IPPM WG K. Pentikousis, Ed.
Internet-Draft EICT
Intended status: Standards Track E. Zhang
Expires: May 14, 2015 Y. Cui
Huawei Technologies
November 10, 2014
IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP
draft-ietf-ippm-ipsec-06
Abstract
The O/TWAMP security mechanism requires that both the client and
server endpoints possess a shared secret. Since the currently-
standardized O/TWAMP security mechanism only supports a pre-shared
key mode, large scale deployment of O/TWAMP is hindered
significantly. At the same time, recent trends point to wider IKEv2
deployment which, in turn, calls for mechanisms and methods that
enable tunnel end-users, as well as operators, to measure one-way and
two-way network performance in a standardized manner. This document
discusses the use of keys derived from an IKEv2 SA as the shared key
in O/TWAMP. If the shared key can be derived from the IKEv2 SA, O/
TWAMP can support certificate-based key exchange, which would allow
for more operational flexibility and efficiency. The key derivation
presented in this document can also facilitate automatic key
management.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 14, 2015.
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
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
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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Scope and Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. O/TWAMP Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. O/TWAMP-Control Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. O/TWAMP-Test Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.3. O/TWAMP Security Root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. O/TWAMP for IPsec Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.1. Shared Key Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5.2. Server Greeting Message Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. Set-Up-Response Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. O/TWAMP over an IPsec tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. Introduction
The One-way Active Measurement Protocol (OWAMP) [RFC4656] and the
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP) [RFC5357] can be used to
measure network performance parameters, such as latency, bandwidth,
and packet loss by sending probe packets and monitoring their
experience in the network. In order to guarantee the accuracy of
network measurement results, security aspects must be considered.
Otherwise, attacks may occur and the authenticity of the measurement
results may be violated. For example, if no protection is provided,
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
an adversary in the middle may modify packet timestamps, thus
altering the measurement results.
The currently-standardized O/TWAMP security mechanism [RFC4656]
[RFC5357] requires that endpoints (i.e. both the client and the
server) possess a shared secret. In today's network deployments,
however, the use of pre-shared keys is far from optimal. For
example, in wireless infrastructure networks, certain network
elements, which can be seen as the two endpoints from an O/TWAMP
perspective, support certificate-based security. For instance,
consider the case in which one wants to measure IP performance
between an eNB and SeGW. Both eNB and SeGW are 3GPP LTE nodes and
support certificate mode and IKEv2. Since the currently standardized
O/TWAMP security mechanism only supports pre-shared key mode, large
scale deployment of O/TWAMP is hindered significantly. Furthermore,
deployment and management of "shared secrets" for massive equipment
installation consumes a tremendous amount of effort and is prone to
human error.
With IKEv2 widely used, employing keys derived from IKEv2 SA as
shared key can be considered as a viable alternative. In mobile
telecommunication networks, the deployment rate of IPsec exceeds 95%
with respect to the LTE serving network. In older-technology
cellular networks, such as UMTS and GSM, IPsec use penetration is
lower, but still quite significant. If the shared key can be derived
from the IKEv2 SA, O/TWAMP can support cert-based key exchange and
make it more flexible in practice and more efficient. The use of
IKEv2 also makes it easier to extend automatic key management. In
general, O/TWAMP measurement packets can be transmitted inside the
IPsec tunnel, as it occurs with typical user traffic, or transmitted
outside the IPsec tunnel. This may depend on the operator's policy
and is orthogonal to the mechanism described in this document.
