Skip to main content

LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-26

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (lisp WG)
Authors Fabio Maino , Vina Ermagan , Albert Cabellos-Aparicio , Damien Saucez
Last updated 2022-05-25 (Latest revision 2022-05-24)
Replaces draft-maino-lisp-sec
Stream Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
Intended RFC status Proposed Standard
Formats plain text html xml htmlized pdfized bibtex
Reviews
Stream WG state Submitted to IESG for Publication
Document shepherd Luigi Iannone
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2021-12-16
IESG IESG state In Last Call (ends 2022-06-08)
Action Holder
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD Alvaro Retana
Send notices to "Luigi Iannone" <ggx@gigix.net>
IANA IANA review state Version Changed - Review Needed
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-26
Network Working Group                                         F.M. Maino
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                            V.E. Ermagan
Expires: 25 November 2022                                         Google
                                                           A.C. Cabellos
                                    Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
                                                             D.S. Saucez
                                                                   Inria
                                                             24 May 2022

                        LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)
                         draft-ietf-lisp-sec-26

Abstract

   This memo specifies LISP-SEC, a set of security mechanisms that
   provides origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection
   to LISP's EID-to-RLOC mapping data conveyed via the mapping lookup
   process.  LISP-SEC also enables verification of authorization on EID-
   prefix claims in Map-Reply messages.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 25 November 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2022 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  LISP-SEC Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Protocol Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  LISP-SEC Control Messages Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     6.1.  Encapsulated Control Message LISP-SEC Extensions  . . . .   7
     6.2.  Map-Reply LISP-SEC Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.3.  Map-Register LISP-SEC Extentions  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     6.4.  ITR Processing: Generating a Map-Request  . . . . . . . .  11
     6.5.  Encrypting and Decrypting an OTK  . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       6.5.1.  Unencrypted OTK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.6.  Map-Resolver Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.7.  Map-Server Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       6.7.1.  Generating a LISP-SEC Protected Encapsulated
               Map-Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       6.7.2.  Generating a Proxy Map-Reply  . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.8.  ETR Processing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     6.9.  ITR Processing: Receiving a Map-Reply . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.9.1.  Map-Reply Record Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.1.  Mapping System Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.2.  Random Number Generation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     7.3.  Map-Server and ETR Colocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.4.  Deploying LISP-SEC  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.5.  Shared Keys Provisioning  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     7.6.  Replay Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     7.7.  Message Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     7.8.  Denial of Service and Distributed Denial of Service
           Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.1.  ECM AD Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     8.2.  Map-Reply AD Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     8.3.  HMAC Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     8.4.  Key Wrap Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.5.  Key Derivation Functions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   9.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
     10.2.  Informational References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

1.  Introduction

   The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis],[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] is a network-
   layer-based protocol that enables separation of IP addresses into two
   new numbering spaces: Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing
   Locators (RLOCs).  EID-to-RLOC mappings are stored in a database, the
   LISP Mapping System, and made available via the Map-Request/Map-Reply
   lookup process.  If these EID-to-RLOC mappings, carried through Map-
   Reply messages, are transmitted without integrity protection, an
   adversary can manipulate them and hijack the communication,
   impersonate the requested EID, or mount Denial of Service or
   Distributed Denial of Service attacks.  Also, if the Map-Reply
   message is transported unauthenticated, an adversarial LISP entity
   can overclaim an EID-prefix and maliciously redirect traffic directed
   to a large number of hosts.  The LISP-SEC threat model, described in
   Section 4, is built on top of the LISP threat model defined in
   [RFC7835], that includes a detailed description of "overclaiming"
   attack.

   This memo specifies LISP-SEC, a set of security mechanisms that
   provides origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay protection
   to LISP's EID-to-RLOC mapping data conveyed via mapping lookup
   process.  LISP-SEC also enables verification of authorization on EID-
   prefix claims in Map-Reply messages, ensuring that the sender of a
   Map-Reply that provides the location for a given EID-prefix is
   entitled to do so according to the EID prefix registered in the
   associated Map-Server.  Map-Register/Map-Notify security, including
   the right for a LISP entity to register an EID-prefix or to claim
   presence at an RLOC, is out of the scope of LISP-SEC as those
   protocols are protected by the security mechanisms specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  However, LISP-SEC extends the Map-
   Register message to allow an ITR to downgrade to non LISP-SEC Map-
   Requests.  Additional security considerations are described in
   Section 6.

2.  Requirements Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
   14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

3.  Definition of Terms

      One-Time Key (OTK): An ephemeral randomly generated key that must
      be used for a single Map-Request/Map-Reply exchange.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

      ITR One-Time Key (ITR-OTK): The One-Time Key generated at the
      Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR).

      MS One-Time Key (MS-OTK): The One-Time Key generated at the Map-
      Server.

      Authentication Data (AD): Metadata that is included either in a
      LISP Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) header, as defined in
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], or in a Map-Reply message to support
      confidentiality, integrity protection, and verification of EID-
      prefix authorization.

      OTK Authentication Data (OTK-AD): The portion of ECM
      Authentication Data that contains a One-Time Key.

      EID Authentication Data (EID-AD): The portion of ECM and Map-Reply
      Authentication Data used for verification of EID-prefix
      authorization.

      Packet Authentication Data (PKT-AD): The portion of Map-Reply
      Authentication Data used to protect the integrity of the Map-Reply
      message.

   For definitions of other terms, notably Map-Request, Map-Reply,
   Ingress Tunnel Router (ITR), Egress Tunnel Router (ETR), Map-Server
   (MS), and Map-Resolver (MR) please consult the LISP specification
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

4.  LISP-SEC Threat Model

   LISP-SEC addresses the control plane threats, described in section
   3.7 and 3.8 of [RFC7835], that target EID-to-RLOC mappings, including
   manipulations of Map-Request and Map-Reply messages, and malicious
   ETR EID prefix overclaiming.  LISP-SEC makes two main assumptions:
   (1) the LISP mapping system is expected to deliver a Map-Request
   message to their intended destination ETR as identified by the EID,
   and (2) no on-path attack can be mounted within the LISP Mapping
   System.  How the Mapping System is protected from on-path attacks
   depends from the particular Mapping System used, and is out of the
   scope of this memo.  Furthermore, while LISP-SEC enables detection of
   EID prefix overclaiming attacks, it assumes that Map-Servers can
   verify the EID prefix authorization at registration time.

