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

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06                                          
Network Working Group                                       R. Moskowitz
Internet-Draft                         ICSAlabs, a Division of TruSecure
Expires: March 1, 2004                                       Corporation
                                                             P. Nikander
                                           Ericsson Research Nomadic Lab
                                                                Sep 2003


                  Host Identity Protocol Architecture
                      draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-04

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   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 March 1, 2004.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This memo describes the reasoning behind proposing a new namespace,
   the Host Identity namespace, and a new layer, Host Identity Layer,
   between the internetworking and transport layers.  Herein are
   presented the basics of the current namespaces, strengths and
   weaknesses, and how a new namespace will add completeness to them.
   The roles of this new namespace in the protocols are defined.







Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.1 A Desire for Namespace for Computing Platforms . . . . . . . .  5
   3.  Host Identity Namespace  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.1 Host Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   3.2 Storing Host Identifiers in DNS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.3 Host Identity Tag (HIT)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3.4 Local Scope Identity (LSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   4.  The New Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   4.1 Transport associations and endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   5.  End-Host Mobility and Multi-Homing via HIP . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.1 Rendezvous server  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   5.2 Protection against Flooding Attacks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   6.  HIP and NATs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   6.1 HIP and TCP Checksum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   7.  HIP Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   8.  Benefits of HIP  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
   8.1 HIP's Answers to NSRG questions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   9.1 HITs used in ACLs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
   9.2 Non-security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   10. Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       References (informative) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 25
























Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


1. Introduction

   The Internet has created two global namespaces: Internet Protocol
   (IP) addresses, and Domain Name Service (DNS) names. These two
   namespaces have a set of features and abstractions that have powered
   the Internet to what it is today.  They also have a number of
   weaknesses.  Basically, since they are all we have, we try and do too
   much with them.  Semantic overloading and functionality extensions
   have greatly complicated these namespaces.

   The Host Identity namespace fills an important gap between the IP and
   DNS namespaces.  The Host Identity namespace consist of Host
   Identifiers (HI).  A Host Identifier is cryptographic in its nature;
   it is the public key of an asymmetric key-pair.  A HI is assigned to
   each host, or technically its networking kernel or stack.  Each host
   will have at least one Host Identifier, which can either be public
   (e.g. published in DNS), or anonymous.  Client systems will tend to
   have both public and anonymous HIs.

   Although the Host Identity can be used in many authentication
   systems, its design principle calls out for a new protocol and
   exchange [5] that will support limited forms of trust between
   systems, enhance mobility, multi-homing and dynamic IP renumbering,
   aid in protocol translation / transition, and greatly reduce denial
   of service (DoS) attacks.


























Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


2. Background

   The Internet is built from three principle components: computing
   platforms, packet transport (i.e. internetworking) infrastructure,
   and services (applications).  The Internet exists to service two
   principal components: people and robotic processes (silicon based
   people, if you will).  All these components need to be named in order
   to interact in a scalable manner.

   There are two principal namespaces in use in the Internet for these
   components: IP numbers, and Domain Names.  Email, HTTP and SIP
   addresses are really only an extension of Domain Names.

   IP numbers are a confounding of two namespaces, the names of the
   networking interfaces and the names of the locations ('confounding'
   is a term used in statistics to discuss metrics that are merged into
   one with a gain in indexing, but a loss in informational value).  The
   names of locations should be understood as denoting routing direction
   vectors, i.e., information that is used to deliver packets to their
   destinations.

   IP numbers name networking interfaces, and typically only when the
   interface is connected to the network.  Originally IP numbers had
   long-term significance.  Today, the vast number of interfaces use
   ephemeral and/or non-unique IP numbers.  That is, every time an
   interface is connected to the network, it is assigned an IP number.

   In the current Internet, the transport layers are coupled to the IP
   addresses.  Neither can evolve separately from the other. IPng
   deliberations were framed by concerns of requiring a TCPng effort as
   well.

   Domain Names provide hierarchically assigned names for some computing
   platforms and some services.  Each hierarchy is delegated from the
   level above; there is no anonymity in Domain Names.

   Email addresses provide naming for both humans and autonomous
   applications.  Email addresses are extensions of Domain Names, only
   in so far as a named service is responsible for managing a person's
   mail.  There is some anonymity in Email addresses.