When IPsec is deployed, protecting O/TWAMP traffic in unauthenticated
mode using IPsec is one option. Another option is to protect O/TWAMP
traffic using O/TWAMP layer security established using the PSK
derived from IKEv2 but bypassing the IPsec tunnel. Protecting
unauthenticated O/TWAMP control and/or test traffic via AH or ESP
cannot provide various security options, e.g. it cannot authenticate
part of a O/TWAMP packet as mentioned in [RFC4656]. For measuring
latency, timestamp is carried in O/TWAMP traffic. The sender has to
fetch the timestamp, encrypt it, and send it. In this case, the
middle step can be skipped, potentially improving accuracy as the
sequence number can be encrypted and authenticated before the
timestamp is fetched. It is the same case for the receiver since it
can obtain the timestamp by skipping the decryption step. In such
cases, protecting O/TWAMP traffic using O/TWAMP layer security but
bypassing IPsec tunnel has its advantages. This document describes
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
how to derive the shared secret key from the IKEv2 SA and employ the
security service at the O/TWAMP layer. This method SHOULD be used
when O/TWAMP traffic is bypassing IPsec protection and is running
over an external network exactly between two IKEv2 systems.
After clarifying the terminology and scope in the subsequent
sections, the remainder of this document is organized as follows.
Section 4 summarizes O/TWAMP protocol operation with respect to
security. Section 5 presents the method for binding TWAMP and IKEv2
for network measurements between the client and the server which both
support IKEv2. Finally, Section 6 discusses the security
considerations arising from the proposed mechanisms.
2. Terminology
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 [RFC2119].
3. Scope and Applicability
This document specifies a method for enabling network measurements
between a TWAMP client and a TWAMP server which both support IPsec.
In short, the shared key used for securing TWAMP traffic is derived
using IKEv2 [RFC7296]. This document reserves from the TWAMP-Modes
registry the Mode value IANA.TBA.TWAMP.IKEv2Derived which MUST be
used by TWAMP implementations compatible with this specification.
Although the control procedures described in this document are
applicable to OWAMP per se, the lack of an established IANA registry
for OWAMP Mode values technically prevents us from extending OWAMP
Mode values. Therefore, independent OWAMP implementations SHOULD be
checked for full compatibility with respect to the use of this Mode
value. Until an IANA registry for OWAMP Mode values is established,
the use this feature in OWAMP implementations MUST be arranged
privately among consenting OWAMP users.
4. O/TWAMP Security
Security for O/TWAMP-Control and O/TWAMP-Test are briefly reviewed in
the following subsections.
4.1. O/TWAMP-Control Security
O/TWAMP uses a simple cryptographic protocol which relies on
o AES in Cipher Block Chaining (AES-CBC) for confidentiality
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
o HMAC-SHA1 truncated to 128 bits for message authentication
Three modes of operation are supported in the OWAMP-Control protocol:
unauthenticated, authenticated, and encrypted. In addition to these
modes, the TWAMP-Control protocol also supports a mixed mode, i.e.
the TWAMP-Control protocol operates in encrypted mode while TWAMP-
Test protocol operates in unauthenticated mode. The authenticated,
encrypted and mixed modes require that endpoints possess a shared
secret, typically a passphrase. The secret key is derived from the
passphrase using a password-based key derivation function PBKDF2
(PKCS#5) [RFC2898].
In the unauthenticated mode, the security parameters are left unused.
In the authenticated, encrypted and mixed modes, the security
parameters are negotiated during the control connection
establishment.
Figure 1 illustrates the initiation stage of the O/TWAMP-Control
protocol between a client and the server. In short, the client opens
a TCP connection to the server in order to be able to send O/TWAMP-
Control commands. The server responds with a Server Greeting, which
contains the Modes, Challenge, Salt, Count, and MBZ fields (see
Section 3.1 of [RFC4656]). If the client-preferred mode is
available, the client responds with a Set-Up- Response message,
wherein the selected Mode, as well as the KeyID, Token and Client IV
are included. The Token is the concatenation of a 16-octet
Challenge, a 16-octet AES Session-key used for encryption, and a
32-octet HMAC-SHA1 Session-key used for authentication. The Token is
encrypted using AES-CBC.
