrates the initiation stage of the O/TWAMP-Control
   protocol between a client and the server.  In short, the client opens
   a TCP connection to the server in order to be able to send O/TWAMP-
   Control commands.  The server responds with a Server Greeting, which
   contains the Modes, Challenge, Salt, Count, and MBZ fields (see
   Section 3.1 of [RFC4656]).  If the client-preferred mode is
   available, the client responds with a Set-Up- Response message,
   wherein the selected Mode, as well as the KeyID, Token and Client IV
   are included.  The Token is the concatenation of a 16-octet
   Challenge, a 16-octet AES Session-key used for encryption, and a
   32-octet HMAC-SHA1 Session-key used for authentication.  The Token is
   encrypted using AES-CBC.

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

   +--------+                  +--------+
   | Client |                  | Server |
   +--------+                  +--------+
       |                           |
       |<---- TCP Connection ----->|
       |                           |
       |<---- Greeting message ----|
       |                           |
       |----- Set-Up-Response ---->|
       |                           |
       |<---- Server-Start --------|
       |                           |

                  Figure 1: Initiation of O/TWAMP-Control

   Encryption uses a key derived from the shared secret associated with
   KeyID.  In the authenticated, encrypted and mixed modes, all further
   communication is encrypted using the AES Session-key and
   authenticated with the HMAC Session-key.  After receiving Set-Up-
   Response the server responds with a Server-Start message containing
   Server-IV.  The client encrypts everything it transmits through the
   just-established O/TWAMP-Control connection using stream encryption
   with Client- IV as the IV.  Correspondingly, the server encrypts its
   side of the connection using Server-IV as the IV.  The IVs themselves
   are transmitted in cleartext.  Encryption starts with the block
   immediately following that containing the IV.

   The AES Session-key and HMAC Session-key are generated randomly by
   the client.  The HMAC Session-key is communicated along with the AES
   Session-key during O/TWAMP-Control connection setup.  The HMAC
   Session-key is derived independently of the AES Session-key.

3.2.  O/TWAMP-Test Security

   The O/TWAMP-Test protocol runs over UDP, using the client and server
   IP and port numbers that were negotiated during the Request-Session
   exchange.  O/TWAMP- Test has the same mode with O/TWAMP-Control and
   all O/TWAMP-Test sessions inherit the corresponding O/TWAMP-Control
   session mode except when operating in mixed mode.

   The O/TWAMP-Test packet format is the same in authenticated and
   encrypted modes.  The encryption and authentication operations are,
   however, different.  Similarly with the respective O/TWAMP-Control
   session, each O/TWAMP-Test session has two keys: an AES Session-key
   and an HMAC Session-key.  However, there is a difference in how the
   keys are obtained:

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

   O/TWAMP-Control:  the keys are generated by the client and
           communicated to the server during the control connection
           establishment with the Set-Up-Response message (as part of
           the Token).

   O/TWAMP-Test:  the keys are derived from the O/TWAMP-Control keys and
           the session identifier (SID), which serve as inputs of the
           key derivation function (KDF).  The O/TWAMP-Test AES Session-
           key is generated using the O/TWAMP- Control AES Session-key,
           with the 16-octet session identifier (SID), for encrypting
           and decrypting the packets of the particular O/TWAMP-Test
           session.  The O/TWAMP-Test HMAC Session-key is generated
           using the O/TWAMP-Control HMAC Session-key, with the 16-octet
           session identifier (SID), for authenticating the packets of
           the particular O/TWAMP-Test session.

3.3.  O/TWAMP Security Root

   As discussed above, the AES Session-key and HMAC Session-key used by
   the O/TWAMP-Test protocol are derived from the AES Session-key and
   HMAC Session-key which are used in O/TWAMP-Control protocol.  The AES
   Session-key and HMAC Session-key used in the O/TWAMP-Control protocol
   are generated randomly by the client, and encrypted with the shared
   secret associated with KeyID.  Therefore, the security root is the
   shared secret key.  Thus, for large deployments, key provision and
   management may become overly complicated.  Comparatively, a
   certificate-based approach using IKEv2 can automatically manage the
   security root and solve this problem, as we explain in Section 4.

4.  O/TWAMP for IPsec Networks

   This section presents a method of binding O/TWAMP and IKEv2 for
   network measurements between a client and a server which both support
   IPsec.  In short, the shared key used for securing O/TWAMP traffic is
   derived using IKEv2 [RFC5996].

