Mobile IPv4 Traversal across IPsec-Based VPN Gateways
RFC 5265
| Document | Type | RFC - Proposed Standard (June 2008) IPR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Sami Vaarala , Espen Klovning | ||
| Last updated | 2015-10-14 | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-mobileip-vpn-problem-solution | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | WG state | (None) | |
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | RFC 5265 (Proposed Standard) | |
| Action Holders |
(None)
|
||
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | Jari Arkko | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 5265
Network Working Group S. Vaarala
Request for Comments: 5265 Codebay
Category: Standards Track E. Klovning
Birdstep
June 2008
Mobile IPv4 Traversal across IPsec-Based VPN Gateways
Status of This Memo
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This document outlines a solution for the Mobile IPv4 (MIPv4) and
IPsec coexistence problem for enterprise users. The solution
consists of an applicability statement for using Mobile IPv4 and
IPsec for session mobility in corporate remote access scenarios, and
a required mechanism for detecting the trusted internal network
securely.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.3. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4. Terms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5. Requirement Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.6. Assumptions and Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.7. Why IPsec Lacks Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. The Network Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Access Mode: 'c' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2. Access Mode: 'f' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3. Access Mode: 'cvc' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4. Access Mode: 'fvc' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5. NAT Traversal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. Internal Network Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1. Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Implementation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.1. Separate Tracking of Network Interfaces . . . . . . . 16
3.2.2. Connection Status Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2.3. Registration-Based Internal Network Detection . . . . 17
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 1]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
3.2.4. Registration-Based Internal Network Monitoring . . . . 17
3.3. Proposed Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.4. Trusted Networks Configured (TNC) Extension . . . . . . . 20
3.5. Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6. Rationale for Design Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6.1. Firewall Configuration Requirements . . . . . . . . . 21
3.6.2. Registration-Based Internal Network Monitoring . . . . 22
3.6.3. No Encryption When Inside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.7. Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4. Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1. Mobile Node Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2. VPN Device Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3. Home Agent Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.1. Comparison against Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2. Packet Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.3. Latency Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.4. Firewall State Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.5. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.6. Implementation of the Mobile Node . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.7. Non-IPsec VPN Protocols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.1. Internal Network Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2. Mobile IPv4 versus IPsec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Appendix A. Packet Flow Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
A.1. Connection Setup for Access Mode 'cvc' . . . . . . . . . . 34
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 2]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
1. Introduction
The Mobile IP working group set out to explore the problem and
solution spaces of IPsec and Mobile IP coexistence. The problem
statement and solution requirements for Mobile IPv4 case were first
documented in [RFC4093]. This document outlines a solution for IPv4.
The document contains two parts:
o a basic solution that is an applicability statement of Mobile IPv4
and IPsec to provide session mobility between enterprise intranets
and external networks, intended for enterprise mobile users; and
o a technical specification and a set of requirements for secure
detection of the internal and the external networks, including a
new extension that must be implemented by a mobile node and a home
agent situated inside the enterprise network.
There are many useful ways to combine Mobile IPv4 and IPsec. The
solution specified in this document is most applicable when the
assumptions documented in the problem statement [RFC4093] are valid;
among others that the solution:
o must minimize changes to existing firewall/VPN/DMZ (DeMilitarized
Zone) deployments;
o must ensure that traffic is not routed through the DMZ when the
mobile node is inside (to avoid scalability and management
issues);
o must support foreign networks with only foreign agent access;
o should not require changes to existing IPsec or key exchange
protocols;
o must comply with the Mobile IPv4 protocol (but may require new
extensions or multiple instances of Mobile IPv4); and
o must propose a mechanism to avoid or minimize IPsec re-negotiation
when the mobile node moves.
1.1. Overview
Typical corporate networks consist of three different domains: the
Internet (untrusted external network), the intranet (trusted internal
network), and the DMZ, which connects the two networks. Access to
the internal network is guarded both by a firewall and a VPN device;
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 3]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
access is only allowed if both firewall and VPN security policies are
respected.
Enterprise mobile users benefit from unrestricted seamless session
mobility between subnets, regardless of whether the subnets are part
of the internal or the external network. Unfortunately, the current
Mobile IPv4 and IPsec standards alone do not provide such a service
[tessier].
The solution is to use standard Mobile IPv4 (except for a new
extension used by the home agent in the internal network to aid in
network detection) when the mobile node is in the internal network,
and to use the VPN tunnel endpoint address for the Mobile IPv4
registration when outside. IPsec-based VPN tunnels require re-
negotiation after movement. To overcome this limitation, another
layer of Mobile IPv4 is used underneath IPsec, in effect making IPsec
unaware of movement. Thus, the mobile node can freely move in the
external network without disrupting the VPN connection.
Briefly, when outside, the mobile node:
o detects that it is outside (Section 3);
o registers its co-located or foreign agent care-of address with the
external home agent;
o establishes a VPN tunnel using, e.g., Internet Key Exchange
Protocol (IKE) (or IKEv2) if security associations are not already
available;
o registers the VPN tunnel address as its co-located care-of address
with the internal home agent; this registration request is sent
inside the IPsec tunnel.
The solution requires control over the protocol layers in the mobile
node. It must be capable of (1) detecting whether it is inside or
outside in a secure fashion, and (2) controlling the protocol layers
accordingly. For instance, if the mobile node is inside, the IPsec
layer needs to become dormant.
Except for the new Mobile IPv4 extension to improve security of
internal network detection, current Mobile IPv4 and IPsec standards,
when used in a suitable combination, are sufficient to implement the
solution. No changes are required to existing VPN devices or foreign
agents.
The solution described is compatible with different kinds of IPsec-
based VPNs, and no particular kind of VPN is required. Because the
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 4]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
appropriate Security Policy Database (SPD) entries and other IKE and
IPsec specifics differ between deployed IPsec-based VPN products,
these details are not discussed in the document.
1.2. Scope
This document describes a solution for IPv4 only. The downside of
the described approach is that an external home agent is required and
that the packet overhead (see Section 5) and overall complexity
increase. Optimizations would require significant changes to Mobile
IPv4 and/or IPsec, and are out of scope of this document.
VPN, in this document, refers to an IPsec-based remote access VPN.
Other types of VPNs are out of scope.
1.3. Related Work
Related work has been done on Mobile IPv6 in [RFC3776], which
discusses the interaction of IPsec and Mobile IPv6 in protecting
Mobile IPv6 signaling. The document also discusses dynamic updating
of the IPsec endpoint based on Mobile IP signaling packets.
The "transient pseudo-NAT" attack, described in [pseudonat] and
[mipnat], affects any approach that attempts to provide security of
mobility signaling in conjunction with NAT devices. In many cases,
one cannot assume any cooperation from NAT devices, which thus have
to be treated as any other networking entity.
The IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE) [RFC4555]
provides better mobility for IPsec. This would allow the external
Mobile IPv4 layer described in this specification to be removed.
However, deploying MOBIKE requires changes to VPN devices, and is
thus out of scope of this specification.
1.4. Terms and Abbreviations
co-CoA: co-located care-of address.
DMZ: (DeMilitarized Zone) a small network inserted as a "neutral
zone" between a company's private network and the outside public
network to prevent outside users from getting direct access to the
company's private network.
external network: the untrusted network (i.e., Internet). Note
that a private network (e.g., another corporate network) other
than the mobile node's internal network is considered an external
network.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 5]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
FA: mobile IPv4 foreign agent.
FA-CoA: foreign agent care-of address.