+--------+ +--------+
| Client | | Server |
+--------+ +--------+
| |
|<---- TCP Connection ----->|
| |
|<---- Greeting message ----|
| |
|----- Set-Up-Response ---->|
| |
|<---- Server-Start --------|
| |
Figure 1: Initiation of O/TWAMP-Control
Encryption uses a key derived from the shared secret associated with
KeyID. In the authenticated, encrypted and mixed modes, all further
communication is encrypted using the AES Session-key and
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
authenticated with the HMAC Session-key. After receiving Set-Up-
Response the server responds with a Server-Start message containing
Server-IV. The client encrypts everything it transmits through the
just-established O/TWAMP-Control connection using stream encryption
with Client- IV as the IV. Correspondingly, the server encrypts its
side of the connection using Server-IV as the IV. The IVs themselves
are transmitted in cleartext. Encryption starts with the block
immediately following that containing the IV.
The AES Session-key and HMAC Session-key are generated randomly by
the client. The HMAC Session-key is communicated along with the AES
Session-key during O/TWAMP-Control connection setup. The HMAC
Session-key is derived independently of the AES Session-key.
4.2. O/TWAMP-Test Security
The O/TWAMP-Test protocol runs over UDP, using the client and server
IP and port numbers that were negotiated during the Request-Session
exchange. O/TWAMP- Test has the same mode with O/TWAMP-Control and
all O/TWAMP-Test sessions inherit the corresponding O/TWAMP-Control
session mode except when operating in mixed mode.
The O/TWAMP-Test packet format is the same in authenticated and
encrypted modes. The encryption and authentication operations are,
however, different. Similarly with the respective O/TWAMP-Control
session, each O/TWAMP-Test session has two keys: an AES Session-key
and an HMAC Session-key. However, there is a difference in how the
keys are obtained:
O/TWAMP-Control: the keys are generated by the client and
communicated to the server during the control connection
establishment with the Set-Up-Response message (as part of
the Token).
O/TWAMP-Test: the keys are derived from the O/TWAMP-Control keys and
the session identifier (SID), which serve as inputs of the
key derivation function (KDF). The O/TWAMP-Test AES Session-
key is generated using the O/TWAMP- Control AES Session-key,
with the 16-octet session identifier (SID), for encrypting
and decrypting the packets of the particular O/TWAMP-Test
session. The O/TWAMP-Test HMAC Session-key is generated
using the O/TWAMP-Control HMAC Session-key, with the 16-octet
session identifier (SID), for authenticating the packets of
the particular O/TWAMP-Test session.
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
4.3. O/TWAMP Security Root
As discussed above, the AES Session-key and HMAC Session-key used by
the O/TWAMP-Test protocol are derived from the AES Session-key and
HMAC Session-key which are used in O/TWAMP-Control protocol. The AES
Session-key and HMAC Session-key used in the O/TWAMP-Control protocol
are generated randomly by the client, and encrypted with the shared
secret associated with KeyID. Therefore, the security root is the
shared secret key. Thus, for large deployments, key provision and
management may become overly complicated. Comparatively, a
certificate-based approach using IKEv2 can automatically manage the
security root and solve this problem, as we explain in Section 5.
5. O/TWAMP for IPsec Networks
This section presents a method of binding O/TWAMP and IKEv2 for
network measurements between a client and a server which both support
IPsec. In short, the shared key used for securing O/TWAMP traffic is
derived using IKEv2 [RFC7296].
5.1. Shared Key Derivation
In the authenticated, encrypted and mixed modes, the shared secret
key MUST be derived from the IKEv2 Security Association (SA). Note
that we explicitly opt to derive the shared secret key from the IKEv2
SA, rather than the child SA, since the use case whereby an IKEv2 SA
can be created without generating any child SA is possible [RFC6023].
When the shared secret key is derived from the IKEv2 SA, SK_d must be
generated first. SK_d MUST be computed as per [RFC7296].
