Data Plane of Inter-Domain Source Address Validation Architecture
draft-xu-savax-data-02
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Active".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Ke Xu , Jianping Wu , Xiaoliang Wang , Yangfei Guo | ||
| Last updated | 2022-05-21 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-xu-savax-data-02
Network Working Group K. Xu
Internet-Draft J. Wu
Intended status: Informational X. Wang
Expires: 21 November 2022 Y. Guo
Tsinghua University
20 May 2022
Data Plane of Inter-Domain Source Address Validation Architecture
draft-xu-savax-data-02
Abstract
Because the Internet forwards packets according to the IP destination
address, packet forwarding typically takes place without inspection
of the source address and malicious attacks have been launched using
spoofed source addresses. The inter-domain source address validation
architecture is an effort to enhance the Internet by using state
machine to generate consistent tags. When communicating between two
end hosts at different ADs of IPv6 network, tags will be added to the
packets to identify the authenticity of the IPv6 source address.
This memo focus on the data plane of the SAVA-X mechanism.
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 21 November 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
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
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology and Abbreviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. State Machine Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1. Tag Generation Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.1. Pseudo-Random Number Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4.1.2. Hash Chain Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Tag Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Packet Processing at AER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Port Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.2. Source Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.3. Packet Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. Tag Addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. Tag Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. Tag Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Packet Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
7. MTU Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. Security Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. Introduction
The Inter-Domain Source Address Validation (SAVA-X) mechanism
establishes a trust alliance among Address Domains (AD), maintains a
one-to-one state machine among ADs, generates a consistent tag, and
deploys the tag to the ADs' border router (AER). The AER of the
source AD adds a tag to identify the identity of the AD to the packet
originating from one AD and sinking in another AD. The AER of the
destination AD verifies the source address by validating the
correctness of the tag to determine whether it is a packet with a
forged source address.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
In the process of packet forwarding, if the source address and the
destination address of this packet both are addresses in the trust
alliance, however the tag is not added or incorrectly added, AER of
the destination AD determines that the source address is forged and
directly discards this packet. The destination AD forwards the
packet directly for packets whose source address is an address
outside the trust alliance.
This document mainly studies the relevant specifications of the data
plane of the inter-domain source address validation architecture
mechanism between ADs, which will protect IPv6 networks from being
forged source address. You could see [RFC8200] for more details
about IPv6. It stipulates the state machine, tag generation and
update, tag processing in AER, and packet signature Its promotion and
application can realize the standardization of the data plane in the
SAVA-X to facilitate the related equipment developed by different
manufacturers and organizations to cooperate to accomplish the inter-
domain source address validation jointly.
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 RFC 2119, BCP 14
[RFC2119] and indicate requirement levels for compliant CoAP
implementations.
2. Terminology and Abbreviation
+==============+====================================================+
| Abbreviation | Description |
+==============+====================================================+
| AD | Address Domain, the unit of a trust |
| | alliance, which is an address set |
| | consisting of all IPv6 addresses |
| | corresponding to an IPv6 address prefix. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| TA | Trust Alliance, the IPv6 network that |
| | uses the SAVA-X mechanism. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ACS | AD Control Server, the server that |
| | matains state machine with other ACS and |
| | distribute information to AER. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| AER | AD border router, which is placed at the |
| | boundary of an AD of STA. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ADID | The identity of an AD. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ADID_Rec | The record of a number of an AD. |
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ARI_Rec | The record with relavent information of |
| | an AD or STA. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| API_Rec | The record of prefix of an AD or STA. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| SM | State Machine, which is maintained by a |
| | pair of ACS to generate tags. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| Tag | The authentic identification of source |
| | address of a packet. |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Table 1
3. State Machine Mechanism
In SAVA-X, state machine mechanism is used to generate, update, and
manage the tags.
+------+ +-------+ +---------+
| S_n | triger | A-Box | transition | S_(n+1) |
| |------------->| |------------------->| |
+------+ +-------+ +---------+
| generation
|
v
+-------+
| Tag_n |
+-------+
Figure 1: State machine mechanism.