FW: firewall.
internal network: the trusted network; for instance, a physically
secure corporate network where the i-HA is located.
i-FA: Mobile IPv4 foreign agent residing in the internal network.
i-HA: Mobile IPv4 home agent residing in the internal network;
typically has a private address [privaddr].
i-HoA: home address of the mobile node in the internal home agent.
MN: mobile node.
NAI: Network Access Identifier [RFC4282].
R: router.
VPN: Virtual Private Network based on IPsec.
VPN-TIA: VPN tunnel inner address, the address(es) negotiated
during IKE phase 2 (quick mode), assigned manually, using IPsec-
DHCP [RFC3456], using the "de facto" standard Internet Security
Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP) configuration
mode, or by some other means. Some VPN clients use their current
care-of address as their Tunnel Inner Address (TIA) for
architectural reasons.
VPN tunnel: an IPsec-based tunnel; for instance, IPsec tunnel mode
IPsec connection, or Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol (L2TP) combined
with IPsec transport connection.
x-FA: Mobile IPv4 foreign agent residing in the external network.
x-HA: Mobile IPv4 home agent residing in the external network.
x-HoA: home address of the mobile node in the external home agent.
1.5. Requirement Levels
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 BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 6]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
1.6. Assumptions and Rationale
The solution is an attempt to solve the problem described in
[RFC4093]. The major assumptions and their rationale is summarized
below.
Changes to existing firewall and VPN deployments should be minimized:
o The current deployment of firewalls and IPsec-based VPNs is much
larger than corresponding Mobile IPv4 elements. Thus, a solution
should work within the existing VPN infrastructure.
o Current enterprise network deployments typically centralize
management of security and network access into a compact DMZ.
When the mobile node is inside, traffic should not go through the DMZ
network:
o Routing all mobile node traffic through the DMZ is seen as a
performance problem in existing deployments of firewalls. The
more sophisticated firewall technology is used (e.g., content
scanning), the more serious the performance problem is.
o Current deployments of firewalls and DMZs in general have been
optimized for the case where only a small minority of total
enterprise traffic goes through the DMZ. Furthermore, users of
current VPN remote access solutions do not route their traffic
through the DMZ when connected to an internal network.
A home agent inside the enterprise cannot be reached directly from
outside, even if the home agent contains IPsec functionality:
o Deployment of current combined IPsec/MIPv4 solutions are not
common in large installations.
o Doing decryption in the home agents "deep inside" the enterprise
effectively means having a security perimeter much larger than the
typical, compact DMZ used by a majority of enterprises today.
o In order to maintain a security level equal to current firewall/
DMZ deployments, every home agent decapsulating IPsec would need
to do the same firewalling as the current DMZ firewalls (content
scanning, connection tracking, etc.).
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 7]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Traffic cannot be encrypted when the mobile node is inside:
o There is a considerable performance impact on home agents (which
currently do rather light processing) and mobile nodes (especially
for small devices). Note that traffic throughput inside the
enterprise is typically an order (or more) of magnitude larger
than the remote access traffic through a VPN.
o Encryption consumes processing power and has a significant impact
on device battery life.
o There is also a usability issue involved; the user needs to
authenticate the connection to the IPsec layer in the home agent
to gain access. For interactive authentication mechanisms (e.g.,
SecurID), this always means user interaction.
o Furthermore, if there is a separate VPN device in the DMZ for
remote access, the user needs to authenticate to both devices, and
might need to have separate credentials for both.
o Current Mobile IPv4 home agents do not typically incorporate IPsec
functionality, which is relevant for the solution when we assume
zero or minimal changes to existing Mobile IPv4 nodes.
o Note, however, that the assumption (no encryption when inside)
does not necessarily apply to all solutions in the solution space;
if the above mentioned problems were resolved, there is no
fundamental reason why encryption could not be applied when
inside.
1.7. Why IPsec Lacks Mobility
IPsec, as currently specified [RFC4301], requires that a new IKE
negotiation be done whenever an IPsec peer moves, i.e., changes
care-of address. The main reason is that a security association is
unidirectional and identified by a triplet consisting of (1) the
destination address (which is the outer address when tunnel mode is
used), (2) the security protocol (Encapsulating Security Payload
(ESP) or Authentication Header (AH)), and (3) the Security Parameter
Index (SPI) ([RFC4301], Section 4.1). Although an implementation is
not required to use all of these for its own Security Associations
(SAs), an implementation cannot assume that a peer does not.
When a mobile IPsec peer sends packets to a stationary IPsec peer,
there is no problem; the SA is "owned" by the stationary IPsec peer,
and therefore the destination address does not need to change. The
(outer) source address should be ignored by the stationary peer
(although some implementations do check the source address as well).
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 8]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
The problem arises when packets are sent from the stationary peer to
the mobile peer. The destination address of this SA (SAs are
unidirectional) is established during IKE negotiation, and is
effectively the care-of address of the mobile peer at time of
negotiation. Therefore, the packets will be sent to the original
care-of address, not a changed care-of address.
The IPsec NAT traversal mechanism can also be used for limited
mobility, but UDP tunneling needs to be used even when there is no
NAT in the route between the mobile and the stationary peers.
Furthermore, support for changes in current NAT mapping is not
required by the NAT traversal specification [RFC3947].
In summary, although the IPsec standard does not as such prevent
mobility (in the sense of updating security associations on-the-fly),
the standard does not include a built-in mechanism (explicit or
implicit) for doing so. Therefore, it is assumed throughout this
document that any change in the addresses comprising the identity of
an SA requires IKE re-negotiation, which implies too heavy
computation and too large latency for useful mobility.
The IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol (MOBIKE) [RFC4555]
provides better mobility for IPsec. This would allow the external
Mobile IPv4 layer described in this specification to be removed.
However, deploying MOBIKE requires changes to VPN devices, and is
thus out of scope of this specification.
2. The Network Environment
Enterprise users will access both the internal and external networks
using different networking technologies. In some networks, the MN
will use FAs and in others it will anchor at the HA using co-located
mode. The following figure describes an example network topology
illustrating the relationship between the internal and external
networks, and the possible locations of the mobile node (i.e., (MN)).
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 9]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
(MN) {fvc} {home} (MN) [i-HA]
! \ /
.--+---. .-+---+-.
( ) ( )
`--+---' [VPN] `--+----'
\ ! !
[R/FA] [x-HA] .--+--. [R]
\ / ( DMZ ) !
.-+-------+--. `--+--' .-----+------.
( ) ! ( )
( external net +---[R]----[FW]----[R]--+ internal net )
( ) ( )
`--+---------' `---+---+----'
/ / \
[DHCP] [R] [DHCP] [R] [R] [i-FA]
\ / \ / \ /
.+--+---. .-+-+--. .--+--+-.
( ) ( ) ( )
`---+---' `--+---' `---+---'
! ! !
(MN) {cvc} (MN) {c} (MN) {f}
Figure 1: Basic topology, possible MN locations, and access modes
In every possible location described in the figure, the mobile node
can establish a connection to the corresponding HA(s) by using a
suitable "access mode". An access mode is here defined to consist
of:
1. a composition of the mobile node networking stack (i-MIP or
x-MIP/VPN/i-MIP); and
2. registration mode(s) of i-MIP and x-MIP (if used); i.e., co-
located care-of address or foreign agent care-of address.
