IKEv2 Fragmentation
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-05

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (ipsecme WG)
Last updated 2014-03-12 (latest revision 2013-11-06)
Replaces draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Paul Hoffman
Shepherd write-up Show (last changed 2014-02-13)
IESG IESG state Waiting for Writeup
Consensus Boilerplate Yes
Telechat date
Responsible AD Kathleen Moriarty
Send notices to ipsecme-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation@tools.ietf.org
IANA IANA review state IANA - Not OK
IANA action state None
Network Working Group                                         V. Smyslov
Internet-Draft                                                ELVIS-PLUS
Intended status: Standards Track                        November 3, 2013
Expires: May 7, 2014

                          IKEv2 Fragmentation
               draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-05

Abstract

   This document describes the way to avoid IP fragmentation of large
   IKEv2 messages.  This allows IKEv2 messages to traverse network
   devices that don't allow IP fragments to pass through.

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 May 5, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Protocol details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Negotiation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.4.  Using IKE Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5.  Fragmenting Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.5.1.  Selecting Fragment Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.5.2.  PMTU Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       2.5.3.  Fragmenting Messages containing unencrypted
               Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.6.  Receiving IKE Fragment Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.6.1.  Changes in Replay Protection Logic . . . . . . . . . . 12
   3.  Interaction with other IKE extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Transport Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   7.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   8.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     8.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     8.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   Appendix A.  Design rationale  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   Appendix B.  Correlation between IP Datagram size and
                Encrypted Payload content size  . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2), specified in
   [RFC5996], uses UDP as a transport for its messages.  Most IKEv2
   messages are relatively small, usually below several hundred bytes.
   Noticeable exception is IKE_AUTH exchange, which requires fairly
   large messages, up to several kbytes, especially when certificates
   are transferred.  When IKE message size exceeds path MTU, it gets
   fragmented by IP level.  The problem is that some network devices,
   specifically some NAT boxes, don't allow IP fragments to pass
   through.  This apparently blocks IKE communication and, therefore,
   prevents peers from establishing IPsec SA.

   Widespread deployment of Carrier-Grade NATs (CGN) introduces new
   challenges.  RFC6888 [RFC6888] describes requirements for CGNs.  It
   states, that CGNs must comply with Section 11 of RFC4787 [RFC4787],
   which requires NAT to support receiving IP fragments (REQ-14).  In
   real life fulfillment of this requirement creates an additional
   burden in terms of memory, especially for high-capacity devices, used
   in CGNs.  It was found by people deploying IKE, that some ISPs have
   begun to drop IP fragments, violating that requirement.

   The solution to the problem described in this document is to perform
   fragmentation of large messages by IKE itself, replacing them by
   series of smaller messages.  In this case the resulting IP Datagrams
   will be small enough so that no fragmentation on IP level will take
   place.

   Avoiding IP fragmentation is beneficial for IKEv2 in general.
   Security Considerations Section of [RFC5996] mentions exhausting of
   the IP reassembly buffers as one of possible attacks on the protocol.
   In the paper [DOSUDPPROT] several aspects of attacks on IKE using IP
   fragmentation are discussed, and one of defenses it proposes is to
   perform IKE-level fragmentation, similar to the solution, described
   in this document.

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].

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

2.  Protocol details

2.1.  Overview

   The idea of the protocol is to split large IKE message into a set of
   smaller ones, called IKE Fragment Messages.  Fragmentation takes
   place before the original message is encrypted and authenticated, so
   that each IKE Fragment Message receives individual protection.  On
   the receiving side IKE Fragment Messages are collected, verified,
   decrypted and merged together to get the original message before
   encryption.  For design rationale see Appendix A.

2.2.  Limitations

   As IKE Fragment Messages are cryptographically protected, SK_a and
   SK_e must already be calculated.  In general, it means that original
   message can be fragmented if and only if it contains Encrypted
   Payload.

   This implies that messages of the IKE_SA_INIT Exchange cannot be
   fragmented.  In most cases this is not a problem, since IKE_SA_INIT
   messages are usually small enough to avoid IP fragmentation.  But in
   some cases (advertising a badly structured long list of algorithms,
   using large MODP Groups, etc.) these messages may become fairly large
   and get fragmented by IP level.  In this case the described solution
   won't help.

   Among existing IKEv2 extensions, messages of IKE_SESSION_RESUME
   Exchange, defined in [RFC5723], cannot be fragmented either.  See
   Section 3 for details.