State: S_n and S_(n+1) represent the current state and next state of
the SM respectively.
Tag: Tag_n is generated in the progress of state transiting from S_n
to S_(n+1).
Algorithm Box: A-Box is Alogorithm Box. It is used to transite the
State and generate the tag. It takes the current State as the
input and the following State and current tag as the output. The
algorithm box consists of two parts: one is the transition
function transit(), S_(n+1) = transit(S_n); the second is the
function generate() to generate tags. Tag_n = generate(S_n).
Algorithm box (A-Box) is the core of state machine. It determines
the data structure of state and tag, the specific mode of state
machine implementation, as well as its security and complexity.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
Trigger: It is used to trig the transition of State.
Transition: It reprents the progress of state transiting from S_n to
S_(n+1).
Generation: It reprents the progress of calculating the current tag
from current State.
4. Tag
4.1. Tag Generation Algorithm
There are two ways to generate tags: pseudo-random number algorithm
and hash chain algorithm.
4.1.1. Pseudo-Random Number Algorithm
In the pseudo-random number generation algorithm, an initial number
or stringis usually used as the "seed", which corresponds to the
initial state of the state machine. Using seeds, a pseudo-random
number sequence is generated as a tag sequence through some
algorithm. Next, we would take KISS (keep it simple stub), a pseudo-
random number generation algorithm, as an example to introduce how to
apply it to the state machine mechanism. For the algorithm details
of KISS, you could refer to the following reference pseudo code:
/* Seed variables */
uint x = 123456789,y = 362436000,z = 521288629,c = 7654321;
uint KISS(){
const ulong a = 698769069UL;
ulong t;
x = 69069*x+12345;
y ^= (y<<13); y ^= (y>>17); y ^= (y<<5);
t = a*z+c; c = (t>>32);
z=cast(uint)t;
return x+y+z;
}
Figure 2: KISS99: Pseudo-random number generatation
In this algorithm, State S can be expressed as (x, y, z, c). The
algorithm box is KISS(). After each calculation, the state undergoes
a transition from S_n to S_(n+1), that is, the four variables x, y, z
and c are all changed. At the same time, a pseudo-rng number (x + y
+ z) is generated.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
As the state machine shown above, the initial state is S_0 =
(123456789, 362436000, 521288629, 7654321). In fact, the initial
state can be arbitrarily selected by the algorithm shown below:
void init_KISS() {
x = devrand();
while (!(y = devrand())); /* y must not be zero */
z = devrand();
/* Don't really need to seed c as well
but if you really want to... */
c = devrand() % 698769069; /* Should be less than 698769069 */
}
Figure 3: KISS99: Initial state selection
The basic design goal of pseudo-random number generation algorithm is
mainly long cycle and pretty distribution, however, without or little
consideration of safety factors. The backstepping security and
prediction ability of KISS algorithm have not been proved.
4.1.2. Hash Chain Algorithm
For the design of hash chain based tag generating algorithm, one can
see S/Key in [RFC1760]. In the S/Key system, there is an encryption
end and an authentication end. The encryption end generates an
initial state W, and then uses some hash algorithm H() to iterate on
W to obtain a string sequence: H_0(W), H_1(W), ..., H_N(W), where
H_n(W) represents the iterative operation of H() on W n times, H_0(W)
= W. The state sequence {S} is defined as the reverse order of the
hash chain, that is, S_n = H_(N-n)(W). For example, the initial
state S_0 = H_N(W) and the final state S_N = H_0(W) = W, so the
transfer function transit() is repsented as the invere H().
Different from the KISS pseudo-random number generation algorithm
mentioned in the previous section, in the hash chain, the tag is the
state itself, that is, the output and input of generate() are
consistent, and Tag_n = S_n. In the following discussion, S_n is
temporarily used instead of Tag_n for the convenience of expression.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
The encryption end sends the initial state S_0 to the verification
end, and maintains S_1 ~ S_n, which is also the tag sequence used.
The encryption end sends S_(n+1) to the verification end every time.