4.1.  Shared Key Derivation

   In the authenticated, encrypted and mixed modes, the shared secret
   key can be derived from the IKEv2 Security Association (SA).  Note
   that we explicitly opt to derive the shared secret key from the IKEv2
   SA, rather than the child SA, since the use case whereby an IKEv2 SA
   can be created without generating any child SA is possible [RFC6023].

   If the shared secret key is derived from the IKEv2 SA, SKEYSEED must
   be generated first.  SKEYSEED and its derivatives MUST be computed as
   per [RFC5996], where prf is a pseudorandom function:

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

      SKEYSEED = prf( Ni | Nr, g^ir )

   Ni and Nr are, respectively, the initiator and responder nonces,
   which are negotiated during the initial exchange (see Section 1.2 of
   [RFC5996]).  g^ir is the shared secret from the ephemeral Diffie-
   Hellman exchange and is represented as a string of octets.

   The shared secret key MUST be generated as follows:

      Shared secret key = PRF( SKEYSEED, "IPPM" )

   Wherein the string "IPPM" comprises four ASCII characters.  It is
   recommended that the shared secret key is derived in the IPsec layer.
   This way, the IPsec keying material is not exposed to the O/TWAMP
   client.  Note, however, that the interaction between the O/TWAMP and
   IPsec layers is host-internal and implementation-specific.
   Therefore, this is clearly outside the scope of this document, which
   focuses on the interaction between the O/TWAMP client and server.
   That said, one possible way could be the following: at the client
   side, the IPSec layer can perform a lookup in the Security
   Association Database (SAD) using the IP address of the server and
   thus match the corresponding IKEv2 SA.  At the server side, the IPSec
   layer can look up the corresponding IKEv2 SA by using the SPIs sent
   by the client, and therefore extract the shared secret key.  In case
   that both client and server do support IKEv2 but there is no current
   IKEv2 SA, two alternative ways could be considered.  First, the O/
   TWAMP client initiates the establishment of the IKEv2 SA, logs this
   operation, and selects the mode which supports IKEv2.  Alternatively,
   the O/TWAMP client does not initiate the establishment of the IKEv2
   SA, logs an error for operational management purposes, and proceeds
   with the modes defined in [RFC4656][RFC5618].  Again, although both
   alternatives are feasible, they are in fact implementation-specific.

   If rekeying for the IKEv2 SA or deletion of the IKEv2 SA occurs, the
   corresponding shared secret key generated from the SA can continue to
   be used until the lifetime of the shared secret key expires.

4.2.  Server Greeting Message Update

   To achieve a binding association between the key generated from IKEv2
   and the O/TWAMP shared secret key, Server Greeting Message should be
   updated as in Figure 2.

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                       Unused (12 octets)                      |
   |                                                               |
   |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Modes                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     Challenge (16 octets)                     |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                        Salt (16 octets)                       |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                        Count (4 octets)                       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                        MBZ (12 octets)                        |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 2: Server Greeting format

   The Modes field in Figure 2 will need to allow for support of key
   derivation as discussed in Section 4.1.  As such, the Modes value
   extension MUST be supported by implementations compatible with this
   document, indicating support for deriving shared key from IKEv2 SA.
   Three new Modes including authenticated mode over IKEv2(IANA.TBA.O/
   TWAMP.IKEAuth),encrypted mode over IKEv2(IANA.TBA.O/TWAMP.IKEEnc) and
   mixed mode over IKEv2(IANA.TBA.TWAMP.IKEMix) are proposed.

   Authenticated mode over IKEv2 means that the client and server
   operate in authenticated mode with the shared secret key derived from
   IKEv2 SA.  Encrypted mode over IKEv2 means that the client and server
   operate in encrypted mode with the shared secret key derived from
   IKEv2 SA.  Mixed mode over IKEv2 means that the client and server
   operate in encrypted mode for the O/TWAMP-Control protocol while
   operating in unauthenticated mode for the O/TWAMP-Test protocol with
   shared secret key derived from IKEv2 SA.

   The choice of this set of Modes values poses the least backwards
   compatibility problems to existing O/TWAMP clients.  Robust client
   implementations of [RFC4656] would disregard the fact that the first

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

   29 Modes bits in the Server Greeting is set.  If the server supports
   other Modes, as one would assume, the client would then indicate any
   of the Modes defined in [RFC4656] and effectively indicate that it
   does not support key derivation from IKEv2.  At this point, the
   Server would need to use the Modes defined in [RFC4656] only.

4.3.  Set-Up-Response Update

   The Set-Up-Response Message should be updated as in Figure 3.