   There are three critical deficiencies with the current namespaces.
   Firstly, dynamic readdressing cannot be directly managed.  Secondly,
   anonymity is not provided in a consistent, trustable manner.
   Finally, authentication for systems and datagrams is not provided.
   All because computing platforms are not well named with the current
   namespaces.




Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


2.1 A Desire for Namespace for Computing Platforms

   An independent namespace for computing platforms could be used in
   end-to-end operations independent of the evolution of the
   internetworking layer and across the many internetworking layers.
   This could support rapid readdressing of the internetworking layer
   either from mobility or renumbering.

   If the namespace for computing platforms is cryptographically based,
   it can also provide authentication services for IPsec.  If this
   namespace is locally created without requiring registration, it can
   provide anonymity.

   Such a namespace (for computing platforms) and the names in it should
   have the following characteristics:

      The namespace should be applied to the IP 'kernel'. The IP kernel
      is the 'component' between services and the packet transport
      infrastructure.

      The namespace should fully decouple the internetworking layer from
      the higher layers.  The names should replace all occurrences of IP
      addresses within applications (like in the TCB).  This may require
      changes to the current APIs.  In the long run, it is probable that
      some new APIs are needed.

      The introduction of the namespace should not mandate any
      administrative infrastructure.  Deployment must come from the
      bottom up, in a pairwise deployment.

      The names should have a fixed length representation, for easy
      inclusion in datagrams and programming interfaces (e.g the TCB).

      Using the namespace should be affordable when used in protocols.
      This is primarily a packet size issue.  There is also a
      computational concern in affordability.

      The names must be statistically globally unique.  64 bits is
      inadequate (1% chance of collision in a population of 640M); thus
      approximately 100 or more bits should be used.

      The names should have a localized abstraction so that it can be
      used in existing protocols and APIs.

      It must be possible to create names locally.  This can provide
      anonymity at the cost of making resolvability very difficult.

         Sometimes the names may contain a delegation component. This is



Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


         the cost of resolvability.

      The namespace should provide authentication services. This is a
      preferred function.

      The names should be long lived, but replaceable at any time.  This
      impacts access control lists; short lifetimes will tend to result
      in tedious list maintenance or require a namespace infrastructure
      for central control of access lists.

   In this document, such a new namespace is called the Host Identity
   namespace.  Using Host Identities requires its own protocol layer
   (the Host Identity Protocol), between the internetworking and
   transport layers.  The names are based on public key cryptography to
   supply authentication services. Properly designed, it can deliver all
   of the above stated requirements.



































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


3. Host Identity Namespace

   A name in the Host Identity namespace, a Host Identifier (HI),
   represents a statistically globally unique name for naming any system
   with an IP stack.  This identity is normally associated, but not
   limited to, an IP stack. A system can have multiple identities, some
   'well known', some anonymous.  A system may self assert its identity,
   or may use a third-party authenticator like DNSSEC, PGP, or X.509 to
   'notarize' the identity assertion.  DNSSEC is a "SHOULD" implement
   authenticator for the Host Identity namespace.

   There is a subtle but important difference between Host Identities
   and Host Identifiers.  An Identity refers to the abstract entity that
   is identified.  An Identifier, on the other hand, refers to the
   concrete bit pattern that is used in the identification process.

   Although a Host Identifier could be any name that can claim
   'statistically globally unique', a public key of a 'public key' pair
   makes the best Host Identifiers.  As documented in the Host Identity
   Protocol (HIP) specification [5], a public key based HI can
   authenticate the HIP packets and protect them for man-in-the-middle
   attacks.  And since authenticated datagrams are mandatory to provide
   much of HIP's DoS protection, the Diffie-Hellman exchange in HIP has
   to be authenticated.  Thus, only public key HI and authenticated
   datagrams are supported in practice.  In this document, the
   non-cryptographic forms of HI and HIP are presented to complete the
   theory of HI, but should not be implemented as they could produce
   worse DoS attacks than the Internet has without HI.

3.1 Host Identifiers

   Host Identity adds two main features to Internet protocols. The first
   is a decoupling of the internetworking and transport layers, see
   Section 4.  This decoupling will allow for independent evolution of
   the two layers.  Additionally, it can provide end-to-end services
   over multiple internetworking realms.  The second feature is host
   authentication.  Because the Host Identifier is a public key, this
   key can be used to authenticate security protocols like IPsec.

