[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08                                    
Internet Engineering Task Force                         Francis Dupont
INTERNET DRAFT                                       GET/ENST Bretagne
Expires in August 2004                                   February 2003

                 Address Management for IKE version 2


Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
   areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet Drafts can be accessed at

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited.


   The current IKEv2 proposal [1] lacks an address management
   feature. As it is compatible with the NAT traversal capability,
   this document specifies a complete address management with support
   for multi-homing and mobility, and fulfill mobike working group
   [2] goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 (for goal 5 look at [3]).

1. Introduction

   In this document, the addresses used to transport IKE messages are
   named the "peer addresses" (term introduced by [4]). These peer
   addresses should no more be directly or indirectly included in
   identities ([5] and [6]) as it is commonly done for IKEv1.

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 1]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   The current IKEv2 draft [1] often makes the assumption that an
   address identifies a node when nodes behind a NAT can share the
   same address and a node can use many different addresses. This
   must be taken into account in implementations, for instance by
   reading this document before writing code...

   This document describes the goals of an address management for
   IKEv2, including the requirements for multi-homing and mobility
   support, and finishes by a concrete proposal.

   In this document, open questions are introduced by the word NOTE.

2. Goals

   The goals of the address management proposed in the document can be
   divided in some general goals and in requirements for the three
   mechanisms which can change the peer addresses.

2.1 Simplicity, Performance and Security

   The address management should be as simple as possible, i.e., it
   should introduce minimal additions to the current IKEv2 draft [1]
   and each addition should be justified.

   The performance is an important criterion. For instance, rekeying
   can update the peer addresses of an IKE SA or an IPsec SA pair,
   but rekeying is too expensive and a specific solution is needed.

   As a security protocol, IKEv2 should get a high security
   level. Unfortunately we already showed that the NAT traversal
   feature comes with a security issue (the transient pseudo-NAT
   attack [7]). Such problems introduced by the peer address
   flexibility must be described in this document and at least be
   mitigated by options in configurations. For instance, the NAT
   traversal feature should never be enabled when one knows that
   there can not be a NAT as today in IPv6.

   An other example of an insecure mechanism is to use the addresses
   in IP headers of CREATE_CHILD_SA messages as the endpoint
   addresses of the new IPsec SAs without further control on them:
   peer addresses must be managed.

2.2 Terminology

   The addresses of the two peers are named "peer addresses". The
   primary peer address of a peer is initialized to the address used
   to transport messages of the initial exchanges, other addresses
   are "alternate peer addresses".

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 2]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   The proxy case is the setup of transport mode IPsec SAs on the
   behalf of another party, i.e., transport mode IPsec SAs where the
   traffic selectors do not match the primary peer addresses.

2.3 Multi-homing requirements

   In this document, the support of multi-homing is the support of
   nodes with several global addresses. Some of the addresses can be
   "better" than others, or "better" for some destinations. Some can,
   from time to time, be unavailable.

   The main requirement for the support of multi-homing is the
   management of a set of peer addresses for each peer. The set can
   be partially ordered or some subset can be loosely associated with
   some destinations (i.e., some subset of the other peer address

   For the communication between multi-addressed hosts, the support
   of the proxy case can be useful because it provides an easy way to
   setup transport mode IPsec SAs with different addresses from one
   IKE SA. In such cases the other party is in fact the same host,
   this dramatically simplifies the authorization issue.

2.4 Mobility requirements

   In the context of Mobile IPv6 ([8] and for the special case of
   Home Agents [9]), the interaction of Mobility and IPsec was
   analyzed in another document [10]. This document assumes an IPv6
   context as Mobile IPv6 is the most powerful mobility proposal
   available today.

   An IPv6 mobile node is another type of multi-addressed node with:
     - a care-of address in a prefix of the visited link.
      The care-of address is used to route packets.
     - the home address in a prefix of the home link.
      The home address is used to identify the mobile node.

   The care-of address is transient and usually the mobile node can
   not provide a proof that it is the node using it. So it must be
   trusted and a return routability check (i.e., an enforced answer
   from this address) should be used if it is not.

   With a common correspondent, the mobility is transparent and
   there is no reason to use another address than the home address.
   For optimized schemes, without an implementation of header
   compression in ESP tunnel mode (mobile's goal 5 [2]) the choice
   between a transport mode using triangular routing (IPsec can be
   used to verify home address options) and a tunnel mode with
   routing optimization is not clear. But this case does not add
   new requirement, i.e., the home agent case includes them.