   Another limitation is that the minimal size of IP Datagram bearing
   IKE Fragment Message is about 100 bytes depending on the algorithms
   employed.  According to [RFC0791] the minimum IP Datagram size that
   is guaranteed not to be further fragmented is 68 bytes.  So, even the
   smallest IKE Fragment Messages could be fragmented by IP level in
   some circumstances.  But such extremely small PMTU sizes are very
   rare in real life.

2.3.  Negotiation

   Initiator MAY indicate its support for IKE Fragmentation and
   willingness to use it by including Notification Payload of type
   IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED in IKE_SA_INIT request message.  If
   Responder also supports this extension and is willing to use it, it
   includes this notification in response message.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

   Initiator                   Responder
   -----------                 -----------
   HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni,
      [N(IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED)]  -->

                       <--   HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ],
                                  [N(IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED)]

   The Notify payload is formatted as follows:

                        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(=0)| SPI Size (=0) |      Notify Message Type      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Protocol ID (1 octet) MUST be 0.

   o  SPI Size (1 octet) MUST be 0, meaning no SPI is present.

   o  Notify Message Type (2 octets) - MUST be xxxxx, the value assigned
      for IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED by IANA.

   This Notification contains no data.

2.4.  Using IKE Fragmentation

   IKE Fragmentation MUST NOT be used unless both peers indicated their
   support for it.  After IKE Fragmentation is negotiated, it is up to
   Initiator of each Exchange, whether to use it or not.  In most cases
   IKE Fragmentation will be used in IKE_AUTH Exchange, especially if
   certificates are employed.  Initiator may first try to send
   unfragmented message and resend it fragmented only if it didn't
   receive response after several retransmissions, or it may always send
   messages fragmented (but see Section 3), or it may fragment only
   large messages and messages causing large responses.

   In general the following guidelines are applicable for initiator:

   o  Initiator MAY fragment outgoing message if it has some knowledge
      (possibly from lower layer or from configuration) or suspicions
      that either request or response message will be fragmented by IP
      level.

   o  Initiator SHOULD fragment outgoing message if it has some
      knowledge (possibly from lower layer or from configuration) or

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

      suspicions that either request or response message will be
      fragmented by IP level and IKE Fragmentation was already used in
      one of previous Exchanges in the context of the current IKE SA.

   o  Initiator SHOULD NOT fragment outgoing message if both request and
      response messages of the Exchange are small enough not to cause
      fragmentation on IP level (for example, there is no point in
      fragmenting Liveness Check messages).

   In general the following guidelines are applicable for responder:

   o  Responder SHOULD send response message in the same form
      (fragmented or not) as corresponded request message.  If it
      received unfragmented request message, responded with unfragmented
      response message and then receives fragmented retransmission of
      the same request, it SHOULD resend its response back to Initiator
      fragmented.

   o  Responder MAY respond to unfragmented message with fragmented
      response if it has some knowledge (possibly from lower layer or
      from configuration) or suspicions that response message will be
      fragmented by IP level.

   o  Responder MAY respond to fragmented message with unfragmented
      response if the size of the response message is less than the
      smallest fragmentation threshold, supported by Responder (for
      example, there is no point in fragmenting Liveness Check
      messages).

2.5.  Fragmenting Message

   Message to be fragmented MUST contain Encrypted Payload.  For the
   purpose of IKE Fragment Messages construction original (unencrypted)
   content of Encrypted Payload is split into chunks.  The content is
   treated as a binary blob and is split regardless of inner Payloads
   boundaries.  Each of resulting chunks is treated as an original
   content of Encrypted Fragment Payload and is then encrypted and
   authenticated.  Thus, the Encrypted Fragment Payload contains a chunk
   of the original content of Encrypted Payload in encrypted form.  The
   cryptographic processing of Encrypted Fragment Payload is identical
   to Section 3.14 of [RFC5996], as well as documents updating it for
   particular algorithms or modes, such as [RFC5282].

   The Encrypted Fragment Payload, similarly to the Encrypted Payload,
   if present in a message, MUST be the last payload in the message.

   The Encrypted Fragment Payload is denoted SKF{...} and its payload
   type is XXX (TBA by IANA).

