Network Working Group S. Hartman
Internet-Draft Painless Security
Intended status: Informational D. Zhang
Expires: July 13, 2014 Huawei
January 9, 2014
Operations Model for Router Keying
The IETF is engaged in an effort to analyze security of routing
protocol authentication according to design guidelines discussed in
RFC 6518. Developing an operational and management model for routing
protocol security that works with all the routing protocols will be
critical to the deployability of these efforts. This document gives
recommendations to operators and implementors regarding management
and operation of router authentication. These recommendations will
also assist protocol designers in understanding management issues
they will face.
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 July 13, 2014.
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
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 1]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Breakdown of KARP configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. Integrity of the Key Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Management of Key Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Interactions with Automated Key Management . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Virtual Routing and Forwarding Instances (VRFs) . . . . . 7
4. Credentials and Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Preshared Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1.1. Sharing Keys and Zones of Trust . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1.2. Key Separation and Protocol Design . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Asymmetric Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.3. Public Key Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. The role of Central Servers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Grouping Peers Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Administrator Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1. Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. Handling Faults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Upgrade Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 2]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20141. Introduction
The Keying and Authentication of Routing Protocols (KARP) working
group is designing improvements to the cryptographic authentication
of IETF routing protocols. These improvements include improvements
to how integrity functions are handled within each protocol as well
as designing an automated key management solution.
This document discusses issues to consider when thinking about the
operational and management model for KARP. Each implementation will
take its own approach to management; this is one area for vendor
differentiation. However, it is desirable to have a common baseline
for the management objects allowing administrators, security
architects and protocol designers to understand what management
capabilities they can depend on in heterogeneous environments.
Similarly, designing and deploying the protocol will be easier with
thought paid to a common operational model. This will also help with
the design of NetConf schemas or MIBs later. This document provides
recommendations to help establish such a baseline.
This document also gives recommendations for how management and
operational issues can be approached as protocols are revised and as
support is added for the key table [I-D.ietf-karp-crypto-key-table].
Routing security faces interesting challenges not present with some
other security domains. routers need to function in order to
establish network connectivity. As a result, centralized services
cannot typically be used for authentication or other security tasks;
see Section 4.4. In addition, routers' roles affect how new routers
are installed and how problems are handleded; see Section 6.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 3]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20142. Requirements notation
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].
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 4]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20143. Breakdown of KARP configuration
Routing authentication configuration includes configuration of key
material used to authenticate routers as well as parameters needed to
use these keys. Configuration also includes information necessary to
use an automated key management protocol to configure router keying.
The key table [I-D.ietf-karp-crypto-key-table] describes
configuration needed for manual keying. Configuration of automated
key management is a work in progress.
There are multiple ways of structuring configuration information.
One factor to consider is the scope of the configuration information.
Several protocols are peer-to-peer routing protocols where a
different key could potentially be used for each neighbor. Other
protocols require the same group key to be used for all nodes in an
administrative domain or routing area. In other cases, the same
group key needs to be used for all routers on an interface, but
different group keys can be used for each interface.
Within situations where a per-interface, per-area or per-peer key can
be used for manually configured long-term keys, that flexibility may
not be desirable from an operational standpoint. For example
consider OSPF [RFC2328]. Each router on an OSPF link needs to use
the same authentication configuration, including the set of keys used
for reception and the set of keys used for transmission, but may use
different keys for different links. The most general management
model would be to configure keys per link. However for deployments
where the area uses the same key it would be strongly desirable to
configure the key as a property of the area. If the keys are
configured per-link, they can get out of sync. In order to support
generality of configuration and common operational situations, it
would be desirable to have some sort of inheritance where default
configurations are made per-area unless overridden per-interface.
As described in [I-D.ietf-karp-crypto-key-table], the cryptographic
keys are separated from the interface configuration into their own
configuration store. Each routing protocol is responsible for
defining the form of the Peer specification used by that protocol.
Thus each routing protocol needs to define the scope of keys. For
group keying, the Peer specification names the group. A protocol
could define a Peer specification indicating the key had a link scope
and also a Peer specification for scoping a key to a specific area.
For link-scoped keys it is generally best to define a single Peer
specification indicating the key has a link scope and to use
interface restrictions to restrict the key to the appropriate link.