The shared secret key MUST be generated as follows:
Shared secret key = PRF( SK_d, "IPPM" )
Wherein the string "IPPM" comprises four ASCII characters and prf is
a pseudorandom function. It is recommended that the shared secret
key is derived in the IPsec layer. This way, the IPsec keying
material is not exposed to the O/TWAMP client. Note, however, that
the interaction between the O/TWAMP and IPsec layers is host-internal
and implementation-specific. Therefore, this is clearly outside the
scope of this document, which focuses on the interaction between the
O/TWAMP client and server. That said, one possible way could be the
following: at the client side, the IPSec layer can perform a lookup
in the Security Association Database (SAD) using the IP address of
the server and thus match the corresponding IKEv2 SA. At the server
side, the IPSec layer can look up the corresponding IKEv2 SA by using
the SPIs sent by the client, and therefore extract the shared secret
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
key. In case that both client and server do support IKEv2 but there
is no current IKEv2 SA, two alternative ways could be considered.
First, the O/TWAMP client initiates the establishment of the IKEv2
SA, logs this operation, and selects the mode which supports IKEv2.
Alternatively, the O/TWAMP client does not initiate the establishment
of the IKEv2 SA, logs an error for operational management purposes,
and proceeds with the modes defined in [RFC4656][RFC5357][RFC5618].
Again, although both alternatives are feasible, they are in fact
implementation-specific.
If rekeying for the IKEv2 SA or deletion of the IKEv2 SA occurs, the
corresponding shared secret key generated from the SA can continue to
be used until the O/TWAMP session terminates.
5.2. Server Greeting Message Update
To achieve a binding association between the key generated from IKEv2
and the O/TWAMP shared secret key, Server Greeting Message should be
updated as in Figure 2.
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Unused (12 octets) |
| |
|+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Modes |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Challenge (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Salt (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Count (4 octets) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| MBZ (12 octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 2: Server Greeting format
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
The Modes field in Figure 2 will need to allow for support of key
derivation as discussed in Section 5.1. As such, the Modes value
extension MUST be supported by implementations compatible with this
document, indicating support for deriving the shared key from the
IKEv2 SA. The new Modes value indicating support for this
specification is IANA.TBA.TWAMP.IKEv2Derived (note to IANA: 128 is
preferred, i.e. bit in position 7). Clearly, an implementation
compatible with this specification MUST support the authenticated,
encrypted and mixed modes as per [RFC4656][RFC5357][RFC5618].
The choice of this set of Modes values poses no backwards
compatibility problems to existing O/TWAMP clients. Robust legacy
client implementations would disregard the fact that the
IANA.TBA.TWAMP.IKEv2Derived Modes bit in the Server Greeting is set.
On the other hand, a client compatible with this specification can
easily identify that the O/TWAMP server contacted does not support
this specification. If the server supports other Modes, as one could
assume, the client would then decide which Mode to use and indicate
such accordingly as per [RFC4656][RFC5357]. A client compatible with
this specification which decides not to employ IKEv2 derivation, can
simply behave as a purely [RFC4656]/[RFC5357] compatible client.
5.3. Set-Up-Response Update
The Set-Up-Response Message should be updated as in Figure 3. When a
O/TWAMP client compatible with this specification receives a Server
Greeting indicating support for Mode IANA.TBA.TWAMP.IKEv2Derived it
SHOULD reply to the O/TWAMP server with a Set-Up response that
indicates so. For example, a compatible O/TWAMP client choosing the
authenticated mode with IKEv2 shared secret key derivation should set
Mode to 130, i.e. set the bits in positions 1 and 7 (TBD IANA) to
one.
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Mode |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Key ID (80 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Token (16 octets) |
| |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
| Client-IV (12 octets) |
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Set-Up-Response Message
The Security Parameter Index (SPI)(see [RFC4301] [RFC7296]) can
uniquely identify the Security Association (SA). If the client
supports the derivation of shared secret key from IKEv2 SA, it will
choose the corresponding mode value and carry SPIi and SPIr in the
Key ID field. SPIi and SPIr MUST be included in the Key ID field of
Set-Up-Response Message to indicate the IKEv2 SA from which the O/
TWAMP shared secret key derived from. The length of SPI is 4 octets.
