\
Network Working Group                                         V. Smyslov
Internet-Draft                                                ELVIS-PLUS
Intended status: Standards Track                            July 2, 2013
Expires: January 3, 2014


                          IKEv2 Fragmentation
               draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation-00

Abstract

   This document describes the way to avoid IP fragmentation of large
   IKEv2 messages.  This allows IKEv2 messages to traverse network
   devices that don't allow IP fragments to pass through.

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 January 3, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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.





Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document  . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Protocol details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Limitations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3.  Negotiation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.4.  Using IKE Fragmentation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.5.  Fragmenting Message  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.5.1.  Selecting Fragment Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.5.2.  Fragmenting Messages containing unencrypted
               Payloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.6.  Receiving IKE Fragment Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.6.1.  Changes in Replay Protection Logic . . . . . . . . . . 10
   3.  Interaction with other IKE extensions  . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16




























Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


1.  Introduction

   The Internet Key Exchange Protocol version 2 (IKEv2), specified in
   [RFC5996], uses UDP as a transport for its messages.  When IKE
   message size exceeds path MTU, it gets fragmented by IP level.  The
   problem is that some network devices, specifically some NAT boxes,
   don't allow IP fragments to pass through.  This apparently blocks IKE
   communication and, therefore, prevents peers from establishing IPsec
   SA.

   The solution to the problem described in this document is to perform
   fragmentation of large messages by IKE itself, replacing them by
   series of smaller messages.  In this case the resulting IP Datagrams
   will be small enough so that no fragmentation on IP level will take
   place.

1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

   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].






























Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


2.  Protocol details

2.1.  Overview

   The idea of the protocol is to split large IKE message into the set
   of smaller ones, calling Fragment Messages.  On the receiving side
   Fragment Messages are collected and merged together to get original
   message.  In general this approach increases receiver's vulnerability
   to Denial of Service attack.  To reduce this vulnerability Fragment
   Messages are individually encrypted and authenticated.  This implies
   that message cannot be fragmented until shared secret is calculated.

2.2.  Limitations

   In general, original message can be fragmented if and only if it
   contains Encrypted Payload.  It means that messages in IKE_SA_INIT
   Exchange cannot be fragmented.  In most cases this is not a problem,
   since IKE_SA_INIT messages are usually small enough to avoid IP
   fragmentation.  But in some cases (advertising a badly structured
   long list of algorithms, using large MODP Groups, etc.) those
   messages may become fairly large and get fragmented by IP level.  In
   these cases the described solution won't help.

   Another limitation is that the minimal size of IP Datagram bearing
   IKE Fragment Message is about 100 bytes depending on the algorithms
   employed.  According to [RFC0791] the minimum IP Datagram size that
   is guaranteed not to be further fragmented is 68 bytes.  So, even the
   smallest IKE Fragment Messages could be fragmented by IP level in
   some circumstances.  But such extremely small PMTU sizes are very
   rare in real life.

2.3.  Negotiation

   Initiator MAY indicate its support for IKE Fragmentation and
   willingness to use it by including Notification Payload of type
   IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED in IKE_SA_INIT request message.  If
   Responder also supports this extension and is willing to use it, it
   includes this notification in response message.

   Initiator                   Responder
   -----------                 -----------
   HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni,
      [N(IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED)]  -->

                       <--   HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ],
                                  [N(IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED)]

   The Notify payload is formatted as follows:



Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Next Payload  |C|  RESERVED   |         Payload Length        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Protocol ID(=0)| SPI Size (=0) |      Notify Message Type      |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   o  Protocol ID (1 octet) MUST be 0.

   o  SPI Size (1 octet) MUST be 0, meaning no SPI is present.

   o  Notify Message Type (2 octets) - MUST be xxxxx, the value assigned
      for IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED by IANA.

   This Notification contains no data.

2.4.  Using IKE Fragmentation

   After IKE Fragmentation is negotiated, it is up to Initiator of each
   Exchange, whether to use it or not.  In most cases IKE Fragmentation
   will be used in IKE_AUTH Exchange, especially if certificates are
   employed.  Initiator may first try to send unfragmented message and
   resend it fragmented only if it didn't receive response after several
   retransmissions, or it may always send messages fragmented (but see
   Section 3), or it may fragment only large messages and messages
   causing large responses.