Operational Requirements: implementations of this model MUST support
configuration of keys at the most general scope for the underlying
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 5]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
protocol; protocols supporting per-peer keys MUST permit
configuration of per-peer keys, protocols supporting per-interface
keys MUST support configuration of per-interface keys, and so on for
any additional scopes. Implementations MUST NOT permit configuration
of an inappropriate key scope. For example, configuration of
separate keys per interface would be inappropriate to support for a
protocol requiring per-area keys. This restriction can be enforced
by rules specified by each routing protocol for validating key table
entries. As such these implementation requirements are best
addressed by care being taken in how routing protocols specify the
use of the key tables.
3.1. Integrity of the Key Table
The routing key table [I-D.ietf-karp-crypto-key-table] provides a
very general mechanism to abstract the storage of keys for routing
protocols. To avoid misconfiguration and simplify problem
determination, the router MUST verify the internal consistency of
entries added to the table. Routing protocols describe how their
protocol interacts with the key table including what validation MUST
be performed. At a minimum, the router MUST verify:
o The cryptographic algorithms are valid for the protocol.
o The key derivation function is valid for the protocol.
o The direction is valid for the protocol; for example protocols
that require the same session key be used in both directions
REQUIRE have a direction of both be specified in the key table
o The peer specification is consistent with the protocol.
Other checks are possible. For example the router could verify that
if a key is associated with a peer, that peer is a configured peer
for the specified protocol. However, this may be undesirable. It
may be desirable to load a key table when some peers have not yet
been configured. Also, it may be desirable to share portions of a
key table across devices even when their current configuration does
not require an adjacency with a particular peer in the interest of
uniform configuration or preparing for fail-over. For these reasons,
these additional checks are generally undesirable.
3.2. Management of Key Table
Several management interfaces will be quite common. For service
provider deployments the configuration management system can simply
update the key table. However, for smaller deployments, efficient
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 6]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
management interfaces that do not require a configuration management
system are important. In these environments configuration interfaces
(such as web interfaces and command-line interfaces) provided
directly by the router will be important to easy management of the
As part of adding a new key it is typically desirable to set an
expiration time for an old key. The management interface SHOULD
provide a mechanism to easily update the expiration time for a
current key used with a given peer or interface. Also when adding a
key it is desirable to push the key out to nodes that will need it,
allowing use for receiving packets then later enabling transmit.
This can be accomplished automatically by providing a delay between
when a key becomes valid for reception and transmission. However,
some environments may not be able to predict when all the necessary
changes will be made. In these cases having a mechanism to enable a
key for sending is desirable. The management interface SHOULD
provide an easy mechanism to update the direction of an existing key
or to enable a disabled key.
Implementations SHOULD permit a configuration in which if no
unexpired key is available, existing security associations continue
using the expired key with which they were established.
Implementations MUST support a configuration in which security
associations fail if no un-expired key is available for them. See
Section 6.2 for a discussion of reporting and managing security
faults including those related to key expiration.
3.3. Interactions with Automated Key Management
Consideration is required for how an automated key management
protocol will assign key IDs for group keys. All members of the
group may need to use the same key ID. This requires careful
coordination of global key IDs. Interactions with the peer key ID
field may make this easier; this requires additional study.
Automated key management protocols also assign keys for single peers.
If the key ID is global and needs to be coordinated between the
receiver and transmitter, then there is complexity in key management
protocols that can be avoided if key IDs are not global.
3.4. Virtual Routing and Forwarding Instances (VRFs)
Many core and enterprise routers support multiple routing instances.
For example a router serving multiple VPNs is likely to have a
forwarding/routing instance for each of these VPNs. Each VRF will
require its own routing key table.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 7]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20144. Credentials and Authorization
Several methods for authentication have been proposed for KARP. The
simplest is preshared keys used directly as traffic keys. In this
mode, the traffic integrity keys are directly configured. This is
the mode supported by most of today's routing protocols.
As discussed in [I-D.polk-saag-rtg-auth-keytable], preshared keys can
be used as the input to a key derivation function (KDF) to generate
traffic keys. For example the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO)
[RFC5925] derives keys based on the initial TCP session state.
Typically a KDF will combine a long-term key with public inputs
exchanged as part of the protocol to form fresh session keys. A KDF
could potentially be used with some inputs that are configured along
with the long-term key. Also, it's possible that inputs to a KDF
will be private and exchanged as part of the protocol, although this
will be uncommon in KARP's uses of KDFs.
