Network Working Group                                          A. Farrel
Internet-Draft                                          Juniper Networks
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: July 21, 2014                                        S. Farrell
                                                 Trinity College, Dublin
                                                        January 21, 2014


             Opportunistic Encryption in MPLS Networks

          draft-farrelll-mpls-opportunistic-encrypt-01.txt

Abstract

   This document describes a way to apply opportunistic encryption
   between adjacent nodes on an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) or
   between end points of an LSP.  It explains how keys may be exchanged
   to enable the encryption, and indicates how key identifiers are
   exchanged in encrypted MPLS packets.  Finally, this document
   describes the applicability of opportunistic encryption in MPLS
   networks with an indication of the level of improved security as well
   as the continued vulnerabilities.

   This document does not describe security for MPLS control plane
   protocols.

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."

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents


Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


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

Notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Table of Contents

   1. Introduction ................................................... 3
   2. Principles of Opportunistic Encryption ......................... 4
   2.1  Why Do We Need Opportunistic Encryption? ..................... 4
   2.2  Opportunistic Encryption at 10,000ft ......................... 5
   2.3  What about a Man-in-the-Middle? .............................. 6
   2.4 OE in MPLS Overview ........................................... 8
   3. MPLS Packet Encryption ......................................... 9
   3.1. Opportunistic Encryption Label Indicator .................... 12
   3.2. Opportunistic Encryption Label .............................. 12
   3.3. Control Word ................................................ 13
   3.4. Considerations for ECMP ..................................... 14
   3.5. Backward Compatibility ...................................... 14
   3.6. MTU Considerations .......................................... 15
   3.7. Recursive OE ................................................ 15
   4. Key Exchange For Opportunistic Encryption in MPLS ............. 16
   4.1. Associated Channel for Key Exchange ......................... 16
   4.2. Key Exchange Protocol ....................................... 17
   4.3. Protecting the Key Exchange Protocol Messages ............... 19
   5. Applicability of MPLS Opportunistic Encryption ................ 19
   6. Security Considerations ....................................... 21
   6.1. Security Improvements ....................................... 21
   6.2. Continued Vulnerabilities ................................... 21
   6.3. New Security Considerations ................................. 21
   7. Manageability Considerations .................................. 22
   7.1. MITM Detection .............................................. 22
   8.  IANA Considerations .......................................... 22
   8.1. Opportunistic Encryption Label Indicator .................... 22
   8.2. Pseudowire Associated Channel Types ......................... 23
   8.3. Key Derivation Functions and Symmetric Algorithms ........... 23
   9.  Acknowledgements ............................................. 23
   10.  References .................................................. 24
   10.1.  Normative References ...................................... 24
   10.2.  Informative References .................................... 24
   Authors' Addresses ............................................... 25


Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


1. Introduction

   MPLS is an established data plane protocol in the Internet.  It is
   found in the majority of core service provider networks and most end-
   to-end traffic in the Internet will be carried over MPLS at some
   point in its path.  The MPLS data plane is defined by [RFC3031] and
   [RFC3032].

   Data security (i.e., confidentiality) in MPLS has previously relied
   on just two features:

   - Physical isolation of MPLS networks has been used to ensure that
     interception of MPLS traffic was not possible.

   - Higher-layer protocol security (such as IPsec [RFC4302], [RFC4303])
     has been used whenever a particular flow has determined that
     security was desirable.

   These features have a number of significant vulnerabilities:

   - Networks are increasingly easily compromised physically such that
     "taps" may be inserted in links between routers.

   - Routers may be compromised either in their entirety or through
     the management/control plane (or misconfiguration).  This may
     result in packets being diverted to transit inspection points on
     their way to their destination.

   - The increased support for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS means
     that routers can easily be configured (or misconfigured) to make a
     copy of data and to send it to an additional destination.

   - End-to-end payload security may be hard to manage and operate and
     is not turned on by default by many users.  While this form of
     security is desirable, the network should also improve the security
     of data transfer that it offers.

   This document describes a mechanism for opportunistic encryption of
   the MPLS data plane.  It shows what part of an MPLS packet may be
   encrypted and provides a way to indicate that the packet is encrypted
   as well as to carry a key identifier with each packet.

   MPLS opportunistic encryption can be achieved between adjacent Label
   Switching Routers (LSRs) on an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP), and
   also between end points of an LSP.

   This document also provides a mechanism for keys to be exchanged to
   facilitate encryption.  Finally, this document describes the


Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   applicability of opportunistic encryption in MPLS networks with an
   indication of the level of improved security as well as the continued
   vulnerabilities.

   This document does not describe security for MPLS control plane
   protocols.

   Please note that a discussion of the applicability of MPLS
   Opportunistic Encryption is provided in Section 5.

2. Principles of Opportunistic Encryption

   [[Editor note - the introductory material in Sections 2.1 to 2.3
   here will likely be mostly or fully replaced with a reference to
   a more generic OE draft that is in the process of being written.
   That may lead to some terminology changes, but shouldn't impact
   on functionality.]]

2.1  Why Do We Need Opportunistic Encryption?

   To introduce this discussion we start from a basic view of how
   encryption is used in IETF protocols.

   Say we have two protocol entities, Alice and Bob, and they would like
   some message "M" sent from Alice to Bob to have confidentiality.
   Then Alice needs to send M encrypted with algorithm "E" under some
   some symmetric (e.g., AES) key, "k".  Thus Alice wants to send Bob
   "E(k,M)", but since she and Bob don't yet have such a shared secret
   they need to agree on the key, "k".