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

                        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        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Fragment Number        |        Total Fragments        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Initialization Vector                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Encrypted content                        ~
   +               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               |             Padding (0-255 octets)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                               |  Pad Length   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                    Integrity Checksum Data                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Encrypted Fragment Payload

   o  Next Payload (1 octet) - in the very first fragment MUST be set to
      Payload Type of the first inner Payload (similarly to the
      Encrypted Payload).  In the rest fragments MUST be set to zero.

   o  Fragment Number (2 octets) - current fragment number starting from
      1.  This field MUST be less than or equal to the next field, Total
      Fragments.  This field MUST NOT be zero.

   o  Total Fragments (2 octets) - number of fragments original message
      was divided into.  With PMTU discovery this field plays additional
      role.  See Section 2.5.2 for details.  This field MUST NOT be
      zero.

   The other fields are identical to those specified in Section 3.14 of
   [RFC5996].

   When prepending IKE Header, Length field MUST be adjusted to reflect
   the length of constructed message and Next Payload field MUST reflect
   payload type of the first Payload in the constructed message (that in
   most cases will be Encrypted Fragment Payload).  All newly
   constructed messages MUST retain the same Message ID as original
   message.  After prepending IKE Header and possibly any of Payloads
   that precedes Encrypted Payload in original message (see
   Section 2.5.3), the resulting messages are sent to the peer.

   Below is an example of fragmenting a message.

   HDR(MID=n), SK(NextPld=PLD1) {PLD1 ... PLDN}

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

                             Original Message

   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=PLD1, Frag#=1, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=2, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   ...
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=m, TotalFrags=m) {...}

                           IKE Fragment Messages

2.5.1.  Selecting Fragment Size

   When splitting content of Encrypted into chunks sender SHOULD chose
   size of those chunks so, that resulting IP Datagram size not exceed
   some fragmentation threshold - be small enough to avoid IP
   fragmentation.

   If sender has some knowledge about PMTU size it MAY use it.  If
   sender is a Responder in the Exchange and it has received fragmented
   request, it MAY use maximum size of received IKE Fragment Message IP
   Datagrams as threshold when constructing fragmented response.

   Otherwise for messages to be sent over IPv6 it is RECOMMENDED to use
   value 1280 bytes as a maximum IP Datagram size ([RFC2460]).  For
   messages to be sent over IPv4 it is RECOMMENDED to use value 576
   bytes as a maximum IP Datagram size.  Presence of tunnels on the path
   may reduce these values.

   According to [RFC0791] the minimum IPv4 datagram size that is
   guaranteed not to be further fragmented is 68 bytes, but it is
   generally impossible to use such small value for solution, described
   in this document.  Using 576 bytes is a compromise - the value is
   large enough for the presented solution and small enough to avoid IP
   fragmentation in most situations.  Several other UDP-based protocol
   assume the value 576 bytes as a safe low limit for IP datagrams size
   (Syslog, DNS, etc.).  Sender MAY use other values if they are
   appropriate.

   See Appendix B for correlation between IP Datagram size and Encrypted
   Payload content size.

2.5.2.  PMTU Discovery

   Initiator MAY try to discover path MTU by probing several values of
   fragmentation threshold.  While doing probes, node MUST start from
   larger values and refragment message with next smaller value if it
   doesn't receive response in a reasonable time after several
   retransmissions.  This time is supposed to be relatively short, so

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

   that node could make all desired probes before exchange times out.
   When starting new probe (with smaller threshold) node MUST reset its
   retransmission timers so, that if it employs exponential back-off,
   the timers start over.  After reaching the smallest allowed value for
   fragmentation threshold implementation MUST continue probing using it
   untill either exchange completes ot times out.

   PMTU discovery in IKE is supposed to be coarse-grained, i.e. it is
   expected, that node will try only few fragmentation thresholds, in
   order to minimize possible IKE SA establishment delay.  In a corner
   case, when host will use only one value, PMTU discovery will
   effectively be disabled.  In most cases PMTU discovery will not be
   needed, as using values, recommended in section Section 2.5.1, should
   suffice.  It is expected, that PMTU discovery may be useful in
   environments where PMTU size are smaller, than those listed in
   Section 2.5.1, for example due to the presence of intermediate
   tunnels.

   PMTU discovery in IKE follows recommendations, given in Section 10.4
   of RFC4821 [RFC4821] with some differences, induced by the
   specialities of IKE.  In particular:

   o  Unlike classical PMTUD [RFC1191] and PLMTUD [RFC4821] the goal of
      Path MTU discovery in IKE is not to find the largest size of IP
      packet, that will not be fragmented en route, but to find any
      reasonal size, probably far from optimal.

   o  There is no goal to completely disallow IP fragmentation until its
      presence leads to inability IKE to communicate (e.g. when IP
      fragments are dropped)

   o  IKE usually sends large messages only in IKE_AUTH exchange, i.e.
      once per IKE SA.  Most of other messages will have size below
      several hundred bytes.  Performing full PMTUD for sending exactly
      one large message is inefficient.