The verification end uses the S_n maintained by itself to verify the
tag correctness of the encryption end by calculating S_(n+1) =
transit(S_n). As explained above, transit() is the inversion of H().
In practice, a secure hash algorithm is usually used as H(), such as
SHA-256. For these hash algorithms, it is easy to calculate H(), but
it is difficult to calculate the inversion of H(). Therefore, the
actual operation is as follows: after receiving S_(n+1), the
verification end calculates whether H(S_(n+1)) is equal to S_n. If
it is equal, the verification is successful, otherwise it fails.
Hash chain algorithm has high security. It can prevent backstepping
and prediction well. Not only the attacker can't backstep or
predict, but also the verification end cannot do that. The
disadvantage of hash chain algorithm is that before using tags, the
encryption end needs to calculate all tag sequences, and then send
the last of the sequence to the verification end as the initial
state. At the same time, the encryption end needs to save a complete
tag sequence, although it can be deleted after each tag is used up.
The cost of storage of hash chain algorithm can not be ignored
4.2. Tag Update
After the state machine is enabled, the source AD uses the initial
state S_0 to transfer to the state S_1 through the algorithm box, and
generates the tag Tag_1. In the subsequent state transition
interval, the AER of the source AD uses the same tag, Tag_1, to add
to the message sent from this AD to the destination AD. The source
AD does not transfer from the state S_1 to the state S_2 until the
transition interval passes, and starts to use tag Tag_2. In this
cycle, the state sequence S_1 ~ S_N and tag sequence Tag_1 ~ TAG_N
are experienced, in which Tag_1 ~ Tag_N are used as tags in turn and
added to the message by the source AER. Similarly, the destination
AER uses the same state machine to calculate the tag sequence, so as
to verify the tag in the message. If the source AD and the
destination AD can ensure the synchronization of the state machine,
it would guarantee the synchronization of the tags. So the tags can
be verified correctly.
Each state machine has an activation time and an Expiration Time.
After the expiration time comes, the current state machine is
deactivated. If a new state machine is available, the new state
machine will be used and performs the same label verification
process.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
5. Packet Processing at AER
SAVA-X does not require the intermediate router to recognize and
process the SAVA-X option, which we will described at Section 9, as
long as the intermediate router correctly implements the extension
header and option processing method described in IPv6 protocol
[RFC8200]. The intermediate router could correctly forward the
packet regardless of its specific content even if it does not
recognize the SAVA-X option well.
The border router, AER, needs to handle tag correctly. The AER of
the source AD judges whether the IPv6 destination address belongs to
the trust alliance. If no, the packet will be forwarded directly.
If yes, the AER continues to judge the hierarchical relationship
between the the source AD and the member ADs to which the packet's
destination IP address belongs. If the source AD and the destination
AD are under the same sub-trust alliance, the AER would add the tag
between the two ADs, otherwise add the AD_V tag.
Note that the packet will not be processed at other AERs in the sub-
trust alliance.
At the AER of the boundary of sub-trust alliance, the packet is
classified according to the IPv6 destination address. If the
destination address is not within the trust alliance, it will be
forwarded directly. If the destination address belongs to this sub-
trust alliance, it will be classified according to the source IP
address. If the source address also belongs to this sub-trust
alliance, it will be forwarded directly. If the source address does
not belong to this sub-trust alliance, the AER needs to verify the
sub-trust alliance tag and replace it with the AD_V tag in this sub-
trust alliance for following forwarding. If the destination IP
address of packet belongs to other sub-trust alliance, it SHALL be
classified according to the source address. If the source address
belongs to this sub-trust alliance, verify the AD_V tag. If
consistent, replace with sub-trust alliance tag. If the source
address is not in this sub-trust alliance, it will be forwarded
directly. Otherwise, the packet will be discarded.
The AER of the destination AD classifies packet according to the
source address of the packet to be forwarded to determine whether it
originates from a member AD. If yes, enter the label check.
