[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09                                 
Network Working Group                                      Sheng Jiang
Internet Draft                            Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
Intended status: Informational                               Sean Shen
Expires: April 9, 2010                                           CNNIC
                                                             Tim Chown
                                             University of Southampton
                                                      October 12, 2009



             DHCPv6 and CGA Interaction: Problem Statement

                  draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt


Status of this Memo

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

   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
        http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
        http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 9, 2010.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2009 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 in effect on the date of
   publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.






Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt      October 2009




Abstract

   This document describes potential issues in the interaction between
   DHCPv6 and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs). Firstly, the
   scenario of using CGAs in DHCPv6 environments is discussed.   Some
   operations are clarified for the interaction of DHCPv6 servers and
   CGA-associated hosts. We then also discuss how CGAs and DHCPv6 may
   have mutual benefits for each other, including using CGAs in DHCPv6
   operations to enhance its security features and using DHCPv6 to
   provide the CGA generation function.



Table of Contents

   1. Introduction.................................................3
   2. Coexistence of DHCPv6 and CGA................................3
   3. What DHCPv6 can do for CGA...................................4
   4. What CGA can do for DHCPv6...................................5
   5. Security Considerations......................................6
   6. IANA Considerations..........................................6
   7. Solution Requests............................................6
   8. Acknowledgements.............................................6
   9. Change Log...................................................6
   10. References..................................................7
      10.1. Normative References...................................7
      10.2. Informative References.................................7
   Author's Addresses..............................................8


















Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt      October 2009



1. Introduction

   The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315]
   can assign addresses statefully. Although there are other ways to
   assign IPv6 addresses [RFC4862, RFC4339], DHCPv6 is still useful when
   an administrator requires more control over address assignments to
   hosts. DHCPv6 can also be used to distribute other network configure
   information.

   Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs) [RFC3972] are IPv6
   addresses for which the interface identifiers are generated by
   computing a cryptographic one-way hash function from a public key and
   auxiliary parameters. By using the associated public & private keys
   as described by SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) [RFC3971], CGAs can
   protect the Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP) [RFC4861], i.e. they
   can provide address validation and integrity protection for NDP
   messages.

   This document describes potential issues in the interaction between
   DHCPv6 and Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs). Firstly, the
   scenario of using CGAs in DHCPv6 environments is discussed. Some
   operations are clarified for the interaction of DHCPv6 servers and
   CGA-associated hosts. We then also discuss how CGAs and DHCPv6 may
   have mutual benefits for each other, including using CGAs in DHCPv6
   operations to enhance its security features and using DHCPv6 to
   provide the CGA generation function.

2. Coexistence of DHCPv6 and CGA

   CGAs can be used with IPv6 Stateless Address Configuration [RFC4862].
   The public key system associated with the CGA address provides
   message origin validation and integrity protection without the need
   for negotiation and transportation of key materials.

   The current CGA specifications do not mandate which device generates
   a CGA address. In many cases, a CGA address is generated by the
   associated key pair owner, which normally is also the host that will
   use the CGA address. However, in a DHCPv6-managed network, hosts
   should obtain IPv6 addresses only from a DHCPv6 server. This
   difference of roles needs to be carefully considered if there is a
   requirement to use CGAs in DHCPv6-managed environments.

   The current DHCPv6 specification [RFC3315] has a mechanism that could
   be used to allow a host to self-generate a CGA for use in a DHCPv6-
   managed environment, i.e. the DHCPv6 server can grant the use of
   host-generated CGA addresses on request from the client.


Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt      October 2009


   Specifically, a node can request that a DHCPv6 server grants the use
   of a self-generated CGA by sending a DHCPv6 Request message. This
   DHCPv6 Request message contains an IA option including the CGA
   address. Depending on whether the CGA matches the CGA-related
   configuration parameters of the network, the DHCPv6 server can then
   send an acknowledgement to the node to either grant the use of the
   CGA or to indicate that the node must generate a new CGA with the
   correct CGA-related configuration parameters of the network. In the
   meantime the DHCPv6 server may log the requested address/host
   combination.