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 3]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   With the home agent, there are three main cases (c.f. [9]):

     - The mobility signaling which is mandatory protected and
      raises a specific issue in its initial phase: the IKE SA
      must be setup using the care-of address as the peer address
      but this IKE SA is used to build an IPsec SA pair with
      the home address as traffic selector. This IPsec SA will
      protect the home registration which will make the home
      address available. This can be considered as a specialized
      proxy case.

     - Other genuine communications between the home agent and
      the mobile node can be covered by the proxy case support
      too. Note this is the only case at the exception of signaling
      where mobility behaves in a different way than a mobile IPsec
      VPN (so we proposed to relax the corresponding rule in a
      future version of [8] and [9]).

     - The traffic relayed by the home agent through a tunnel with the
      mobile node can be partially or fully protected by IPsec SA
      pair(s). Encapsulation should be performed only once, including
      for degenerated (but not for free) encapsulation like the home
      address option or the mobility routing header.

   In all cases of interaction with the home agent, the mobile node
   peer address should be a care-of address. When the mobile node
   moves, another care-of address is used and some SAs, including the
   IKE SA, must be updated to use the new address.

   Usually the previous peer address is no more usable. In order to
   avoid a trivial denial of services, a strong sequencing of updates
   is required with a way to cancel possible pending updates when
   fast multiple handoff happen.

   The IPsec pair which protects the mobility signaling uses the home
   address as its traffic selector for the mobile node. It must not
   be updated at each handoff. The update mechanism must provide a
   fine grain (i.e., per SA) update.

3. Proposal

   The proposal for an address management in IKEv2 is spawn from the
   NAT traversal mechanisms, mainly with a new peer address update
   payload. But there are some points that have to be kept as they
   are in the current IKEv2 draft [1].

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 4]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

3.1 Kept points from draft 06

   The peer addresses are used to transport messages. The reply to
   a request MUST be sent to the source of the request from the
   destination request, i.e., addresses and ports are reversed
   between the request and its reply. There is no exception to this

   For tunnel mode IPsec SAs, the endpoint addresses are the primary
   peer addresses. We don't propose an alternate way to specify them.
   The same requirement applies to transport mode IPsec SAs at the
   exception of the proxy case.

3.2 Small points

   In retransmission of requests or responses, copies of messages do
   not include peer addresses. So a peer MAY retransmit an IKE message
   from or to a different address.

   The primary peer addresses are IKE SA parameters and are specified
   by the IKE_SA_INIT exchange. Note that when NAT traversal is not
   active, they are implicitly protected by the NAT_DETECTION

   All the text below applies only to the case where NAT traversal
   is not active.

   In the proxy case, the initiator is acting as a client negotiator
   on the behalf of another party. The address of this other party is
   sent in the initiator traffic selector and will become the address
   of this end of the transport mode IPsec SA pair. A proper
   authorization in the local policy of the responder is
   REQUIRED, the defaults SHOULD be:
     - using an alternate peer address set is permitted
     - other cases are denied.

3.3 Peer address notifications

   The peer address notifications are copied from the current
   notifications. They includes the peer source or destination
   address with its family and an operation code. They MUST be
   in an encrypted payload. Operations are PRIMARY, ADD and
   DELETE (last two for alternate addresses).

   All messages after the first exchange involving an alternate peer
   address MUST include at least one peer address notification for
   each peer, i.e., at least one for the source and at least one for
   the destination.

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 5]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   Such messages belong to IKE_AUTH or CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges,
   or carry the peer address update payload defined below.

   They provide a cryptographically proof of no alteration en-route
   of the peer addresses and operations on the sets of peer addresses,
   i.e., change of the primary peer address of a peer, addition to
   and deletion from the peer address set of a peer.

   When the peer address notifications are not supported, the
   capability to use an alternate peer address, and only this,
   is lost.

3.4 Explicit peer address update payload

   A new payload has to be defined for an explicit peer address
   update mechanism. We propose to copy it from the delete payload,
   see Annex B.

   The new peer address update payload has strong sequencing
   requirements. IKEv2 messages have a protected sequence number so
   the only sequencing issues are the window of processing and
   pending exchanges. Any messages with a peer address update payload
   MUST be processed in order.