   In many IETF protocols, such as TLS (as commonly used) or S/MIME
   (CMS) or PGP, Alice simply invents a random key "k" and then encrypts
   that under Bob's public key "Pub-b" and sends Bob E(Pub-b,k) and
   E(k,M) together.  (There are lots of other details and other options
   for how this can be handled, but we ignore those for now.)  In such
   cases, before Alice can send "E(k,M)", she needs to first get Bob's
   public key and she needs to be certain that it really is Bob's public
   key and not Charlie's.  That knowledge requires some long-term key
   management, which is often done using a Public Key Infrastructure
   (PKI) so that Alice actually stores the public key (Pub-ca) of a
   Certification Authority (CA), and Bob gets his public key (Pub-b)
   "certified" by the CA, which means the CA creates a digitally signed
   data structure "Cert(Pub-ca,Pub-b)".  The crucial thing is that
   Alice, Bob, and a CA need to co-ordinate before Alice and Bob can
   agree on a key "k", and that process imposes a key-management burden.

   Doing such key management is clearly quite possible, since TLS and
   IPsec and other well-deployed technologies depend on it.  But, in


Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   the case of HTTP/TLS on the public web, we see that only roughly 30%
   of web sites actually take on this burden, even though the software
   required is ubiquitous and, at least for 2nd level DNS domains in
   .com for example, there are CAs who offer free domain-validated
   certificates.  While, some of the 70% who don't set up certificates
   might not actually want confidentiality, there are certainly some who
   would and arguably many that would benefit from confidentiality, if
   it just happened out of the box, without an administrator having to
   do anything.  And there are also arguably many other protocols where
   the same is true.

   Opportunistic encryption (OE) offers a mechanisms to achieve
   encryption between Alice and Bob without resorting to key-management
   through CAs and without relying on manual configuration of keys.

2.2  Opportunistic Encryption at 10,000ft

   Instead of the "key transport" mechanisms described in Section 2.1,
   opportunistic encryption uses "key agreement".  With key agreement,
   both Alice and Bob contribute to calculating "k" (instead of the
   the mechanism where Alice invents "k" and safely transports it to
   Bob encrypted with Bob's public key as "E(Pub-b,k)").

   Assume that Alice and Bob are using some protocol where they can
   exchange a few messages in order to agree on the key "k" to use.
   With a Diffie-Hellman key agreement ("D-H") both Alice and Bob have
   public and private values, where the private value can be randomly
   generated, perhaps even once per message "M".  They swap the public
   values, and can then, thanks to the "magic" of Diffie-Hellman, derive
   a key "k" that nobody else can know.

   In this way Alice sends Bob "Pub-a" and Bob sends Alice "Pub-b" and
   at that point both of them can safely calculate a shared secret "k"
   from those values.  And after that Alice can send Bob "E(k,M)".

   From here on, we change the terminology slightly and refer to
   Alice as the initiator, with private key "i" and Bob as the
   recipient, with private key "r" so that our notation is closer
   to that used in IPsec's IKE, on which we model our use of OE.

   The "magic" of D-H works as follows.  Let "p" be well-known large
   prime number that we use for all modular arithmetic (meaning that
   "a^b" is actually "(a^b) mod p"), and let "g" be another well-known
   value (called a generator for the group determined by "p").  Also let
   Alice and Bob's private values be "i" and "r" respectively.
   Now, if Alice sends Bob "g^i" as her public value, and Bob
   similarly sends Alice "g^r" then both of them can easily
   calculate "g^(i*r)" or "g^ir" but nobody else can, since calculating


Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   "x" when only given "g^x" is a computationally hard
   problem for any "x".  Once both Alice and Bob have the value "g^ir"
   in hand, they can easily derive a value "k" from that using any of a
   number of well-known key derivation functions (KDF).

   As you can see from the above, Alice and Bob do not need to pre-
   arrange anything other than "g" and "p", and those can be public
   values, that are used by everyone everywhere (or at least by all
   participants in a particular deployment).  Yet, Alice and Bob have
   managed to derive a common value for a key "k" that they can use to
   encrypt (and decrypt) "M".

   This kind of opportunistic encryption provides strong
   confidentiality and can be built into any protocol that allows Alice
   and Bob to occasionally exchange public values.

   There are also additional advantages to key agreement when
   compared to key transport. The most important of those is
   that with key agreement we can easily ensure that k has a
   property called Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS). That means
   that an attacker has to separately attack each key k. In
   contrast, if we use the key transport approach, then an
   attacker who somehow accesses Bob's private key "Priv-b"
   can record lots of traffic and later go back and decrypt all
   the "E(Pub-b,k)" values that all Alice's ever sent to Bob.
   With key agreement as described, since both Alice and Bob
   contribute to the value k, and since Alice and Bob will
   typically periodically generate new private values i and r
   (perhaps even for every single M), compromise of one party
   is far less catastrophic, and an attacker who gets access to
   one private value gets far less benefit.

2.3  What about a Man-in-the-Middle?

   But OE is not resilient to Man-in-the-Middle (MITM) attacks.  The
   problem is that Alice does not know that it was really Bob's public
   value that she received; it could have been Charlie's public value
   sent by Charlie.  And Charlie could also send Bob his public value
   pretending to be Alice.  Now Charlie can share a key with Alice and
   a key with Bob so that Charlie can sit between Alice and Bob
   decrypting what he gets from Alice and then re-encrypting it to send
   to Bob.  Neither Alice nor Bob can tell that Charlie is present as a
   "Man-in-the-Middle" and both Alice and Bob think they are safely
   exchanging encrypted messages.

   A MITM attack like that is bad and making a protocol proof against
   such attacks comes at the cost of the key-management burden described
   in Section 2.1.  Most IETF protocols to date require that such MITM


Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   attacks not be feasible.