   In case of PMTU discovery Total Fragments field is used to
   distinguish between different sets of fragments, i.e. the sets that
   were obtained by fragmenting original message using different
   fragmentation thresholds.  As sender will start from larger fragments
   and then make them smaller, the value in Total Fragments field will
   increase with each new try.  When selecting next smaller value of
   fragmentation threshold, sender MUST ensure that the value in Total
   Fragments field is really increased.  This requirement should not
   become a problem for the sender, as PMTU discovery in IKE is supposed
   to be coarse-grained, so difference between previous and next
   fragmentation thresholds will be significant anyway.  The necessity
   to distinguish between the sets is vital for receiver as receiving

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

   any valid fragment from newer set will mean that it have to start
   reassembling over and not to mix fragments from different sets.

2.5.3.  Fragmenting Messages containing unencrypted Payloads

   Currently no one of IKEv2 Exchanges defines messages, containing both
   unencrypted payloads and payloads, protected by Encrypted Payload.
   But IKEv2 doesn't forbid such messages.  If some future IKEv2
   extension defines such a message and it needs to be fragmented, all
   unprotected payloads MUST be in the first fragment, along with
   Encrypted Fragment Payload, which MUST be present in any IKE Fragment
   Message.

   Below is an example of fragmenting message, containing both encrypted
   and unencrypted Payloads.

   HDR(MID=n), PLD0, SK(NextPld=PLD1) {PLD1 ... PLDN}

                             Original Message

   HDR(MID=n), PLD0, SKF(NextPld=PLD1, Frag#=1, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=2, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   ...
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=m, TotalFrags=m) {...}

                           IKE Fragment Messages

   Note, that the size of each IP Datagram bearing IKE Fragment Messages
   SHOULD NOT exceed fragmentation threshold, including the very first,
   which contains unprotected Payloads.  This will reduce the size of
   Encrypted Fragment Payload content in the first IKE Fragment Message
   to accommodate unprotected Payloads.  In extreme cases Encrypted
   Fragment Payload will contain no data, but it is still MUST be
   present in the message, because only its presence allows receiver to
   distinguish IKE Fragment Message from regular IKE message.

2.6.  Receiving IKE Fragment Message

   Receiver identifies IKE Fragment Message by the presence of Encrypted
   Fragment Payload in it.  Note, that it is possible for this payload
   to be not the first (and the only) payload in the message (see
   Section 2.5.3).  But for all currently defined IKEv2 exchanges this
   payload will be the first and the only payload in the message.

   Upon receiving IKE Fragment Message the following actions are
   performed:

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

   o  Check message validity - in particular, check whether values of
      Fragment Number and Total Fragments in Encrypted Fragment Payload
      are valid.  The following tests need to be performed.

      *  check that Fragment Number and Total Fragments fields are non-
         zero

      *  check that Fragment Number field is less than or equal to Total
         Fragments field

      *  if reassembling has already started, check that Total Fragments
         field is equal to or greater than Total Fragments field in
         fragments, that have already received

      If any of this tests fails message MUST be silently discarded.

   o  Check, that this IKE Fragment Message is new for the receiver and
      not a replay.  If IKE Fragment message with the same Message ID,
      same Fragment Number and same Total Fragments fields was already
      received and successfully processed, this message is considered a
      replay and MUST be silently discarded.

   o  Verify IKE Fragment Message authenticity by checking ICV in
      Encrypted Fragment Payload.  If ICV check fails message MUST be
      silently discarded.

   o  If reassembling isn't finished yet and Total Fragments field in
      received IKE Fragment Message is greater than this field in
      previously received fragments, receiver MUST discard all received
      fragments and start reassembling over with just received IKE
      Fragment Message.

   o  Store message in the list waiting for the rest of fragments to
      arrive.

   When all IKE Fragment Messages (as indicated in the Total Fragments
   field) are received, content of their already decrypted Encrypted
   Fragment Payloads is merged together to form content of original
   Encrypted Payload, and, therefore, along with IKE Header and
   unencrypted Payloads (if any), original message.  Then it is
   processed as if it was received, verified and decrypted as regular
   unfragmented message.