Each possible access mode is encoded as "xyz", where:
o "x" indicates whether the x-MIP layer is used, and if used, the
mode ("f" indicates FA-CoA, "c" indicates co-CoA, absence
indicates not used);
o "y" indicates whether the VPN layer is used ("v" indicates VPN
used, absence indicates not used); and
o "z" indicates mode of i-MIP layer ("f" indicates FA-CoA, "c"
indicates co-CoA).
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 10]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
This results in four access modes:
c: i-MIP with co-CoA
f: i-MIP with FA-CoA
cvc: x-MIP with co-CoA, VPN-TIA as i-MIP co-CoA
fvc: x-MIP with FA-CoA, VPN-TIA as i-MIP co-CoA
This notation is more useful when optimizations to protocol layers
are considered. The notation is preserved here so that work on the
optimizations can refer to a common notation.
The internal network is typically a multi-subnetted network using
private addressing [privaddr]. Subnets may contain internal home
agent(s), DHCP server(s), and/or foreign agent(s). Current IEEE
802.11 wireless LANs are typically deployed in the external network
or the DMZ because of security concerns.
The figure leaves out a few details worth noticing:
o There may be multiple NAT devices anywhere in the diagram.
* When the MN is outside, the NAT devices may be placed between
the MN and the x-HA or the x-HA and the VPN.
* There may also be NAT(s) between the VPN and the i-HA, or a NAT
integrated into the VPN. In essence, any router in the figure
may be considered to represent zero or more routers, each
possibly performing NAT and/or ingress filtering.
* When the MN is inside, there may be NAT devices between the MN
and the i-HA.
o Site-to-site VPN tunnels are not shown. Although mostly
transparent, IPsec endpoints may perform ingress filtering as part
of enforcing their policy.
o The figure represents a topology where each functional entity is
illustrated as a separate device. However, it is possible that
several network functions are co-located in a single device. In
fact, all three server components (x-HA, VPN, and i-HA) may be co-
located in a single physical device.
The following issues are also important when considering enterprise
mobile users:
o Some firewalls are configured to block ICMP messages and/or
fragments. Such firewalls (routers) cannot be detected reliably.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 11]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
o Some networks contain transparent application proxies, especially
for HTTP. Like firewalls, such proxies cannot be detected
reliably in general. IPsec and Mobile IPv4 are incompatible with
such networks.
Whenever a mobile node obtains either a co-CoA or an FA-CoA, the
following conceptual steps take place:
o The mobile node detects whether the subnet where the care-of
address was obtained belongs to the internal or the external
network using the method described in Section 3 (or a vendor-
specific mechanism fulfilling the requirements described).
o The mobile node performs necessary registrations and other
connection setup signaling for the protocol layers (in the
following order):
* x-MIP (if used);
* VPN (if used); and
* i-MIP.
Note that these two tasks are intertwined to some extent: detection
of the internal network results in a successful registration to the
i-HA using the proposed network detection algorithm. An improved
network detection mechanism not based on Mobile IPv4 registration
messages might not have this side effect.
The following subsections describe the different access modes and the
requirements for registration and connection setup phase.
2.1. Access Mode: 'c'
This access mode is standard Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] with a co-located
address, except that:
o the mobile node MUST detect that it is in the internal network;
and
o the mobile node MUST re-register periodically (with a configurable
interval) to ensure it is still inside the internal network (see
Section 4).
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 12]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
2.2. Access Mode: 'f'
This access mode is standard Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344] with a foreign
agent care-of address, except that
o the mobile node MUST detect that it is in the internal network;
and
o the mobile node MUST re-register periodically (with a configurable
interval) to ensure it is still inside the internal network (see
Section 4).
2.3. Access Mode: 'cvc'
Steps:
o The mobile node obtains a care-of address.
o The mobile node detects it is not inside and registers with the
x-HA, where
* T-bit MAY be set (reverse tunneling), which minimizes the
probability of firewall-related connectivity problems
o If the mobile node does not have an existing IPsec security
association, it uses IKE to set up an IPsec security association
with the VPN gateway, using the x-HoA as the IP address for IKE/
IPsec communication. How the VPN-TIA is assigned is outside the
scope of this document.
o The mobile node sends a MIPv4 Registration Request (RRQ) to the
i-HA, registering the VPN-TIA as a co-located care-of address,
where
* T-bit SHOULD be set (reverse tunneling) (see discussion below)
Reverse tunneling in the inner Mobile IPv4 layer is often required
because of IPsec security policy limitations. IPsec selectors define
allowed IP addresses for packets sent inside the IPsec tunnel.
Typical IPsec remote VPN selectors restrict the client address to be
VPN-TIA (remote address is often unrestricted). If reverse tunneling
is not used, the source address of a packet sent by the MN will be
the MN's home address (registered with i-HA), which is different from
the VPN-TIA, thus violating IPsec security policy. Consequently, the
packet will be dropped, resulting in a connection black hole.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 13]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Some types of IPsec-based VPNs, in particular L2TP/IPsec VPNs (PPP-
over-L2TP-over-IPsec), do not have this limitation and can use
triangular routing.
Note that although the MN can use triangular routing, i.e., skip the
inner MIPv4 layer, it MUST NOT skip the VPN layer for security
reasons.
2.4. Access Mode: 'fvc'
Steps:
o The mobile node obtains a foreign agent advertisement from the
local network.
o The mobile node detects it is outside and registers with the x-HA,
where
* T-bit MAY be set (reverse tunneling), which minimizes the
probability of firewall-related connectivity problems
o If necessary, the mobile node uses IKE to set up an IPsec
connection with the VPN gateway, using the x-HoA as the IP address
for IKE/IPsec communication. How the VPN-TIA is assigned is
outside the scope of this document.
o The mobile node sends a MIPv4 RRQ to the i-HA, registering the
VPN-TIA as a co-located care-of address, where
* T-bit SHOULD be set (reverse tunneling) (see discussion in
Section 2.3)
Note that although the MN can use triangular routing, i.e., skip the
inner MIPv4 layer, it MUST NOT skip the VPN layer for security
reasons.
2.5. NAT Traversal
NAT devices may affect each layer independently. Mobile IPv4 NAT
traversal [mipnat] SHOULD be supported for x-MIP and i-MIP layers,
while IPsec NAT traversal [RFC3947][RFC3948] SHOULD be supported for
the VPN layer.
Note that NAT traversal for the internal MIPv4 layer may be necessary
even when there is no separate NAT device between the VPN gateway and
the internal network. Some VPN implementations NAT VPN tunnel inner
addresses before routing traffic to the intranet. Sometimes this is
done to make a deployment easier, but in some cases this approach
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 14]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
makes VPN client implementation easier. Mobile IPv4 NAT traversal is
required to establish a MIPv4 session in this case.
3. Internal Network Detection
Secure detection of the internal network is critical to prevent
plaintext traffic from being sent over an untrusted network. In
other words, the overall security (confidentiality and integrity of
user data) relies on the security of the internal network detection
mechanism in addition to IPsec. For this reason, security
requirements are described in this section.
In addition to detecting entry into the internal network, the mobile
node must also detect when it has left the internal network. Entry
into the internal network is easier security-wise: the mobile node
can ensure that it is inside the internal network before sending any
plaintext traffic. Exit from the internal network is more difficult
to detect, and the MN may accidentally leak plaintext packets if the
event is not detected in time.
Several events can cause the mobile node to leave the internal
network, including:
o a routing change upstream;
o a reassociation of 802.11 on layer 2 that the mobile node software
does not detect;
o a physical cable disconnect and reconnect that the mobile node
software does not detect.