   However, despite its vulnerability to MITM attacks, OE still has
   value in some circumstances.  This value arises because of the
   difficulty of inserting a MITM actor, and the cost of processing for
   the MITM in the case of a very large number of OE relationships.  In
   particular, where the choice is between no encryption (as has been
   the case for MPLS to date) and OE, it is clear that using OE offers
   better (although not the best) security.

   Consider the case where an attacker taps a link on the path between
   Alice and Bob.  In this case, the attacker can capture every packet
   between the two parties, and if there is no encryption, can read
   every message.  Furthermore, consider that the attacker could tap a
   fiber in the core of the network and so capture every packet between
   a large number of Alices and their corresponding Bobs.  In these
   cases, Charlie can operate as a "passive MITM" since all he has to do
   is watch the packets.

   With OE in use, Charlie is forced to be an "active MITM".  That is he
   must engage in the D-H exchange between each pair of Alices and Bobs,
   and he must must decrypt and encrypt each packet he wants to inspect.
   This imposes a higher cost and is especially burdensome if he is
   attempting to do it in parallel for lots of Alice/Bob pairs using
   lots of different keys and communication sessions.

   Furthermore, when D-H is in use for OE, management tools can be used
   to detect the presence of Charlie as a MITM.  This is because
   Charlie has to agree one key "kA" with Alice, and a different key
   "kB" with Bob.  As far as we know, Charlie cannot arrange that kA
   equals kB because both sides contribute to the key value in the D-H
   key agreement.  That means that if Alice and Bob can check with each
   other what value of "k" they are using and the values do not match,
   then they know that Charlie is present.  What is more, Alice and Bob
   can make this check on the value of "k" for any of the "E(k,M)" they
   ever exchanged.

   Thus, in the case of a fiber tap where many Alice/Bob pairs are
   being monitored, it only takes one Alice and Bob to detect the MITM
   attack for all Alice/Bob pairs to be alerted to the problem.  In
   such cases the cost of detection for Charlie may be even greater than
   the cost of performing the MITM attack.

   Hence we conclude that OE can have considerable value when used in
   MPLS networks.





Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


2.4 OE in MPLS Overview

   [[Editor Note - the details here are suitable for an early revision
     draft.
     We might change to ECDH later, or to use another KDF, or symmetric
     cipher mode. All that is for discussion.]]

   The basic requirement for MPLS OE is that we want to provide a way
   for two MPLS nodes to do an OE key exchange and to derive a session
   key from that to use in MPLS packet encryption.

   To do that we use a Diffie-Hellman key exchange as outlined in
   Section 2.2.  We model this on IKE [RFC5996] using essentially the
   same parameters.  We feed the shared Diffie-Hellman value, which is
   g^ir, into a standard key derivation function (KDF)
   that also takes as input the LSP identifier (LSP ID) together with
   the sending and receiving LSR IDs - where the the sending LSR is the
   point of encryption and the receiving LSR is the point of decryption
   such that the pair of LSRs define the Security Association (SA).
   These additional inputs are used to ensure that we end up with
   different keys on an LSP even if the same g^i and g^r values
   are re-used.  The KDF to be used here is as defined in [RFC5869].

   D-H values used for MPLS OE MUST be of at least 2048-bits.
   Implementations of MPLS OE MUST support the 2048-bit modular
   exponentiation (MODP) group from Section 3 of [RFC3526] and SHOULD
   support the larger MODP groups from [RFC3526].

   This document also defines the mechanism used to derive an identifier
   for a key (the key-id) from the shared Diffie-Hellman value, which
   is also based on the KDF output.  The key will be used with a
   symmetric encryption algorithm, such as AEAD_AES_GCM_128 (the
   default, following [RFC5116]).

   As with any symmetric block cipher, one should not use the same key
   for too long.  The nonce defined for MPLS OE keys is derived using
   a 96 bit counter incremented by one for each encrypted packet.
   It is critical for security that nonce values MUST NOT be re-used
   with a given key. (This is an inherent issue with how AES-GCM or any
   counter mode achieves high performance.)

   Accordingly, implementations are RECOMMENDED to change keys at least
   every 2^32 packets, and MUST change keys before encrypting 2^64
   packets. For an LSP running over a fully-busy 100Gbe interface,
   we might assume that means roughly 160 million packets per second,
   or roughly 2^44 packets per day. The 2^64 limit therefore means
   changing keys daily in the busiest cases of some of the largest
   current links capacities.


Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   To support key change, this document defines a way for two LSRs using
   a key on an LSP to agree a new key and to switch over to using that
   key when desired.  That means that implementations MUST be able to
   handle at least two keys (old and new) for a given LSP.  Once a new
   key has been agreed then it should be used for sending packets; once
   encrypted data packets protected with the new key have been
   successfully received, the old key should be discarded.  Section 4
   describes how two LSRs agree keys, and to agree a new key, two LSRs
   simply run the same key agreement exchange, but this time protected
   with the old session key as described in Section 4.3.  This process
   can, of course, be repeated any number of times for the same LSP.  It
   is RECOMMENDED that the key on an LSP be changed at least once every
   day or every 10^6 packets whichever is sooner.
   [[Editor Note: These values need considered in the light of latest
     cryptology advice, but also understanding that this is "best-
     effort" OE]]

   In the event of a key agreement exchange or decryption failure, an
   alarm MUST be raised to the operator.  Default (i.e., node-wide) and
   per-LSP behavior SHOULD be configurable in this case: actions may
   include reverting to non-encrypted traffic, re-attempting key
   exchange, or tearing down the LSP.  Note that a simple attack on OE
   is to tamper with key agreement exchange messages or encrypted
   packets so that OE fails.  Such attacks may be intended to cause the
   LSP to operate without encryption, so an operator should consider
   this when setting the behavior in this case.