Preshared keys could also be used by an automated key management
protocol. In this mode, preshared keys would be used for
authentication. However traffic keys would be generated by some key
agreement mechanism or transported in a key encryption key derived
from the preshared key. This mode may provide better replay
protection. Also, in the absence of active attackers, key agreement
strategies such as Diffie-Hellman can be used to produce high-quality
traffic keys even from relatively weak preshared keys. These key-
agreement mechanisms are valuable even when active attackers are
present, although an active attacker can mount a man-in-the-middle
attack if the preshared key is sufficiently weak.
Public keys can be used for authentication within an automated key
management protocol. The design guide [I-D.ietf-karp-design-guide]
describes a mode in which routers have the hashes of peer routers'
public keys. In this mode, a traditional public-key infrastructure
is not required. The advantage of this mode is that a router only
contains its own keying material, limiting the scope of a compromise.
The disadvantage is that when a router is added or deleted from the
set of authorized routers, all routers that peer need to be updated.
Note that self-signed certificates are a common way of communicating
public-keys in this style of authentication.
Certificates signed by a certification authority or some other PKI
could be used for authentication within an automated key management
protocol. The advantage of this approach is that routers may not
need to be directly updated when peers are added or removed. The
disadvantage is that more complexity and cost is required.
Each of these approaches has a different set of management and
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 8]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
operational requirements. Key differences include how authorization
is handled and how identity works. This section discusses these
4.1. Preshared Keys
In the protocol, manual preshared keys are either unnamed or named by
a small integer (typically 16 or 32 bits) key ID. Implementations
that support multiple keys for protocols that have no names for keys
need to try all possible keys before deciding a packet cannot be
validated [RFC4808]. Typically key IDs are names used by one group
Manual preshared keys are often known by a group of peers rather than
just one other peer. This is an interesting security property:
unlike with digitally signed messages or protocols where symmetric
keys are known only to two parties, it is impossible to identify the
peer sending a message cryptographically. However, it is possible to
show that the sender of a message is one of the parties who knows the
preshared key. Within the routing threat model the peer sending a
message can be identified only because peers are trusted and thus can
be assumed to correctly label the packets they send. This contrasts
with a protocol where cryptographic means such as digital signatures
are used to verify the origin of a message. As a consequence,
authorization is typically based on knowing the preshared key rather
than on being a particular peer. Note that once an authorization
decision is made, the peer can assert its identity; this identity is
trusted just as the routing information from the peer is trusted.
Doing an additional check for authorization based on the identity
included in the packet would provide little value: an attacker who
somehow had the key could claim the identity of an authorized peer
and an attacker without the key should be unable to claim the
identity of any peer. Such a check is not required by the KARP
threat model: inside attacks are not in scope.
Preshared keys used with key derivation function similarly to manual
preshared keys. However to form the actual traffic keys, session or
peer specific information is combined with the key. From an
authorization standpoint, the derivation key works the same as a
manual key. An additional routing protocol step or transport step
forms the key that is actually used.
Preshared keys that are used via automatic key management have not
yet been specified for KARP although ongoing work suggests they will
be needed. Their naming and authorization may differ from existing
uses of preshared keys in routing protocols. In particular, such
keys may end up being known only by two peers. Alternatively they
may also be known by a group of peers. Authorization could
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 9]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
potentially be based on peer identity, although it is likely that
knowing the right key will be sufficient. There does not appear to
be a compelling reason to decouple the authorization of a key for
some purpose from authorization of peers holding that key to perform
the authorized function.
4.1.1. Sharing Keys and Zones of Trust
Care needs to be taken when symmetric keys are used for multiple
purposes. Consider the implications of using the same preshared key
for two interfaces: it becomes impossible to cryptographically
distinguish a router on one interface from a router on another
interface. So, a router that is trusted to participate in a routing
protocol on one interface becomes implicitly trusted for the other
interfaces that share the key. For many cases, such as link-state
routers in the same routing area, there is no significant advantage
that an attacker could gain from this trust within the KARP threat
model. However, other protocols such as BGP and RIP, permit routes
to be filtered across a trust boundary. For these protocols,
participation in one interface might be more advantageous than
another. Operationally, when this trust distinction is important to
a deployment, different keys need to be used on each side of the
trust boundary. Key derivation can help prevent this problem in
cases of accidental misconfiguration. However, key derivation cannot
protect against a situation where a system was incorrectly trusted to
have the key used to perform the derivation. This question of trust
is important to the KARP threat model because it is essential to
determining whether a party is an insider for a particular routing
protocol. A customer router that is an an insider for a BGP peering
relationship with a service provider is not typically an insider when
considering the security of that service provider's IGP. Similarly,
To the extent that there are multiple zones of trust and a routing
protocol is determining whether a particular router is within a
certain zone, the question of untrusted actors is within the scope of
the routing threat model.