   When the receiver of an update request has to check the validity
   of the new primary peer address, it MAY use a return routability
   check sending an informational request at the new address and
   waiting for an answer. As informational exchanges are protected
   no more is needed.

   Example of a return routability check:

     I --- address update request --> R
     I <-- informational RR request - R
     I --- informational RR reply --> R
      now the responder knows the initiator should be where it
      claimed to be.
     I <--- address update reply ---- R

   As for the delete payload, the peer address update payload
   specifies the SPIs of the IPsec and IKE SAs it applies to. But
   a simple way to specify all SAs (i.e., the IKE SA and all the
   tunnel mode IPsec SAs it negotiated) is needed so is provided.

4. Security Considerations

   Great care was used to avoid to introduce security threats.

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 6]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   The NAT traversal feature comes with a security flaw (the transient
   pseudo-NAT attack [7]) which can not be easily avoid. IMHO the NAT
   traversal feature should be enabled only when the presence of NATs
   is likely/possible.

   When the NAT traversal feature is disabled, the address of the
   other peer can not be changed en-route by an attacker but the
   proofs the peer is really at its address are:
    - the trust in the peer
    - the proof that the peer can receive messages sent to its address
   The second (a.k.a. the return routability check) works only with at
   least three messages, i.e., for the initial exchange (with the
   address stability requirement) and for the explicit optional
   checks. IMHO these checks SHOULD be required by default.

5. Acknowledgments

   The rare people in the Mobility world with IPsec interests, or in
   the IPsec world with Mobility interest, should receive all thanks
   because without them we (me and all the future co-authors) have
   given up for a long time.

   Tero Kivinen helped to improve the NAT traversal part of this
   proposal. Tero and Jari Arkko proposed another form of peer
   address update based on the IKE SA addresses.

7. Normative References


8. Informative References

   [1] C. Kaufman, ed., "Proposal for the IKEv2 Protocol",
   draft-ietf-ipsec-ikev2-12.txt, January 2004.

   [2] IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming (mobike), "charter",

   [3] J. Vilhuber, "IP header compression in IPsec ESP",
   draft-vilhuber-hcoesp-00.txt, January 2003.

   [4] B. Korver, E. Rescorla, "The Internet IP Security PKI
   Profile of ISAKMP and PKIX",
   draft-ietf-ipsec-pki-profile-03.txt, July 2003.

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 7]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   [5] P. Hoffman, "Adding revised identities to IKEv2",
   Message-Id: <p05200f06b9edf48ac57b@[]>,
   November 2002.

   [6] M. Kaat, "Overview of 1999 IAB Network Layer Workshop",
   RFC 2956, October 2000.

   [7] F. Dupont, J.-J. Bernard, "Transient pseudo-NAT attacks
   or how NATs are even more evil than you believed",
   draft-dupont-transient-pseudonat-03.txt, February 2004.

   [8] D. Johnson, C. Perkins, J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in IPv6",
   draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt, June 2003.

   [9] J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli, F. Dupont, "Using IPsec to Protect
   Mobile IPv6 Signaling between Mobile Nodes and Home Agents",
   draft-ietf-mobileip-mipv6-ha-ipsec-06.txt, June 2003.

   [10] F. Dupont, W. Haddad, "How to make IPsec more mobile IPv6
   friendly", draft-dupont-ipsec-mipv6-05.txt, February 2004.

   [11] D. McDonald, C. Metz, B. Phan, "PF_KEY Key Management API,
   Version 2", RFC 2367, July 1998.

9. Author's Address

   Francis Dupont
   ENST Bretagne
   Campus de Rennes
   2, rue de la Chataigneraie
   CS 17607
   35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
   Fax: +33 2 99 12 70 30
   EMail: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

Annex A. Peer Address Notification Format.

   The following diagram illustrates the content of the Peer Address

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 8]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

                         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
    ! Next Payload  !C!  RESERVED   !         Payload Length        !
    !  Protocol-ID  !   SPI Size    !      Notify Message Type      !
    !        Address Family         !          Operation            !
    ~                            Address                            ~

   The notification header is for IKE SA (Protocol-ID 0, SPI Size 0
   and no SPI. The Address Family is from IANA Address Family Numbers
   (IPv4 is 1 and IPv6 2). The proposed names are PEER-ADDRESS-SOURCE
   and PEER-ADDRESS-DESTINATION, with 248XX. Operation codes are:
    - PRIMARY (1): the address is the primary peer address. The
      peer address update payload MUST be used to change it.
    - ADD (2): add a new alternate peer address to the set.
    - DELETE (3): delete an alternate peer address from the set.