   The only completely defined structure of the Host Identity is that of
   a public key pair.  In this case, the Host Identity is referred to by
   its public component, the public key.  Thus, the name representing a
   Host Identity in the Host Identity namespace, i.e. the Host
   Identifier, is the public key.  In a way, the possession of the
   private key defines the Identity itself.  It the private key is
   possessed by more than one node, the Identity can be considered to be
   a distributed one.




Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   Architecturally, any other Internet naming convention might form a
   usable base for Host Identifiers.  However, non-cryptographic names
   should only be used in situations of high trust - low risk.  That is
   any place where host authentication is not needed (no risk of host
   spoofing) and no use of IPsec.  The current HIP documents do not
   specify how to use any other types of Host Identifiers but public
   keys.

   The actual Host Identities are never directly used in any Internet
   protocols.  The corresponding Host Identifiers (public keys) may be
   stored in various DNS or LDAP directories as identified elsewhere in
   this document, and they are passed in the HIP protocol.  A Host
   Identity Tag (HIT) is used in other protocols to represent the Host
   Identities.  Another representation of the Host Identities, the Local
   Scope Identity (LSI), can also be used in protocols and APIs.  LSI's
   advantage over HIT is its size; its disadvantage is its local scope.

3.2 Storing Host Identifiers in DNS

   The Host Identifiers should be stored in DNS.  The exception to this
   is anonymous identities.  The HI is stored in a new RR type, to be
   defined.  This RR type is likely to be very similar to the IPSECKEY
   RR [6].

   Alternatively, or in addition to storing Host Identifiers in the DNS,
   they may be stored in various kinds of Public Key Infrastructure
   (PKI).  Such a practice may allow them to be used for purposes other
   than pure host identification.

3.3 Host Identity Tag (HIT)

   A Host Identity Tag is an 128 bit representation for a Host Identity.
   It is created by taking a cryptographic hash over the corresponding
   Host Identifier.  There are two advantages of using a hash over using
   the Host Identifier in protocols. Firstly, its fixed length makes for
   easier protocol coding and also better manages the packet size cost
   of this technology. Secondly, it presents a consistent format to the
   protocol independent of the whatever underlying identity technology
   is used.

   In the HIP protocol, the HITs identify the sender and recipient of a
   packet.  Consequently, a HIT should be unique in the whole IP
   universe.  In the extremely rare case that a single HIT happens to
   map to more than one Host Identities, the Host Identifiers (public
   keys) will make the final difference.  If there is more than one
   public key for a given node, the HIT acts as a hint for the correct
   public key to use.




Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


3.4 Local Scope Identity (LSI)

   An LSI is a 32 bit localized representation for a Host Identity. The
   purpose of an LSI is to facilitate using Host Identity in existing
   protocols and APIs.  The generation of LSIs is defined in [5].

   Examples of how LSIs can be used include: as the address in a FTP
   command and as the address in a socket call.  Thus LSIs act as a
   bridge for Host Identifier into old protocols and APIs.










































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


4. The New Architecture

   One way to characterize Host Identity is to compare the proposed new
   architecture with the current one.  As discussed above, the IP
   addresses can be seen to be a confounding of routing direction
   vectors and interface names.  Using the terminology from the IRTF
   Name Space Research Group Report [7] and, e.g., the unpublished
   Internet-Draft Endpoints and Endpoint Names [9], currently the IP
   addresses embody the dual role of locators and endpoint identifiers.
   That is, each IP address names a topological location in the
   Internet, thereby acting as a routing direction vector or locator.
   At the same time, the IP address names the physical network interface
   currently located at the point-of-attachment, thereby acting as a
   endpoint name.

   In the HIP Architecture, the endpoint names and locators are
   separated from each other.  IP addresses continue to act as locators.
   The Host Identifiers take the role of endpoint identifiers.  It is
   important to understand that the endpoint names based on Host
   Identities are slightly different from interface names; a Host
   Identity can be simultaneously reachable through several interfaces.

   The difference between the bindings of the logical entities are
   illustrated in Figure 1.