   According to the threat model described in [RFC7835] LISP-SEC assumes
   that any kind of attack, including on-path attacks, can be mounted
   outside of the boundaries of the LISP mapping system.  An on-path
   attacker, outside of the LISP mapping system can, for example, hijack

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   Map-Request and Map-Reply messages, spoofing the identity of a LISP
   node.  Another example of on-path attack, called overclaiming attack,
   can be mounted by a malicious Egress Tunnel Router (ETR), by
   overclaiming the EID-prefixes for which it is authoritative.  In this
   way the ETR can maliciously redirect traffic directed to a large
   number of hosts.

5.  Protocol Operations

   The goal of the security mechanisms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] is to prevent unauthorized insertion of
   mapping data by providing origin authentication and integrity
   protection for the Map-Register, and by using the nonce to detect
   unsolicited Map-Reply sent by off-path attackers.

   LISP-SEC builds on top of the security mechanisms defined in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] to address the threats described in
   Section 4 by leveraging the trust relationships existing among the
   LISP entities participating in the exchange of the Map-Request/Map-
   Reply messages.  Those trust relationships are used to securely
   distribute, as described in Section 8.4, a per-message One-Time Key
   (OTK) that provides origin authentication, integrity and anti-replay
   protection to mapping data conveyed via the mapping lookup process,
   and that effectively prevent overclaiming attacks.  The processing of
   security parameters during the Map-Request/Map-Reply exchange is as
   follows:

   *  Per each Map-Request message a new ITR-OTK is generated and stored
      at the ITR, and securely transported to the Map-Server.

   *  The Map-Server uses the ITR-OTK to compute a Keyed-Hashing for
      Message Authentication (HMAC) [RFC2104] that protects the
      integrity of the mapping data known to the Map-Server to prevent
      overclaiming attacks.  The Map-Server also derives a new OTK, the
      MS-OTK, that is passed to the ETR, by applying a Key Derivation
      Function (KDF) (e.g.  [RFC5869]) to the ITR-OTK.

   *  The ETR uses the MS-OTK to compute an HMAC that protects the
      integrity of the Map-Reply sent to the ITR.

   *  Finally, the ITR uses the stored ITR-OTK to verify the integrity
      of the mapping data provided by both the Map-Server and the ETR,
      and to verify that no overclaiming attacks were mounted along the
      path between the Map-Server and the ITR.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   Section 6 provides the detailed description of the LISP-SEC control
   messages and their processing, while the rest of this section
   describes the flow of LISP protocol operations at each entity
   involved in the Map-Request/Map-Reply exchange:

   1.  The ITR, upon needing to transmit a Map-Request message,
       generates and stores an OTK (ITR-OTK).  This ITR-OTK is included
       into the Encapsulated Control Message (ECM) that contains the
       Map-Request sent to the Map-Resolver.

   2.  The Map-Resolver decapsulates the ECM message, decrypts the ITR-
       OTK, if needed, and forwards through the Mapping System the
       received Map-Request and the ITR-OTK, as part of a new ECM
       message.  The LISP Mapping System delivers the ECM to the
       appropriate Map-Server, as identified by the EID destination
       address of the Map-Request.

   3.  The Map-Server is configured with the location mappings and
       policy information for the ETR responsible for the EID
       destination address.  Using this preconfigured information, the
       Map-Server, after the decapsulation of the ECM message, finds the
       longest match EID-prefix that covers the requested EID in the
       received Map-Request.  The Map-Server adds this EID-prefix,
       together with an HMAC computed using the ITR-OTK, to a new
       Encapsulated Control Message that contains the received Map-
       Request.

   4.  The Map-Server derives a new OTK, the MS-OTK, by applying a Key
       Derivation Function (KDF) to the ITR-OTK.  This MS-OTK is
       included in the Encapsulated Control Message that the Map-Server
       uses to forward the Map-Request to the ETR.

   5.  If the Map-Server is acting in proxy mode, as specified in
       [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], the ETR is not involved in the
       generation of the Map-Reply and steps 6 and 7 are skipped.  In
       this case the Map-Server generates the Map-Reply on behalf of the
       ETR as described in Section 6.7.2.

   6.  The ETR, upon receiving the ECM encapsulated Map-Request from the
       Map-Server, decrypts the MS-OTK, if needed, and originates a Map-
       Reply that contains the EID-to-RLOC mapping information as
       specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   7.  The ETR computes an HMAC over the Map-Reply, keyed with MS-OTK to
       protect the integrity of the whole Map-Reply.  The ETR also
       copies the EID-prefix authorization data that the Map-Server
       included in the ECM encapsulated Map-Request into the Map-Reply
       message.  The ETR then sends the complete Map-Reply message to
       the requesting ITR.

   8.  The ITR, upon receiving the Map-Reply, uses the locally stored
       ITR-OTK to verify the integrity of the EID-prefix authorization
       data included in the Map-Reply by the Map-Server.  The ITR
       computes the MS-OTK by applying the same KDF (as specified in the
       ECM encapsulated Map-Reply) used by the Map-Server, and verifies
       the integrity of the Map-Reply.

6.  LISP-SEC Control Messages Details

   LISP-SEC metadata associated with a Map-Request is transported within
   the Encapsulated Control Message that contains the Map-Request.

   LISP-SEC metadata associated with the Map-Reply is transported within
   the Map-Reply itself.

   These specifications use Keyed-Hashing for Message Authentication
   (HMAC) in various places (as described in the following).  The HMAC
   function AUTH-HMAC-SHA-1-96 [RFC2104] MUST be supported in LISP-SEC
   implementations.