   Section 7.1 also discusses a mechanism that allows a pair of LSRs
   using OE on an LSP to detect that a MITM attack has happened.  For
   this, we simply define a function of the shared secret, which can be
   logged and later compared.  Note that logging a sample of these
   "witness" values will likely be sufficient to detect pervasive MITM
   attacks.  As with the key-id, we base this on the same KDF output.

   An additional discussion of the applicability of MPLS OE is found in
   Section 5.

3. MPLS Packet Encryption

   MPLS packets may be individually encrypted according to the
   mechanisms described in this section.

   When an MPLS packet is encrypted, this is indicated by the insertion
   of a new special purpose label [ID.ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels]
   in the label stack.  This is referred to as the Opportunistic
   Encryption Label Indicator (OELI).  The format of the OELI is
   described in Section 3.1.



Farrel and Farrell                                              [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   The OELI is followed immediately by a further label stack entry that
   contains an identifier of the key and algorithm that is in use.  This
   label stack entry is referred to as the Opportunistic Encryption
   Label (OEL).  The format of the OEL is described in Section 3.2.

   The OEL MUST have the bottom of stack bit (the S bit) set and MUST be
   followed by a pseudowire control word [RFC4385].  The format of the
   control word is described in Section 3.3.

   The remainder of the MPLS packet is encrypted and cannot be parsed
   without decryption.  Implementations MUST support the
   AEAD_AES_GCM_128 encryption algorithm, as specified in Section 5.1
   of [RFC5116], which is the default as described in Section 4.2 of
   this document.

   Note that it is critical that a new nonce is used for every
   encryption.  The nonce is an implicit packet counter.  The
   initial nonce value is derived from the HKDF output at key
   agreement time and the counter is incremented by one for
   each packet encrypted on the sending side and by one
   for each packet successfully decrypted on the receiver side.

   Although the nonce is not transmitted with the packets, a 3-bit
   counter indicates the nonce value modulo 8.  This feature allows a
   receiving node to quickly spot that a packet has been dropped and
   resynch its own counter in order to be able to continue to decrypt
   received packets.  In the event that more than 7 packets are lost in
   one batch the receiver will encounter a decryption error.  In this
   case the receiver may report a general decryption error or may
   attempt to resynchronize by advancing its own counter in units of 8
   according to the modulo value in the received packet. Note that
   incrementing the counter in order to test for decryption failure
   does generate a potential DoS if e.g. an attacker decrements the
   nonce-mod-8 value. Implementations that do such tests SHOULD
   maintain a small maximum window size beyond which they will cease
   attempting to decrypt. It could be that throwing an error might
   be the more effective response if the packet loss rates are
   expected to be low enough.

   It should also be noted that the output from encryption will be 16
   octets longer than the input.

   The bottom of stack bit is set in the OEL to stop implementations
   continuing to search down the label stack (which is encrypted) and
   attempting to use the data as though it was a valid label stack.  The
   control word is needed because many implementations that find the
   bottom of stack expect the next bytes to be a control word or
   protocol indicator.


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   The position of the OELI, OEL, and control word depend on whether
   hop-by-hop or end-to-end encryption is being applied.

   Figure 1 illustrates the format of an example MPLS packet before and
   after hop-by-hop opportunistic encryption.  The left hand part of the
   figure shows a normal MPLS packet with a label stack and payload.
   The bottom label in the stack has the S bit set.  The payload is the
   data carried by the MPLS packet (such as IP) and may be prefixed by a
   control word.

   The right hand part of Figure 1 shows the same packet after it has
   been encrypted.  The top of stack is the OELI followed by the OEL
   with the S bit set.  The OEL is followed by a control word.
   Everything that follows the control word is the entire original MPLS
   packet encrypted.

                    ----------- .      -----------
                   | Top Label | .    |   OELI    |
                   +-----------+  .   +-----------+
                   |   Label   |   .  | OEL   S=1 |
                   +-----------+    . +-----------+
                   | Label S=1 |     .| Ctrl Word |
                   +-----------+      +-----------+
                   |           |      |           |
                   ~  Payload  ~      ~ Encrypted ~
                   |           |      |           |
                    -----------........-----------

   Figure 1 : The Use of the OEL for Hop-by-Hop Opportunistic Encryption


   Figure 2 illustrates the format of an example MPLS packet before and
   after end-to-end opportunistic encryption.  The left hand part of the
   figure shows a normal MPLS packet with a label stack and payload.
   The bottom label in the stack has the S bit set and the payload may
   be prefixed by a control word.  The right hand part of the figure
   shows how the top two labels (or however many labels are needed for
   end-to-end delivery) remain at the top of the label stack.  Then
   follows the OELI and OEL with S bit set, and a control word.  The
   remainder of the packet is encrypted and contains the rest of the
   label stack and the payload.









Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


                    -----------        -----------
                   | Top Label |      | Top Label |
                   +-----------+      +-----------+
                   |   Label   |      |   Label   |
                   +-----------+.     +-----------+
                   |   Label   | .    |   OELI    |
                   +-----------+  .   +-----------+
                   |   Label   |   .  | OEL   S=1 |
                   +-----------+    . +-----------+
                   | Label S=1 |     .| Ctrl Word |
                   +-----------+      +-----------+
                   |           |      |           |
                   ~  Payload  ~      ~ Encrypted ~
                   |           |      |           |
                    -----------........-----------

   Figure 2 : The Use of the OEL for End-to-End Opportunistic Encryption

3.1. Opportunistic Encryption Label Indicator

   The Opportunistic Encryption Label Indicator (OELI) is a normal label
   stack entry carrying a special purpose label with value TBD1 to be
   assigned by IANA.  The format of the label stack entry is defined in
   [RFC3032] and shown in Figure 3.