Annex B. Peer Address Update Payload Format.

   The next figure 17 shows the format of the Peer Address Update
   Payload. It is possible to send multiple SPIs in a Peer Address
   Update payload, however, each SPI MUST be for the same
   protocol. Mixing of Protocol Identifiers MUST NOT be performed in a
   the Peer Address Update payload. It is permitted, however, to
   include multiple Peer Address Update payloads in a single
   INFORMATIONAL Exchange where each Peer Address Update payload lists
   SPIs for a different protocol.

   Update of the IKE_SA is indicated by a Protocol_Id of 0 (IKE) but
   no SPIs. Update of a CHILD_SA, such as ESP or AH, will contain the
   Protocol_Id of that protocol (1 for ESP, 2 for AH) and the SPI is the
   SPI the sending endpoint would expect in inbound ESP or AH packets.

   The following diagram illustrates the content of the Peer Address
   Update Notification:

                         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
    ! Next Payload  !C!  RESERVED   !         Payload Length        !
    !A| Protocol-ID !   SPI Size    !          # of SPIs            !
    !                                                               !
    ~               Security Parameter Index(es) (SPI)              ~
    !                                                               !

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                            [Page 9]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   o  All (1 bit) - MUST be set to one when all SAs (the IKE SA and
      all tunnel mode outgoing IPsec SAs negotiated by it) are
      updated. In this case the update is for the IKE-SA (Protocol-ID
      0, SPI size 0, no SPI and number of SPIs 0). MUST be set to zero
      when an individual SA is updated.

   o  Protocol_Id (7 bits) - Must be zero for an IKE_SA, 1 for
      ESP, or 2 for AH.

   o  SPI Size (1 octet) - Length in octets of the SPI as defined by
      the Protocol-Id.  Zero for IKE (SPI is in message header)
      or four for AH and ESP.

   o  # of SPIs (2 octets) - The number of SPIs contained in the Peer
      Address Update Notification.  The size of each SPI is defined by
      the SPI Size field.

   o  Security Parameter Index(es) (variable length) - Identifies the
      specific security association(s) to delete. The lengths of these
      fields are determined by the SPI Size and # of SPIs fields.

   ESP and AH SAs always exist in pairs, with one SA in each direction.
   When an SA is updated for a peer address, both members of the pair
   MUST be updated. When SAs are nested, as when data (and IP headers
   if in tunnel mode) are encapsulated first with IPcomp, then with
   ESP, and finally with AH between the same pair of endpoints, all of
   the SAs MUST be updated together. Each endpoint MUST update the SAs
   it receives on and allow the other endpoint to update the other SA
   in each pair.

   To update a peer address of an SA, an Informational Exchange with
   one or more peer address update payloads is sent listing the SPIs
   (as they would be placed in the headers of inbound packets) of the
   SAs to be updated, and with a peer address notification setting
   the primary peer address. The recipient MUST update the designated
   SAs.  Normally, the reply in the Informational Exchange will
   contain peer address update payloads for the paired SAs going in
   the other direction. Note there is no special case for update

   The proposed name is the Update (U) payload.

Annex C. PF_KEY version 2 SADB_X_ADDUPD

   This annex describes an extension to PF_KEYv2 [11] which provides
   a way to ask a peer address update of an IPsec SA and all its
   siblings (i.e., an update with the All flag set to one).

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                           [Page 10]

INTERNET-DRAFT        Address Management for IKEv2            Feb 2004

   The format of the message is:
       <base, SA(*), address(SD), new_address(SD)>
   and is sent the registered socket listeners by or via the kernel.
   No answer is needed because if it fails it will be done again.

   New values are needed for SADB_X_ADDUPD and for
   which should have the same layout than SADB_EXT_ADDRESS_*,
   i.e., sadb_address structure.

   NOTE: IKE itself needs a PF_KEYv2 extension for individual
   updating of an IPsec SA.

draft-dupont-ikev2-addrmgmt-04.txt                           [Page 11]