6.1.  Encapsulated Control Message LISP-SEC Extensions

   LISP-SEC uses the ECM defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] with S
   bit set to 1 to indicate that the LISP header includes Authentication
   Data (AD).  The format of the LISP-SEC ECM Authentication Data is
   defined in Figure 1 . OTK-AD stands for One-Time Key Authentication
   Data and EID-AD stands for EID Authentication Data.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  ECM AD Type  |   Unassigned  |        Requested HMAC ID      |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\
 |              OTK Length       |     Key ID    | OTK Wrap. ID  | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
 |                       One-Time-Key Preamble ...               | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+OTK-AD
 |                   ... One-Time-Key Preamble                   | |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
 ~                      One-Time Key (128 bits)                  ~/
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ <---+
 |           EID-AD Length       |           KDF ID              |     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     |
 | Record Count  |E| Unassigned  |         EID HMAC ID           |EID-AD
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\    |
 |  Unassigned   | EID mask-len  |           EID-AFI             | |   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Rec |
 ~                          EID-prefix ...                       ~ |   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/    |
 ~                            EID HMAC                           ~     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ <---+

               Figure 1: LISP-SEC ECM Authentication Data

      ECM AD Type: 1 (LISP-SEC Authentication Data).  See Section 8.

      Unassigned: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.

      Requested HMAC ID: The HMAC algorithm, that will be used to
      protect the mappings, requested by the ITR.  See Section 6.4 for
      details, and Section 8.3 for HMAC IDs.

      OTK Length: The length (in bytes) of the OTK Authentication Data
      (OTK-AD), that contains the OTK Preamble and the OTK.

      Key ID: The identifier of the pre-shared secret shared by an ITR
      and the Map-Resolver, and by the Map-Server and an ETR.  Per-
      message keys are derived from the pre-shared secret to encrypt,
      authenticate the origin and protect the integrity of the OTK.  The
      Key ID allows to rotate between multiple pre-shared secrets in a
      non disruptive way.

      OTK Wrapping ID (OTK Wrap.  ID): The identifier of the key
      derivation function and of the key wrapping algorithm used to
      encrypt the One-Time-Key. See Section 6.5 for more details, and
      Section 8.4 for Wrapping IDs.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

      One-Time-Key Preamble: set to 0 if the OTK is not encrypted.  When
      the OTK is encrypted, this field MAY carry additional metadata
      resulting from the key wrapping operation.  When a 128-bit OTK is
      sent unencrypted by a Map-Resolver, the OTK Preamble is set to
      0x0000000000000000 (64 bits).  See Section 6.5.1 for details.

      One-Time-Key: the OTK wrapped as specified by OTK Wrapping ID.
      See Section 6.5 for details.

      EID-AD Length: length (in bytes) of the EID Authentication Data
      (EID-AD).  The ITR MUST set the EID-AD Length to 4 bytes, as it
      only fills the KDF ID field, and all the remaining fields part of
      the EID-AD are not present.  An EID-AD MAY contain multiple EID-
      records.  Each EID-record is 4-byte long plus the length of the
      AFI-encoded EID-prefix.

      KDF ID: Identifier of the Key Derivation Function used to derive
      the MS-OTK.  Refer to Section 6.7 for more details.

      Record Count: As defined in Section 5.2 of
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

      E: ETR-Cant-Sign bit.  This bit is set to 1 to signal to the ITR
      that at least one of the ETRs authoritative for the EID prefixes
      of this Map-Reply has not enabled LISP-SEC.  Only a Map-Server can
      set this bit.  See Section 6.7 for more details.

      Unassigned: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.

      EID HMAC ID: Identifier of the HMAC algorithm used to protect the
      integrity of the EID-AD.  This field is filled by the Map-Server
      that computed the EID-prefix HMAC.  See Section 6.7.1 for more
      details.

      EID mask-len: As defined in Section 5.2 of
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

      EID-AFI: As defined in Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

      EID-prefix: As defined in Section 5.2 of
      [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

      EID HMAC: HMAC of the EID-AD computed and inserted by a Map-Server
      See Section 6.7.1 for more details.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022                [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

6.2.  Map-Reply LISP-SEC Extensions

   LISP-SEC uses the Map-Reply defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis],
   with Type set to 2, and S-bit set to 1 to indicate that the Map-Reply
   message includes Authentication Data (AD).  The format of the LISP-
   SEC Map-Reply Authentication Data is defined in Figure 2.  PKT-AD is
   the Packet Authentication Data that covers the Map-Reply payload.

  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
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  MR AD Type   |                Unassigned                     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ <---+
 |           EID-AD Length       |           KDF ID              |     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+     |
 | Record Count  |   Unassigned  |         EID HMAC ID           |EID-AD
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+\    |
 |  Unassigned   | EID mask-len  |           EID-AFI             | |   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Rec |
 ~                          EID-prefix ...                       ~ |   |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/    |
 ~                            EID HMAC                           ~     |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ <---+
 |         PKT-AD Length         |         PKT HMAC ID           |\
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
 ~                            PKT HMAC                           ~PKT-AD
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+/

            Figure 2: LISP-SEC Map-Reply Authentication Data

      MR AD Type: 1 (LISP-SEC Authentication Data).  See Section 8.

      EID-AD Length: length (in bytes) of the EID-AD (see Section 6.1).

      KDF ID: Identifier of the Key Derivation Function used to derive
      MS-OTK (see Section 6.1).

      Record Count: The number of records in this Map-Reply message (see
      Section 6.1).

      Unassigned: Set to 0 on transmission and ignored on receipt.

      EID HMAC ID: Identifier of the HMAC algorithm used to protect the
      integrity of the EID-AD (see Section 6.1).

      EID mask-len: Mask length for EID-prefix (see Section 6.1).

      EID-AFI: See Section 6.1. .

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

      EID-prefix: See Section 6.1.

      EID HMAC: See Section 6.1.

      PKT-AD Length: length (in bytes) of the Packet Authentication Data
      (PKT-AD).

      PKT HMAC ID: Identifier of the HMAC algorithm used to protect the
      integrity of the Map-Reply (see Section 6.5).