Otherwise it will be forwarded directly. Tag verification process:
if the tag carried by the packet is consistent with the tag used by
the source AD, remove the tag and forward the packet. Otherwise the
packet will be discarded.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
5.1. Port Classification
In order to classify packets correctly to complete tag addition,
inspection and packet forwarding, it is necessary to classify the
ports (interfaces) of AER. Any connected port of AER must belong to
and only belong to the following types of ports:
* Ingress Port: Connect to the port of non-SAVA-X router in this AD.
Generally connected to IGP router in the domain.
* Egress Port: Connect to other AD ports.
* Trust Port: Connect to the port of SAVA-X router in this AD.
5.2. Source Address Validation
In SAVA-X, AER must check the source address of the packet. Only the
packet passing the check will be subject to the Section 5.3 step, and
the packet using the fake source IP address will be discarded. The
source address is checked using the ingress filtering method. AER
only checks the source address according to the following three
rules:
* The packet entering an AER from the Ingress Port SHALL only carry
the source address prefix belonging to this AD.
* The packet entering an AER from the Egress Port SHALL NOT carry
the source address prefix belonging to this AD.
* Packets entering an AER from Trust Port are not checked.
The prefix of IP address owned by one AD SHALL be configured by the
administrator or obtained from the control plane, and deployed to AER
by ACS of this AD.
5.3. Packet Classification
It SHALL be classified after the packet entering an AER passes the
source address validation. There are three types of packets: packets
that SHOULD be taged, packets that SHOULD check tags, and other
messages. The judgment rules of the three packets are as follows:
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
* Packets entering AER from Ingress Port. If the source address
belongs to this AD and the IPv6 destination address belongs to
another AD in the same sub-trust alliance, tag must be added. If
the source IP address belongs to another AD in the same sub-trust
alliance and the IPv6 destination address belongs to another sub-
trust alliances, the tag must be verified and replaced with the
sub-trust alliance tag. Other packets are forwarded directly.
* Packets entering AER from the Egress Port. Tag must be checked if
the source address belongs to another AD in the same sub-trust
alliance and the IPv6 destination address belongs to this AD. If
the source address belongs to other sub-trust alliance and the
IPv6 destination address belongs to another AD in the same sub-
trust alliance, the tag must be checked and replaced. And other
packets can be forwarded directly.
* Packets entering AER from Trust Port. These packets SHOULD be
forwarded directly.
The relationship between IP address and ADs SHALL be obtained from
the control plane and deployed to the AER by the ACS of the AD. When
the SAVA-X option of the packet received from the progress port
carries the active AD number, you can skip the "mapping from address
to AD number" process and directly use the AD number carried in the
message.
5.4. Tag Addition
AER SHOULD add destination option header and add SAVA-X option into
the packet according to the requirements of IETF [RFC8200].
According to [RFC8200], the destination option header SHOULD be
filled so that its length is an integer multiple of 8 bytes,
including the Next Hader and Hdr Ext Len fields of the destination
option header, the Next Header and Payload Length fields of the IPv6
packet header, and the upper protocol header (such as TCP, UDP,
etc.). If it is necessary, AER SHOULD recalculate the Checksum
field.
5.5. Tag Verification
AER will process the first option with Option Type equals to the
binary code of 00111011 in the destination header. We would talk
more about that at Section 9.
1. If the packet does not contain destination option header or
SAVA-X option. the packet SHOULD be discarded.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
2. If the packet contains SAVA-X option but the parameters or tag
are incorrect, the packet SHOULD be discarded.
3. If the packet contains SAVA-X option, and the parameters and tag
are correct, AER must replace the tag or remove the tag when
needed before forwarding the message.
In the following scenarios, the tag needs to be removed. If there
are only SAVA-X option, Pad1 and PadN options in the destination
option header of the message, AER SHOULD remove the whole destination
option header. If there are other options besides SAVA-X option,
Pad1 and PadN option in the destination option header, AER SHOULD
remove SAVA-X option and adjust the alignment of other options
according to the relevant protocols of IPv6. In order to removing
the sava-x option, the destination option header may also be filled,
or some Pad1 and PadN may be removed, to make its length be multiple
of 8 bytes. At the same time, the Next Header field and Payload
Length field deployed in the IPv6 message header, and the Checksum
field of the upper protocol header (such as TCP, UDP, etc.) SHALL be
rewritten as necessary.