3. What DHCPv6 can do for CGA

   In the current CGA specifications there is a lack of procedures to
   enable central management of CGA generation. Administrators should be
   able to configure parameters used to generate CGAs. DHCPv6 could be
   used to assign subnet prefixes or certificates to CGA address owners.
   In some scenarios, the administrator may further want to enforce some
   parameters, in particular the necessary security-related parameters
   such as the SEC value.

   In the CGA generation procedure, the generation of the Modifier field
   of a CGA address is computationally intensive. This operation can
   lead to apparent slow performance and/or battery consumption problems
   for end hosts with limited computing ability and/or restricted
   battery power (e.g. mobile devices). In such cases, a mechanism to
   delegate the computation of the modifier would be desirable. It is
   possible that the whole CGA generation procedure could be delegated
   to the DHCPv6 server. This would be especially useful for large SEC
   values.

   Generating a key pair, which will be used to generate a CGA, also
   requires a notable computation. Generation and distribution of a key
   pair can also be done by DHCPv6 server. Of course, when designing
   these new functions, one should carefully consider the impact on
   security.  However, the security considerations of specific solutions
   are out of scope of this document.

   New DHCPv6 options could be defined to carry management parameters
   from a DHCPv6 server to the client that wishes to use a CGA. A new
   DHCPv6 prefix assignment option could be defined to propagate a
   subnet prefix. More DHCPv6 options may be defined to propagate
   additional CGA-relevant configuration information, such as the SEC
   value, certificate information, SEND proxy information, etc.

   It may be possible to define a delegation operation that allows a
   client to pass computations to a DHCPv6 server, by introducing new


Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt      October 2009


   DHCPv6 option(s). A node could thus initiate a DHCPv6 request to the
   DHCPv6 server requesting the computation of the Modifier or the CGA.
   The DHCPv6 server could then either compute the Modifier by itself,
   or redirect the computation requirement to another server. Once the
   DHCPv6 server generates (or obtains from the redirected computational
   server) the Modifier or the CGA address, it can respond to the node
   with the Modifier or the resulting address and the corresponding CGA
   Parameters data structure.

   Depending on the scenario, the information needed to generate CGAs
   (including a SEC value, a subnet prefix, a modifier, a public key, a
   Collision Count value and any Extension Fields) may be provided by
   either hosts or DHCPv6 servers. A DHCPv6 server might receive from
   hosts the information customized by hosts, generate CGAs by using
   information provided by both parties and distribute CGAs and their
   associated CGA Parameters data structures to hosts. The details of
   such potential new methods need to be defined clearly in the solution
   specifications.

   New DHCPv6 options may be defined to support the interactions that
   are required when a DHCPv6 server generates a key pair for hosts.

   When designing such solutions, the designer should thoroughly
   consider the impact on DHCPv6 model and the security of CGA usage. In
   order to be compatible with DHCPv6, the configuring procedure of CGA
   parameters should be compatible with the current DHCPv6 definition.
   When a DHCP6 server configures CGA parameters, integrity protection
   may be needed to avoid attacks, such as downgrade attack.

4. What CGA can do for DHCPv6

   DHCPv6 is vulnerable to various attacks, e.g. fake address attacks
   where a 'rogue' DHCPv6 server responds with incorrect address
   information. A malicious rogue DHCPv6 server can also provide
   incorrect configuration to the client in order to divert the client
   to communicate with malicious services, like DNS or NTP. It may also
   mount a Denial of Service attack through mis-configuration of the
   client that causes all network communication from the client to fail.
   A rogue DHCPv6 server may also collect some critical information from
   the client. Attackers may be able to gain unauthorized access to some
   resources, such as network access. See Section 23 [RFC3315].