   Process ------ Socket                  Process ------ Socket
                    |                                      |
                    |                                      |
                    |                                      |
                    |                                      |
   Endpoint         |                     Endpoint --- Host Identity
            \       |                                      |
              \     |                                      |
                \   |                                      |
                  \ |                                      |
   Location --- IP address                Location --- IP address


                                Figure 1


4.1 Transport associations and endpoints

   Architecturally, HIP provides for a different binding of transport
   layer protocols.  That is, the transport layer associations, i.e.,
   TCP connections and UDP associations, are no more bound to IP
   addresses but to Host Identities.



Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   It is possible that a single physical computer hosts several logical
   end-points.  With HIP, each of these end-points would have a distinct
   Host Identity.  Furthermore, since the transport associations are
   bound to Host Identities, HIP provides for process migration and
   clustered servers. That is, if a Host Identity is moved from one
   physical computer to another, it is also possible to simultaneously
   move all the transport associations without breaking them. Similarly,
   if it is possible to distribute the processing of a single Host
   Identity over several physical computers, HIP provides for cluster
   based services without any changes at the client end-point.









































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


5. End-Host Mobility and Multi-Homing via HIP

   As HIP decouples the transport from the internetworking layer, and
   binds the transport associations to the Host Identifiers (through
   actually either the HIT or LSI), HIP can provide for a degree of
   internetworking mobility and multi-homing at a very low
   infrastructure cost.  HIP mobility includes IP address changes (via
   any method) to either the initiator or responder.  Thus, a system is
   considered mobile if its IP address can change dynamically for any
   reason like PPP, DHCP, IPv6 TLA reassignments, or a NAT device
   remapping its translation.  Likewise, a system is considered
   multi-homed if it has more than one globally routable IP address at
   the same time. HIP allows these IP addresses to be linked with each
   other, and if one address becomes unusable (e.g. due a network
   failure), existing transport associations can be easily moved to
   another address.

   When a node moves while communication is already on-going, address
   changes are rather straightforward.  The peer of the mobile node can
   just accept a HIP or an ESP packet from any address and totally
   ignore the source address.  As discussed in Section 5.2 below, a
   mobile node must send a HIP readdress packet to inform the peer of
   the new address(es), and the peer must verify that the new mobile
   node is reachable through these addresses.  This is especially
   helpful for those situations where the peer node is sending data
   periodically to the mobile node (that is re-starting a connection
   after the initial connection).

5.1 Rendezvous server

   Making a contact to a mobile node is slightly more involved.  The
   initiator node has to know where the mobile node is to start the HIP
   exchange.  HIP need not rely on Dynamic DNS for this function, but
   uses a rendezvous server. Instead of registering its current dynamic
   address to the DNS server, the mobile node registers the address of
   the rendezvous server.  The mobile node keeps the rendezvous server
   continuously updated with its current IP address(es). The rendezvous
   server simply forwards the initial HIP packet from an initiator to
   the mobile node at its current location. All further packets flow
   between the initiator and the mobile node.  There is typically very
   little activity on the rendezvous server, address updates and initial
   HIP packet forwarding, thus one server can support a large number of
   potential mobile nodes.  The mobile nodes must trust the rendezvous
   server to properly maintain its HIT and IP address mapping.

   The rendezvous server is also needed if both of the nodes are mobile
   and happen to move at the same time.  In that case the HIP readdress
   packets will cross each other in the network and never reach the peer



Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   node.  To solve this situation, the nodes should remember the
   rendezvous server address, and re-send the HIP readdress packet to
   the rendezvous server if no reply is received.

   The mobile node keeps its address current on the rendezvous server by
   setting up a HIP based SA with the rendezvous server and sending it
   HIP readdress packets.  A rendezvous server will permit two mobile
   systems to use HIP without any extraneous infrastructure (in addition
   to the rendezvous server itself), including DNSSEC if they have a
   method other than a DNS query to get each other's HI and HIT.

5.2 Protection against Flooding Attacks

   While the idea of informing about address changes by simply sending
   packets with a new source address appears appealing, it is not secure
   enough.  That is, while receiving packets in HIP does not rely on the
   source address for anything, it appears to be necessary to check the
   mobile node's reachability at the new address(es) before actually
   sending any larger amounts of traffic to the address.