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Label                  | TC  |S|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 3 : Format of the OELI Label Stack Entry

   Label: Set to TBD1 to indicate this is an OELI
   TC:    SHOULD be copied from the TC of the first encrypted label.
   S:     MUST be set to zero.
   TTL:   SHOULD be set to the TTL of the first encrypted label.

3.2. Opportunistic Encryption Label

   The Opportunistic Encryption Label (OEL) is carried in a normal label
   stack entry immediately following an OELI.  The format of the label
   stack entry is defined in [RFC3032] and shown in Figure 4.






Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


    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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Label                  | TC  |S|       TTL     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 4 : Format of the OEL Label Stack Entry

   Label: Any value from 16 to 1048575 used as a look-up into a table of
          encryption algorithms and keys that has been established
          through configuration or dynamic key exchange as described in
          Section 4.
          This label MUST NOT be used for forwarding, and MUST NOT come
          from the range 0 through 15.
   TC:    This field contains the packet counter (nonce) for the
          encryption algorithm and key currently in use modulo 8.  It
          can be used by a receiver to quickly check that the value of
          the nonce being used for decryption is likely to be correct.
   S:     MUST be set to one.
   TTL:   SHOULD be set to zero to prevent encrypted packets being
          accidentally forwarded beyond the point of intended
          decryption.

3.3. Control Word

   The control word is inserted after the OEL as described in Section 3.
   The S bit set to one in the OEL and the presence of the control word
   helps protect against transit nodes that may perform hashing or
   inspection of the label stack and payload packet headers when
   forwarding MPLS packets (for example, to enable ECMP).  The control
   word indicates that the payload is not a protocol that can be
   meaningfully hashed or inspected.

   The format of the control word is defined in [RFC4385] and shown in
   Figure 5.


   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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |0 0 0 1|Version|   Reserved    |         Channel Type          |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

     Figure 5: Control Word for Opportunistically Encrypted MPLS

   Version:      MUST be zero.
   Reserved:     MUST be sent as 0, and ignored on receipt.
   Channel Type: Set to TBD2 to indicate that the following bytes are
                 encrypted MPLS.

Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


3.4. Considerations for ECMP

   As previously stated, the S bit set in the OEL and the presence of
   the control word prevent implementations from attempting to use the
   encrypted MPLS packet and its payload to determine a hash value for
   uses such as ECMP.  However, the resultant label stack shown in
   Figure 2 will probably not provide sufficient entropy for ECMP
   purposes.

   In order to increase the entropy, an implementation that inserts an
   OELI and OEL MAY also insert an Entropy Label Indicator (ELI) and
   Entropy Label (EL) as defined in [RFC6790].  The ELI and EL are
   positioned in the label stack before the OELI and OEL.  The setting
   of the fields in the ELI and EL label stack entries are as described
   in [RFC6790].

   The ELI and EL will normally occur immediately before the OELI, but
   they MAY be placed higher up the label stack.


                              -----------
                             | Top Label |
                             +-----------+
                             |   Label   |
           -----------       +-----------+
          | Top Label |      |    ELI    |
          +-----------+      +-----------+
          |   Label   |      |    EL     |
          +-----------+.     +-----------+
          |   Label   | .    |   OELI    |
          +-----------+  .   +-----------+
          |   Label   |   .  | OEL   S=1 |
          +-----------+    . +-----------+
          | Label S=1 |     .| Ctrl Word |
          +-----------+      +-----------+
          |           |      |           |
          ~  Payload  ~      ~ Encrypted ~
          |           |      |           |
           -----------........-----------

       Figure 6 : The Use of ELI and EL with OEL

3.5. Backward Compatibility

   Keys and encryption algorithms may be configured manually or
   exchanged dynamically as described in Section 4.  These mechanisms
   provide a preliminary way to protect against a sender encrypting data
   that the receiver cannot decrypt, however, misconfiguration may lead


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   to a sender using the OELI when the receiver does not support
   opportunistic encryption.

   When a node finds an unknown label at the top of the label stack it
   must discard the packet as described in [RFC3031].  Therefore, when a
   receiver discovers the OELI and does not support opportunistic
   encryption it will discard the packet.  The net result is that when a
   sender uses opportunistic encryption in error, all packets that it
   sends on the LSP will be discarded by the receiver.  Note that in
   this discussion, "the receiver" may be the next hop if single hop
   encryption is used, or may be the end of the LSP if end-to-end
   encryption is used.

   Transit nodes that are not actively participating in the encryption
   will not inspect the OELI except potentially as part of an ECMP hash.
   This means that transit nodes will not encounter the OELI during
   normal packet processing and will not discard packets.

3.6. MTU Considerations

   Adding the OELI and OEL as described above will reduce the available
   data size by 8 octets.  Furthermore, as described in in Section 3,
   the output of the encryption algorithm is 16 octets longer than the
   input.  Therefore, the use of MPLS OE reduces the available MTU by 20
   octets.

   When end-to-end OE is in use this can be considered by the ingress
   LSR, however, when single-hop OE is in use the participating LSRs
   need to advertise this reduction in link MTU so that the packets do
   not overflow.  MPLS packets MUST NOT be fragmented as a result of
   OE.

3.7. Recursive OE

   The use of OELI, OEL, and control word described in Section 3 may
   be applied recursively.  That is, the payload of an encrypted MPLS
   packet may, itself be an encrypted MPLS packet.  This may be
   particularly useful in the case where an MPLS VPN has native MPLS
   traffic.