Whether the mobile node can detect such changes in the current
connection reliably depends on the implementation and the networking
technology. For instance, some mobile nodes may be implemented as
pure layer three entities. Even if the mobile node software has
access to layer 2 information, such information is not trustworthy
security-wise, and depends on the network interface driver.
If the mobile node does not detect these events properly, it may leak
plaintext traffic into an untrusted network. A number of approaches
can be used to detect exit from the internal network, ranging from
frequent re-registration to the use of layer two information.
A mobile node MUST implement a detection mechanism fulfilling the
requirements described in Section 3.2; this ensures that basic
security requirements are fulfilled. The basic algorithm described
in Section 3.3 is one way to do that, but alternative methods may be
used instead or in conjunction. The assumptions that the
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 15]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
requirements and the proposed mechanism rely upon are described in
Section 3.1.
3.1. Assumptions
The enterprise firewall MUST be configured to block traffic
originating from external networks going to the i-HA. In other
words, the mobile node MUST NOT be able to perform a successful
Registration Request/Registration Reply (RRQ/RRP) exchange (without
using IPsec) unless it is connected to the trusted internal network;
the mobile node can then stop using IPsec without compromising data
confidentiality.
If this assumption does not hold, data confidentiality is compromised
in a potentially silent and thus dangerous manner. To minimize the
impact of this scenario, the i-HA is also required to check the
source address of any RRQ to determine whether it comes from a
trusted (internal network) address. The i-HA needs to indicate to
the MN that it supports the checking of trusted source addresses by
including a Trusted Networks Configured extension in its registration
reply. This new extension, which needs to be implemented by both
i-HA and the MN, is described in Section 3.4.
The firewall MAY be configured to block registration traffic to the
x-HA originating from within the internal network, which makes the
network detection algorithm simpler and more robust. However, as the
registration request is basically UDP traffic, an ordinary firewall
(even a stateful one) would typically allow the registration request
to be sent and a registration reply to be received through the
firewall.
3.2. Implementation Requirements
Any mechanism used to detect the internal network MUST fulfill the
requirements described in this section. An example of a network
detection mechanism fulfilling these requirements is given in
Section 3.3.
3.2.1. Separate Tracking of Network Interfaces
The mobile node implementation MUST track each network interface
separately. Successful registration with the i-HA through interface
X does not imply anything about the status of interface Y.
3.2.2. Connection Status Change
When the mobile node detects that its connection status on a certain
network interface changes, the mobile node MUST:
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 16]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
o immediately stop relaying user data packets;
o detect whether this interface is connected to the internal or the
external network; and
o resume data traffic only after the internal network detection and
necessary registrations and VPN tunnel establishment have been
completed.
The mechanisms used to detect a connection status change depends on
the mobile node implementation, the networking technology, and the
access mode.
3.2.3. Registration-Based Internal Network Detection
The mobile node MUST NOT infer that an interface is connected to the
internal network unless a successful registration has been completed
through that particular interface to the i-HA, the i-HA registration
reply contained a Trusted Networks Configured extension
(Section 3.4), and the connection status of the interface has not
changed since.
3.2.4. Registration-Based Internal Network Monitoring
Some leak of plaintext packets to a (potentially) untrusted network
cannot always be completely prevented; this depends heavily on the
client implementation. In some cases, the client cannot detect such
a change, e.g., if upstream routing is changed.
More frequent re-registrations when the MN is inside is a simple way
to ensure that the MN is still inside. The MN SHOULD start re-
registration every (T_MONITOR - N) seconds when inside, where N is a
grace period that ensures that re-registration is completed before
T_MONITOR seconds are up. To bound the maximum amount of time that a
plaintext leak may persist, the mobile node must fulfill the
following security requirements when inside:
o The mobile node MUST NOT send or receive a user data packet if
more than T_MONITOR seconds have elapsed since the last successful
(re-)registration with the i-HA.
o If more than T_MONITOR seconds have elapsed, data packets MUST be
either dropped or queued. If the packets are queued, the queues
MUST NOT be processed until the re-registration has been
successfully completed without a connection status change.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 17]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
o The T_MONITOR parameter MUST be configurable, and have the default
value of 60 seconds. This default is a trade-off between traffic
overhead and a reasonable bound to exposure.
This approach is reasonable for a wide range of mobile nodes (e.g.,
laptops), but has unnecessary overhead when the mobile node is idle
(not sending or receiving packets). If re-registration does not
complete before T_MONITOR seconds are up, data packets must be queued
or dropped as specified above. Note that re-registration packets
MUST be sent even if bidirectional user data traffic is being
relayed: data packets are no substitute for an authenticated re-
registration.
To minimize traffic overhead when the mobile node is idle, re-
registrations can be stopped when no traffic is being sent or
received. If the mobile node subsequently receives or needs to send
a packet, the packet must be dropped or queued (as specified above)
until a re-registration with the i-HA has been successfully
completed. Although this approach adds packet processing complexity,
it may be appropriate for small, battery-powered devices, which may
be idle much of the time. (Note that ordinary re-registration before
the mobility binding lifetime is exhausted should still be done to
keep the MN reachable.)
T_MONITOR is required to be configurable so that an administrator can
determine the required security level for the particular deployment.
Configuring T_MONITOR in the order of a few seconds is not practical;
alternative mechanisms need to be considered if such confidence is
required.
The re-registration mechanism is a worst-case fallback mechanism. If
additional information (such as layer two triggers) is available to
the mobile node, the mobile node SHOULD use the triggers to detect MN
movement and restart the detection process to minimize exposure.
Note that re-registration is required by Mobile IPv4 by default
(except for the atypical case of an infinite binding lifetime);
however, the re-registration interval may be much larger when using
an ordinary Mobile IPv4 client. A shorter re-registration interval
is usually not an issue, because the internal network is typically a
fast, wired network, and the shortened re-registration interval
applies only when the mobile node is inside the internal network.
When outside, the ordinary Mobile IPv4 re-registration process (based
on binding lifetime) is used.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 18]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
3.3. Proposed Algorithm
When the MN detects that it has changed its point of network
attachment on a certain interface, it issues two simultaneous
registration requests, one to the i-HA and another to the x-HA.
These registration requests are periodically retransmitted if reply
messages are not received.
Registration replies are processed as follows:
o If a response from the x-HA is received, the MN stops
retransmitting its registration request to the x-HA and
tentatively determines it is outside. However, the MN MUST keep
on retransmitting its registration to the i-HA for a period of
time. The MN MAY postpone the IPsec connection setup for some
period of time while it waits for a (possible) response from the
i-HA.
o If a response from the i-HA is received and the response contains
the Trusted Networks Configured extension (Section 3.4), the MN
SHOULD determine that it is inside. In any case, the MN MUST stop
retransmitting its registration requests to both i-HA and x-HA.
o When successfully registered with the i-HA directly, MN SHOULD de-
register with the x-HA.
If the MN ends up detecting that it is inside, it MUST re-register
periodically (regardless of binding lifetime); see Section 3.2.4. If
the re-registration fails, the MN MUST stop sending and receiving
plaintext traffic, and MUST restart the detection algorithm.
Plaintext re-registration messages are always addressed either to the
x-HA or the i-HA, not to both. This is because the MN knows, after
initial registration, whether it is inside or outside. (However,
when the mobile node is outside, it re-registers independently with
the x-HA using plaintext, and with the i-HA through the VPN tunnel.)