   In general the following guidelines are applicable:

   o  Initiator MAY fragment outgoing message if it suspects that either
      request or response message may be fragmented by IP level.

   o  Initiator SHOULD fragment outgoing message if it suspects that
      either request or response message may be fragmented by IP level
      and IKE Fragmentation was already used in one of previous
      Exchanges in the context of the current IKE SA.

   o  Initiator SHOULD NOT fragment outgoing message if both request and
      response messages of the Exchange are small enough not to cause
      fragmentation on IP level (for example, there is no point in
      fragmenting Liveness Check messages).

   Responder MUST send response message in the same form (fragmented or
   not) as corresponded request message.  If it received unfragmented
   request message, responded with unfragmented response message and
   then received fragmented retransmission of the same request, it MUST
   resend its response back to Initiator fragmented.



Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


2.5.  Fragmenting Message

   Message to be fragmented MUST contain Encrypted Payload.  For the
   purpose of IKE Fragment Messages construction original (unencrypted)
   content of Encrypted Payload is broken down into parts.  Its content
   is treated as a binary blob and is broken down regardless of inner
   Payloads boundaries.  Each of resulting parts is treated as a content
   for Encrypted Fragment Payload.

   The Encrypted Fragment Payload, denoted SKF{...}, contains other
   payloads in encrypted form.  The Encrypted Fragment Payload, as well
   as Encrypted Payload from [RFC5996], if present in a message, MUST be
   the last payload in the message.

   The payload type for an Encrypted Fragment payload is XXX (TBA by
   IANA).

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Next Payload  |C|  RESERVED   |         Payload Length        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Fragment Number        |        Total Fragments        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Initialization Vector                     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                      Encrypted content                        ~
   +               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               |             Padding (0-255 octets)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                               |  Pad Length   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                    Integrity Checksum Data                    ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                        Encrypted Fragment Payload

   o  Next Payload (1 octet) - in the very first fragment MUST be set to
      Payload Type of the first inner Payload (as in Encrypted Payload).
      In the rest fragments MUST be set to zero.

   o  Fragment Number (2 octets) - current fragment number starting from
      1.  This field MUST be less than or equal to the next field, Total
      Fragments.

   o  Total Fragments (2 octets) - number of fragments original message
      was divided into.  This field MUST NOT be zero.




Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


   Other fields are identical to those specified in Section 3.14 of
   [RFC5996].

   When prepending IKE Header, Length field MUST be adjusted to reflect
   the length of constructed message and Next Payload field MUST reflect
   payload type of the first Payload in the constructed message (that in
   most cases will be Encrypted Fragment Payload).  All newly
   constructed messages MUST retain the same Message ID as original
   message.  After prepending IKE Header and possibly any of Payloads
   that precedes Encrypted Payload in original message (see
   Section 2.5.2), the resulting messages are sent to the peer.

   Below is an example of fragmenting some message.

   HDR(MID=n), SK(NextPld=PLD1) {PLD1 ... PLDN}

                             Original Message


   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=PLD1, Frag#=1, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=2, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   ...
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=m, TotalFrags=m) {...}

                           IKE Fragment Messages

2.5.1.  Selecting Fragment Size

   When breaking content of Encrypted Payload down into parts sender
   SHOULD chose size of those parts so, that resulting IP Datagram size
   not exceed some fragmentation threshold - be small enough to avoid IP
   fragmentation.

   If sender has some knowledge about PMTU size it MAY use it.  If
   sender is a Responder in the Exchange and it has received fragmented
   request, it MAY use maximum size of received IKE Fragment Message IP
   Datagrams as threshold when constructing fragmented response.

   Otherwise for messages to be sent over IPv6 it is RECOMMENDED to use
   value 1280 bytes as a maximum IP Datagram size ([RFC2460]).  For
   messages to be sent over IPv4 it is RECOMMENDED to use value 576
   bytes as a maximum IP Datagram size.