   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                            Mode                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     Key ID (80 octets)                        |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                     Token (16 octets)                         |
   |                                                               |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   |                    Client-IV (12 octets)                      |
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                     Figure 3: Set-Up-Response Message

   The Security Parameter Index (SPI)(see [RFC4301] [RFC5996]) can
   uniquely identify the Security Association (SA).  If the client
   supports the derivation of shared secret key from IKEv2 SA, it will
   choose the corresponding mode value and carry SPIi and SPIr in the
   Key ID field.  SPIi and SPIr are included in the Key ID field of Set-
   Up- Response Message to indicate the IKEv2 SA from which the O/TWAMP
   shared secret key derived from.  The length of SPI is 4 octets.
   Therefore, the first 4 octets of Key ID field carry SPIi and the
   second 4 octets carry SPIr.  The remaining bits of the Key ID field
   are set to zero.

   A O/TWAMP server which supports the specification of this document,
   can obtain the SPIi and SPIr from the first 8 octets and ignore the
   rest octets of the Key ID field.  Then, the client and the server can
   derive the shared secret key based on the mode value and SPI.  If the
   O/TWAMP server cannot find the IKEv2 SA corresponding to the SPIi and

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

   SPIr received, it MUST log the event for operational management
   purposes.  In addition, the O/TWAMP server SHOULD set the Accept
   field of the Server-Start message to the value 6 to indicate that
   server is not willing to conduct further transactions in this O/
   TWAMP-Control session since it can not find the corresponding IKEv2
   SA.

4.4.  O/TWAMP over an IPsec tunnel

   IPsec AH [RFC4302] and ESP [RFC4303]  provide confidentiality and
   data integrity to IP datagrams.  Thus and IPsec tunnel can be used to
   provide the protection needed for O/TWAMP Control and Test packets,
   even if the peers choose the unauthenticated mode of operation.  If
   the two endpoints are already connected through an IPSec tunnel it is
   RECOMMENDED that the O/TWAMP measurement packets are forwarded over
   the IPSec tunnel if the peers choose the unauthenticated mode in
   order to ensure authenticity and security.

5.  Security Considerations

   As the shared secret key is derived from the IKEv2 SA, the key
   derivation algorithm strength and limitations are as per [RFC5996].
   The strength of a key derived from a Diffie-Hellman exchange using
   any of the groups defined here depends on the inherent strength of
   the group, the size of the exponent used, and the entropy provided by
   the random number generator employed.  The strength of all keys and
   implementation vulnerabilities, particularly Denial of Service (DoS)
   attacks are as defined in [RFC5996].

   As a more general note, the IPPM community may want to revisit the
   arguments listed in [RFC4656], Sec. 6.6.  Other widely-used Internet
   security mechanisms, such as TLS and DTLS, may also be considered for
   future use over and above of what is already specified in [RFC4656]
   [RFC5357].

6.  IANA Considerations

   IANA will need to allocate additional values for the Modes options
   presented in this document.

7.  Acknowledgments

   Emily Bi contributed to an earlier version of this document.

   We thank Eric Chen, Yakov Stein, Brian Trammell, and John Mattsson
   for their comments on this draft, and Al Morton for the discussion
   and pointers to related earlier work in IPPM WG.

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

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.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December
              2005.

   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
              4303, December 2005.

   [RFC4656]  Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
              Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
              (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.

   [RFC5357]  Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
              Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
              RFC 5357, October 2008.

   [RFC5618]  Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the
              Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618,
              August 2009.

   [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

   [RFC2898]  Kaliski, B., "PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography
              Specification Version 2.0", RFC 2898, September 2000.

   [RFC4301]  Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
              Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.

   [RFC6023]  Nir, Y., Tschofenig, H., Deng, H., and R. Singh, "A
              Childless Initiation of the Internet Key Exchange Version
              2 (IKEv2) Security Association (SA)", RFC 6023, October
              2010.

Authors' Addresses

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft  Network Performance Measurement for IPsec      June 2014

   Kostas Pentikousis (editor)
   EICT GmbH
   EUREF-Campus Haus 13
   Torgauer Strasse 12-15
   10829 Berlin
   Germany

   Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de

   Yang Cui
   Huawei Technologies
   Otemachi First Square 1-5-1 Otemachi
   Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo   100-0004
   Japan

   Email: cuiyang@huawei.com

   Emma Zhang
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Building, Q20, No.156, Rd. BeiQing
   Haidian District , Beijing   100095
   P. R. China

   Email: emma.zhanglijia@huawei.com

Pentikousis, et al.     Expires December 7, 2014               [Page 12]