Postponing the IPsec connection setup could prevent aborted IKE
sessions. Aborting IKE sessions may be a problem in some cases
because IKE does not provide a reliable, standardized, and mandatory-
to-implement mechanism for terminating a session cleanly.
If the x-HA is not reachable from inside (i.e., the firewall
configuration is known), a detection period of zero is preferred, as
it minimizes connection setup overhead and causes no timing problems.
Should the assumption have been invalid and a response from the i-HA
received after a response from the x-HA, the MN SHOULD re-register
with the i-HA directly.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 19]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
3.4. Trusted Networks Configured (TNC) Extension
This extension is a skippable extension. An i-HA sending the
extension must fulfill the requirements described in Section 4.3,
while an MN processing the extension must fulfill the requirements
described in Section 4.1. The format of the extension is described
below. It adheres to the short extension format described in
[RFC3344]:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type | Length | Sub-Type | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Type 149
Length 2
Sub-Type 0
Reserved Set to 0 when sending, ignored when receiving
3.5. Implementation Issues
When the MN uses a parallel detection algorithm and is using an FA,
the MN sends two registration requests through the same FA with the
same Media Acces Control (MAC) address (or equivalent) and possibly
even the same home address. Although this is not in conflict with
existing specifications, it is an unusual scenario; hence some FA
implementations may not work properly in such a situation. However,
testing against deployed foreign agents seems to indicate that a
majority of available foreign agents handle this situation.
When the x-HA and i-HA addresses are the same, the scenario is even
more difficult for the FA, and it is almost certain that existing FAs
do not deal with the situation correctly. Therefore, it is required
that x-HA and i-HA addresses MUST be different.
Regardless, if the MN detects that i-HA and x-HA have the same
address, it MUST assume that it is in the external network and bypass
network detection to avoid confusing the FA. Because the HA
addresses are used at different layers, achieving connectivity is
possible without address confusion.
The mobile node MAY use the following hints to determine that it is
inside, but MUST verify reachability of the i-HA anyway:
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 20]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
o a domain name in a DHCPDISCOVER / DHCPOFFER message
o an NAI in a foreign agent advertisement
o a list of default gateway MAC addresses that are known to reside
in the internal network (i.e., configured as such, or have been
previously verified to be inside)
For instance, if the MN has reason to believe it is inside, it MAY
postpone sending a registration request to the x-HA for some time.
Similarly, if the MN has reason to believe it is outside, it may
start IPsec connection setup immediately after receiving a
registration reply from the x-HA. However, should the MN receive a
registration reply from the i-HA after IPsec connection setup has
been started, the MN SHOULD still switch to using the i-HA directly.
3.6. Rationale for Design Choices
3.6.1. Firewall Configuration Requirements
The requirement that the i-HA cannot be reached from the external
network is necessary. If not, a successful registration with the
i-HA (without IPsec) cannot be used as a secure indication that the
mobile node is inside. A possible solution to the obvious security
problem would be to define and deploy a secure internal network
detection mechanism based on, e.g., signed FA advertisement or signed
DHCP messages.
However, unless the mechanism is defined for both FA and DHCP
messages and is deployed in every internal network, it has limited
applicability. In other words, the mobile node MUST NOT assume it is
in the internal network unless it receives a signed FA or DHCP
message (regardless of whether or not it can register directly with
the i-HA). If it receives an unsigned FA or DHCP message, it MUST
use IPsec; otherwise, the mobile node can be easily tricked into
using plaintext.
Assuming that all FA and DHCP servers in the internal network are
upgraded to support such a feature does not seem realistic; it is
highly desirable to be able to take advantage of existing DHCP and FA
deployments. Similar analysis seems to apply regardless of what kind
of additional security mechanism is defined.
Because a firewall configuration error can have catastrophic data
security consequences (silent exposure of user data to external
attackers), a separate protection mechanism is provided by the i-HA.
The i-HA must be configured, by the administrator, with a list of
trusted networks. The i-HA advertises that it knows which
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 21]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
registration request source addresses are trusted, using a
registration reply extension (Trusted Networks Configured extension,
Section 3.4). Without this extension, an MN may not rely on a
successful registration to indicate that it is connected to the
internal network. This ensures that user data compromise does not
occur unless both the firewall and the i-HA are configured
incorrectly. Further, occurrences of registration requests from
untrusted addresses should be logged by the i-HA, exposing them to
administrator review.
3.6.2. Registration-Based Internal Network Monitoring
This issue also affects IPsec client security. However, as IPsec
specifications take no stand on how and when client IPsec policies
are configured or changed (for instance, in response to a change in
network connectivity), the issue is out of scope for IPsec. Because
this document describes an algorithm and requirements for (secure)
internal network detection, the issue is in scope of the document.
The current requirement for internal network monitoring was added as
a fallback mechanism.
3.6.3. No Encryption When Inside
If encryption was applied also when MN was inside, there would be no
security reason to monitor the internal network periodically.
The main rationale for why encryption cannot be applied when the MN
is inside was given in Section 1.6. In short, the main issues are
(1) power consumption; (2) extra CPU load, especially because
internal networks are typically switched networks and a lot of data
may be routinely transferred; (3) existing HA devices do not
typically integrate IPsec functionality; (4) (IPsec) encryption
requires user authentication, which may be interactive in some cases
(e.g., SecurID) and thus a usability issue; and (5) user may need to
have separate credentials for VPN devices in the DMZ and the HA.
3.7. Improvements
The registration process can be improved in many ways. One simple
way is to make the x-HA detect whether a registration request came
from inside or outside the enterprise network. If it came from
inside the enterprise network, the x-HA can simply drop the
registration request.
This approach is feasible without protocol changes in scenarios where
a corporation owns both the VPN and the x-HA. The x-HA can simply
determine based on the incoming interface identifier (or the router
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 22]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
that relayed the packet) whether or not the registration request came
from inside.
In other scenarios, protocol changes may be needed. Such changes are
out of scope of this document.
4. Requirements
4.1. Mobile Node Requirements
The mobile node MUST implement an internal network detection
algorithm fulfilling the requirements set forth in Section 3.2. A
new configurable MN parameter, T_MONITOR, is required. The value of
this parameter reflects a balance between security and the amount of
signaling overhead, and thus needs to be configurable. In addition,
when doing internal network detection, the MN MUST NOT disable IPsec
protection unless the registration reply from the i-HA contains a
Trusted Networks Configured extension (Section 3.4).
The mobile node MUST support access modes c, f, cvc, fvc (Section 2).
The mobile node SHOULD support Mobile IPv4 NAT traversal [mipnat] for
both internal and external Mobile IP.
The mobile node SHOULD support IPsec NAT traversal [RFC3947]
[RFC3948].
When the mobile node has direct access to the i-HA, it SHOULD use
only the inner Mobile IPv4 layer to minimize firewall and VPN impact.
When the mobile node is outside and using the VPN connection, IPsec
policies MUST be configured to encrypt all traffic sent to and from
the enterprise network. The particular Security Policy Database
(SPD) entries depend on the type and configuration of the particular
VPN (e.g., plain IPsec vs. L2TP/IPsec, full tunneling or split
tunneling).
4.2. VPN Device Requirements
The VPN security policy MUST allow communication using UDP to the
internal home agent(s), with home agent port 434 and any remote port.
The security policy SHOULD allow IP-IP to internal home agent(s) in
addition to UDP port 434.
The VPN device SHOULD implement the IPsec NAT traversal mechanism
described in [RFC3947] and [RFC3948].