   For IPv4 Encrypted Payload content size is less than IP Datagram size
   by the sum of the following values:

   o  IPv4 header size (typically 20 bytes, up to 60 if IP options are
      present)



Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


   o  UDP header size (8 bytes)

   o  non-ESP marker size (4 bytes if present)

   o  IKE Header size (28 bytes)

   o  Encrypted Payload header size (4 bytes)

   o  IV size (varying)

   o  padding and its size (at least 1 byte)

   o  ICV size (varying)

   The sum may be estimated as 61..105 bytes + IV + ICV + padding.  For
   IPv6 this estimation is difficult as there may be varying IPv6
   Extension headers included.

   According to [RFC0791] the minimum IPv4 datagram size that is
   guaranteed not to be further fragmented is 68 bytes, but it is
   generally impossible to use such small value for solution, described
   in this document.  Using 576 bytes is a compromise - the value is
   large enough for the presented solution and small enough to avoid IP
   fragmentation in most situations.  Several other UDP-based protocol
   assume the value 576 bytes as a safe low limit for IP datagrams size
   (Syslog, DNS, etc.).  Sender MAY use other values if they are
   appropriate.

   Initiator MAY try to discover path MTU by using several values of
   fragmentation threshold, provided that it starts with larger values
   and fragments message again with next smaller value if it doesn't
   receive response in a reasonable time after several retransmissions.
   In this case using next smaller value MUST result in increasing Total
   Fragments field.

2.5.2.  Fragmenting Messages containing unencrypted Payloads

   Currently no one of IKEv2 Exchanges defines messages, containing both
   unencrypted payloads and payloads, protected by Encrypted Payload.
   But IKEv2 doesn't forbid such messages.  If some future IKEv2
   extension defines such a message and it needs to be fragmented, all
   unprotected payloads MUST be in the first fragment, along with
   Encrypted Fragment Payload, which MUST be present in any IKE Fragment
   Message.

   Below is an example of fragmenting message, containing both encrypted
   and unencrypted Payloads.




Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


   HDR(MID=n), PLD0, SK(NextPld=PLD1) {PLD1 ... PLDN}

                             Original Message


   HDR(MID=n), PLD0, SKF(NextPld=PLD1, Frag#=1, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=2, TotalFrags=m) {...},
   ...
   HDR(MID=n), SKF(NextPld=0, Frag#=m, TotalFrags=m) {...}

                           IKE Fragment Messages

   Note, that the size of each IP Datagram bearing IKE Fragment Messages
   SHOULD NOT exceed fragmentation threshold, including the very first,
   which contains unprotected Payloads.  This will reduce the size of
   Encrypted Fragment Payload content in the first IKE Fragment Message
   to accommodate unprotected Payloads.  In extreme cases Encrypted
   Fragment Payload will contain no data, but it is still MUST be
   present in the message, because only its presence allows receiver to
   distinguish IKE Fragment Message from regular IKE message.

2.6.  Receiving IKE Fragment Message

   Receiver identifies IKE Fragment Message by the presence of Encrypted
   Fragment Payload in it.  Note, that it is possible for this payload
   to be not the first (and the only) payload in the message (see
   Section 2.5.2).  But for all currently defined IKEv2 exchanges this
   payload will be the first and the only payload in the message.

   Upon receiving IKE Fragment Message the following actions are
   performed:

   o  Check message validity - in particular, check whether values of
      Fragment Number and Total Fragments in Encrypted Fragment Payload
      are valid.  If not - message MUST be silently discarded.

   o  Check, that this IKE Fragment Message is new for the receiver and
      not a replay.  If IKE Fragment message with the same Message ID,
      same Fragment Number and same Total Fragments fields was already
      received and successfully processed, this message is considered a
      replay and MUST be discarded.

   o  Verify IKE Fragment Message authenticity by checking ICV in
      Encrypted Fragment Payload.  If ICV check fails message MUST be
      silently discarded.

   o  If reassembling isn't finished yet and Total Fragments field in
      received IKE Fragment Message is greater than this field in



Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


      previously received fragments, receiver MUST discard all received
      fragments and start reassembling over with just received IKE
      Fragment Message.

   o  Store message in the list waiting for the rest of fragments to
      arrive.

