Framework for Cryptographic Authentication of Routing Protocol Packets on the Wire
draft-ietf-karp-framework-00

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (karp WG)
Last updated 2010-02-27
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-karp-framework-00.txt

Abstract

In the March of 2006 the IAB held a workshop on the topic of "Unwanted Internet Traffic". The report from that workshop is documented in RFC 4948 [RFC4948]. Section 8.2 of RFC 4948 calls for "[t]ightening the security of the core routing infrastructure." Four main steps were identified for improving the security of the routing infrastructure. One of those steps was "securing the routing protocols' packets on the wire." One mechanism for securing routing protocol packets on the wire is the use of per-packet cryptographic message authentication, providing both peer authentication and message integrity. Many different routing protocols exist and they employ a range of different transport subsystems. Therefore there must necessarily be various methods defined for applying cryptographic authentication to these varying protocols. Many routing protocols already have some method for accomplishing cryptographic message authentication. However, in many cases the existing methods are dated, vulnerable to attack, and/or employ cryptographic algorithms that have been deprecated. This document is one of a series concerned with defining a roadmap of protocol specification work for the use of modern cryptogrpahic mechanisms and algorithms for message authentication in routing protocols. In particular, it defines the framework for a key management protocol that may be used to create and manage session keys for message authentication and integrity. The overall roadmap reflects the input of both the security area and routing area in order to form a jointly agreed upon and prioritized work list for the effort.

Authors

William Atwood (bill@cse.concordia.ca)
Gregory Lebovitz (gregory.ietf@gmail.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)