      PKT HMAC: HMAC of the whole Map-Reply packet, so to protect its
      integrity; including the LISP-SEC Authentication Data (from the
      Map-Reply Type field to the PKT HMAC field), which allow message
      authetification.

6.3.  Map-Register LISP-SEC Extentions

   The S bit in the Map-Register message (see
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]) indicates to the Map-Server that the
   registering ETR is LISP-SEC enabled.  An ETR that supports LISP-SEC
   MUST set the S bit in its Map-Register messages.

6.4.  ITR Processing: Generating a Map-Request

   Upon creating a Map-Request, the ITR generates a random ITR-OTK that
   is stored locally, until the corresponding Map-Reply is received (see
   Section 6.9), together with the nonce generated as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

   The ITR MAY use the KDF ID field to indicate the recommended KDF
   algorithm, according to local policy.  The Map-Server can overwrite
   the KDF ID if it does not support the KDF ID recommended by the ITR
   (see Section 6.7).

   ITR-OTK confidentiality and integrity protection MUST be provided in
   the path between the ITR and the Map-Resolver.  This can be achieved
   either by encrypting the ITR-OTK with the pre-shared secret known to
   the ITR and the Map-Resolver (see Section 6.5), or by enabling DTLS
   between the ITR and the Map-Resolver.

   The Map-Request (as defined in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]) MUST be
   encapsulated as a LISP Control Message in an ECM, with the S-bit set
   to 1, to indicate the presence of Authentication Data.  Such a
   message is also called "Protected Map-Request" in this memo.

   The ITR-OTK is wrapped with the algorithm specified by the OTK
   Wrapping ID field.  See Section 6.5 for further details on OTK
   encryption.  If the NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 algorithm is selected and DTLS

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   is not enabled in the path between the ITR and the Map-Resolver, the
   Map-Request MUST be dropped and an appropriate log action SHOULD be
   taken.

   The Requested HMAC ID field contains the suggested HMAC algorithm to
   be used by the Map-Server and the ETR to protect the integrity of the
   ECM Authentication data and of the Map-Reply.  A HMAC ID Value of
   NONE (0), MAY be used to specify that the ITR has no preferred HMAC
   ID.

   The KDF ID field specifies the suggested key derivation function to
   be used by the Map-Server to derive the MS-OTK.  A KDF Value of NONE
   (0) may be used to specify that the ITR has no preferred KDF ID.

   The EID-AD length is set to 4 bytes, since the Authentication Data
   does not contain EID-prefix Authentication Data, and the EID-AD
   contains only the KDF ID field.

   If the ITR is directly connected to a Mapping System, such as
   LISP+ALT [RFC6836], it performs the functions of both the ITR and the
   Map-Resolver, forwarding the Protected Map-Request as described in
   Section 6.6.

   The processing performed by Proxy ITRs (PITRs) is equivalent to the
   processing of an ITR, hence the procedure described above applies.

6.5.  Encrypting and Decrypting an OTK

   MS-OTK confidentiality and integrity protection MUST be provided in
   the path between the Map-Server and the ETR.  This can be achieved
   either by enabling DTLS between the Map-Server and the ETR or by
   encrypting the MS-OTK with the pre-shared secret known to the Map-
   Server and the ETR [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

   Similarly, ITR-OTK confidentiality and integrity protection MUST be
   provided in the path between the ITR and the Map-Resolver.  This can
   be achieved either by enabling DTLS between the Map-Server and the
   ITR, or by encrypting the ITR-OTK with the pre-shared secret known to
   the ITR and the Map-Resolver.  The ITR/Map-Resolver pre-shared key is
   similar to the Map-Server/ETR pre-shared key.

   This section describes OTK processing in the ITR/Map-Resolver path,
   as well as in the Map-Server/ETR path.

   It's important to note that, to prevent ETR's overclaiming attacks,
   the ITR/Map-Resolver pre-shared secret MUST be different from the
   Map-Server/ETR pre-shared secret.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   The OTK is wrapped using the algorithm specified in the OTK Wrapping
   ID field.  This field identifies both the:

   *  Key Encryption Algorithm used to encrypt the wrapped OTK.

   *  Key Derivation Function used to derive a per-message encryption
      key.

   Implementations of this specification MUST support OTK Wrapping ID
   AES-KEY-WRAP-128+HKDF-SHA256 that specifies the use of the HKDF-
   SHA256 Key Derivation Function specified in [RFC4868] to derive a
   per-message encryption key (per-msg-key), as well as the AES-KEY-
   WRAP-128 Key Wrap algorithm used to encrypt a 128-bit OTK, according
   to [RFC3394].

   Implementations of this specification MUST support OTK Wrapping NULL-
   KEY-WRAP-128.  NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 is used to carry an unencrypted
   128-bit OTK, with a 64-bit preamble set to 0x0000000000000000 (64
   bits).

   The key wrapping process for OTK Wrapping ID AES-KEY-WRAP-128+HKDF-
   SHA256 is described below:

   1.  The KDF and Key Wrap algorithms are identified by the value of
       the 'OTK Wrapping ID' field.  The initial values are documented
       in Table 5.

   2.  If the NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 algorithm (see Section 8.4) is selected
       and DTLS is not enabled, the Map-Request MUST be dropped and an
       appropriate log action SHOULD be taken.

   3.  The pre-shared secret used to derive the per-msg-key is
       represented by PSK[Key ID], that is the pre-shared secret
       identified by the 'Key ID'.

   4.  The per-message encryption key is computed as:

       *  per-msg-key = KDF( nonce + s + PSK[Key ID] )

       *  where the nonce is the value in the Nonce field of the Map-
          Request, and

       *  's' is the string "OTK-Key-Wrap"

   5.  According to [RFC3394] the per-msg-key is used to wrap the OTK
       with AES-KEY-WRAP-128.  The AES Key Wrap Initialization Value
       MUST be set to 0xA6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6 (64 bits).  The output of the
       AES Key Wrap operation is 192-bit long.  The most significant

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

       64-bit are copied in the One-Time Key Preamble field, while the
       128 less significant bits are copied in the One-Time Key field of
       the LISP-SEC Authentication Data.