5.6. Tag Replacement
Tag needs to be replaced when packet pass through different sub-trust
alliance. Tag replacement needs to be done on the AER of the
boundary address domain of the sub-trust alliance. This feature is
not necessary to realize on the AER of each non-boundary address
domain in the sub-trust alliance.
When packet is arrieved at the AER of the sub-trust alliance
boundary, it is classified according to the destination address.
1. If the destination address does not belong to the trust alliance,
it will be forwarded directly.
2. If the destination address belongs to this sub-trust alliance, it
will be classified according to the source address of the packet.
* If the source address also belongs to this sub-trust alliance,
the packet will be forwarded directly.
* If the source address does not belong to this sub-trust
alliance, AER should verify the sub-trust alliance tag and
replace it with the AD_V tag in this sub-trust alliance for
forwarding.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
3. If the destination address of the packet belongs to other sub-
trust alliance, it shall be classified according to the source
address.
* If the source address belongs to this sub-trust alliance, AER
should verify the AD_V tag and replace the tag with sub-trust
alliance tag when it is consistent.
* If the source address is not in this sub-trust alliance, it
will be forwarded directly.
4. Otherwise, the packet will be discarded.
Alliance tag will be used when the packet crosses the upper AD which
is at the higher level of source AD and destination AD. Alliance tag
is the tag maintained between the source AD corresponding to the AD
in the parent AD and the destination AD corresponding to the address
domain in the parent AD.
6. Packet Signature
It is difficult to accurately synchronize time among the trust
alliance members. So we propose a shared time slice, which means
that there are two tags effecting at the same time in a period of
time. But it may suffer from replay attack. Therefore, a packet
signature mechanism is proposed to prevent replay attack and concel
the original tag.
Tag is time-dependent. The state machine triggers state transition
by time and generates a new tag. In a short period of time, all data
packets are labeled with the same tag. Moreover, due to the subtle
differences in time synchronization, both old and new tags can be
used for this short period of time, so attackers can reuse tags for
replay attack by simply copying tags.
The packet signature mechanism joins 8-bit part of the payload in the
packet and the tags generated by the state machine. And then it
calculates hash value with parameters above to achieve the effect of
packet by packet signature and resist the attackers reuse of tags.
Its processing flow is shown below.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet by Packet Signature |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Lev|Len| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
Packet by Packet Signature: Hash value of original tag, source
address and destination address and first 8-bit of payload,
credible level and credible prefix length.
Lev: 2-bit of credible level.
Len: 7-bit of credible prefix length.
Reserved: 23-bit of reserved field. 0 will be padded.
Firstly, it takes the source address, destination address and the
first 8-bit of the data part of the data packet from the data packet,
joins them in the way of (src-ip, dst-ip, first 8-bit of payload),
and then joins the tag generated by the state machine at this time,
the credible level of the SAVA architecture adopted by this AD and
the length of the credible prefix to hash the concatenated string
with the hash algorithm to get a new message digest. Then it is
reduced to 32-bit packet signature by clipping and folding algorithm.
The AER adds the 32-bit packet signature together with the 2-bit
credible level and the 7-bit credible prefix length to the SAVA-X
option, fills the option into 64-bit, and forwards it. At the AER of
the destination AD, the same splicing and the same hash operation are
performed to verify whether the generated string is consistent with
the signature of the data packet. If they are consistent, they are
forwarded. Otherwise, it is considered that the source address is
forged and the data packet is discarded.
Due to the problem of time synchronization, when both old and new
tags are valid, both old and new tags need to be verified. As long
as one of them passes the verification, the packet should be
forwarded. The original tag generated by the state machine will not
appear in the packet. The attackers does not know the tag generated
by the state machine at this time, so they can not forge the packet
signature in the same way, which ensures the security of the data
communication plane.