   Blindly accepting new addresses would potentially lead to a flooding
   Denial-of-Service attack against third parties [8].  In a distributed
   flooding attack an attacker opens (anonymous) high volume HIP
   connections with a large number of hosts, and then claims to all of
   these hosts that it has moved to a target node's IP address.  If the
   peer hosts were to simply accept the move, the result would be a
   packet flood to the target node's address.  To close this attack, HIP
   includes an address check mechanism where the reachability of the
   node is separately checked at each address before actually using the
   address for larger amounts of traffic.

   Whenever HIP is used between two hosts that fully trust each other,
   the hosts may optionally decide to skip the address tests.  However,
   such performance optimization must be restricted to be performed only
   with peers that are known to be trustworthy and capable of protecting
   themselves from malicious software.















Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


6. HIP and NATs

   Passing packets between different IP addressing realms requires
   changing IP addresses in the packet header.  This may happen, for
   example, when a packet is passed between the public Internet and a
   private address space, or between IPv4 and IPv6 networks.  The
   address translation is usually implemented as Network Address
   Translation (NAT) [3] or NAT Protocol translation (NAT-PT) [2].

   In a network environment where the identification is based on the IP
   address, identifying the communicating nodes is difficult when the
   NAT is used.  With HIP, the transport layer end-points are bound to
   the HIT or LSI.  Thus, a connection between two hosts can traverse
   many addressing realm boundaries.  The IP addresses are used only for
   routing purposes; the IP addresses may be changed freely during
   packet traversal.

   For a HIP based flow, a NAT or NAT-PT system needs only track the
   mapping of the HIT or SPI to an IP address.  Many HITs can map to a
   single IP address on a NAT, simplifying connections on address poor
   NAT interfaces.  The NAT can gain much of its knowledge from the HIP
   packets themselves; however some NAT configuration may be necessary.

   The NAT systems cannot touch the datagrams within the ESP envelope,
   thus application specific address translation must be done in the end
   systems.  HIP provides for 'Distributed NAT', and uses the HIT or the
   LSI as a place holder for embedded IP addresses.

6.1 HIP and TCP Checksum

   There is no way for a host to know if any of the IP addresses in the
   IP header are the addresses used to calculate the TCP checksum.  That
   is, it is not feasible to calculate the TCP checksum using the IP
   addresses in the pseudo header; the addresses received in the
   incoming packet are not necessarily the same as they were on the
   sending host. Furthermore, it is not possible to recompute the upper
   layer checksums in the NAT/NAT-PT system, since the traffic is IPsec
   protected.  Consequently, the TCP and UDP checksums are calculated
   using the HIT in the place of the IP addresses in the pseudo header.












Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


7. HIP Policies

   There are a number of variables that will influence the HIP exchanges
   that each host must support.  All HIP implementations should support
   at least 2 HIs, one to publish in DNS and one for anonymous usage.
   Although anonymous HIs will be rarely used as responder HIs, they are
   likely be common for initiators. Support for multiple HIs is
   recommended.

   Many initiators would want to use a different HI for different
   responders.  The implementations should provide for a policy of
   initiator HIT to responder HIT.  This policy should also include
   preferred transform and local lifetimes.

   Responders would need a similar policy, representing which hosts they
   accept HIP exchanges, and the preferred transform and local
   lifetimes.


































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


8. Benefits of HIP

   In the beginning, the network layer protocol (i.e. IP) had the
   following four "classic" invariants:

      Non-mutable: The address sent is the address received.

      Non-mobile: The address doesn't change during the course of an
      "association".

      Reversible: A return header can always be formed by reversing the
      source and destination addresses.

      Omniscient: Each host knows what address a partner host can use to
      send packets to it.

   Actually, the fourth can be inferred from 1 and 3, but it is worth
   mentioning for reasons that will be obvious soon if not already.

   In the current "post-classic" world, we are trying intentionally to
   get rid of the second invariant (both for mobility and for
   multi-homing), and we have been forced to give up the first and the
   fourth.  Realm Specific IP [4] is an attempt to reinstate the fourth
   invariant without the first invariant.  IPv6 is an attempt to
   reinstate the first invariant.