   In the basic DHCPv6 specifications, regular IPv6 addresses are used.
   However, DHCPv6 servers, relay agents and clients could use CGAs as
   their own addresses. A DHCPv6 message (from either a server, relay
   agent or client) with a CGA as source address, can carry the CGA
   Parameters data structure and a digital signature. The receiver can


Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt      October 2009


   verify both the CGA and signature, then process the payload of the
   DHCPv6 message only if the validation is successful. In this way
   DHCPv6 messages can be protected. This mechanism can efficiently
   improve the security of DHCPv6, because the address of a DHCP message
   sender (which can be a DHCP server, a reply agent or a client) can be
   verified by a receiver. The usage of CGA can efficiently avoid the
   above attacks. It improves the communication security of DHCPv6
   interactions. The usage of CGA can also avoid DHCPv6's dependence on
   IPSEC [RFC3315] in relay scenarios. This mechanism is applicable in
   environments where physical security on the link is not assured (such
   as over certain wireless infrastructures) or where available security
   mechanisms are not sufficient, and attacks on DHCPv6 are a concern.

5. Security Considerations

   As Section 5 of this document has discussed, CGAs can provide
   additional security features for DHCPv6. However, in defining
   solutions using DHCPv6 to configure CGAs, as suggested in Section 3.
   of this document, careful consideration is required to evaluate
   whether the new mechanism introduces new security vulnerabilities.

6. IANA Considerations

   There are no IANA considerations in this document.

7. Solution Requests

   As discussed in this document, CGAs and DHCPv6 can provide additional
   services or security features for each other. Solutions that define
   the details of such interactions should be investigated to determine
   how viable they are.

8. Acknowledgements

   Useful comments were made by Marcelo Bagnulo, UC3M, Spain and other
   members of the IETF CSI working group.

9. Change Log [RFC Editor please remove]

   draft-jiang-csi-dhacpv6-cga-ps-00, original version, 2008-10-27

   draft-jiang-csi-dhacpv6-cga-ps-01, revised after comments at IETF 73,
   2009-01-08

   draft-jiang-csi-dhacpv6-cga-ps-02, revised after comments at CSI
   mailing list, 2009-06-17



Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt      October 2009


   draft-jiang-csi-dhacpv6-cga-ps-03, revised after comments at CSI
   mailing list, 2009-09-18

   draft-ietf-csi-dhacpv6-cga-ps-00, revised after comments at CSI
   mailing list and wg adoption call, 2009-10-12



10. References

10.1. Normative References

   [RFC3315] R. Droms, Ed., J. Bound, B. Volz, T. Lemon, C. Perkins and
             M. Carney, "Dynamic Host Configure Protocol for IPv6", RFC
             3315, July 2003.

   [RFC3971] J. Arkko, J. Kempf, B. Zill and P. Nikander, "SEcure
             Neighbor Discovery (SEND) ", RFC 3971, March 2005.

   [RFC3972] T. Aura, "Cryptographically Generated Address", RFC 3972,
             March 2005.

   [RFC4861] T. Narten, E. Nordmark, W. Simpson and H. Soliman,
             "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861,
             September 2007.

   [RFC4862] S. Thomson and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
             Autoconfiguration", RFC 4862, September 2007.

10.2. Informative References

   [RFC4339] J. Jeong, Ed., "IPv6 Host Configuration of DNS Server
             Information Approaches", RFC 4339, February 2006.















Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft   draft-ietf-csi-dhcpv6-cga-ps-00.txt      October 2009


Author's Addresses

   Sheng Jiang
   Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd
   KuiKe Building, No.9 Xinxi Rd.,
   Shang-Di Information Industry Base, Hai-Dian District, Beijing 100085
   P.R. China
   Phone: 86-10-82836081
   Email: shengjiang@huawei.com

   Sean Shen
   CNNIC
   4, South 4th Street, Zhongguancun
   Beijing 100190
   P.R. China
   Email: shenshuo@cnnic.cn

   Tim Chown
   University of Southampton
   Highfield
   Southampton, Hampshire SO17 1BJ
   United Kingdom
   Email: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk

























Jiang, et al.           Expires April 9, 2010                 [Page 8]