   When decrypting an encrypted OTK the receiver MUST verify that the
   Initialization Value resulting from the AES Key Wrap decryption
   operation is equal to 0xA6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6.  If this verification fails
   the receiver MUST discard the entire message.

6.5.1.  Unencrypted OTK

   However, when DTLS is enabled the OTK MAY be sent unencrypted as
   transport layer security is providing confidentiality and integrity
   protection.

   When a 128-bit OTK is sent unencrypted the OTK Wrapping ID is set to
   NULL_KEY_WRAP_128, and the OTK Preamble is set to 0x0000000000000000
   (64 bits).

6.6.  Map-Resolver Processing

   Upon receiving a Protected Map-Request, the Map-Resolver decapsulates
   the ECM message.  The ITR-OTK, if encrypted, is decrypted as
   specified in Section 6.5.

   Protecting the confidentiality of the ITR-OTK and, in general, the
   security of how the Map-Request is handed by the Map-Resolver to the
   Map-Server, is specific to the particular Mapping System used, and
   outside of the scope of this memo.

   In Mapping Systems where the Map-Server is compliant with
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], the Map-Resolver originates a new ECM
   header with the S-bit set, that contains the unencrypted ITR-OTK, as
   specified in Section 6.5, and the other data derived from the ECM
   Authentication Data of the received encapsulated Map-Request.

   The Map-Resolver then forwards to the Map-Server the received Map-
   Request, encapsulated in the new ECM header that includes the newly
   computed Authentication Data fields.

6.7.  Map-Server Processing

   Upon receiving a Protected Map-Request, the Map-Server processes it
   according to the setting of the S-bit and the P-bit in the Map-
   Register received from the ETRs authoritative for that prefix, as
   described below.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 14]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   While processing the Map-Request, the Map-Server can overwrite the
   KDF ID field if it does not support the KDF ID recommended by the
   ITR.  Processing of the Map-Request MUST proceed in the order
   described in the table below, applying the processing corresponding
   to the first rule that matches the conditions indicated in the first
   column:

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 15]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

    +=================+==============================================+
    | Matching        | Processing                                   |
    | Condition       |                                              |
    +=================+==============================================+
    | 1.  At least    | The Map-Server MUST generate a LISP-SEC      |
    | one of the ETRs | protected Map-Reply as specified in          |
    | authoritative   | Section 6.7.2.  The ETR-Cant-Sign E-bit in   |
    | for the EID     | the EID Authentication Data (EID-AD) MUST be |
    | prefix included | set to 0.                                    |
    | in the Map-     |                                              |
    | Request         |                                              |
    | registered with |                                              |
    | the P-bit set   |                                              |
    | to 1            |                                              |
    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
    | 2.  At least    | The Map-Server MUST generate a LISP-SEC      |
    | one of the ETRs | protected Encapsulated Map-Request (as       |
    | authoritative   | specified in Section 6.7.1), to be sent to   |
    | for the EID     | one of the authoritative ETRs that           |
    | prefix included | registered with the S-bit set to 1 (and the  |
    | in the Map-     | P-bit set to 0).  If there is at least one   |
    | Request         | ETR that registered with the S-bit set to 0, |
    | registered with | the ETR-Cant-Sign E-bit of the EID-AD MUST   |
    | the S-bit set   | be set to 1 to signal the ITR that a non     |
    | to 1            | LISP-SEC Map-Request might reach additional  |
    |                 | ETRs that have LISP-SEC disabled.            |
    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+
    | 3.  All the     | The Map-Server MUST send a Negative Map-     |
    | ETRs            | Reply protected with LISP-SEC, as described  |
    | authoritative   | in Section 6.7.2.  The ETR-Cant-Sign E-bit   |
    | for the EID     | MUST be set to 1 to signal the ITR that a    |
    | prefix included | non LISP-SEC Map-Request might reach         |
    | in the Map-     | additional ETRs that have LISP-SEC disabled. |
    | Request         |                                              |
    | registered with |                                              |
    | the S-bit set   |                                              |
    | to 0            |                                              |
    +-----------------+----------------------------------------------+

                     Table 1: Map-Request Processing.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 16]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   In this way the ITR that sent a LISP-SEC protected Map-Request always
   receives a LISP-SEC protected Map-Reply.  However, the ETR-Cant-Sign
   E-bit set to 1 specifies that a non LISP-SEC Map-Request might reach
   additional ETRs that have LISP-SEC disabled.  This mechanism allows
   the ITR to downgrade to non LISP-SEC requests, which does not protect
   against threats described in Section 4.

6.7.1.  Generating a LISP-SEC Protected Encapsulated Map-Request

   The Map-Server decapsulates the ECM and generates a new ECM
   Authentication Data.  The Authentication Data includes the OTK-AD and
   the EID-AD, that contains EID-prefix authorization information, that
   are eventually received by the requesting ITR.

   The Map-Server updates the OTK-AD by deriving a new OTK (MS-OTK) from
   the ITR-OTK received with the Map-Request.  MS-OTK is derived
   applying the key derivation function specified in the KDF ID field.
   If the algorithm specified in the KDF ID field is not supported, the
   Map-Server uses a different algorithm to derive the key and updates
   the KDF ID field accordingly.

   The Map-Request MUST be encapsulated in an ECM, with the S-bit set to
   1, to indicate the presence of Authentication Data.

   MS-OTK is wrapped with the algorithm specified by the OTK Wrapping ID
   field.  See Section 6.5 for further details on OTK encryption.  If
   the NULL-KEY-WRAP-128 algorithm is selected and DTLS is not enabled
   in the path between the Map-Server and the ETR, the Map-Request MUST
   be dropped and an appropriate log action SHOULD be taken.

   The Map-Server includes in the EID-AD the longest match registered
   EID-prefix for the destination EID, and an HMAC of this EID-prefix.
   The HMAC is keyed with the ITR-OTK contained in the received ECM
   Authentication Data, and the HMAC algorithm is chosen according to
   the Requested HMAC ID field.  If the Map-Server does not support this
   algorithm, the Map-Server uses a different algorithm and specifies it
   in the EID HMAC ID field.  The scope of the HMAC operation MUST cover
   the entire EID-AD, from the EID-AD Length field to the EID HMAC
   field, which MUST be set to 0 before the computation.