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 23]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
4.3. Home Agent Requirements
The home agent SHOULD implement the Mobile IPv4 NAT traversal
mechanism described in [mipnat]. (This also refers to the i-HA: NAT
traversal is required to support VPNs that NAT VPN tunnel addresses
or block IP-IP traffic.)
To protect user data confidentiality against firewall configuration
errors, the i-HA:
o MUST be configured with a list of trusted IP subnets (containing
only addresses from the internal network), with no subnets being
trusted by default.
o MUST reject (drop silently) any registration request coming from a
source address that is not inside any of the configured trusted
subnets. These dropped registration requests SHOULD be logged.
o MUST include a Trusted Networks Configured extension (Section 3.4)
in a registration reply sent in response to a registration request
coming from a trusted address.
5. Analysis
This section provides a comparison against guidelines described in
Section 6 of the problem statement [RFC4093] and additional analysis
of packet overhead with and without the optional mechanisms.
5.1. Comparison against Guidelines
Preservation of existing VPN infrastructure
o The solution does not mandate any changes to existing VPN
infrastructure, other than possibly changes in configuration to
avoid stateful filtering of traffic.
Software upgrades to existing VPN clients and gateways
o The solution described does not require any changes to VPN
gateways or Mobile IPv4 foreign agents.
IPsec protocol
o The solution does not require any changes to existing IPsec or key
exchange standard protocols, and does not require implementation
of new protocols in the VPN device.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 24]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Multi-vendor interoperability
o The solution provides easy multi-vendor interoperability between
server components (VPN device, foreign agents, and home agents).
Indeed, these components need not be aware of each other.
o The mobile node networking stack is somewhat complex to implement,
which may be an issue for multi-vendor interoperability. However,
this is a purely software architecture issue, and there are no
known protocol limitations for multi-vendor interoperability.
MIPv4 protocol
o The solution adheres to the MIPv4 protocol, but requires the new
Trusted Networks Configured extension to improve the
trustworthiness of internal network detection.
o The solution requires the use of two parallel MIPv4 layers.
Handoff overhead
o The solution provides a mechanism to avoid VPN tunnel SA
renegotiation upon movement by using the external MIPv4 layer.
Scalability, availability, reliability, and performance
o The solution complexity is linear with the number of MNs
registered and accessing resources inside the intranet.
o Additional overhead is imposed by the solution.
Functional entities
o The solution does not impose any new types of functional entities
or required changes to existing entities. However, an external HA
device is required.
Implications of intervening NAT gateways
o The solution leverages existing MIPv4 NAT traversal [mipnat] and
IPsec NAT traversal [RFC3947] [RFC3948] solutions and does not
require any new functionality to deal with NATs.
Security implications
o The solution requires a new mechanism to detect whether the mobile
node is in the internal or the external network. The security of
this mechanism is critical in ensuring that the security level
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 25]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
provided by IPsec is not compromised by a faulty detection
mechanism.
o When the mobile node is outside, the external Mobile IPv4 layer
may allow some traffic redirection attacks that plain IPsec does
not allow. Other than that, IPsec security is unchanged.
o More security considerations are described in Section 6.
5.2. Packet Overhead
The maximum packet overhead depends on access mode as follows:
o f: 0 octets
o c: 20 octets
o fvc: 77 octets
o cvc: 97 octets
The maximum overhead of 97 octets in the 'cvc' access mode consists
of the following:
o IP-IP for i-MIPv4: 20 octets
o IPsec ESP: 57 octets total, consisting of 20 (new IP header),
4+4+8 = 16 (SPI, sequence number, cipher initialization vector),
7+2 = 9 (padding, padding length field, next header field), 12
(ESP authentication trailer)
o IP-IP for x-MIPv4: 20 octets
When IPsec is used, a variable amount of padding is present in each
ESP packet. The figures were computed for a cipher with 64-bit block
size, padding overhead of 9 octets (next header field, padding length
field, and 7 octets of padding; see Section 2.4 of [RFC4303]), and
ESP authentication field of 12 octets (HMAC-SHA1-96 or HMAC-MD5-96).
Note that an IPsec implementation MAY pad with more than a minimum
amount of octets.
NAT traversal overhead is not included, and adds 8 octets when IPsec
NAT traversal [RFC3947] [RFC3948] is used and 12 octets when MIP NAT
traversal [mipnat] is used. For instance, when using access mode
cvc, the maximum NAT traversal overhead is 12+8+12 = 32 octets.
Thus, the worst case scenario (with the above mentioned ESP
assumptions) is 129 octets for cvc.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 26]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
5.3. Latency Considerations
When the MN is inside, connection setup latency does not increase
compared to standard MIPv4 if the MN implements the suggested
parallel registration sequence (see Section 3.3). Exchange of RRQ/
RRP messages with the i-HA confirms the MN is inside, and the MN may
start sending and receiving user traffic immediately. For the same
reason, handovers in the internal network have no overhead relative
to standard MIPv4.
When the MN is outside, the situation is slightly different. Initial
connection setup latency essentially consists of (1) registration
with the x-HA, (2) optional detection delay (waiting for i-HA
response), (3) IPsec connection setup (IKE), and (4) registration
with the i-HA. All but (4) are in addition to standard MIPv4.
However, handovers in the external network have performance
comparable to standard MIPv4. The MN simply re-registers with the
x-HA and starts to send IPsec traffic to the VPN gateway from the new
address.
The MN may minimize latency by (1) not waiting for an i-HA response
before triggering IKE if the x-HA registration succeeds and (2)
sending first the RRQ most likely to succeed (e.g., if the MN is most
likely outside). These can be done based on heuristics about the
network, e.g., addresses, MAC address of the default gateway (which
the mobile node may remember from previous access); based on the
previous access network (i.e., optimize for inside-inside and
outside-outside movement); etc.
5.4. Firewall State Considerations
A separate firewall device or an integrated firewall in the VPN
gateway typically performs stateful inspection of user traffic. The
firewall may, for instance, track TCP session status and block TCP
segments not related to open connections. Other stateful inspection
mechanisms also exist.
Firewall state poses a problem when the mobile node moves between the
internal and external networks. The mobile node may, for instance,
initiate a TCP connection while inside, and later go outside while
expecting to keep the connection alive. From the point of view of
the firewall, the TCP connection has not been initiated, as it has
not witnessed the TCP connection setup packets, thus potentially
resulting in connectivity problems.
When the VPN-TIA is registered as a co-located care-of address with
the i-HA, all mobile node traffic appears as IP-IP for the firewall.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 27]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Typically, firewalls do not continue inspection beyond the IP-IP
tunnel, but support for deeper inspection is available in many
products. In particular, an administrator can configure traffic
policies in many firewall products even for IP-IP encapsulated
traffic. If this is done, similar statefulness issues may arise.
In summary, the firewall must allow traffic coming from and going
into the IPsec connection to be routed, even though they may not have
successfully tracked the connection state. How this is done is out
of scope of this document.
5.5. Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs)
Many firewalls incorporate intrusion detection systems monitoring
network traffic for unusual patterns and clear signs of attack.
Since traffic from a mobile node implementing this specification is
UDP to i-HA port 434, and possibly IP-IP traffic to the i-HA address,
existing IDSs may treat the traffic differently than ordinary VPN
remote access traffic. Like firewalls, IDSs are not standardized, so
it is impossible to guarantee interoperability with any particular
IDS system.