   There are no special considerations except to note that encryption
   and decryption processing may be burdensome if an LSP and its payload
   LSP have OE applied at the same LSR.  Additionally, it should be
   noted that, as described in Section 3.6, each recursive encryption
   reduces the MTU by 20 octets.





Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


4. Key Exchange For Opportunistic Encryption in MPLS

   For encryption to be useful both ends of an encrypted session must
   know which algorithm is in use and which key to use.  The mechanism
   described in Section 3 provides a way to indicate an index into a
   table of algorithms and keys that can be used to decrypt an encrypted
   MPLS packet.

   It is possible that this table has been manually configured or set up
   using a key exchange protocol such as Internet Key Exchange version 2
   (IKEv2) [RFC5996].  However, such a process implies a stable security
   association between encrypter and decrypter of MPLS packets.  Such a
   stable association is not consistent with the concept of
   opportunistic encryption.

   This section provides a mechanism for adjacent MPLS LSRs, or for a
   pair of LSRs at opposite ends of an MPLS LSP, to dynamically
   exchange keys and algorithm identifiers so that encryption may be
   applied opportunistically.

   The mechanism uses message exchange in the MPLS Generic Associated
   Channel (G-ACh) [RFC5586].  This channel is in-band with an LSP and
   may be used to carry messages between neighbors or between the end
   points of the LSP.  A type field within the common message header,
   the Associated Channel Header (ACH), is used to indicate the type of
   message carried.

   Nodes that receive G-ACh messages and do not understand them, or
   nodes that understand the G-ACh but do not recognize the ACH message
   type drop the packets as described in [RFC5586].

4.1. Associated Channel for Key Exchange

   The Associated Channel Type value TBD3 indicates that the packet
   contains a Key Exchange Protocol message as defined in Section 4.2.

   Implementations that do not support key exchange in this manner will
   discard received packets with this Associated Channel Type as
   described in [RFC5586].  This will result in no dynamic key exchange,
   but other key definitions are still supported (such as manual
   configuration) and may be used to construct a table of algorithms and
   keys that can be used to achieve MPLS encryption using the mechanisms
   described in Section 3.

   Note that TBD3 indicates the use of Diffie-Hellman key exchange. If
   ECDH is added later a new value will be required.
   [[Editor Note. An alternative to this is to embed the type of key
     exchange within the key exchange messages.]]


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 16]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


4.2. Key Exchange Protocol

   A session key is to be established between an initiator (Alice) and
   a recipient (Bob). The D-H public value for Alice is g^i and for
   Bob, g^r.  The shared Diffie-Hellman value is g^ir.

   g^ir is represented as a string of octets in big endian
   order padded with zeros if necessary to make it the length of the
   modulus.

   Both g^i and g^r will be 2048 bits long, if the Diffie-Hellman
   modulus is 2048 bits long.

   The key exchange payload is modelled on that from Section 3.4 of
   [RFC5996], and is shown in Figure 7.


                        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
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |D|       Payload Length        |   algorithm   |  Group Num    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   ~                       D-H Public value                        ~
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 7 - Key Exchange Message


   The flag D denotes the direction of the message, '0' indicates a
   message from initiator (Alice) to recipient. '1' indicates the
   reverse direction.

   The Payload Length field contains the number of octets following the
   payload length field (including the group number).  This is 15 bits
   wide.

   The algorithm field is a one octet field that specifies both the KDF
   to use and the symmetric algorithm to be used for data packet
   encryption.  A registry for values of this field is defined in
   Section 8.3.  The value 0 is used to indicate the default KDF and
   symmetric encryption mode.

   The Diffie-Hellman Group Num is from [RFC3526], so the group number
   for 2048 MODP is decimal 14.  Note that this is a one octet field,
   but is two octets in the [RFC5996] equivalent.  This is not an issue
   because there are only 30 MODP groups defined at present and new


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 17]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   groups are not added frequently.

   The D-H public value will contain g^i or g^r depending on the
   direction (i.e., the setting of the D flag) and is in big endian
   order.

   The length of the Diffie-Hellman public value for MODP groups MUST be
   equal to the length of the prime modulus over which the
   exponentiation was performed, prepending zero bits to the value if
   necessary.

   Once both sides have derived g^ir they need to feed that and the
   other inputs described in Section 2.4 into the KDF indicated by the
   algorithm field.  With the default algorithm (value zero), the KDF to
   be used is HKDF as specified in [RFC5869].

   The parameters for the use of HKDF are:

     Hash: SHA-256

     Salt: not used [[Editor Note: maybe we should?]]

     Skip: do not skip

     Info: The catenation of a fixed string indicating use of MPLS OE,
           with the value "MPLS-OE", the first 32 bits of the key
           exchange message, with the D flag set to 0, plus the LSP
           ID and the sender and receiver LSR IDs in that order. That
           is:

      MPLS-OE||0||payloadLen||alg||group Num||LSP-ID||i-LSR-ID||r-LSR-ID

     L:    The output length in bits is 272.

   The fixed string "MPLS-OE" is used as an input here to prevent
   potential cross-protocol attacks. Those might otherwise be
   possible if this mechanism were to be copied in other protocols.
   (If copying this mechanism for any reason, then a different
   fixed string value should be used.)

   The default encryption algorithm, AEAD_AES_GCM_128, specified
   in Section 3, requires a 128 bit session key.

   The 272-bit HKDF output is the catenation of the session key, the key
   id, the witness value and the high-order 16 bits of the initial nonce
   value in that order.  That is the session key is
   the leftmost 128 bits of the HKDF output.  The key-id is the next 16
   bits, the witness value is the next 112 bits and the last 16 bits


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 18]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   are the 16 most significant bits of the initial nonce value. The
   low order 64 bits of the initial nonce value are set to zero before
   the first call to the AES-GCM encryption function.