   If receiver does't get all IKE Fragment Messages needed to reassemble
   original Message for some Exchange within a timeout interval, it acts
   according with Section 2.1 of [RFC5996], i.e. retransmits the
   fragmented request Message (in case of Initiator) or deems Exchange
   to have failed.  If Exchange is abandoned, all received so far IKE

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

   Fragment Messages for that Exchange MUST be discarded.

2.6.1.  Changes in Replay Protection Logic

   According to [RFC5996] IKEv2 MUST reject message with the same
   Message ID as it has seen before (taking into consideration Response
   bit).  This logic has already been updated by [RFC6311], which
   deliberately allows any number of messages with zero Message ID.
   This document also updates this logic: if message contains Encrypted
   Fragment Payload, the values of Fragment Number and Total Fragments
   fields from this payload MUST be used along with Message ID to detect
   retransmissions and replays.

   If Responder receives IKE Fragment Message after it received,
   successfully verified and processed regular message with the same
   Message ID, it means that response message didn't reach Initiator and
   it activated IKE Fragmentation.  If Fragment Number in Encrypted
   Fragment Payload in this message is equal to 1, Responder MUST
   fragment its response and retransmit it back to Initiator in
   fragmented form.

   If Responder receives a replay IKE Fragment Message for already
   reassembled, verified and processed fragmented message, it MUST
   retransmit response back to Initiator, but only if Fragment Number
   field in Encrypted Fragment Payload is equal to 1 and MUST silently
   discard received message otherwise.  If Total Fragments field in
   received IKE Fragment Message is greater than in IKE Fragment
   Messages that already processed fragmented message was reassembled
   from, Responder MAY refragment its response message using smaller
   fragmentation threshold before resending it back to Initiator.  In
   this case Total Fragments field in new IKE Fragment Messages MUST be
   greater than in previously sent IKE Fragment Messages.

   If Initiator doesn't receive any of response IKE Fragment Messages
   withing a timeout interval, it MAY refragment request Message using
   smaller fragmentation threshold before retransmitting it (see
   Section 2.5.1).  In this case Total Fragments field in new IKE
   Fragment Messages MUST be greater than in previously sent IKE
   Fragment Messages.  Alternatively, if Initiator does receive some
   (but not all) of response IKE Fragment Messages, it MAY retransmit
   only the first of request IKE Fragment Messages, where Fragment
   Number field is equal to 1.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

3.  Interaction with other IKE extensions

   IKE Fragmentation is compatible with most of defined IKE extensions,
   like IKE Session Resumption [RFC5723], Quick Crash Detection Method
   [RFC6290] and so on.  It neither affect their operation, nor is
   affected by them.  It is believed that IKE Fragmentation will also be
   compatible with most future IKE extensions, if they follow general
   principles of formatting, sending and receiving IKE messages,
   described in [RFC5996].

   When IKE Fragmentation is used with IKE Session Resumption [RFC5723],
   messages of IKE_SESSION_RESUME Exchange cannot be fragmented as they
   don't contain Encrypted Payload.  These messages may be large due to
   ticket size.  If this is the case the described solution won't help.
   To avoid IP Fragmentation in this situation it is recommended to use
   smaller tickets, e.g. by utilizing "ticket by reference" approach
   instead of "ticket by value".

   One exception that requires a special care is [RFC6311] - Protocol
   Support for High Availability of IKEv2.  As it deliberately allows
   any number of synchronization Exchanges to have the same Message ID -
   zero, standard replay detection logic, based on checking Message ID
   is not applicable for such messages, and receiver has to check
   message content to detect replays.  When implementing IKE
   Fragmentation along with [RFC6311], IKE Message ID Synchronization
   messages MUST NOT be sent fragmented to simplify receiver's task of
   detecting replays.  Fortunately, these messages are small and there
   is no point in fragmenting them anyway.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

4.  Transport Considerations

   With IKE Fragmentation if any single IKE Fragment Message get lost,
   receiver becomes unable to reassemble original Message.  So, in
   general, using IKE Fragmentation implies higher probability for the
   Message not to be delivered to the peer.  Although in most network
   environments the difference will be insignificant, on some lossy
   networks it may become noticeable.  When using IKE Fragmentation
   implementations MAY use longer timeouts and do more retransmits
   before considering peer dead.