5.6. Implementation of the Mobile Node
Implementation of the mobile node requires the use of three tunneling
layers, which may be used in various configurations depending on
whether that particular interface is inside or outside. Note that it
is possible that one interface is inside and another interface is
outside, which requires a different layering for each interface at
the same time.
For multi-vendor implementation, the IPsec and MIPv4 layers need to
interoperate in the same mobile node. This implies that a flexible
framework for protocol layering (or protocol-specific APIs) is
required.
5.7. Non-IPsec VPN Protocols
The solution also works for VPN tunneling protocols that are not
IPsec-based, provided that the mobile node is provided IPv4
connectivity with an address suitable for registration. However,
such VPN protocols are not explicitly considered.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 28]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
6. Security Considerations
6.1. Internal Network Detection
If the mobile node by mistake believes it is in the internal network
and sends plaintext packets, it compromises IPsec security. For this
reason, the overall security (confidentiality and integrity) of user
data is a minimum of (1) IPsec security and (2) security of the
internal network detection mechanism.
Security of the internal network detection relies on a successful
registration with the i-HA. For standard Mobile IPv4 [RFC3344], this
means HMAC-MD5 and Mobile IPv4 replay protection. The solution also
assumes that the i-HA is not directly reachable from the external
network, requiring careful enterprise firewall configuration. To
minimize the impact of a firewall configuration problem, the i-HA is
separately required to be configured with trusted source addresses
(i.e., addresses belonging to the internal network), and to include
an indication of this in a new Trusted Networks Configured extension.
The MN is required not to trust a registration as an indication of
being connected to the internal network, unless this extension is
present in the registration reply. Thus, to actually compromise user
data confidentiality, both the enterprise firewall and the i-HA have
to be configured incorrectly, which reduces the likelihood of the
scenario.
When the mobile node sends a registration request to the i-HA from an
untrusted network that does not go through the IPsec tunnel, it will
reveal the i-HA's address, its own identity including the NAI and the
home address, and the Authenticator value in the authentication
extensions to the untrusted network. This may be a concern in some
deployments.
When the connection status of an interface changes, an interface
previously connected to the trusted internal network may suddenly be
connected to an untrusted network. Although the same problem is also
relevant to IPsec-based VPN implementations, the problem is
especially relevant in the scope of this specification.
In most cases, mobile node implementations are expected to have layer
2 information available, making connection change detection both fast
and robust. To cover cases where such information is not available
(or fails for some reason), the mobile node is required to
periodically re-register with the internal home agent to verify that
it is still connected to the trusted network. It is also required
that this re-registration interval be configurable, thus giving the
administrator a parameter by which potential exposure may be
controlled.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 29]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
6.2. Mobile IPv4 versus IPsec
MIPv4 and IPsec have different goals and approaches for providing
security services. MIPv4 typically uses a shared secret for
authentication of signaling traffic, while IPsec typically uses IKE
(an authenticated Diffie-Hellman exchange) to set up session keys.
Thus, the overall security properties of a combined MIPv4 and IPsec
system depend on both mechanisms.
In the solution outlined in this document, the external MIPv4 layer
provides mobility for IPsec traffic. If the security of MIPv4 is
broken in this context, traffic redirection attacks against the IPsec
traffic are possible. However, such routing attacks do not affect
other IPsec properties (confidentiality, integrity, replay
protection, etc.), because IPsec does not consider the network
between two IPsec endpoints to be secure in any way.
Because MIPv4 shared secrets are usually configured manually, they
may be weak if easily memorizable secrets are chosen, thus opening up
redirection attacks described above. Note especially that a weak
secret in the i-HA is fatal to security, as the mobile node can be
fooled into dropping encryption if the i-HA secret is broken.
Assuming the MIPv4 shared secrets have sufficient entropy, there are
still at least the following differences and similarities between
MIPv4 and IPsec worth considering:
o Both IPsec and MIPv4 are susceptible to the "transient pseudo NAT"
attack described in [pseudonat] and [mipnat], assuming that NAT
traversal is enabled (which is typically the case). "Pseudo NAT"
attacks allow an attacker to redirect traffic flows, resulting in
resource consumption, lack of connectivity, and denial of service.
However, such attacks cannot compromise the confidentiality of
user data protected using IPsec.
o When considering a "pseudo NAT" attack against standard IPsec and
standard MIP (with NAT traversal), redirection attacks against MIP
may be easier because:
* MIPv4 re-registrations typically occur more frequently than
IPsec SA setups (although this may not be the case for mobile
hosts).
* It suffices to catch and modify a single registration request,
whereas attacking IKE requires that multiple IKE packets are
caught and modified.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 30]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
o There may be concerns about mixing of algorithms. For instance,
IPsec may be using HMAC-SHA1-96, while MIP is always using HMAC-
MD5 (RFC 3344) or prefix+suffix MD5 (RFC 2002). Furthermore,
while IPsec algorithms are typically configurable, MIPv4 clients
typically use only HMAC-MD5 or prefix+suffix MD5. Although this
is probably not a security problem as such, it is more difficult
to communicate to users.
o When IPsec is used with a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), the key
management properties are superior to those of basic MIPv4. Thus,
adding MIPv4 to the system makes key management more complex.
o In general, adding new security mechanisms increases overall
complexity and makes the system more difficult to understand.
7. IANA Considerations
This document specifies a new skippable extension (in the short
format) in Section 3.4, whose Type and Sub-Type values have been
assigned.
Allocation of new Sub-Type values can be made via Expert Review and
Specification Required [RFC5226].
8. Acknowledgements
This document is a joint work of the contributing authors (in
alphabetical order):
- Farid Adrangi (Intel Corporation)
- Nitsan Baider (Check Point Software Technologies, Inc.)
- Gopal Dommety (Cisco Systems)
- Eli Gelasco (Cisco Systems)
- Dorothy Gellert (Nokia Corporation)
- Espen Klovning (Birdstep)
- Milind Kulkarni (Cisco Systems)
- Henrik Levkowetz (ipUnplugged AB)
- Frode Nielsen (Birdstep)
- Sami Vaarala (Codebay)
- Qiang Zhang (Liqwid Networks, Inc.)
The authors would like to thank the MIP/VPN design team, especially
Mike Andrews, Gaetan Feige, Prakash Iyer, Brijesh Kumar, Joe Lau,
Kent Leung, Gabriel Montenegro, Ranjit Narjala, Antti Nuopponen, Alan
O'Neill, Alpesh Patel, Ilkka Pietikainen, Phil Roberts, Hans
Sjostrand, and Serge Tessier for their continuous feedback and
helping us improve this document. Special thanks to Radia Perlman
for giving the document a thorough read and a security review. Tom
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 31]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Hiller pointed out issues with battery-powered devices. We would
also like to thank the previous Mobile IP working group chairs
(Gabriel Montenegro, Basavaraj Patil, and Phil Roberts) for important
feedback and guidance.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC3344] Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4",
RFC 3344, August 2002.
[RFC3947] Kivinen, T., Swander, B., Huttunen, A., and V. Volpe,
"Negotiation of NAT-Traversal in the IKE", RFC 3947,
January 2005.
[RFC3948] Huttunen, A., Swander, B., Volpe, V., DiBurro, L., and
M. Stenberg, "UDP Encapsulation of IPsec packets",
RFC 3948, January 2005.
[RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[RFC4303] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[mipnat] Levkowetz, H. and S. Vaarala, "Mobile IP Traversal of
Network Address Translation (NAT) Devices", RFC 3519,
April 2003.