   The key-id is prepended with four bits set to one and used as the
   label value in the OEL (see Section 3.2) so that the label does not
   take any of the values 0-15.

   [[Editor note - we might want to consider deriving the witness
   value from a separate invocation of the KDF that does not depend
   on the LSP-specific inputs. The benefit from that would be
   that the same MITM-detection infrastructure could be used for
   many protocols. However, that would require standardizing a
   generic D-H MITM-detection protocol, or at least formats, in
   order to be useful. We also need to consider what additional
   information needs to be logged with the witness value so that
   comparisons can easily be made at scale but without creating
   new privacy-invasive meta-data. (That last is not much of an
   issue for MPLS-OE, but could be elsewhere.) At present we do
   not intend to go for the generic MITM-detection approach, but
   it is worth considering.]]

4.3. Protecting the Key Exchange Protocol Messages

   As described in Section 2.4, once one key exchange has been
   successfully completed, further key exchanges should be protected
   using a previous key.  This is simply achieved since key exchange
   messages are, themselves, carried in MPLS packets on the LSP and may
   be subject to encryption exactly as any other packet.

5. Applicability of MPLS Opportunistic Encryption

   MPLS OE provides another tool in the security and privacy toolkit.
   It is not a panacea and does not solve (nor is it intended to solve)
   all security or privacy problems.  In particular, the use of MPLS OE
   does not protect user-data end-to-end that might be better secured
   using encryption at the IP layer or at higher layers.

   As noted throughout this document, the intention of OE in MPLS is to
   allow one LSR to enable encryption between itself and its neighbor,
   or between itself and the other end of an LSP, in a dynamic and un-
   planned way.  This can have benefits in a number of scenarios where
   the network that generates MPLS traffic transmits it over another
   network (for example, carrier's carrier, or some deployments of
   enterprise network).  Additionally, the use of MPLS OE might allow a
   service provider to offer a secure edge-to-edge service for a variety
   of applications ranging from VPNs through pseudowires and where the
   payload traffic might not always be IP.  Lastly, in some non-


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 19]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   traditional carriers the user data belongs to the operator or is the
   direct responsibility of the operator (for example, in data centers,
   or in large-scale private networks).

   As with all security mechanisms, there is a trade-off between a
   number of factors.  On one side is the completeness of the security
   of the user-data, and on the other side is the complexity of
   configuring and managing the necessary security associations.
   Furthermore, while mechanisms closer to the end-user than MPLS OE
   (for example, TLS and IPsec in tunnel mode) provide better security
   for user-data by virtue of not transmitting the data across any
   network hops without it being encrypted, such mechanisms often
   expose more metadata for inspection by snoopers within the network.

   Additionally, while a variety of per-link encryption mechanisms exist
   and could be used to guard against attacks such as fiber taps, those
   approaches do not protect against subverted nodes (i.e., routers) on
   the path since, by definition, per-link encryption does not protect
   packets once they come off the link.  MPLS OE in the end-to-end LSP
   mode protects packets on the links and as they cross transit routers.

   Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this document to recommend the
   use of MPLS OE to the exclusion of all other encryption techniques.
   As already mentioned, MPLS OE is offered as another tool in the tool
   kit and users as well as network operators are strongly advised to
   consider using a variety of tools to achieve the level of security
   and privacy that they desire.

   Note that, in order that OE can be used, one end of a peering
   (neighbor or LSP end) must decide to attempt OE and the other end
   must support it.  This can be determined by the message exchanges
   described in Section 4.2 since if one peer does not send a key
   exchange message then encryption will not be used, and if the other
   peer does not respond then it is unwilling or unable to decrypt
   messages.

   MPLS OE should be applicable to all forms of MPLS. That is, it should
   be possible to use it in RSVP-TE systems, in LDP systems, and in
   MPLS-TP systems (by which we mean those that have manually configured
   LSPs). Equally, it should work for point-to-point (P2P) and
   multipoint-to-point (MP2P) uses of MPLS because there is a simple
   relationship between the sender (encrypter) and the receiver
   (decrypter) in both cases. In the MP2P case, the sender's identity
   can be extracted from the key identifier and there are considered to
   be enough key identifiers to allow an arbitrary number of senders on
   the LSP. There will, however, be the need for the receiver to hold OE
   state (keys, packet counters) for each sender which may be a
   significant amount of data for an MP2P LSP (although no more than if


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 20]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   the same LSP were replaced by multiple P2P LSPs). Additionally, it
   should be noted that not only will each sender on an MP2P LSP have a
   different key, but each may separately decide whether to encrypt data
   or not.

   At this time it is not certain whether MPLS OE can be applied to a
   point-to-multipoint (P2MP) or a multipoint-to-multipoint LSP in its
   entirety because packet replication cannot handle the necessary key
   conversions for each receiver. However, MPLS OE can certainly be
   applied to individual hops on these LSPs. Further work is needed to
   determine whether non-branching multi-hop segments of P2MP and MP2P
   LSPs can also be protected using MPLS OE.

6. Security Considerations

6.1. Security Improvements

   See section 2.1.

6.2. Continued Vulnerabilities

   The mechanisms described in this document do not provide protection
   against certain types of MITM attacks.  For example, the key exchange
   protocol in Section 4.2 will not detect if key exchange messages or
   their responses are intercepted and discarded such that the
   initiating peer believes that encryption is not supported.
   Similarly, those messages may be tampered with such that a receiver
   cannot determine the correct table index to algorithm and key mapping
   when an encrypted packet is received.  Furthermore, the OEL in an
   MPLS packet is not protected and may be overwritten such that a
   receiver is unable to decrypt the packet.

   See Section 7.1 for a discussion of how active MITM attacks can be
   detected.

