Concluded WG IP Configuration Security (icos)
Note: The data for concluded WGs is occasionally incorrect.
WG | Name | IP Configuration Security | |
---|---|---|---|
Acronym | icos | ||
Area | Internet Area (int) | ||
State | Concluded | ||
Charter | charter-ietf-icos-01 Approved | ||
Document dependencies | |||
Personnel | Chairs | Dr. Bernard D. Aboba, Jari Arkko |
Final Charter for Working Group
Internet layer configuration is defined as the configuration required
to support the operation of the Internet layer. This includes IP
address configuration, default gateway(s), name server configuration,
boot configuration (TFTP, NFS), service location and directory
configuration, mobility configuration, and time server configuration
(NTP).
Configuration is typically performed insecurely today. For example,
DHCP is rarely secured due to the need for keys to be set up between
clients and servers. In other cases, such as in Mobile IPv6, tools for
secure configuration exist and their use is required, but there are
deployment barriers.
As a result, Internet Area working groups are exploring alternative
solutions. These include use of EAP for use for key derivation, and
configuration. For example, the DHC WG has considered employment of
EAP-derived keys for use with DHCP security, as defined in RFC 3118
and 3315. The MIPv6 WG, in investigating the bootstrapping problem,
has considered proposals involving use of IKEv2 with EAP, as well as
utilization of link layer EAP exchanges for configuration.
The SEND working group defined a certificate-based authorization for
routers, where hosts prefer a router that has a certificate traceable
to a trusted root configured for the host. SEND also defined zero
configuration mechanism for secure IP address configuration, based on
Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs).
This BOF will provide an overview of Internet layer secure
configuration needs, discussing the architectural issues and potential
solutions under discussion. The purpose of the BOF is to discuss a
common topic that touches several existing Working Groups, and it is
not expected that a new working group will be formed as a result.