[privaddr] Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, B., Karrenberg, D., de Groot,
G., and E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private
Internets", BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 32]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
9.2. Informative References
[RFC2002] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002,
October 1996.
[RFC3456] Patel, B., Aboba, B., Kelly, S., and V. Gupta, "Dynamic
Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4) Configuration of
IPsec Tunnel Mode", RFC 3456, January 2003.
[RFC3776] Arkko, J., Devarapalli, V., and F. Dupont, "Using IPsec
to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile Nodes
and Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.
[RFC4093] Adrangi, F. and H. Levkowetz, "Problem Statement: Mobile
IPv4 Traversal of Virtual Private Network (VPN)
Gateways", RFC 4093, August 2005.
[RFC4282] Aboba, B., Beadles, M., Arkko, J., and P. Eronen, "The
Network Access Identifier", RFC 4282, December 2005.
[RFC4555] Eronen, P., "IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming Protocol
(MOBIKE)", RFC 4555, June 2006.
[pseudonat] Dupont, F. and J. Bernard, "Transient pseudo-NAT attacks
or how NATs are even more evil than you believed", Work
in Progress, June 2004.
[tessier] Tessier, S., "Guidelines for Mobile IP and IPsec VPN
Usage", Work in Progress, December 2002.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 33]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Appendix A. Packet Flow Examples
A.1. Connection Setup for Access Mode 'cvc'
The following figure illustrates connection setup when the mobile
node is outside and using a co-located care-of address. IKE
connection setup is not shown in full, and involves multiple round
trips (4.5 round trips when using main mode followed by quick mode).
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 34]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
MN-APP MN x-HA VPN i-HA CN
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! -------> ! ! ! !
! ! rrq ! ! ! !
! ! -----------------X ! ! ! rrq not
! ! rrq ! ! ! ! received
! ! ! ! ! ! by i-HA
! ! <------- ! ! ! !
! ! rrp ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! [wait for detection period for response from i-HA] !
! [may also retransmit to i-HA, depending on config] ! no rrp
! ! ! ! ! ! from i-HA
! ! ==(1)==> ! ! ! !
! ! ike {1a}! -------> ! ! !
! ! ! ike ! ! !
! ! ! <------- ! ! !
! ! <==(1)== ! ike ! ! !
! ! ike ! ! ! !
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ==(2)==> ! ! ! !
! ! rrq {2a}! ==(1)==> ! ! !
! ! ! rrq {2b}! -------> ! !
! ! ! ! rrq {2c}! !
! ! ! ! <------- ! !
! ! ! <==(1)== ! rrp ! !
! ! <==(2)== ! rrp ! ! !
! ! rrp ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
[[--- connection setup ok, bidirectional connection up ---]]
! ! ! ! ! !
! -------> ! ! ! ! !
! pkt {3a}! ==(3)==> ! ! ! !
! ! pkt {3b}! ==(2)==> ! ! !
! ! ! pkt {3c}! ==(1)==> ! !
! ! ! ! pkt {3d}! -------> !
! ! ! ! ! pkt {3e}!
! ! ! ! ! <------- !
! ! ! ! <==(1)== ! pkt !
! ! ! <==(2)== ! pkt ! !
! ! <==(3)== ! pkt ! ! !
! <------ ! pkt ! ! ! !
! pkt ! ! ! ! !
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 35]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
The notation "==(N)==>" or "<==(N)==" indicates that the innermost
packet has been encapsulated N times, using IP-IP, ESP, or MIP NAT
traversal.
Packets marked with {xx} are shown in more detail below. Each area
represents a protocol header (labeled). Source and destination
addresses or ports are shown underneath the protocol name when
applicable. Note that there are no NAT traversal headers in the
example packets.
Packet {1a}
.------------------------------------.
! IP ! IP ! UDP ! IKE !
! co-CoA ! x-HoA ! 500 ! !
! x-HA ! VPN-GW ! 500 ! !
`------------------------------------'
Packet {2a}
.--------------------------------------------------------.
! IP ! IP ! ESP ! IP ! UDP ! MIP RRQ !
! co-CoA ! x-HoA ! ! VPN-TIA ! ANY ! !
! x-HA ! VPN-GW ! ! i-HA ! 434 ! !
`--------------------------------------------------------'
Packet {2b}
.----------------------------------------------.
! IP ! ESP ! IP ! UDP ! MIP RRQ !
! x-HoA ! ! VPN-TIA ! ANY ! !
! VPN-GW ! ! i-HA ! 434 ! !
`----------------------------------------------'
Packet {2c}
.----------------------------.
! IP ! UDP ! MIP RRQ !
! VPN-TIA ! ANY ! !
! i-HA ! 434 ! !
`----------------------------'
Packet {3a}
.-------------------.
! IP ! user !
! i-HoA ! protocol !
! CN ! !
`-------------------'
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 36]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Packet {3b}
.------------------------------------------------------- -
! IP ! IP ! ESP ! IP ! IP ! user \
! co-CoA ! x-HoA ! ! VPN-TIA ! i-HoA ! protocol../
! x-HA ! VPN-GW ! ! i-HA ! CN ! \
`------------------------------------------------------- -
- - -----------------.
\..user ! ESP !
/ protocol ! trailer !
\ ! !
- - -----------------'
Packet {3c}
.--------------------------------------------------------.
! IP ! ESP ! IP ! IP ! user ! ESP !
! x-HoA ! ! VPN-TIA ! i-HoA ! protocol ! trailer !
! VPN-GW ! ! i-HA ! CN ! ! !
`--------------------------------------------------------'
Packet {3d}
.------------------------------.
! IP ! IP ! user !
! VPN-TIA ! i-HoA ! protocol !
! i-HA ! CN ! !
`------------------------------'
Packet {3e}
.-------------------.
! IP ! user !
! i-HoA ! protocol !
! CN ! !
`-------------------'
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 37]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Packet {3b} with all NAT traversal headers (x-MIP, ESP, and i-MIP) is
shown below for comparison.
Packet {3b} (with NAT traversal headers)
.------------------------------------------------- -
! IP ! UDP ! MIP ! IP ! UDP ! ESP.. \
! co-CoA ! ANY ! tunnel ! x-HoA ! 4500 ! /
! x-HA ! 434 ! data ! VPN-GW ! 4500 ! \
`------------------------------------------------- -
<=== external MIPv4 ====> <=== IPsec ESP ======== = =
- - ------------------------------------------------ -
\..ESP ! IP ! UDP ! MIP ! IP ! user \
/ ! VPN-TIA ! ANY ! tunnel ! i-HoA ! protocol../
\ ! i-HA ! 434 ! data ! CN ! \
- - ------------------------------------------------ -
= ===> <==== internal MIPv4 ====> <== user packet == =
- - -----------------.
\..user ! ESP !
/ protocol ! trailer !
\ ! !
- - -----------------'
= = ======> <= ESP =>
Authors' Addresses
Sami Vaarala
Codebay
P.O. Box 63
Espoo 02601
FINLAND
Phone: +358 (0)50 5733 862
EMail: sami.vaarala@iki.fi
Espen Klovning
Birdstep
Bryggegata 7
Oslo 0250
NORWAY
Phone: +47 95 20 26 29
EMail: espen@birdstep.com
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 38]
RFC 5265 MIPv4-VPN June 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights 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; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat 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 implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Vaarala & Klovning Standards Track [Page 39]