Key derivation can be part of a management solution to a desire to
have multiple keys for different zones of trust. A master key could
be combined with peer, link or area identifiers to form a router-
specific preshared key that is loaded onto routers. Provided that
the master key lives only on the management server and not the
individual routers, trust is preserved. However in many cases,
generating independent keys for the routers and storing the result is
more practical. If the master key were somehow compromised, all the
resulting keys would need to be changed. However if independent keys
are used, the scope of a compromise may be more limited.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 10]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20144.1.2. Key Separation and Protocol Design
More subtle problems with key separation can appear in protocol
design. Two protocols that use the same traffic keys may work
together in unintended ways permitting one protocol to be used to
attack the other. Consider two hypothetical protocols. Protocol A
starts its messages with a set of extensions that are ignored if not
understood. Protocol B has a fixed header at the beginning of its
messages but ends messages with extension information. It may be
that the same message is valid both as part of protocol A and
protocol B. An attacker may be able to gain an advantage by getting a
router to generate this message with one protocol under situations
where the other protocol would not generate the message. This
hypothetical example is overly simplistic; real-world attacks
exploiting key separation weaknesses tend to be complicated and
involve specific properties of the cryptographic functions involved.
The key point is that whenever the same key is used in multiple
protocols, attacks may be possible. All the involved protocols need
to be analyzed to understand the scope of potential attacks.
Key separation attacks interact with the KARP operational model in a
number of ways. Administrators need to be aware of situations where
using the same manual traffic key with two different protocols (or
the same protocol in different contexts) creates attack
opportunities. Design teams should consider how their protocol might
interact with other routing protocols and describe any attacks
discovered so that administrators can understand the operational
implications. When designing automated key management or new
cryptographic authentication within routing protocols, we need to be
aware that administrators expect to be able to use the same preshared
keys in multiple contexts. As a result, we should use appropriate
key derivation functions so that different cryptographic keys are
used even when the same initial input key is used.
4.2. Asymmetric Keys
Outside of a PKI, public keys are expected to be known by the hash of
a key or (potentially self-signed) certificate. The Session
Description Protocol provides a standardized mechanism for naming
keys (in that case certificates) based on hashes (section 5
[RFC4572]). KARP SHOULD adopt this approach or another approach
already standardized within the IETF rather than inventing a new
mechanism for naming public keys.
A public key is typically expected to belong to one peer. As a peer
generates new keys and retires old keys, its public key may change.
For this reason, from a management standpoint, peers should be
thought of as associated with multiple public keys rather than as
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 11]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
containing a single public key hash as an attribute of the peer
Authorization of public keys could be done either by key hash or by
peer identity. Performing authorizations by peer identity should
make it easier to update the key of a peer without risk of losing
authorizations for that peer. However management interfaces need to
be carefully designed to avoid making this extra level of indirection
complicated for operators.
4.3. Public Key Infrastructure
When a PKI is used, certificates are used. The certificate binds a
key to a name of a peer. The key management protocol is responsible
for exchanging certificates and validating them to a trust anchor.
Authorization needs to be done in terms of peer identities not in
terms of keys. One reason for this is that when a peer changes its
key, the new certificate needs to be sufficient for authentication to
continue functioning even though the key has never been seen before.
Potentially authorization could be performed in terms of groups of
peers rather than single peers. An advantage of this is that it may
be possible to add a new router with no authentication related
configuration of the peers of that router. For example, a domain
could decide that any router with a particular keyPurposeID signed by
the organization's certificate authority is permitted to join the
IGP. Just as in configurations where cryptographic authentication is
not used, automatic discovery of this router can establish
Assuming that self-signed certificates are used by routers that wish
to use public keys but that do not need a PKI, then PKI and the
infrastructureless mode of public-key operation described in the
previous section can work well together. One router could identify
its peers based on names and use certificate validation. Another
router could use hashes of certificates. This could be very useful
for border routers between two organizations. Smaller organizations
could use public keys and larger organizations could use PKI.