   When all IKE Fragment Messages (as indicated in the Total Fragments
   field) are received, content of their Encrypted Fragment Payloads is
   decrypted and merged together to form content of original Encrypted
   Payload, and, therefore, along with IKE Header, original message.
   Then it is processed as if it was received, verified and decrypted as
   as regular unfragmented message.

2.6.1.  Changes in Replay Protection Logic

   According to [RFC5996] IKEv2 MUST reject message with the same
   Message ID as it has seen before (taking into consideration Response
   bit).  This logic has already been updated by [RFC6311], which
   deliberately allows any number of messages with zero Message ID.
   This document also updates this logic: if message contains Encrypted
   Fragment Payload, the values of Fragment Number and Total Fragments
   fields from this payload MUST be used along with Message ID to detect
   retransmissions and replays.

   If Responder receives IKE Fragment Message after it received,
   successfully verified and processed regular message with the same
   Message ID, it means that response message didn't reach Initiator and
   it activated IKE Fragmentation.  If Fragment Number in Encrypted
   Fragment Payload in this message is equal to 1, Responder MUST
   fragment its response and retransmit it back to Initiator in
   fragmented form.

   If Responder receives a replay IKE Fragment Message for already
   reassembled, verified and processed fragmented message, it MUST
   retransmit response back to Initiator, but only if Fragment Number
   field in Encrypted Fragment Payload is equal to 1 and MUST silently
   discard received message otherwise.













Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


3.  Interaction with other IKE extensions

   IKE Fragmentation is compatible with most of defined IKE extensions,
   like IKE Session Resumption [RFC5723], Quick Crash Detection Method
   [RFC6290] and so on.  It neither affect their operation, nor is
   affected by them.  It is believed that IKE Fragmentation will also be
   compatible with most future IKE extensions, if they follow general
   principles of formatting, sending and receiving IKE messages,
   described in [RFC5996].

   The notable exception that requires a special care is [RFC6311] -
   Protocol Support for High Availability of IKEv2.  As it deliberately
   allows any number of synchronization Exchanges to have the same
   Message ID - zero, standard replay detection logic, based on checking
   Message ID is not applicable for such messages, and receiver has to
   check message content to detect replays.  When implementing IKE
   Fragmentation along with [RFC6311], IKE Message ID Synchronization
   messages MUST NOT be sent fragmented to simplify receiver's task of
   detecting replays.  Fortunately, these messages are small and there
   is no point in fragmenting them anyway.































Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


4.  Security Considerations

   Most of the security considerations for IKE Fragmentation are the
   same as those for base IKEv2 protocol described in [RFC5996].  This
   extension introduces Encrypted Fragment Payload to protect content of
   IKE Message Fragment.  This allows receiver to individually check
   authenticity of fragments, thus protecting itself from Denial of
   Service attack.











































Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


5.  IANA Considerations

   This document defines new Payload in the "IKEv2 Payload Types"
   registry:

     <TBA>       Encrypted Fragment Payload          SKF

   This document also defines new Notify Message Types in the "Notify
   Messages Types - Status Types" registry:

     <TBA>       IKE_FRAGMENTATION_SUPPORTED








































Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


6.  Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank Tero Kivinen, Yoav Nir, Paul Wouters for their
   review comments.















































Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

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

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

   [RFC6311]  Singh, R., Kalyani, G., Nir, Y., Sheffer, Y., and D.
              Zhang, "Protocol Support for High Availability of IKEv2/
              IPsec", RFC 6311, July 2011.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC0791]  Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791,
              September 1981.

   [RFC2460]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, December 1998.

   [RFC5723]  Sheffer, Y. and H. Tschofenig, "Internet Key Exchange
              Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) Session Resumption", RFC 5723,
              January 2010.

   [RFC6290]  Nir, Y., Wierbowski, D., Detienne, F., and P. Sethi, "A
              Quick Crash Detection Method for the Internet Key Exchange
              Protocol (IKE)", RFC 6290, June 2011.





















Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft             IKEv2 Fragmentation                 July 2013


Author's Address

   Valery Smyslov
   ELVIS-PLUS
   PO Box 81
   Moscow (Zelenograd)  124460
   RU

   Phone: +7 495 276 0211
   Email: svan@elvis.ru









































Smyslov                  Expires January 3, 2014               [Page 16]