   The Map-Server then forwards the updated ECM encapsulated Map-
   Request, that contains the OTK-AD, the EID-AD, and the received Map-
   Request to an authoritative ETR as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 17]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

6.7.2.  Generating a Proxy Map-Reply

   LISP-SEC proxy Map-Reply are generated according to
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], with the Map-Reply S-bit set to 1.  The
   Map-Reply includes the Authentication Data that contains the EID-AD,
   computed as specified in Section 6.7.1, as well as the PKT-AD
   computed as specified in Section 6.8.

6.8.  ETR Processing

   Upon receiving an ECM encapsulated Map-Request with the S-bit set,
   the ETR decapsulates the ECM message.  The OTK field, if encrypted,
   is decrypted as specified in Section 6.5 to obtain the unencrypted
   MS-OTK.

   The ETR then generates a Map-Reply as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] and includes the Authentication Data that
   contains the EID-AD, as received in the encapsulated Map-Request, as
   well as the PKT-AD.

   The EID-AD is copied from the Authentication Data of the received
   encapsulated Map-Request.

   The PKT-AD contains the HMAC of the whole Map-Reply packet, keyed
   with the MS-OTK and computed using the HMAC algorithm specified in
   the Requested HMAC ID field of the received encapsulated Map-Request.
   If the ETR does not support the Requested HMAC ID, it uses a
   different algorithm and updates the PKT HMAC ID field accordingly.
   The HMAC operation MUST cover the entire Map-Reply, where the PKT
   HMAC field MUST be set to 0 before the computation.

   Finally the ETR sends the Map-Reply to the requesting ITR as
   specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].

6.9.  ITR Processing: Receiving a Map-Reply

   In response to an encapsulated Map-Request that has the S-bit set, an
   ITR MUST receive a Map-Reply with the S-bit set, that includes an
   EID-AD and a PKT-AD.  If the Map-Reply does not include both ADs, the
   ITR MUST discard it.  In response to a Protected Map-Request, an ITR
   expects a Map-Reply with the S-bit set to 1 including an EID-AD and a
   PKT-AD.  The ITR MUST discard the Map-Reply otherwise.

   Upon receiving a Map-Reply, the ITR must verify the integrity of both
   the EID-AD and the PKT-AD, and MUST discard the Map-Reply if one of
   the integrity checks fails.  After processing the Map-Reply, the ITR
   MUST discard the <nonce,ITR-OTK> pair associated to the Map-Reply

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 18]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   The integrity of the EID-AD is verified using the ITR-OTK (stored
   locally for the duration of this exchange) to re-compute the HMAC of
   the EID-AD using the algorithm specified in the EID HMAC ID field.
   If the EID HMAC ID field does not match the Requested HMAC ID the ITR
   MUST discard the Map-Reply and send, at the first opportunity it
   needs to, a new Map-Request with a different Requested HMAC ID field,
   according to ITR's local policy.  The scope of the HMAC operation
   covers the entire EID-AD, from the EID-AD Length field to the EID
   HMAC field.

   ITR MUST set the EID HMAC ID field to 0 before computing the HMAC.

   To verify the integrity of the PKT-AD, first the MS-OTK is derived
   from the locally stored ITR-OTK using the algorithm specified in the
   KDF ID field.  This is because the PKT-AD is generated by the ETR
   using the MS-OTK.  If the KDF ID in the Map-Reply does not match the
   KDF ID requested in the Map-Request, the ITR MUST discard the Map-
   Reply and send, at the first opportunity it needs to, a new Map-
   Request with a different KDF ID, according to ITR's local policy.
   The key derivation function HKDF-SHA1-128 [RFC5869] MUST be
   supported.  Without consistent configuration of involved entities,
   extra delays may be experienced.  However, since HKDF-SHA1-128 is
   mandatory to implement, the process will eventually converge.

   The derived MS-OTK is then used to re-compute the HMAC of the PKT-AD
   using the Algorithm specified in the PKT HMAC ID field.  If the PKT
   HMAC ID field does not match the Requested HMAC ID the ITR MUST
   discard the Map-Reply and send, at the first opportunity it needs to,
   a new Map-Request with a different Requested HMAC ID according to
   ITR's local policy or until all HMAC IDs supported by the ITR have
   been attempted.  When the PKT HMAC ID field does not match the
   Requested HMAC ID it is not possible to validate the Map-Reply.

   Each individual Map-Reply EID-record is considered valid only if: (1)
   both EID-AD and PKT-AD are valid, and (2) the intersection of the
   EID-prefix in the Map-Reply EID-record with one of the EID-prefixes
   contained in the EID-AD is not empty.  After identifying the Map-
   Reply record as valid, the ITR sets the EID-prefix in the Map-Reply
   record to the value of the intersection set computed before, and adds
   the Map-Reply EID-record to its EID-to-RLOC cache, as described in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis].  An example of Map-Reply record
   validation is provided in Section 6.9.1.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 19]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis] allows ETRs to send Solicited-Map-Requests
   (SMR) directly to the ITR.  The corresponding SMR-invoked Map-Request
   will be sent through the mapping system, hence, secured with the
   specifications of this memo if in use.  If an ITR accepts Map-Replies
   piggybacked in Map-Requests and its content is not already present in
   its EID-to-RLOC cache, it MUST send a Map-Request over the mapping
   system in order to verify its content with a secured Map-Reply.

6.9.1.  Map-Reply Record Validation

   The payload of a Map-Reply may contain multiple EID-records.  The
   whole Map-Reply is signed by the ETR, with the PKT HMAC, to provide
   integrity protection and origin authentication to the EID-prefix
   records claimed by the ETR.  The Authentication Data field of a Map-
   Reply may contain multiple EID-records in the EID-AD.  The EID-AD is
   signed by the Map-Server, with the EID HMAC, to provide integrity
   protection and origin authentication to the EID-prefix records
   inserted by the Map-Server.