   Few systems on the Internet have DNS names that are meaningful to
   them.  That is, if they have a Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN),
   that typically belongs to a NAT device or a dial-up server, and does
   not really identify the system itself but its current connectivity.
   FQDN names (and their extensions as email names) are Application
   Layer names; more frequently naming processes than a particular
   system.  This is why many systems on the internet are not registered
   in DNS; they do not have processes of interest to other Internet
   hosts.

   DNS names are indirect references to IP addresses.  This only
   demonstrates the interrelationship of the networking and application
   layers.  DNS, as the Internet's only deployed, distributed, database
   is also the repository of other namespaces, due in part to DNSSEC and
   KEY records.  Although each namespace can be stretched (IP with v6,
   DNS with KEY records), neither can adequately provide for host
   authentication or act as a separation between internetworking and
   transport layers.

   The Host Identity (HI) namespace fills an important gap between the
   IP and DNS namespaces.  An interesting thing about the HI is that it
   actually allows one to give-up all but the 3rd Network Layer



Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 16]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   invariant.  That is to say, as long as the source and destination
   addresses in the network layer protocol are reversible, then things
   work ok because HIP takes care of host identification, and
   reversibility allows one to get a packet back to one's partner host.
   You don't care if the network layer address changes in transit
   (mutable) and you don't care what network layer address the partner
   is using (non-omniscient).

   Since all systems can have a Host Identity, every system can have an
   entry in the DNS.  The mobility features in HIP make it attractive to
   trusted 3rd parties to offer rendezvous servers.

8.1 HIP's Answers to NSRG questions

   The IRTF Name Space Research Group has posed a number of evaluating
   questions in their report [7].  In this section, we provide answers
   to these questions.

   1.  How would a stack name improve the overall functionality of the
       Internet?

          The HIP Host Identifiers make end-host mobility and
          multi-homing easier by separating the transport layer and
          internetworking layer from each other.  Among other things,
          this allows mobility and multi-homing across the IPv4 and IPv6
          internets.  Host Identifiers also make network re-numbering
          easier.  At the conceptual level, they also make process
          migration and clustered servers easier to implement.
          Furthermore, being cryptographic in nature, they also provide
          the basis for solving the security problems related to
          end-host mobility and multi-homing.

   2.  What does a stack name look like?

          A HIP Host Identifier is a cryptographic public key.  However,
          instead of using the keys directly, most protocols use a fixed
          size hash of the public key.

   3.  What is its lifetime?

          HIP provides both stable and temporary Host Identifiers.
          Stable Host Identifiers are typically long lived, with a
          lifetime of years or more.  The lifetime of temporary Host
          Identifiers depends on how long the upper layer connections
          and applications need them, and can range from a few seconds
          to years.





Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 17]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   4.  Where does it live in the stack?

          The HIP Host Identifiers live between the transport and
          internetworking layers.

   5.  How is it used on the end points

          The HIP Host Identifiers, in the form of HITs or LSIs, are
          used by legacy applications as if they were IP addresses.
          Additionally, the Host Identifiers, as public keys, are used
          in a built in key agreement protocol to authenticate the
          Diffie-Hellman key exchange.

   6.  What administrative infrastructure is needed to support it?

          It is possible to use HIP opportunistically, without any
          infrastructure.  However, to gain full benefit from HIP, the
          Host Identifiers must be stored in the DNS, and a new
          infrastructure of Rendezvous servers is needed.

   7.  If we add an additional layer would it make the address list in
       SCTP unnecessary?

          Yes

   8.  What additional security benefits would a new naming scheme
       offer?

          HIP reduces dependency on IP addresses, making the so called
          address ownership problems easier to solve. In practice, HIP
          provides security for end-host mobility and multi-homing.
          Furthermore, since HIP Host Identifiers are public keys,
          standard public key certificate infrastructures can be applied
          on the top of HIP.

   9.  What would the resolution mechanisms be, or what characteristics
       of a resolution mechanisms would be required?

          For most purposes, an approach where DNS names are resolved
          simultaneously to Host Identifiers and IP addresses is
          sufficient.  However, if it becomes necessary to resolve Host
          Identifiers into IP addresses or back to DNS names, a flat,
          hash based resolution infrastructure is needed.  Such an
          infrastructure could be based on the ideas of Distributed Hash
          Tables, but would require significant new development and
          deployment.





Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 18]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


9. Security Considerations

   HIP takes advantage of the new Host Identity paradigm to provide
   secure authentication of hosts and provide a fast key exchange for
   IPsec ESP.  HIP also attempts to limit the exposure of the host to
   various denial-of-service (DoS) and man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks.
   In so doing, HIP itself is subject to its own DoS and MitM attacks
   that potentially could be more damaging to a host's ability to
   conduct business as usual.

   The Security Association for ESP is indexed by the SPI; the source
   address is always ignored, and the destination address may be ignored
   as well.  Therefore, HIP enabled ESP is IP address independent.  This
   might seem to make it easier for an attacker, but ESP with replay
   protection is already as well protected as possible, and the removal
   of the IP address as a check should not increase the exposure of ESP
   to DoS attacks.

   Denial-of-service attacks take advantage of the cost of setting up a
   state for a protocol on the responder compared to the 'cheapness' on
   the initiator.  HIP both allows to increase the cost of the start of
   state on the initiator and makes an effort to reduce the cost to the
   responder.  This is done by having the responder start the
   authenticated Diffie-Hellman protocol instead of the initiator,
   making the HIP protocol 4 packets long.  There are more details on
   this process in the HIP protocol specification [5].

   HIP optionally supports opportunistic negotiation.  That is, if a
   host receives a start of transport without a HIP negotiation, it can
   attempt to force a HIP exchange before accepting the connection.
   This has the potential for DoS attacks against both hosts.  If the
   method to force the start of HIP is expensive on either host, the
   attacker need only spoof a TCP SYN.  This would put both systems into
   the expensive operations.  HIP avoids this attack by having the
   responder send a simple HIP packet that it can pre-build.  Since this
   packet is fixed and easily spoofed, the initiator only reacts to it
   if it has just started a connection to the responder.

   Man-in-the-middle attacks are difficult to defend against, without
   third-party authentication.  A skillful MitM could easily handle all
   parts of the HIP protocol, but HIP indirectly provides the following
   protection from a MitM attack.  If the responder's HI is retrieved
   from a signed DNS zone or secured by some other means by the
   initiator, the initiator can use this to validate the signed HIP
   packets.

   Likewise, if the initiator's HI is in a secure DNS zone, the
   responder can retrieve it and validate the signed HIP packets.



Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 19]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   However, since an initiator may choose to use an anonymous HI, it
   knowingly risks a MitM attack.  The responder may choose not to
   accept a HIP exchange with an anonymous initiator.

   Since not all hosts will ever support HIP, ICMP 'Destination Protocol
   Unreachable' are to be expected and present a DoS attack.  Against an
   initiator, the attack would look like the responder does not support
   HIP, but shortly after receiving the ICMP message, the initiator
   would receive a valid HIP packet. Thus, to protect against this
   attack, an initiator should not react to an ICMP message until a
   reasonable delta time to get the real responder's HIP packet.  A
   similar attack against the responder is more involved.

   Another MitM attack is simulating a responder's rejection of a HIP
   initiation.  This is a simple ICMP Protocol Unreachable,
   Administratively Prohibited message.  A HIP packet is not used
   because it would either have to have unique content, and thus
   difficult to generate, resulting in yet another DoS attack, or just
   as spoofable as the ICMP message.  The defense against this MitM
   attack is for the responder to wait a reasonable time period to get a
   valid HIP packet.  If one does not come, then the Initiator has to
   assume that the ICMP message is valid. Since this is the only point
   in the HIP exchange where this ICMP message is appropriate, it can be
   ignored at any other point in the exchange.

9.1 HITs used in ACLs

   It is expected that HITs will be used in ACLs.  Future firewalls can
   use HITs to control egress and ingress to networks, with an assurance
   difficult to achieve today.

   There has been considerable bad experience with distributed ACLs that
   contain public key related material, for example, with SSH.  If the
   owner of the key needs to revoke it for any reason, the task of
   finding all locations where the key is held in an ACL may be
   impossible.  If the reason for the revocation is due to private key
   theft, this could be a serious issue.

   A host can keep track of all of its partners that might use its HIT
   in an ACL by logging all remote HITs.  It should only be necessary to
   log responder hosts.  With this information, the host can notify the
   various hosts about the change to the HIT.  There has been no attempt
   here to develop a secure method (like in CMP and CMC) to issue the
   HIT revocation notice.

