diff options
| author | Rene Mayrhofer <rene@mayrhofer.eu.org> | 2006-08-23 20:25:09 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Rene Mayrhofer <rene@mayrhofer.eu.org> | 2006-08-23 20:25:09 +0000 |
| commit | eed3bb6c48563b865be5560448577e7cfe4ce443 (patch) | |
| tree | a35911c5b0d26edcb0da52cc166e5b7be1e3d383 /doc/src/draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic.html | |
| parent | 3ad120037ad5203580a68f3cafbb2664071fb654 (diff) | |
| download | vyos-strongswan-eed3bb6c48563b865be5560448577e7cfe4ce443.tar.gz vyos-strongswan-eed3bb6c48563b865be5560448577e7cfe4ce443.zip | |
- Updated to new upstream version.
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/src/draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/src/draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic.html | 2456 |
1 files changed, 2456 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/src/draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic.html b/doc/src/draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..87a13365a --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/src/draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic.html @@ -0,0 +1,2456 @@ +<html><head><title>Opportunistic Encryption using The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)</title> +<STYLE type='text/css'> + .title { color: #990000; font-size: 22px; line-height: 22px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right; + font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + .filename { color: #666666; font-size: 18px; line-height: 28px; font-weight: bold; text-align: right; + font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + p.copyright { color: #000000; font-size: 10px; + font-family: verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + p { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; } + li { margin-left: 3em; } + ol { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; } + ul.text { margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; } + pre { margin-left: 3em; color: #333333 } + ul.toc { color: #000000; line-height: 16px; + font-family: verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + H3 { color: #333333; font-size: 16px; line-height: 16px; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + H4 { color: #000000; font-size: 14px; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + TD.header { color: #ffffff; font-size: 10px; font-family: arial, helvetica, san-serif; valign: top } + TD.author-text { color: #000000; font-size: 10px; + font-family: verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + TD.author { color: #000000; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 4em; font-size: 10px; font-family: verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + A:link { color: #990000; font-weight: bold; + font-family: MS Sans Serif, verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + A:visited { color: #333333; font-weight: bold; + font-family: MS Sans Serif, verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + A:name { color: #333333; font-weight: bold; + font-family: MS Sans Serif, verdana, charcoal, helvetica, arial, sans-serif } + .link2 { color:#ffffff; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; + font-family: monaco, charcoal, geneva, MS Sans Serif, helvetica, monotype, verdana, sans-serif; + font-size: 9px } + .RFC { color:#666666; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; + font-family: monaco, charcoal, geneva, MS Sans Serif, helvetica, monotype, verdana, sans-serif; + font-size: 9px } + .hotText { color:#ffffff; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; + font-family: charcoal, monaco, geneva, MS Sans Serif, helvetica, monotype, verdana, sans-serif; + font-size: 9px } +</style> +</head> +<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" alink="#000000" vlink="#666666" link="#990000"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<table width="66%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="1"> +<tr valign="top"><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">Independent submission</td><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">M. Richardson</td></tr> +<tr valign="top"><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">Internet-Draft</td><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">SSW</td></tr> +<tr valign="top"><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">Expires: November 19, 2003</td><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">D. Redelmeier</td></tr> +<tr valign="top"><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header"> </td><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">Mimosa</td></tr> +<tr valign="top"><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header"> </td><td width="33%" bgcolor="#666666" class="header">May 21, 2003</td></tr> +</table></td></tr></table> +<div align="right"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#990000" size="+3"><b><br><span class="title">Opportunistic Encryption using The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)</span></b></font></div> +<div align="right"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#666666" size="+2"><b><span class="filename">draft-richardson-ipsec-opportunistic-11.txt</span></b></font></div> +<font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> + +<h3>Status of this Memo</h3> +<p> +This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.</p> +<p> +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.</p> +<p> +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."</p> +<p> +The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at +<a href='http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt'>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt</a>.</p> +<p> +The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at +<a href='http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html'>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html</a>.</p> +<p> +This Internet-Draft will expire on November 19, 2003.</p> + +<h3>Copyright Notice</h3> +<p> +Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.</p> + +<h3>Abstract</h3> + +<p> +This document describes opportunistic encryption (OE) using the Internet Key +Exchange (IKE) and IPsec. +Each system administrator adds new +resource records to his or her Domain Name System (DNS) to support +opportunistic encryption. The objective is to allow encryption for secure communication without +any pre-arrangement specific to the pair of systems involved. + +</p> +<p> +DNS is used to distribute the public keys of each +system involved. This is resistant to passive attacks. The use of DNS +Security (DNSSEC) secures this system against active attackers as well. + +</p> +<p> +As a result, the administrative overhead is reduced +from the square of the number of systems to a linear dependence, and it becomes +possible to make secure communication the default even +when the partner is not known in advance. + +</p> +<p> +This document is offered up as an Informational RFC. + +</p><a name="toc"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<h3>Table of Contents</h3> +<ul compact class="toc"> +<b><a href="#anchor1">1.