   Upon receiving a Map-Reply with the S-bit set, the ITR first checks
   the validity of both the EID HMAC and of the PKT-AD HMAC.  If either
   one of the HMACs is not valid, a log action MUST be taken and the
   Map-Reply MUST NOT be processed any further.  If both HMACs are
   valid, the ITR proceeds with validating each individual EID-record
   claimed by the ETR by computing the intersection of each one of the
   EID-prefix contained in the payload of the Map-Reply with each one of
   the EID-prefixes contained in the EID-AD.  An EID-record is valid
   only if at least one of the intersections is not the empty set,
   otherwise, a log action MUST be taken and the EID-record MUST be
   discarded.

   For instance, the Map-Reply payload contains 3 mapping record EID-
   prefixes:

      2001:db8:102::/48

      2001:db8:103::/48

      2001:db8:200::/40

   The EID-AD contains two EID-prefixes:

      2001:db8:103::/48

      2001:db8:203::/48

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 20]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   The EID-record with EID-prefix 2001:db8:102::/48 is not eligible to
   be used by the ITR since it is not included in any of the EID-ADs
   signed by the Map-Server.  A log action MUST be taken and the EID-
   record MUST be discarded.

   The EID-record with EID-prefix 2001:db8:103::/48 is eligible to be
   used by the ITR because it matches the second EID-prefix contained in
   the EID-AD.

   The EID-record with EID-prefix 2001:db8:200::/40 is not eligible to
   be used by the ITR since it is not included in any of the EID-ADs
   signed by the Map-Server.  A log action MUST be taken and the EID-
   record MUST be discarded.  In this last example the ETR is trying to
   over claim the EID-prefix 2001:db8:200::/40, but the Map-Server
   authorized only 2001:db8:203::/48, hence the EID-record is discarded.

7.  Security Considerations

   This document extends the LISP Control-Plane defined in
   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], hence, its Security Considerations apply
   as well to this document.

7.1.  Mapping System Security

   The LISP-SEC threat model described in Section 4, assumes that the
   LISP Mapping System is working properly and delivers Map-Request
   messages to a Map-Server that is authoritative for the requested EID.

   It is assumed that the Mapping System ensures the confidentiality of
   the OTK, and the integrity of the Map-Reply data.  However, how the
   LISP Mapping System is secured is out of the scope of this document.

   Similarly, Map-Register security, including the right for a LISP
   entity to register an EID-prefix or to claim presence at an RLOC, is
   out of the scope of LISP-SEC.

7.2.  Random Number Generation

   The ITR-OTK MUST be generated by a properly seeded pseudo-random (or
   strong random) source.  See [RFC4086] for advice on generating
   security-sensitive random data.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 21]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

7.3.  Map-Server and ETR Colocation

   If the Map-Server and the ETR are colocated, LISP-SEC does not
   provide protection from overclaiming attacks mounted by the ETR.
   However, in this particular case, since the ETR is within the trust
   boundaries of the Map-Server, ETR's overclaiming attacks are not
   included in the threat model.

7.4.  Deploying LISP-SEC

   Those deploying LISP-SEC according to this memo, should carefully
   weight how the LISP-SEC threat model applies to their particular use
   case or deployment.  If they decide to ignore a particular
   recommendation, they should make sure the risk associated with the
   corresponding threats is well understood.

   As an example, in certain closed and controlled deployments, it is
   possible that the threat associated with an on-path attacker between
   the xTR and the Mapping System is very low, and after careful
   consideration it may be decided to allow a NULL key wrapping
   algorithm while carrying the OTKs between the xTR and the Mapping
   System.

   As an example at the other end of the spectrum, in certain other
   deployments, attackers may be very sophisticated, and force the
   deployers to enforce very strict policies in term of HMAC algorithms
   accepted by an ITR.

   Similar considerations apply to the entire LISP-SEC threat model, and
   should guide the deployers and implementors whenever they encounter
   the key word SHOULD across this memo.

7.5.  Shared Keys Provisioning

   Provisioning of the keys shared between the ITR and the Map-Resolver
   as well as between the ETR and the Map-Server should be performed via
   an orchestration infrastructure and it is out of the scope of this
   memo.  It is recommended that both shared keys are refreshed at
   periodical intervals to address key aging or attackers gaining
   unauthorized access to the shared keys.  Shared keys should be
   unpredictable random values.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 22]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

7.6.  Replay Attacks

   An attacker can capture a valid Map-Request and/or Map-Reply and
   replay it, however once the ITR receives the original Map-Reply the
   <nonce,ITR-OTK> pair stored at the ITR will be discarded.  If a
   replayed Map-Reply arrives at the ITR, there is no <nonce,ITR-OTK>
   that matches the incoming Map-Reply and will be discarded.

   In case of replayed Map-Request, the Map-Server, Map-Resolver and ETR
   will have to do a LISP-SEC computation.  This is equivalent, in terms
   of resources, to a valid LISP-SEC computation and an attacker does
   not obtain any benefit, since the corresponding Map-Reply is
   discarded as previously explained.

7.7.  Message Privacy

   DTLS [RFC9147] SHOULD be used to provide communication privacy and to
   prevent eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery to the messages
   exchanged between the ITR, Map-Resolver, Map-Server, and ETR, unless
   the OTK is encrypted in another way, e.g. using a pre-shared secret.

7.8.  Denial of Service and Distributed Denial of Service Attacks

   LISP-SEC mitigates the risks of Denial of Service and Distributed
   Denial of Service attacks by protecting the integrity and
   authenticating the origin of the Map-Request/Map-Reply messages, and
   by preventing malicious ETRs from overclaiming EID prefixes that
   could re-direct traffic directed to a potentially large number of
   hosts.

8.  IANA Considerations

   IANA is requested to create the sub-registries listed in the
   following sections in the "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)
   Parameters" registry.