A PKI has significant operational concerns including certification
practices, handling revocation and operational practices around
certificate validation. The Routing PKI (RPKI) has addressed these
concerns within the scope of BGP and validation of address ownership.
Adapting these practices to routing protocol authentication is
outside the scope of this document.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 12]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20144.4. The role of Central Servers
An area to explore is the role of central servers like RADIUS or
directories. Routers need to securely operate in order to provide
network routing services. Routers cannot generally contact a central
server while establishing routing because the router might not have a
functioning route to the central service until after routing is
established. As a result, a system where keys are pushed by a
central management system is an undesirable result for router keying.
However central servers may play a role in authorization and key
rollover. For example a node could send a hash of a public key to a
If central servers do play a role it will be critical to make sure
that they are not required during routine operation or a cold-start
of a network. They are more likely to play a role in enrollment of
new peers or key migration/compromise.
Another area where central servers may play a role is for group key
agreement. As an example, [I-D.liu-ospfv3-automated-keying-req]
discusses the potential need for key agreement servers in OSPF.
Other routing protocols that use multicast or broadcast such as IS-IS
are likely to need a similar approach. Multicast key agreement
protocols need to allow operators to choose which key servers will
generate traffic keys. The quality of random numbers [RFC4086] is
likely to differ between systems. As a result, operators may have
preferences for where keys are generated.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 13]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20145. Grouping Peers Together
One significant management consideration will be the grouping of
management objects necessary to determine who is authorized to act as
a peer for a given routing action. As discussed previously, the
following objects are potentially required:
o Key objects are required. Symmetric keys may be preshared and
knowledge of the key used as the decision factor in authorization.
Knowledge of the private key corresponding to Asymmetric public
keys may be used directly for authorization as well. During key
transitions more than one key may refer to a given peer. Group
preshared keys may refer to multiple peers.
o Peer objects are required. A peer is a router that this router
might wish to communicate with. Peers may be identified by names
o Objects representing peer groups are required. Groups of peers
may be authorized for a given routing protocol.
Establishing a management model is difficult because of the complex
relationships between each set of objects. As discussed there may be
more than one key for a peer. However in the preshared key case,
there may be more than one peer for a key. This is true both for
group security association protocols such as an IGP or one-to-one
protocols where the same key is used administratively. In some of
these situations, it may be undesirable to explicitly enumerate the
peers in the configuration; for example IGP peers are auto-discovered
for broadcast links but not for non-broadcast multi-access links.
Peers may be identified either by name or key. If peers are
identified by key it is strongly desirable from an operational
standpoint to consider any peer identifiers or name to be a local
matter and not require the names or identifiers to be synchronized.
Obviously if peers are identified by names (for example with
certificates in a PKI), identifiers need to be synchronized between
the authorized peer and the peer making the authorization decision.
In many cases peers will explicitly be identified in routing protocol
configuration. In these cases it is possible to attach the
authorization information (keys or identifiers) to the peer's
configuration object. Two cases do not involve enumerating peers.
The first is the case where preshared keys are shared among a group
of peers. It is likely that this case can be treated from a
management standpoint as a single peer representing all the peers
that share the keys. The other case is one where certificates in a
PKI are used to introduce peers to a router. In this case, rather
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 14]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
than configuring peers, , the router needs to be configured with
information on which certificates represent acceptable peers.
Another consideration is which routing protocols share peers. For
example it may be common for LDP peers to also be peers of some other
routing protocol. Also, RSVP-TE may be associated with some TE-based
IGP. In some of these cases it would be desirable to use the same
authorization information for both routing protocols.
Finally, as discussed in Section 7, it is sometimes desirable to
override some aspect of the configuration for a peer in a group. As
an example, when rotating to a new key, it is desirable to be able to
roll that key out to each peer that will use the key even if in the
stable state the key is configured for a peer group.
In order to develop a management model for authorization, the working
group needs to consider several questions. What protocols support
auto-discovery of peers? What protocols require more configuration
of a peer than simply the peer's authorization information and
network address? What management operations are going to be common
as security information for peers is configured and updated? What
operations will be common while performing key transitions or while
migrating to new security technologies?