   NATs, however, are transparent to the HIP aware systems by design.
   Thus, the host may find it difficult to notify any NAT that is using
   a HIT in an ACL.  Since most systems will know of the NATs for their



Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 20]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   network, there should be a process by which they can notify these
   NATs of the change of the HIT. This is mandatory for systems that
   function as responders behind a NAT.  In a similar vein, if a host is
   notified of a change in a HIT of an initiator, it should notify its
   NAT of the change.  In this manner, NATs will get updated with the
   HIT change.

9.2 Non-security Considerations

   The definition of the Host Identifier states that the HI need not be
   a public key.  It implies that the HI could be any value; for example
   an FQDN.  This document does not describe how to support a
   non-cryptographic HI.  Such a HI would still offer the services of
   the HIT or LSI for NAT traversal.  It would carry the HITs or LSIs in
   a HIP packets that had neither privacy nor authentication.  Since
   such a mode would offer so little additional functionality for so
   much addition to the IP kernel, it has not been defined.  Given how
   little public key cryptography HIP requires, HIP should only be
   implemented using public key Host Identities.
































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 21]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


10. Acknowledgments

   For the people historically involved in the early stages of HIP, see
   the Acknowledgements section in [5].

   During the later stages of this document, when the editing baton was
   transfered to Pekka Nikander, the comments from the early
   implementors and others, including Jari Arkko, Tom Henderson, Petri
   Jokela, Miika Komu, Mika Kousa, Andrew McGregor, Jan Melen, Tim
   Shepard, Jukka Ylitalo, and Jorma Wall, were invaluable.









































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 22]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


References (informative)

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

   [2]  Tsirtsis, G. and P. Srisuresh, "Network Address Translation -
        Protocol Translation (NAT-PT)", RFC 2766, February 2000.

   [3]  Srisuresh, P. and K. Egevang, "Traditional IP Network Address
        Translator (Traditional NAT)", RFC 3022, January 2001.

   [4]  Borella, M., Lo, J., Grabelsky, D. and G. Montenegro, "Realm
        Specific IP: Framework", RFC 3102, October 2001.

   [5]  Moskowitz, R., Nikander, P. and P. Jokela, "Host Identity
        Protocol", draft-moskowitz-hip-07 (work in progress), June 2003.

   [6]  Richardson, M., "A method for storing IPsec keying material in
        DNS", draft-ietf-ipseckey-rr-07 (work in progress), September
        2003.

   [7]  Lear, E. and R. Droms, "What's In A Name:Thoughts from the
        NSRG", draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10 (work in progress), September
        2003.

   [8]  Nikander, P., "Mobile IP version 6 Route Optimization Security
        Design Background", draft-nikander-mobileip-v6-ro-sec-01 (work
        in progress), July 2003.

   [9]  Chiappa, J., "Endpoints and Endpoint Names: A Proposed
        Enhancement  to the Internet Architecture", URL http://
        users.exis.net/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt, 1999.


Authors' Addresses

   Robert Moskowitz
   ICSAlabs, a Division of TruSecure Corporation
   1000 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 200
   Mechanicsburg, PA
   USA

   EMail: rgm@icsalabs.com








Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 23]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   Pekka Nikander
   Ericsson Research Nomadic Lab

   JORVAS  FIN-02420
   FINLAND

   Phone: +358 9 299 1
   EMail: pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com











































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 24]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; neither does it represent that it
   has made any effort to identify any such rights. Information on the
   IETF's procedures with respect to rights in standards-track and
   standards-related documentation can be found in BCP-11. Copies of
   claims of rights made available for publication and any assurances of
   licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to
   obtain a general license or permission for the use of such
   proprietary rights by implementors or users of this specification can
   be obtained from the IETF Secretariat.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights which may cover technology that may be required to practice
   this standard. Please address the information to the IETF Executive
   Director.


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.

   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
   included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assignees.

   This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING
   TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING
   BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION



Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 25]


Internet-Draft    Host Identity Protocol Architecture           Sep 2003


   HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Acknowledgement

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
   Internet Society.











































Moskowitz & Nikander     Expires March 1, 2004                 [Page 26]