8.1.  ECM AD Type Registry

   IANA is requested to create the "ECM Authentication Data Type"
   registry with values 0-255, for use in the ECM LISP-SEC Extensions
   Section 6.1.  Initial allocation of this registry is shown in
   Table 2.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 23]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

                +==================+========+============+
                | Name             | Number | Defined in |
                +==================+========+============+
                | Reserved         |   0    | This memo  |
                +------------------+--------+------------+
                | LISP-SEC-ECM-EXT |   1    | This memo  |
                +------------------+--------+------------+

                 Table 2: ECM Authentication Data Types.

   Values 2-255 are unassigned.  They are to be assigned according to
   the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126].

8.2.  Map-Reply AD Type Registry

   IANA is requested to create the "Map-Reply Authentication Data Type"
   registry with values 0-255, for use in the Map-Reply LISP-SEC
   Extensions Section 6.2.  Initial allocation of this registry is shown
   in Table 3.

                 +=================+========+============+
                 | Name            | Number | Defined in |
                 +=================+========+============+
                 | Reserved        |   0    | This memo  |
                 +-----------------+--------+------------+
                 | LISP-SEC-MR-EXT |   1    | This memo  |
                 +-----------------+--------+------------+

                     Table 3: Map-Reply Authentication
                                Data Types.

   Values 2-255 are unassigned.  They are to be assigned according to
   the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126].

8.3.  HMAC Functions

   IANA is requested to create the "LISP-SEC Authentication Data HMAC
   ID" registry with values 0-65535 for use as Requested HMAC ID, EID
   HMAC ID, and PKT HMAC ID in the LISP-SEC Authentication Data.
   Initial allocation of this registry is shown in Table 4.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 24]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

              +=======================+========+============+
              | Name                  | Number | Defined in |
              +=======================+========+============+
              | NONE                  |   0    | This memo  |
              +-----------------------+--------+------------+
              | AUTH-HMAC-SHA-1-96    |   1    | [RFC2104]  |
              +-----------------------+--------+------------+
              | AUTH-HMAC-SHA-256-128 |   2    | [RFC6234]  |
              +-----------------------+--------+------------+

                 Table 4: LISP-SEC Authentication Data HMAC
                                 Functions.

   Values 3-65535 are unassigned.  They are to be assigned according to
   the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126].

8.4.  Key Wrap Functions

   IANA is requested to create the "LISP-SEC Authentication Data Key
   Wrap ID" registry with values 0-65535 for use as OTK key wrap
   algorithms ID in the LISP-SEC Authentication Data.  Initial
   allocation of this registry is shown in Table 5.

     +==============================+========+===========+===========+
     | Name                         | Number | KEY WRAP  | KDF       |
     +==============================+========+===========+===========+
     | Reserved                     |   0    | None      | None      |
     +------------------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+
     | NULL-KEY-WRAP-128            |   1    | This memo | None      |
     +------------------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+
     | AES-KEY-WRAP-128+HKDF-SHA256 |   2    | [RFC3394] | [RFC4868] |
     +------------------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+

         Table 5: LISP-SEC Authentication Data Key Wrap Functions.

   Values 3-65535 are unassigned.  They are to be assigned according to
   the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126].

8.5.  Key Derivation Functions

   IANA is requested to create the "LISP-SEC Authentication Data Key
   Derivation Function ID" registry with values 0-65535 for use as KDF
   ID.  Initial allocation of this registry is shown in Table 6.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 25]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

                  +===============+========+============+
                  | Name          | Number | Defined in |
                  +===============+========+============+
                  | NONE          |   0    | This memo  |
                  +---------------+--------+------------+
                  | HKDF-SHA1-128 |   1    | [RFC5869]  |
                  +---------------+--------+------------+

                      Table 6: LISP-SEC Authentication
                      Data Key Derivation Function ID.

   Values 2-65535 are unassigned.  They are to be assigned according to
   the "Specification Required" policy defined in [RFC8126].  Expert
   review, from security area, should assess that the security of key
   derivation function, so that its use does not introduce security
   risks.

9.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to acknowledge Pere Monclus, Dave Meyer, Dino
   Farinacci, Brian Weis, David McGrew, Darrel Lewis and Landon Curt
   Noll for their valuable suggestions provided during the preparation
   of this document.

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
              Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
              Cabellos, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-38, 7 May 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6830bis-38.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
              Farinacci, D., Maino, F., Fuller, V., and A. Cabellos,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
              Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6833bis-31, 2 May 2022,
              <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lisp-
              rfc6833bis-31.txt>.

   [RFC2104]  Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed-
              Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>.

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 26]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3394]  Schaad, J. and R. Housley, "Advanced Encryption Standard
              (AES) Key Wrap Algorithm", RFC 3394, DOI 10.17487/RFC3394,
              September 2002, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3394>.

   [RFC4868]  Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-
              384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>.

   [RFC5869]  Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
              Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>.

   [RFC6234]  Eastlake 3rd, D. and T. Hansen, "US Secure Hash Algorithms
              (SHA and SHA-based HMAC and HKDF)", RFC 6234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6234, May 2011,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6234>.

   [RFC7835]  Saucez, D., Iannone, L., and O. Bonaventure, "Locator/ID
              Separation Protocol (LISP) Threat Analysis", RFC 7835,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7835, April 2016,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7835>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC9147]  Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The
              Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version
              1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, April 2022,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9147>.

10.2.  Informational References

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 27]
Internet-Draft                  LISP-SEC                        May 2022

   [RFC4086]  Eastlake 3rd, D., Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,
              "Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4086, June 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4086>.

   [RFC6836]  Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
              "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
              Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
              January 2013, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6836>.

Authors' Addresses

   Fabio Maino
   Cisco Systems
   170 Tasman Drive
   San Jose, California 95134
   United States of America
   Email: fmaino@cisco.com

   Vina Ermagan
   Google
   California
   United States of America
   Email: ermagan@gmail.com

   Albert Cabellos
   Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya
   c/ Jordi Girona s/n
   08034 Barcelona
   Spain
   Email: acabello@ac.upc.edu

   Damien Saucez
   Inria
   2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93
   Sophia Antipolis
   France
   Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr

Maino, et al.           Expires 25 November 2022               [Page 28]