Therefore, the first 4 octets of Key ID field MUST carry SPIi and the
second 4 octets MUST carry SPIr. The remaining bits of the Key ID
field MUST set to zero.
A O/TWAMP server which supports the specification of this document,
MUST obtain the SPIi and SPIr from the first 8 octets and ignore the
remaining octets of the Key ID field. Then, the client and the
server can derive the shared secret key based on the mode value and
SPI. If the O/TWAMP server cannot find the IKEv2 SA corresponding to
the SPIi and SPIr received, it MUST log the event for operational
management purposes. In addition, the O/TWAMP server SHOULD set the
Accept field of the Server-Start message to the value 6 to indicate
that server is not willing to conduct further transactions in this O/
TWAMP-Control session since it can not find the corresponding IKEv2
SA.
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
5.4. O/TWAMP over an IPsec tunnel
IPsec AH [RFC4302] and ESP [RFC4303] provide confidentiality and
data integrity to IP datagrams. Thus an IPsec tunnel can be used to
provide the protection needed for O/TWAMP Control and Test packets,
even if the peers choose the unauthenticated mode of operation. If
the two endpoints are already connected through an IPSec tunnel it is
RECOMMENDED that the O/TWAMP measurement packets are forwarded over
the IPSec tunnel if the peers choose the unauthenticated mode in
order to ensure authenticity and security.
6. Security Considerations
As the shared secret key is derived from the IKEv2 SA, the key
derivation algorithm strength and limitations are as per [RFC7296].
The strength of a key derived from a Diffie-Hellman exchange using
any of the groups defined here depends on the inherent strength of
the group, the size of the exponent used, and the entropy provided by
the random number generator employed. The strength of all keys and
implementation vulnerabilities, particularly Denial of Service (DoS)
attacks are as defined in [RFC7296].
As a more general note, the IPPM community may want to revisit the
arguments listed in [RFC4656], Sec. 6.6. Other widely-used Internet
security mechanisms, such as TLS and DTLS, may also be considered for
future use over and above of what is already specified in [RFC4656]
[RFC5357].
7. IANA Considerations
IANA is requested to allocate the IANA.TBA.TWAMP.IKEv2Derived Modes
value in the TWAMP-Modes registry.
8. Acknowledgments
We thank Eric Chen, Yaakov Stein, Brian Trammell, Emily Bi, John
Mattsson, and Steve Baillargeon for their comments and text
suggestions.
Al Morton deserves a special mention for his thorough reviews and
text contributions to this document as well as the constructive
discussions over several IPPM meetings.
9. References
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC4302] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302, December
2005.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)", RFC
4303, December 2005.
[RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M.
Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol
(OWAMP)", RFC 4656, September 2006.
[RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J.
Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)",
RFC 5357, October 2008.
[RFC5618] Morton, A. and K. Hedayat, "Mixed Security Mode for the
Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", RFC 5618,
August 2009.
[RFC7296] Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T.
Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2
(IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, October 2014.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2898] Kaliski, B., "PKCS #5: Password-Based Cryptography
Specification Version 2.0", RFC 2898, September 2000.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC6023] Nir, Y., Tschofenig, H., Deng, H., and R. Singh, "A
Childless Initiation of the Internet Key Exchange Version
2 (IKEv2) Security Association (SA)", RFC 6023, October
2010.
Authors' Addresses
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft IKEv2-based Shared Secret Key for O/TWAMP November 2014
Kostas Pentikousis (editor)
EICT GmbH
EUREF-Campus Haus 13
Torgauer Strasse 12-15
10829 Berlin
Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de
Emma Zhang
Huawei Technologies
Huawei Building, Q20, No.156, Rd. BeiQing
Haidian District , Beijing 100095
P. R. China
Email: emma.zhanglijia@huawei.com
Yang Cui
Huawei Technologies
Otemachi First Square 1-5-1 Otemachi
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0004
Japan
Email: cuiyang@huawei.com
Pentikousis, et al. Expires May 14, 2015 [Page 13]