   Note that Fragment Messages are not individually acknowledged.  The
   response Fragment Messages are sent back all together only when all
   fragments of request are received, the original request Message is
   reassembled and successfully processed.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

5.  Security Considerations

   Most of the security considerations for IKE Fragmentation are the
   same as those for base IKEv2 protocol described in [RFC5996].  This
   extension introduces Encrypted Fragment Payload to protect content of
   IKE Message Fragment.  This allows receiver to individually check
   authenticity of fragments, thus protecting peers from DoS attack.

   Security Considerations Section of [RFC5996] mentions possible attack
   on IKE by exhausting of the IP reassembly buffers.  The mechanism,
   described in this document, allows IKE to avoid IP-fragmentation and
   therefore increases its robustness to DoS attacks.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

6.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines new Payload in the "IKEv2 Payload Types"
   registry:

     <TBA>       Encrypted Fragment Payload          SKF

   This document also defines new Notify Message Types in the "Notify
   Messages Types - Status Types" registry:

     <TBA>       IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

7.  Acknowledgements

   The author would like to thank Tero Kivinen, Yoav Nir, Paul Wouters,
   Yaron Sheffer and others for their reviews and valueable comments.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

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.

   [RFC6311]  Singh, R., Kalyani, G., Nir, Y., Sheffer, Y., and D.
              Zhang, "Protocol Support for High Availability of IKEv2/
              IPsec", RFC 6311, July 2011.

8.2.  Informative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC1191]  Mogul, J. and S. Deering, "Path MTU discovery", RFC 1191,
              November 1990.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [RFC4821]  Mathis, M. and J. Heffner, "Packetization Layer Path MTU
              Discovery", RFC 4821, March 2007.

   [RFC5282]  Black, D. and D. McGrew, "Using Authenticated Encryption
              Algorithms with the Encrypted Payload of the Internet Key
              Exchange version 2 (IKEv2) Protocol", RFC 5282,
              August 2008.

   [RFC5723]  Sheffer, Y. and H. Tschofenig, "Internet Key Exchange
              Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Session Resumption", RFC 5723,
              January 2010.

   [RFC6290]  Nir, Y., Wierbowski, D., Detienne, F., and P. Sethi, "A
              Quick Crash Detection Method for the Internet Key Exchange
              Protocol (IKE)", RFC 6290, June 2011.

   [RFC6888]  Perreault, S., Yamagata, I., Miyakawa, S., Nakagawa, A.,
              and H. Ashida, "Common Requirements for Carrier-Grade NATs

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

              (CGNs)", BCP 127, RFC 6888, April 2013.

   [DOSUDPPROT]
              Kaufman, C., Perlman, R., and B. Sommerfeld, "DoS
              protection for UDP-based protocols",  ACM Conference on
              Computer and Communications Security, October 2003.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

Appendix A.  Design rationale

   The simplest approach to the IKE fragmentation would have been to
   fragment message that is fully formed and ready to be sent.  But if
   message got fragmented after being encrypted and authenticated, this
   could open a possibility for a simple Denial of Service attack.  The
   attacker could infrequently emit forged but looking valid fragments
   into the network, and some of these fragments would be fetched by
   receiver into the reassempling queue.  Receiver could not distinguish
   forged fragments from valid ones and could only determine that some
   of received fragments were forged when the whole message got
   reassembled and check for its authenticity failed.

   To prevent this kind of attack and also to reduce vulnerability to
   some other kinds of DoS attacks it was decided to make fragmentation
   before applying cryptographic protection to the message.  In this
   case each Fragment Message becomes individually encrypted and
   authenticated, that allows receiver to determine forgeg fragments and
   not to fetch them into the reassempling queue.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

Appendix B.  Correlation between IP Datagram size and Encrypted Payload
             content size

   For IPv4 Encrypted Payload content size is less than IP Datagram size
   by the sum of the following values:

   o  IPv4 header size (typically 20 bytes, up to 60 if IP options are
      present)

   o  UDP header size (8 bytes)

   o  non-ESP marker size (4 bytes if present)

   o  IKE Header size (28 bytes)

   o  Encrypted Payload header size (4 bytes)

   o  IV size (varying)

   o  padding and its size (at least 1 byte)

   o  ICV size (varying)

   The sum may be estimated as 61..105 bytes + IV + ICV + padding.

   For IPv6 this estimation is difficult as there may be varying IPv6
   Extension headers included.

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation             November 2013

Author's Address

   Valery Smyslov
   ELVIS-PLUS
   PO Box 81
   Moscow (Zelenograd)  124460
   RU

   Phone: +7 495 276 0211
   Email: svan@elvis.ru

Smyslov                    Expires May 5, 2014                 [Page 22]