Encapsulation of IP within IP managed by HIP
draft-moskowitz-hip-ipnhip-00

The information below is for an old version of the document
Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-09-28
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
HIP                                                         R. Moskowitz
Internet-Draft                                                     X. Xu
Intended status: Standards Track                                  B. Liu
Expires: April 1, 2017                                            Huawei
                                                      September 28, 2016

              Encapsulation of IP within IP managed by HIP
                   draft-moskowitz-hip-ipnhip-00.txt

Abstract

   This document defines how to encapsulate IP within IP when the tunnel
   is managed with HIPv2 [RFC7401].  The goal is reduced header size and
   improved security over IPnIP [RFC2003] and RFC2004 [RFC2004].

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 April 1, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Moskowitz, et al.         Expires April 1, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            IP-within-IP-with-HIP           September 2016

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terms and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Requirements Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  The advantage of a HIP managed IP-within-IP Tunnel  . . . . .   3
   4.  IPnHIP Header Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  HIP parameters to negotiate IPnHIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     5.1.  IPnHIP_INFO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     5.2.  IPnHIP_TRANSFORM  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  HIP IPnHIP Security Association Setup . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  ICMP Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   8.  Packet Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.1.  Processing Application Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     8.2.  Processing HIP Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   9.  ESP or Minimal IPnIP or IPnHIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.1.  Encapsulation cost in bytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     9.2.  Encapsulation cost in processing  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     9.3.  Security posture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   12. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   13. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     13.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     13.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   MobileIP has opted for a simple IP within IP tunneling mechanism
   without any tunnel security.  The justification for this approach
   over secure tunneling mechanisms like ESP [RFC4303] is outside the
   scope of this document.  The approach here is to define a IPnIP
   header that leverages the HIP Security Association and is
   potentiality smaller than RFC2004 [RFC2004] as well as provides for a
   higher security posture.

   Implementors are expected to be familiar with both HIPv2 and ESP with
   HIP [RFC7402].  This document draws heavily on RFC7402 to the extent
   that much of the flow process is not duplicated here.

2.  Terms and Definitions

Moskowitz, et al.         Expires April 1, 2017                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            IP-within-IP-with-HIP           September 2016

2.1.  Requirements Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
Show full document text