6.3. New Security Considerations

   If a pair of LSRs do not do the key exchange before sending any data
   packets on the LSP then those first packets will not be protected by
   OE and hence will be available to a monitor.

   If a MITM can prevent the OE key exchange from completing, e.g.
   via deleting messages or changing bits in messages, and if the LSRs
   continue to send data regardless then those data packets will be
   available to a monitor.  See Section 2.4 and Section 7 for a
   description of how alarms should be raised in these circumstances.




Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 21]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


7. Manageability Considerations

   As described in Section 2.4 node-wide and per-LSP behavior SHOULD be
   configurable to describe the action where key agreement exchange or
   packet decryption fails.  In any case, such events MUST trigger
   alarms to the operator.

7.1. MITM Detection

   Section 2.4 introduces the concept of a function of the shared
   secret that can be compared by two LSRs that are using OE to see
   whether they are victims of an active MITM attack.

   Section 4.2 describes how a witness value is derived for the
   default KDF, HKDF.

   The participating LSRs can simply log this value plus the LSP
   and LSR IDs from time to time and a management application can
   compare the values.  If they are different for the same LSP ID,
   then an active MITM attack has taken place.

   It needs to be carefully noted that the management channel used to
   log or otherwise compare the witness values from the two LSRs MUST be
   secure.  It is likely that routers use relatively high security
   management channels for configuration and other management
   operations.

   [[Editor note - please see the note in 4.2 about generic
   MITM-detection. Changes there could affect what needs to be
   done here.]]

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1. Opportunistic Encryption Label Indicator

   IANA maintains a registry called "Multiprotocol Label Switching
   Architecture (MPLS) Label Values" with a single sub-registry called
   "Label Values".  This registry is to be renamed "Special Purpose MPLS
   Label Values according to [ID.ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels].

   IANA is requested to assign a value from this registry as follows:

   Value | Description                                     | Reference
   ------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------
   TBD1  | Opportunistic Encryption Label Indicator (OELI) | [This.ID]

   The value 8 is suggested.



Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 22]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


[RFC Editor is requested to replace the string "TBD1" with the value
assigned by IANA throughout this document, and to remove this note.]

8.2. Pseudowire Associated Channel Types

   IANA maintains a registry called "Pseudowire Name Spaces (PWE3)" with
   a sub-registry called "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types".  IANA is
   requested to assign a value as follows:

   Value | Description                                     | Reference
   ------+-------------------------------------------------+-----------
   TBD3  | Opportunistic Key Exchange Protocol for MPLS    | [This.ID]
   TBD2  | Opportunistically Encrypted MPLS                | [This.ID]

   The values 19 and 20 are suggested.  It is suggested that TBD3 have
   a value 1 smaller than TBD2.

[RFC Editor is requested to replace the string "TBD2" and "TBD3" with
the values assigned by IANA throughout this document, and to remove this
note.]

8.3. Key Derivation Functions and Symmetric Algorithms

   IANA is requested to create a new MPLS registry called the "MPLS
   Opportunistic Encryption Algorithms Registry".  New values are to
   be assigned through "IETF Review" as defined in [RFC5226].

   The available range is 0 - 255.

   IANA is requested to record the following information and create an
   initial entry as follows:

   Value | Key Derivation Function | Symmetric Algorithm |  Reference
   ------+-------------------------+---------------------+-----------
   0     | HKDF                    | AEAD_AES_GCM_128    | [This.I-D]
   1-255 | Unassigned              |                     |

9.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Alia Atlas for detailed discussion of the implications
   of MPLS opportunistic encryption.  Thanks also to Ron Bonica for
   encouraging this work, to Sean Turner and Stewart Bryant for early
   review, and to Jeff Haas and Ross Callon for discussions.







Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 23]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC4385]  Bryant, S., Swallow, G., Martini, L., and D. McPherson,
              "Pseudowire Emulation Edge-to-Edge (PWE3) Control Word for
              Use over an MPLS PSN", RFC 4385, February 2006.

   [RFC5586]  Bocci, M., Vigoureux, M., and S. Bryant, "MPLS Generic
              Associated Channel", RFC 5586, June 2009.

   [RFC6790]  Kompella, K., Drake, J., Amante, S., Henderickx, W., and
              L. Yong, "The Use of Entropy Labels in MPLS Forwarding",
              RFC 6790, November 2012.

   [ID.ietf-mpls-special-purpose-labels]
              Kompella, K., Andersson, L., and A. Farrel, "Allocating
              and Retiring Special Purpose MPLS Labels" draft-ietf-mpls-
              special-purpose-labels, work in progress.

   [RFC3526]  Kivinen, T., and M. Kojo, "More Modular Exponential (MODP)
              Diffie-Hellman groups for Internet Key Exchange (IKE)",
              RFC 3526, May 2003.

   [RFC5116]  D. McGrew, "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated
              Encryption", RFC 5116, January 2008.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5869]  Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand
              Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, May 2010.

10.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3031]  Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol
              Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.

   [RFC3032]  Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y.,
              Farinacci, D., Li, T., and A. Conta, "MPLS Label Stack
              Encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001.

   [RFC4302]  Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
              December 2005.


Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 24]


Internet-Draft        Opportunistic MPLS Encryption         January 2014


   [RFC4303]  Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
              RFC 4303, December 2005.

   [RFC5996]  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., and P. Eronen,
              "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)",
              RFC 5996, September 2010.

Authors' Addresses

   Adrian Farrel
   Juniper Networks

   EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk

   Stephen Farrell
   Trinity College Dublin
   Dublin, 2
   Ireland

   Phone: +353-1-896-2354
   Email: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie





























Farrel and Farrell                                             [Page 25]