7. MTU Consideration
As the AER adds an option to the packet, the length of this packet is
increasing, causing the MTU problem. This problem could taken place
in source AER or the link between source AER and destination AER. If
it occurs on the source AER, the source AER returns the ICMP message
of "packet too big" to the source host and informs the host to reduce
the packet size. Othewise, if it occurs on other links from the
source AER to the destination AER, which means the packet size
exceeds the MTU of other links from the source AER to the destination
AER after adding the tag, the corresponding router will return the
ICMP message of "packet too big" to the source host. However, after
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
the source host adjusts its own MTU, the problem MAY still exists
because the root cause is AER causing packet size exceeding MTU, and
the host does not know it. This problem can be solved by the
following two methods. First, the MTU of the external link is set to
1280 at the source AER as this is the minimum value of MTU under
IPv6. Then the MTU of the source host end will be set to the minimum
value of MTU subtracting the maximum value of SAVA-X option. This
method can solve the problem, but it greatly limits the packet size
and wastes the available MTU. The second is to monitor the ICMP
message of "packet too big" sent to the host in the domain at the
source AER. If such a message is monitored, the expected MTU value
in the message minus the maximum value of SAVA-X option will be
forwarded. This method makes good use of MTU value to a certain
extent, but it causes a large monitoring cost.
8. Security Consideration
This present memo doesnot find any security problem.
9. IANA Considerations
SAVA-X is designed for IPv6 enabled networks. It takes a destination
option, SAVA-X option, header to carry the Tag. We recommend to use
00111011, i.e. 59, for SAVA-X option. Here we give our SAVA-X option
format in use.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Option Type | Opt Data Len |Tag Len|AI Type| Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ TAG ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
~ Additional Information ~
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Option Type: 8-bit field. The destination option type of SAVA-X =
59.
Opt Data Len: 8-bit field. The bytes length of SAVA-X option. Its
value is 2 + LenOfAI + (TagLen + 1), where LenOfAI is 2 when AI
Type is 1, or 4 when AI Type is 2, or 0 default.
Tag Len: 4-bit field. The bytes length of TAG equals to (Tag Len +
1) * 8, e.g. if Tag Len = 7, it means SAVA-X uses 64 bits long
TAG. It guarantees the length of TAG would be an integral
multiple of 8 bits. The maximum length of TAG is 128 bits and the
minimum length of TAG is 32 bits.
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
AI Type: 4-bit field. The type of Additional Information. 0 for no
Additional Information, 1 for 16-bit long Additional Information
and 2 for 32-bit long Additional Information. Others are not
assigned.
Reserverd: These bits are not used now and must be zero.
TAG: Variable-length field The actual tag, its length is determined
by Tag Len field.
Additional Information: As defined in AI Type field.
10. Acknowledgements
Much of the content of this document is the expansion of the IETF
[RFC5210] in inter-domain level. Thanks to the effort of pioneers.
11. Normative References
[RFC1760] Haller, N., "The S/KEY One-Time Password System",
RFC 1760, DOI 10.17487/RFC1760, February 1995,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1760>.
[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>.
[RFC5210] Wu, J., Bi, J., Li, X., Ren, G., Xu, K., and M. Williams,
"A Source Address Validation Architecture (SAVA) Testbed
and Deployment Experience", RFC 5210,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5210, June 2008,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5210>.
[RFC8200] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
(IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.
Authors' Addresses
Ke Xu
Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Qinghuayuan street, Haidian District
Beijing
100084
China
Email: xuke@tsinghua.edu.cn
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft SAVA-X-Data May 2022
Jianping Wu
Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Qinghuayuan street, Haidian District
Beijing
100084
China
Email: jianping@cernet.edu.cn
Xiaoliang Wang
Computer Science, Tsinghua University
Qinghuayuan street, Haidian District
Beijing
100084
China
Email: wangxiaoliang0623@foxmail.com
Yangfei Guo
Institute for Network Sciences and Cyberspace, Tsinghua University
Qinghuayuan street, Haidian District
Beijing
100084
China
Email: guoyangf19@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn
Xu, et al. Expires 21 November 2022 [Page 16]