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 15]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20146. Administrator Involvement
One key operational question is what areas will administrator
involvement be required. Likely areas where involvement may be
useful include enrollment of new peers. Fault recovery should also
One area where the management of routing security needs to be
optimized is the deployment of a new router. In some cases a new
router may be deployed on an existing network where routing to
management servers is already available. In other cases, routers may
be deployed as part of connecting or creating a site. Here, the
router and infrastructure may not be available until the router has
In general, security configuration can be treated as an additional
configuration item that needs to be set up to establish service.
There is no significant security value in protecting routing protocol
keys more than administrative password or Authentication,
Authorization and Accounting (AAA) secrets that can be used to gain
login access to a router. These existing secrets can be used to make
configuration changes that impact routing protocols as much as
disclosure of a routing protocol key. Operators already have
procedures in place for these items. So, it is appropriate to use
similar procedures for routing protocol keys. It is reasonable to
improve existing configuration procedures and the routing protocol
procedures over time. However it is more desirable to deploy KARP
with security similar to that used for managing existing secrets than
to delay deploying KARP.
Operators MAY develop higher assurance procedures for dealing with
keys. For example, asymmetric keys can be generated on a router and
never exported from the router. Operators can evaluate the cost vs
security and availability tradeoffs of these procedures.
6.2. Handling Faults
Faults may interact with operational practice in at least two ways.
First, security solutions may introduce faults. For example if
certificates expire in a PKI, previous adjacencies may no longer
form. Operational practice will require a way of repairing these
errors. This may end up being very similar to repairing other faults
that can partition a network.
Notifications will play a critical role in avoiding security faults.
Implementations SHOULD use appropriate mechanisms to notify operators
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 16]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
as security resources are about to expire. Notifications can include
messages to consoles, logged events, SNMP traps, or notifications
within a routing protocol. One strategy is to have increasing
escalations of notifications.
Monitoring will also play an important role in avoiding security
faults such as certificate expiration. Some classes of security
fault, including issues with certificates, will affect only key
management protocols. other security faults can affect routing
protocols directly. However, the protocols MUST still have adequate
operational mechanisms to recover from these situations. Also, some
faults, such as those resulting from a compromise or actual attack on
a facility are inherent and may not be prevented.
A second class of faults is equipment faults that impact security.
For example if keys are stored on a router and never exported from
that device, failure of a router implies a need to update security
provisioning on the replacement router and its peers.
One approach, recommended by work on securing BGP
[I-D.ietf-sidr-rtr-keying] is to maintain the router's keying
material so that when a router is replaced the same keys can be used.
Router keys can be maintained on a central server. These approaches
permit the credentials of a router to be recovered. This provides
valuable options in case of hardware fault. The failing router can
be recovered without changing credentials on other routers or waiting
for keys to be certified. One disadvantage of this approach is that
even if public-key cryptography is used, the private keys are located
on more than just the router. a system in which keys were generated
on a router and never exported from that router would typically make
it more difficult for an attacker to obtain the keys. For most
environments the ability to quickly replace a router justifies
maintaining keys centrally.
More generally keying is another item of configuration that needs to
be restored to restore service when equipment fails. Operators
typically perform the minimal configuration necessary to get a router
back in contact with the management server. The same would apply for
keys. Operators who do not maintain copies of key material for
performing key recovery on routers would need to perform a bit more
work to regain contact with the management server. It seems
reasonable to assume that management servers will be able to cause
keys to be generated or distributed sufficiently to fully restore
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 17]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20147. Upgrade Considerations
It needs to be possible to deploy automated key management in an
organization without either having to disable existing security or
disrupting routing. As a result, it needs to be possible to perform
a phased upgrade from manual keying to automated key management.
This upgrade procedure needs to be easy and have a very low risk of
disrupting routing. Today, many operators do not update keys because
the perceived risk of an attack is lower than the cost of an update
combined with the potential cost of routing disruptions during the
update. Even when a routing protocol has technical mechanisms that
permit an update with no disruption in service, there is still a
potential cost of service disruptions as operational procedures and
practices need to correctly use the technical mechanisms.
For peer-to-peer protocols such as BGP, upgrading to automated key
management can be relatively easy. First, code that supports
automated key management needs to be loaded on both peers. Then the
adjacency can be upgraded. The configuration can be updated to
switch to automated key management when the second router reboots.
Alternatively, if the key management protocols involved can detect
that both peers now support automated key management, then a key can
potentially be negotiated for an existing session.
The situation is more complex for organizations that have not
upgraded from TCP MD5 [RFC2385] to the TCP Authentication Option
[RFC5925]. Today, routers typically need to understand whether a
given peer supports TCP MD5 or TCP-AO before opening a TCP
connection. In addition, many implementations support grouping
configuration of related peers including security configuration
together. Implementations make it challenging to move from TCP-MD5
to TCP-AO before all peers in the group are ready. Operators
perceive it as high risk to update the configuration of a large
number of peers. One particularly risky situation is upgrading the
configuration of iBGP peers.
The situation is more complicated for multicast protocols. It's
typically not desirable to bring down an entire link to reconfigure
it as using automated key management. Two approaches should be
considered. One is to support key table rows supporting the
automated key management and manually configured keying for the same
link at the same time. Coordinating this may be challenging from an
operational standpoint. Another possibility is for the automated key
management protocol to actually select the same traffic key that is
being used manually. This could be accomplished by having an option
in the key management protocol to export the current manual group key
through the automated key management protocol. Then after all nodes
are configured with automated key management, manual key entries can
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 18]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
be removed. The next re-key after all nodes have manual entries
removed will generate a new fresh key. Group key management
protocols are RECOMMENDED to support an option to export existing
manual keys during initial deployment of automated key management.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 19]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20148. Security Considerations
This document does not define a protocol. It does discuss the
operational and management implications of several security
Close synchronization of time can impact the security of routing
protocols in a number of ways. Time is used to control when keys MAY
begin being used and when they MUST NOT be used any longer as
described in [I-D.ietf-karp-crypto-key-table]. Routers need to have
tight enough time synchronization that receivers permit a key to be
utilized for validation prior to the first use of that key for
generation of integrity-protected messages or availability will be
impacted. If time synchronization is too loose, then a key can be
used beyond its intended lifetime. The Network Time Protocol (NTP)
can be used to provide time synchronization. For some protocols,
time synchronization is also important for replay detection.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 20]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 20149. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 21]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 201410. Acknowledgments
Funding for Sam Hartman's work on this memo is provided by Huawei.
The authors would like to thank Bill Atwood , Randy Bush, Wes George,
Gregory Lebovitz, and Russ White for valuable reviews.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 22]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 201411. References11.1. Normative References
Housley, R., Polk, T., Hartman, S., and D. Zhang,
"Database of Long-Lived Symmetric Cryptographic Keys",
draft-ietf-karp-crypto-key-table-10 (work in progress),
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
11.2. Informative References
Lebovitz, G. and M. Bhatia, "Keying and Authentication for
Routing Protocols (KARP) Design Guidelines",
draft-ietf-karp-design-guide-10 (work in progress),
Turner, S., Patel, K., and R. Bush, "Router Keying for
BGPsec", draft-ietf-sidr-rtr-keying-04 (work in progress),
Liu, Y., "OSPFv3 Automated Group Keying Requirements",
draft-liu-ospfv3-automated-keying-req-01 (work in
progress), July 2007.
Polk, T. and R. Housley, "Routing Authentication Using A
Database of Long-Lived Cryptographic Keys",
draft-polk-saag-rtg-auth-keytable-05 (work in progress),
[RFC2328] Moy, J., "OSPF Version 2", STD 54, RFC 2328, April 1998.
[RFC2385] Heffernan, A., "Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5
Signature Option", RFC 2385, August 1998.
[RFC4086] Eastlake, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker, "Randomness
Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005.
[RFC4572] Lennox, J., "Connection-Oriented Media Transport over the
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol in the Session
Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 4572, July 2006.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 23]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014
[RFC4808] Bellovin, S., "Key Change Strategies for TCP-MD5",
RFC 4808, March 2007.
[RFC5925] Touch, J., Mankin, A., and R. Bonica, "The TCP
Authentication Option", RFC 5925, June 2010.
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 24]Internet-Draft Operations Model for Router Keying January 2014Authors' Addresses
Hartman & Zhang Expires July 13, 2014 [Page 25]