</a> +Introduction<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor6">2.</a> +Overview<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor13">3.</a> +Specification<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor31">4.</a> +Impacts on IKE<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor38">5.</a> +DNS issues<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor42">6.</a> +Network address translation interaction<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor46">7.</a> +Host implementations<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor47">8.</a> +Multi-homing<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor48">9.</a> +Failure modes<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor52">10.</a> +Unresolved issues<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor54">11.</a> +Examples<br></b> +<b><a href="#securityconsiderations">12.</a> +Security considerations<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor79">13.</a> +IANA Considerations<br></b> +<b><a href="#anchor80">14.</a> +Acknowledgments<br></b> +<b><a href="#rfc.references1">§</a> +Normative references<br></b> +<b><a href="#rfc.authors">§</a> +Authors' Addresses<br></b> +<b><a href="#rfc.copyright">§</a> +Full Copyright Statement<br></b> +</ul> +<br clear="all"> + +<a name="anchor1"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.1"></a><h3>1. Introduction</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.1.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor2">1.1</a> Motivation</h4> + +<p> +The objective of opportunistic encryption is to allow encryption without +any pre-arrangement specific to the pair of systems involved. Each +system administrator adds +public key information to DNS records to support opportunistic +encryption and then enables this feature in the nodes' IPsec stack. +Once this is done, any two such nodes can communicate securely. + +</p> +<p> +This document describes opportunistic encryption as designed and +mostly implemented by the Linux FreeS/WAN project. +For project information, see http://www.freeswan.org. + +</p> +<p> +The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and Internet Engineering +Steering Group (IESG) have taken a strong stand that the Internet +should use powerful encryption to provide security and +privacy <a href="#RFC1984">[4]</a>. +The Linux FreeS/WAN project attempts to provide a practical means to implement this policy. + +</p> +<p> +The project uses the IPsec, ISAKMP/IKE, DNS and DNSSEC +protocols because they are +standardized, widely available and can often be deployed very easily +without changing hardware or software or retraining users. + +</p> +<p> +The extensions to support opportunistic encryption are simple. No +changes to any on-the-wire formats are needed. The only changes are to +the policy decision making system. This means that opportunistic +encryption can be implemented with very minimal changes to an existing +IPsec implementation. + +</p> +<p> +Opportunistic encryption creates a "fax effect". The proliferation +of the fax machine was possible because it did not require that everyone +buy one overnight. Instead, as each person installed one, the value +of having one increased - as there were more people that could receive faxes. +Once opportunistic encryption is installed it +automatically recognizes +other boxes using opportunistic encryption, without any further configuration +by the network +administrator. So, as opportunistic encryption software is installed on more +boxes, its value +as a tool increases. + +</p> +<p> +This document describes the infrastructure to permit deployment of +Opportunistic Encryption. + +</p> +<p> +The term S/WAN is a trademark of RSA Data Systems, and is used with permission +by this project. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.1.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor3">1.2</a> Types of network traffic</h4> + +<p> + To aid in understanding the relationship between security processing and IPsec + we divide network traffic into four categories: + +<blockquote class="text"><dl> +<dt>* Deny:</dt> +<dd> networks to which traffic is always forbidden. +</dd> +<dt>* Permit:</dt> +<dd> networks to which traffic in the clear is permitted. +</dd> +<dt>* Opportunistic tunnel:</dt> +<dd> networks to which traffic is encrypted if possible, but otherwise is in the clear + or fails depending on the default policy in place. + +</dd> +<dt>* Configured tunnel:</dt> +<dd> networks to which traffic must be encrypted, and traffic in the clear is never permitted. +</dd> +</dl></blockquote><p> +</p> +<p> +Traditional firewall devices handle the first two categories. No authentication is required. +The permit policy is currently the default on the Internet. + +</p> +<p> +This document describes the third category - opportunistic tunnel, which is +proposed as the new default for the Internet. + +</p> +<p> + Category four, encrypt traffic or drop it, requires authentication of the + end points. As the number of end points is typically bounded and is typically + under a single authority, arranging for distribution of + authentication material, while difficult, does not require any new + technology. The mechanism described here provides an additional way to + distribute the authentication materials, that of a public key method that does not + require deployment of an X.509 based infrastructure. + +</p> +<p> +Current Virtual Private Networks can often be replaced by an "OE paranoid" +policy as described herein. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.1.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor4">1.3</a> Peer authentication in opportunistic encryption</h4> + +<p> + Opportunistic encryption creates tunnels between nodes that + are essentially strangers. This is done without any prior bilateral + arrangement. + There is, therefore, the difficult question of how one knows to whom one is + talking. + +</p> +<p> + One possible answer is that since no useful + authentication can be done, none should be tried. This mode of operation is + named "anonymous encryption". An active man-in-the-middle attack can be + used to thwart the privacy of this type of communication. + Without peer authentication, there is no way to prevent this kind of attack. + +</p> +<p> +Although a useful mode, anonymous encryption is not the goal of this +project. Simpler methods are available that can achieve anonymous +encryption only, but authentication of the peer is a desireable goal. +The latter is achieved through key distribution in DNS, leveraging upon +the authentication of the DNS in DNSSEC. + +</p> +<p> + Peers are, therefore, authenticated with DNSSEC when available. Local policy +determines how much trust to extend when DNSSEC is not available. + +</p> +<p> + However, an essential premise of building private connections with + strangers is that datagrams received through opportunistic tunnels + are no more special than datagrams that arrive in the clear. + Unlike in a VPN, these datagrams should not be given any special + exceptions when it comes to auditing, further authentication or + firewalling. + +</p> +<p> + When initiating outbound opportunistic encryption, local + configuration determines what happens if tunnel setup fails. It may be that + the packet goes out in the clear, or it may be dropped. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.1.4"></a><h4><a name="anchor5">1.4</a> Use of RFC2119 terms</h4> + +<p> + The keywords MUST, MUST NOT, REQUIRED, SHALL, SHALL NOT, SHOULD, + SHOULD NOT, RECOMMENDED, MAY, and OPTIONAL, when they appear in this + document, are to be interpreted as described in <a href="#RFC2119">[5]</a> +</p> +<a name="anchor6"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.2"></a><h3>2. Overview</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.2.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor7">2.1</a> Reference diagram</h4> +<br><hr size="1" shade="0"> +<a name="networkdiagram"></a> + +<p>The following network diagram is used in the rest of + this document as the canonical diagram: +</p></font><pre> + [Q] [R] + . . AS2 + [A]----+----[SG-A].......+....+.......[SG-B]-------[B] + | ...... + AS1 | ..PI.. + | ...... + [D]----+----[SG-D].......+....+.......[C] AS3 + + + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> + +<p> +</p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" align="center"><tr><td align="center"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" size="1"><b> Reference Network Diagram </b></font><br></td></tr></table><hr size="1" shade="0"> + +<p> + In this diagram, there are four end-nodes: A, B, C and D. + There are three gateways, SG-A, SG-B, SG-D. A, D, SG-A and SG-D are part + of the same administrative authority, AS1. SG-A and SG-D are on two different exit + paths from organization 1. SG-B/B is an independent organization, AS2. + Nodes Q and R are nodes on the Internet. PI is the Public + Internet ("The Wild"). + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.2.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor8">2.2</a> Terminology</h4> + +<p> + The following terminology is used in this document: + +</p> +<blockquote class="text"><dl> +<dt>Security gateway:</dt> +<dd> a system that performs IPsec tunnel + mode encapsulation/decapsulation. [SG-x] in the diagram. +</dd> +<dt>Alice:</dt> +<dd> node [A] in the diagram. When an IP address is needed, this is 192.1.0.65. +</dd> +<dt>Bob:</dt> +<dd> node [B] in the diagram. When an IP address is needed, this is 192.2.0.66. +</dd> +<dt>Carol:</dt> +<dd> node [C] in the diagram. When an IP address is needed, this is 192.1.1.67. +</dd> +<dt>Dave:</dt> +<dd> node [D] in the diagram. When an IP address is needed, this is 192.3.0.68. +</dd> +<dt>SG-A:</dt> +<dd> Alice's security gateway. Internally it is 192.1.0.1, externally it is 192.1.1.4. +</dd> +<dt>SG-B:</dt> +<dd> Bob's security gateway. Internally it is 192.2.0.1, externally it is 192.1.1.5. +</dd> +<dt>SG-D:</dt> +<dd> Dave's security gateway. Also Alice's backup security gateway. Internally it is 192.3.0.1, externally it is 192.1.1.6. +</dd> +<dt>-</dt> +<dd> A single dash represents clear-text datagrams. +</dd> +<dt>=</dt> +<dd> An equals sign represents phase 2 (IPsec) cipher-text + datagrams. +</dd> +<dt>~</dt> +<dd> A single tilde represents clear-text phase 1 datagrams. +</dd> +<dt>#</dt> +<dd> A hash sign represents phase 1 (IKE) cipher-text + datagrams. +</dd> +<dt>.</dt> +<dd> A period represents an untrusted network of unknown + type. +</dd> +<dt>Configured tunnel:</dt> +<dd> a tunnel that + is directly and deliberately hand configured on participating gateways. + Configured tunnels are typically given a higher level of + trust than opportunistic tunnels. +</dd> +<dt>Road warrior tunnel:</dt> +<dd> a configured tunnel connecting one + node with a fixed IP address and one node with a variable IP address. + A road warrior (RW) connection must be initiated by the + variable node, since the fixed node cannot know the + current address for the road warrior. +</dd> +<dt>Anonymous encryption:</dt> +<dd> + the process of encrypting a session without any knowledge of who the + other parties are. No authentication of identities is done. +</dd> +<dt>Opportunistic encryption:</dt> +<dd> + the process of encrypting a session with authenticated knowledge of + who the other parties are. +</dd> +<dt>Lifetime:</dt> +<dd> + the period in seconds (bytes or datagrams) for which a security + association will remain alive before needing to be re-keyed. +</dd> +<dt>Lifespan:</dt> +<dd> + the effective time for which a security association remains useful. A + security association with a lifespan shorter than its lifetime would + be removed when no longer needed. A security association with a + lifespan longer than its lifetime would need to be re-keyed one or + more times. +</dd> +<dt>Phase 1 SA:</dt> +<dd> an ISAKMP/IKE security association sometimes + referred to as a keying channel. +</dd> +<dt>Phase 2 SA:</dt> +<dd> an IPsec security association. +</dd> +<dt>Tunnel:</dt> +<dd> another term for a set of phase 2 SA (one in each direction). +</dd> +<dt>NAT:</dt> +<dd> Network Address Translation + (see <a href="#RFC2663">[20]</a>). +</dd> +<dt>NAPT:</dt> +<dd> Network Address and Port Translation + (see <a href="#RFC2663">[20]</a>). +</dd> +<dt>AS:</dt> +<dd> an autonomous system (AS) is a group of systems (a network) that + are under the administrative control of a single organization. +</dd> +<dt>Default-free zone:</dt> +<dd> + a set of routers that maintain a complete set of routes to + all currently reachable destinations. Having such a list, these routers + never make use of a default route. A datagram with a destination address + not matching any route will be dropped by such a router. + +</dd> +</dl></blockquote><p> +<a name="rfc.section.2.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor9">2.3</a> Model of operation</h4> + +<p> +The opportunistic encryption security gateway (OE gateway) is a regular +gateway node as described in <a href="#RFC0791">[2]</a> section 2.4 and +<a href="#RFC1009">[3]</a> with the additional capabilities described here and +in <a href="#RFC2401">[7]</a>. +The algorithm described here provides a way to determine, for each datagram, +whether or not to encrypt and tunnel the datagram. Two important things +that must be determined are whether or not to encrypt and tunnel and, if +so, the destination address or name of the tunnel end point which should be used. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.2.3.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor10">2.3.1</a> Tunnel authorization</h4> + +<p> +The OE gateway determines whether or not to create a tunnel based on +the destination address of each packet. Upon receiving a packet with a destination +address not recently seen, the OE gateway performs a lookup in DNS for an +authorization resource record (see <a href="#TXT">Use of TXT delegation record</a>). The record is located using +the IP address to perform a search in the in-addr.arpa (IPv4) or ip6.arpa +(IPv6) maps. If an authorization record is found, the OE gateway +interprets this as a request for a tunnel to be formed. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.2.3.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor11">2.3.2</a> Tunnel end-point discovery</h4> + +<p> +The authorization resource record also provides the address or name of the tunnel +end point which should be used. + +</p> +<p> +The record may also provide the public RSA key of the tunnel end point +itself. This is provided for efficiency only. If the public RSA key is not +present, the OE gateway performs a second lookup to find a KEY +resource record for the end point address or name. + +</p> +<p> +Origin and integrity protection of the resource records is provided by +DNSSEC (<a href="#RFC2535">[16]</a>). <a href="#nodnssec">Restriction on unauthenticated TXT delegation records</a> +documents an optional restriction on the tunnel end point if DNSSEC signatures +are not available for the relevant records. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.2.3.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor12">2.3.3</a> Caching of authorization results</h4> + +<p> +The OE gateway maintains a cache, in the forwarding plane, of +source/destination pairs for which opportunistic encryption has been +attempted. This cache maintains a record of whether or not OE was +successful so that subsequent datagrams can be forwarded properly +without additional delay. + +</p> +<p> +Successful negotiation of OE instantiates a new security association. +Failure to negotiate OE results in creation of a +forwarding policy entry either to drop or transmit in the clear future +datagrams. This negative cache is necessary to avoid the possibly lengthy process of repeatedly looking +up the same information. + +</p> +<p> +The cache is timed out periodically, as described in <a href="#teardown">Renewal and teardown</a>. +This removes entries that are no longer +being used and permits the discovery of changes in authorization policy. + +</p> +<a name="anchor13"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.3"></a><h3>3. Specification</h3> + +<p> +The OE gateway is modeled to have a forwarding plane and a control +plane. A control channel, such as PF_KEY, connects the two planes. +(See <a href="#RFC2367">[6]</a>.) +The forwarding plane performs per datagram operations. The control plane +contains a keying +daemon, such as ISAKMP/IKE, and performs all authorization, peer authentication and +key derivation functions. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor14">3.1</a> Datagram state machine</h4> + +<p> +Let the OE gateway maintain a collection of objects -- a superset of the +security policy database (SPD) specified in <a href="#RFC2401">[7]</a>. For +each combination of source and destination address, an SPD +object exists in one of five following states. +Prior to forwarding each datagram, the +responder uses the source and destination addresses to pick an entry from the SPD. +The SPD then determines if and how the packet is forwarded. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.1.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor15">3.1.1</a> Non-existent policy</h4> + +<p> +If the responder does not find an entry, then this policy applies. +The responder creates an entry with an initial state of "hold policy" and requests +keying material from the keying daemon. The responder does not forward the datagram, +rather it attaches the datagram to the SPD entry as the "first" datagram and retains it +for eventual transmission in a new state. + + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.1.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor16">3.1.2</a> Hold policy</h4> + +<p> +The responder requests keying material. If the interface to the keying +system is lossy (PF_KEY, for instance, can be), the implementation +SHOULD include a mechanism to retransmit the +keying request at a rate limited to less than 1 request per second. +The responder does not forward the datagram. It attaches the +datagram to the SPD entry as the "last" datagram where it is retained +for eventual transmission. If there is +a datagram already so stored, then that already stored datagram is discarded. + +</p> +<p> +Because the "first" datagram is probably a TCP SYN packet, the +responder retains the "first" datagram in an attempt to avoid waiting for a +TCP retransmit. The responder retains the "last" +datagram in deference to streaming protocols that find it useful to know +how much data has been lost. These are recommendations to +decrease latency. There are no operational requirements for this. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.1.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor17">3.1.3</a> Pass-through policy</h4> + +<p> +The responder forwards the datagram using the normal forwarding table. +The responder enters this state only by command from the keying daemon, +and upon entering this state, also forwards the "first" and "last" datagrams. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.1.4"></a><h4><a name="anchor18">3.1.4</a> Deny policy</h4> + +<p> +The responder discards the datagram. The responder enters this state only by +command +from the keying daemon, and upon entering this state, discards the "first" +and "last" datagrams. +Local administration decides if further datagrams cause ICMP messages +to be generated (i.e. ICMP Destination Unreachable, Communication +Administratively Prohibited. type=3, code=13). + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.1.5"></a><h4><a name="anchor19">3.1.5</a> Encrypt policy</h4> + +<p> +The responder encrypts the datagram using the indicated security association database +(SAD) entry. The responder enters this state only by command from the keying daemon, and upon entering +this state, releases and forwards the "first" and "last" datagrams using the +new encrypt policy. + +</p> +<p> +If the associated SAD entry expires because of byte, packet or time limits, then +the entry returns to the Hold policy, and an expire message is sent to the keying daemon. + +</p> +<p> +All states may be created directly by the keying daemon while acting as a +responder. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2"></a><h4><a name="initclasses">3.2</a> Keying state machine - initiator</h4> + +<p> +Let the keying daemon maintain a collection of objects. Let them be +called "connections" or "conn"s. There are two categories of +connection objects: classes and instances. A class represents an +abstract policy - what could be. An instance represents an actual connection - +what is implemented at the time. + +</p> +<p> +Let there be two further subtypes of connections: keying channels (Phase +1 SAs) and data channels (Phase 2 SAs). Each data channel object may have +a corresponding SPD and SAD entry maintained by the datagram state machine. + +</p> +<p> +For the purposes of opportunistic encryption, there MUST, at least, be +connection classes known as "deny", "always-clear-text", "OE-permissive", and +"OE-paranoid". +The latter two connection classes define a set of source and/or destination +addresses for which opportunistic encryption will be attempted. The administrator MAY set policy +options in a number of additional places. An implementation MAY create additional connection classes to further refine +these policies. + +</p> +<p> +The simplest system may need only the "OE-permissive" connection, and would +list its own (single) IP address as the source address of this policy and +the wild-card address 0.0.0.0/0 as the destination IPv4 address. That is, the +simplest policy is to try opportunistic encryption with all destinations. + +</p> +<p> +The distinction between permissive and paranoid OE use will become clear +in the state transition differences. In general a permissive OE will, on +failure, install a pass-through policy, while a paranoid OE will, on failure, +install a drop policy. + +</p> +<p> +In this description of the keying machine's state transitions, the states +associated with the keying system itself are omitted because they are best documented in the keying system +(<a href="#RFC2407">[8]</a>, +<a href="#RFC2408">[9]</a> and <a href="#RFC2409">[10]</a> for ISAKMP/IKE), +and the details are keying system specific. Opportunistic encryption is not +dependent upon any specific keying protocol, but this document does provide +requirements for those using ISAKMP/IKE to assure that implementations inter-operate. + +</p> +<p> +The state transitions that may be involved in communicating with the +forwarding plane are omitted. PF_KEY and similar protocols have their own +set of states required for message sends and completion notifications. + +</p> +<p> +Finally, the retransmits and recursive lookups that are normal for DNS are +not included in this description of the state machine. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor20">3.2.1</a> Nonexistent connection</h4> + +<p> +There is no connection instance for a given source/destination address pair. +Upon receipt of a request for keying material for this +source/destination pair, the initiator searches through the connection classes to +determine the most appropriate policy. Upon determining an appropriate +connection class, an instance object is created of that type. +Both of the OE types result in a potential OE connection. + +</p> +<p>Failure to find an appropriate connection class results in an +administrator defined default. + +</p> +<p> +In each case, when the initiator finds an appropriate class for the new flow, +an instance connection is made of the class which matched. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor21">3.2.2</a> Clear-text connection</h4> + +<p> +The non-existent connection makes a transition to this state when an +always-clear-text class is instantiated, or when an OE-permissive +connection fails. During the transition, the initiator creates a pass-through +policy object in the forwarding plane for the appropriate flow. + +</p> +<p> +Timing out is the only way to leave this state +(see <a href="#expiring">Expiring connection</a>). + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor22">3.2.3</a> Deny connection</h4> + +<p> +The empty connection makes a transition to this state when a +deny class is instantiated, or when an OE-paranoid connection fails. +During the transition, the initiator creates a deny policy object in the forwarding plane +for the appropriate flow. + +</p> +<p> +Timing out is the only way to leave this state +(see <a href="#expiring">Expiring connection</a>). + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.4"></a><h4><a name="anchor23">3.2.4</a> Potential OE connection</h4> + +<p> +The empty connection makes a transition to this state when one of either OE class is instantiated. +During the transition to this state, the initiator creates a hold policy object in the +forwarding plane for the appropriate flow. + +</p> +<p> +In addition, when making a transition into this state, DNS lookup is done in +the reverse-map for a TXT delegation resource record (see <a href="#TXT">Use of TXT delegation record</a>). +The lookup key is the destination address of the flow. + +</p> +<p> +There are three ways to exit this state: + +<ol class="text"> +<li>DNS lookup finds a TXT delegation resource record. +</li> +<li>DNS lookup does not find a TXT delegation resource record. +</li> +<li>DNS lookup times out. +</li> +</ol><p> +</p> +<p> +Based upon the results of the DNS lookup, the potential OE connection makes a +transition to the pending OE connection state. The conditions for a +successful DNS look are: + +<ol class="text"> +<li>DNS finds an appropriate resource record +</li> +<li>It is properly formatted according to <a href="#TXT">Use of TXT delegation record</a> +</li> +<li> if DNSSEC is enabled, then the signature has been vouched for. +</li> +</ol><p> + +Note that if the initiator does not find the public key +present in the TXT delegation record, then the public key must +be looked up as a sub-state. Only successful completion of all the +DNS lookups is considered a success. + +</p> +<p> +If DNS lookup does not find a resource record or DNS times out, then the +initiator considers the receiver not OE capable. If this is an OE-paranoid instance, +then the potential OE connection makes a transition to the deny connection state. +If this is an OE-permissive instance, then the potential OE connection makes a transition to the +clear-text connection state. + +</p> +<p> +If the initiator finds a resource record but it is not properly formatted, or +if DNSSEC is +enabled and reports a failure to authenticate, then the potential OE +connection should make a +transition to the deny connection state. This action SHOULD be logged. If the +administrator wishes to override this transition between states, then an +always-clear class can be installed for this flow. An implementation MAY make +this situation a new class. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.4.1"></a><h4><a name="nodnssec">3.2.4.1</a> Restriction on unauthenticated TXT delegation records</h4> + +<p> +An implementation SHOULD also provide an additional administrative control +on delegation records and DNSSEC. This control would apply to delegation +records (the TXT records in the reverse-map) that are not protected by +DNSSEC. +Records of this type are only permitted to delegate to their own address as +a gateway. When this option is enabled, an active attack on DNS will be +unable to redirect packets to other than the original destination. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.5"></a><h4><a name="anchor24">3.2.5</a> Pending OE connection</h4> + +<p> +The potential OE connection makes a transition to this state when +the initiator determines that all the information required from the DNS lookup is present. +Upon entering this state, the initiator attempts to initiate keying to the gateway +provided. + +</p> +<p> +Exit from this state occurs either with a successfully created IPsec SA, or +with a failure of some kind. Successful SA creation results in a transition +to the key connection state. + +</p> +<p> +Three failures have caused significant problems. They are clearly not the +only possible failures from keying. + +</p> +<p> +Note that if there are multiple gateways available in the TXT delegation +records, then a failure can only be declared after all have been +tried. Further, creation of a phase 1 SA does not constitute success. A set +of phase 2 SAs (a tunnel) is considered success. + +</p> +<p> +The first failure occurs when an ICMP port unreachable is consistently received +without any other communication, or when there is silence from the remote +end. This usually means that either the gateway is not alive, or the +keying daemon is not functional. For an OE-permissive connection, the initiator makes a transition +to the clear-text connection but with a low lifespan. For an OE-pessimistic connection, +the initiator makes a transition to the deny connection again with a low lifespan. The lifespan in both +cases is kept low because the remote gateway may +be in the process of rebooting or be otherwise temporarily unavailable. + +</p> +<p> +The length of time to wait for the remote keying daemon to wake up is +a matter of some debate. If there is a routing failure, 5 minutes is usually long enough for the network to +re-converge. Many systems can reboot in that amount of +time as well. However, 5 minutes is far too long for most users to wait to +hear that they can not connect using OE. Implementations SHOULD make this a +tunable parameter. + +</p> +<p> +The second failure occurs after a phase 1 SA has been created, but there is +either no response to the phase 2 proposal, or the initiator receives a +negative notify (the notify must be +authenticated). The remote gateway is not prepared to do OE at this time. +As before, the initiator makes a transition to the clear-text or the deny +connection based upon connection class, but this +time with a normal lifespan. + +</p> +<p> +The third failure occurs when there is signature failure while authenticating +the remote gateway. This can occur when there has been a +key roll-over, but DNS has not caught up. In this case again, the initiator makes a +transition to the clear-text or the deny connection based +upon the connection class. However, the lifespan depends upon the remaining +time to live in the DNS. (Note that DNSSEC signed resource records have a different +expiry time than non-signed records.) + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.6"></a><h4><a name="keyed">3.2.6</a> Keyed connection</h4> + +<p> +The pending OE connection makes a transition to this state when +session keying material (the phase 2 SAs) is derived. The initiator creates an encrypt +policy in the forwarding plane for this flow. + +</p> +<p> +There are three ways to exit this state. The first is by receipt of an +authenticated delete message (via the keying channel) from the peer. This is +normal teardown and results in a transition to the expired connection state. + +</p> +<p> +The second exit is by expiry of the forwarding plane keying material. This +starts a re-key operation with a transition back to pending OE +connection. In general, the soft expiry occurs with sufficient time left +to continue to use the keys. A re-key can fail, which may +result in the connection failing to clear-text or deny as +appropriate. In the event of a failure, the forwarding plane +policy does not change until the phase 2 SA (IPsec SA) reaches its +hard expiry. + +</p> +<p> +The third exit is in response to a negotiation from a remote +gateway. If the forwarding plane signals the control plane that it has received an +unknown SPI from the remote gateway, or an ICMP is received from the remote gateway +indicating an unknown SPI, the initiator should consider that +the remote gateway has rebooted or restarted. Since these +indications are easily forged, the implementation must +exercise care. The initiator should make a cautious +(rate-limited) attempt to re-key the connection. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.7"></a><h4><a name="expiring">3.2.7</a> Expiring connection</h4> + +<p> +The initiator will periodically place each of the deny, clear-text, and keyed +connections into this +sub-state. See <a href="#teardown">Renewal and teardown</a> for more details of how often this +occurs. +The initiator queries the forwarding plane for last use time of the +appropriate +policy. If the last use time is relatively recent, then the connection +returns to the +previous deny, clear-text or keyed connection state. If not, then the +connection enters +the expired connection state. + +</p> +<p> +The DNS query and answer that lead to the expiring connection state are also +examined. The DNS query may become stale. (A negative, i.e. no such record, answer +is valid for the period of time given by the MINIMUM field in an attached SOA +record. See <a href="#RFC1034">[12]</a> section 4.3.4.) +If the DNS query is stale, then a new query is made. If the results change, then the connection +makes a transition to a new state as described in potential OE connection state. + +</p> +<p> +Note that when considering how stale a connection is, both outgoing SPD and +incoming SAD must be queried as some flows may be unidirectional for some time. + +</p> +<p> +Also note that the policy at the forwarding plane is not updated unless there +is a conclusion that there should be a change. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.2.8"></a><h4><a name="anchor25">3.2.8</a> Expired connection</h4> + +<p> +Entry to this state occurs when no datagrams have been forwarded recently via the +appropriate SPD and SAD objects. The objects in the forwarding plane are +removed (logging any final byte and packet counts if appropriate) and the +connection instance in the keying plane is deleted. + +</p> +<p> +The initiator sends an ISAKMP/IKE delete to clean up the phase 2 SAs as described in +<a href="#teardown">Renewal and teardown</a>. + +</p> +<p> +Whether or not to delete the phase 1 SAs +at this time is left as a local implementation issue. Implementations +that do delete the phase 1 SAs MUST send authenticated delete messages to +indicate that they are doing so. There is an advantage to keeping +the phase 1 SAs until they expire - they may prove useful again in the +near future. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor26">3.3</a> Keying state machine - responder</h4> + +<p> +The responder has a set of objects identical to those of the initiator. + +</p> +<p> +The responder receives an invitation to create a keying channel from an initiator. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.3.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor27">3.3.1</a> Unauthenticated OE peer</h4> + +<p> +Upon entering this state, the responder starts a DNS lookup for a KEY record for the +initiator. +The responder looks in the reverse-map for a KEY record for the initiator if the +initiator has offered an ID_IPV4_ADDR, and in the forward map if the +initiator has offered an ID_FQDN type. (See <a href="#RFC2407">[8]</a> section +4.6.2.1.) + +</p> +<p> +The responder exits this state upon successful receipt of a KEY from DNS, and use of the key +to verify the signature of the initiator. + +</p> +<p> +Successful authentication of the peer results in a transition to the +authenticated OE Peer state. + +</p> +<p> +Note that the unauthenticated OE peer state generally occurs in the middle of the key negotiation +protocol. It is really a form of pseudo-state. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.3.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor28">3.3.2</a> Authenticated OE Peer</h4> + +<p> +The peer will eventually propose one or more phase 2 SAs. The responder uses the source and +destination address in the proposal to +finish instantiating the connection state +using the connection class table. +The responder MUST search for an identical connection object at this point. + +</p> +<p> +If an identical connection is found, then the responder deletes the old instance, +and the new object makes a transition to the pending OE connection state. This means +that new ISAKMP connections with a given peer will always use the latest +instance, which is the correct one if the peer has rebooted in the interim. + +</p> +<p> +If an identical connection is not found, then the responder makes the transition according to the +rules given for the initiator. + +</p> +<p> +Note that if the initiator is in OE-paranoid mode and the responder is in +either always-clear-text or deny, then no communication is possible according +to policy. An implementation is permitted to create new types of policies +such as "accept OE but do not initiate it". This is a local matter. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.4"></a><h4><a name="teardown">3.4</a> Renewal and teardown</h4> + +<a name="rfc.section.3.4.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor29">3.4.1</a> Aging</h4> + +<p> +A potentially unlimited number of tunnels may exist. In practice, only a few +tunnels are used during a period of time. Unused tunnels MUST, therefore, be +torn down. Detecting when tunnels are no longer in use is the subject of this section. + +</p> +<p> +There are two methods for removing tunnels: explicit deletion or expiry. + +</p> +<p> +Explicit deletion requires an IKE delete message. As the deletes +MUST be authenticated, both ends of the tunnel must maintain the +key channel (phase 1 ISAKMP SA). An implementation which refuses to either maintain or +recreate the keying channel SA will be unable to use this method. + +</p> +<p> +The tunnel expiry method, simply allows the IKE daemon to +expire normally without attempting to re-key it. + +</p> +<p> +Regardless of which method is used to remove tunnels, the implementation requires +a method to determine if the tunnel is still in use. The specifics are a +local matter, but the FreeS/WAN project uses the following criteria. These +criteria are currently implemented in the key management daemon, but could +also be implemented at the SPD layer using an idle timer. + +</p> +<p> +Set a short initial (soft) lifespan of 1 minute since many net flows last +only a few seconds. + +</p> +<p> +At the end of the lifespan, check to see if the tunnel was used by +traffic in either direction during the last 30 seconds. If so, assign a +longer tentative lifespan of 20 minutes after which, look again. If the +tunnel is not in use, then close the tunnel. + +</p> +<p> +The expiring state in the key management +system (see <a href="#expiring">Expiring connection</a>) implements these timeouts. +The timer above may be in the forwarding plane, +but then it must be re-settable. + +</p> +<p> +The tentative lifespan is independent of re-keying; it is just the time when +the tunnel's future is next considered. +(The term lifespan is used here rather than lifetime for this reason.) +Unlike re-keying, this tunnel use check is not costly and should happen +reasonably frequently. + +</p> +<p> +A multi-step back-off algorithm is not considered worth the effort here. + +</p> +<p> +If the security gateway and the client host are the +same and not a Bump-in-the-Stack or Bump-in-the-Wire implementation, tunnel +teardown decisions MAY pay attention to TCP connection status as reported +by the local TCP layer. A still-open TCP connection is almost a guarantee that more traffic is +expected. Closing of the only TCP connection through a tunnel is a +strong hint that no more traffic is expected. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.3.4.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor30">3.4.2</a> Teardown and cleanup</h4> + +<p> +Teardown should always be coordinated between the two ends of the tunnel by +interpreting and sending delete notifications. There is a +detailed sub-state in the expired connection state of the key manager that +relates to retransmits of the delete notifications, but this is considered to +be a keying system detail. + +</p> +<p> +On receiving a delete for the outbound SAs of a tunnel (or some subset of +them), tear down the inbound ones also and notify the remote end with a +delete. If the local system receives a delete for a tunnel which is no longer in +existence, then two delete messages have crossed paths. Ignore the delete. +The operation has already been completed. Do not generate any messages in this +situation. + +</p> +<p> +Tunnels are to be considered as bidirectional entities, even though the +low-level protocols don't treat them this way. + +</p> +<p> +When the deletion is initiated locally, rather than as a +response to a received delete, send a delete for (all) the +inbound SAs of a tunnel. If the local system does not receive a responding delete +for the outbound SAs, try re-sending the original +delete. Three tries spaced 10 seconds apart seems a reasonable +level of effort. A failure of the other end to respond after 3 attempts, +indicates that the possibility of further communication is unlikely. Remove the outgoing SAs. +(The remote system may be a mobile node that is no longer present or powered on.) + +</p> +<p> +After re-keying, transmission should switch to using the new +outgoing SAs (ISAKMP or IPsec) immediately, and the old leftover +outgoing SAs should be cleared out promptly (delete should be sent +for the outgoing SAs) rather than waiting for them to expire. This +reduces clutter and minimizes confusion for the operator doing diagnostics. + +</p> +<a name="anchor31"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.4"></a><h3>4. Impacts on IKE</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.4.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor32">4.1</a> ISAKMP/IKE protocol</h4> + +<p> + The IKE wire protocol needs no modifications. The major changes are + implementation issues relating to how the proposals are interpreted, and from + whom they may come. + +</p> +<p> + As opportunistic encryption is designed to be useful between peers without + prior operator configuration, an IKE daemon must be prepared to negotiate + phase 1 SAs with any node. This may require a large amount of resources to + maintain cookie state, as well as large amounts of entropy for nonces, + cookies and so on. + +</p> +<p> + The major changes to support opportunistic encryption are at the IKE daemon + level. These changes relate to handling of key acquisition requests, lookup + of public keys and TXT records, and interactions with firewalls and other + security facilities that may be co-resident on the same gateway. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.4.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor33">4.2</a> Gateway discovery process</h4> + +<p> + In a typical configured tunnel, the address of SG-B is provided + via configuration. Furthermore, the mapping of an SPD entry to a gateway is + typically a 1:1 mapping. When the 0.0.0.0/0 SPD entry technique is used, then + the mapping to a gateway is determined by the reverse DNS records. + +</p> +<p> + The need to do a DNS lookup and wait for a reply will typically introduce a + new state and a new event source (DNS replies) to IKE. Although a +synchronous DNS request can be implemented for proof of concept, experience +is that it can cause very high latencies when a queue of queries must +all timeout in series. + +</p> +<p> + Use of an asynchronous DNS lookup will also permit overlap of DNS lookups with + some of the protocol steps. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.4.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor34">4.3</a> Self identification</h4> + +<p> + SG-A will have to establish its identity. Use an + IPv4 ID in phase 1. + +</p> +<p> There are many situations where the administrator of SG-A may not be + able to control the reverse DNS records for SG-A's public IP address. + Typical situations include dialup connections and most residential-type broadband Internet access + (ADSL, cable-modem) connections. In these situations, a fully qualified domain + name that is under the control of SG-A's administrator may be used + when acting as an initiator only. + The FQDN ID should be used in phase 1. See <a href="#fqdn">Use of FQDN IDs</a> + for more details and restrictions. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.4.4"></a><h4><a name="anchor35">4.4</a> Public key retrieval process</h4> + +<p> + Upon receipt of a phase 1 SA proposal with either an IPv4 (IPv6) ID or + an FQDN ID, an IKE daemon needs to examine local caches and + configuration files to determine if this is part of a configured tunnel. + If no configured tunnels are found, then the implementation should attempt to retrieve + a KEY record from the reverse DNS in the case of an IPv4/IPv6 ID, or + from the forward DNS in the case of FQDN ID. + +</p> +<p> + It is reasonable that if other non-local sources of policy are used + (COPS, LDAP), they be consulted concurrently but some + clear ordering of policy be provided. Note that due to variances in + latency, implementations must wait for positive or negative replies from all sources + of policy before making any decisions. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.4.5"></a><h4><a name="anchor36">4.5</a> Interactions with DNSSEC</h4> + +<p> + The implementation described (1.98) neither uses DNSSEC directly to + explicitly verify the authenticity of zone information, nor uses the NXT + records to provide authentication of the absence of a TXT or KEY + record. Rather, this implementation uses a trusted path to a DNSSEC + capable caching resolver. + +</p> +<p> + To distinguish between an authenticated and an unauthenticated DNS + resource record, a stub resolver capable of returning DNSSEC + information MUST be used. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.4.6"></a><h4><a name="anchor37">4.6</a> Required proposal types</h4> + +<a name="rfc.section.4.6.1"></a><h4><a name="phase1id">4.6.1</a> Phase 1 parameters</h4> + +<p> + Main mode MUST be used. + +</p> +<p> + The initiator MUST offer at least one proposal using some combination + of: 3DES, HMAC-MD5 or HMAC-SHA1, DH group 2 or 5. Group 5 SHOULD be + proposed first. + <a href="#RFC3526">[11]</a> +</p> +<p> + The initiator MAY offer additional proposals, but the cipher MUST not + be weaker than 3DES. The initiator SHOULD limit the number of proposals + such that the IKE datagrams do not need to be fragmented. + +</p> +<p> + The responder MUST accept one of the proposals. If any configuration + of the responder is required then the responder is not acting in an + opportunistic way. + +</p> +<p> + SG-A SHOULD use an ID_IPV4_ADDR (ID_IPV6_ADDR for IPv6) of the external + interface of SG-A for phase 1. (There is an exception, see <a href="#fqdn">Use of FQDN IDs</a>.) The authentication method MUST be RSA public key signatures. + The RSA key for SG-A SHOULD be placed into a DNS KEY record in + the reverse space of SG-A (i.e. using in-addr.arpa). + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.4.6.2"></a><h4><a name="phase2id">4.6.2</a> Phase 2 parameters</h4> + +<p> + SG-A MUST propose a tunnel between Alice and Bob, using 3DES-CBC + mode, MD5 or SHA1 authentication. Perfect Forward Secrecy MUST be specified. + +</p> +<p> + Tunnel mode MUST be used. + +</p> +<p> + Identities MUST be ID_IPV4_ADDR_SUBNET with the mask being /32. + +</p> +<p> + Authorization for SG-A to act on Alice's behalf is determined by + looking for a TXT record in the reverse-map at Alice's address. + +</p> +<p> + Compression SHOULD NOT be mandatory. It may be offered as an option. + +</p> +<a name="anchor38"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.5"></a><h3>5. DNS issues</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.5.1"></a><h4><a name="KEY">5.1</a> Use of KEY record</h4> + +<p> + In order to establish their own identities, SG-A and SG-B SHOULD publish + their public keys in their reverse DNS via + DNSSEC's KEY record. + See section 3 of <a href="#RFC2535">RFC 2535</a>[16]. + +</p> +<p> +<p>For example: +</p></font><pre> +KEY 0x4200 4 1 AQNJjkKlIk9...nYyUkKK8 +</pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> + +<blockquote class="text"><dl> +<dt>0x4200:</dt> +<dd> The flag bits, indicating that this key is prohibited + for confidentiality use (it authenticates the peer only, a separate + Diffie-Hellman exchange is used for + confidentiality), and that this key is associated with the non-zone entity + whose name is the RR owner name. No other flags are set. +</dd> +<dt>4:</dt> +<dd>This indicates that this key is for use by IPsec. +</dd> +<dt>1:</dt> +<dd>An RSA key is present. +</dd> +<dt>AQNJjkKlIk9...nYyUkKK8:</dt> +<dd>The public key of the host as described in <a href="#RFC3110">[17]</a>. +</dd> +</dl></blockquote><p> +</p> +<p>Use of several KEY records allows for key rollover. The SIG Payload in + IKE phase 1 SHOULD be accepted if the public key given by any KEY RR + validates it. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.5.2"></a><h4><a name="TXT">5.2</a> Use of TXT delegation record</h4> + +<p> +Alice publishes a TXT record to provide authorization for SG-A to act on +Alice's behalf. + +Bob publishes a TXT record to provide authorization for SG-B to act on Bob's +behalf. + +These records are located in the reverse DNS (in-addr.arpa) for their +respective IP addresses. The reverse DNS SHOULD be secured by DNSSEC, when +it is deployed. DNSSEC is required to defend against active attacks. + +</p> +<p> + If Alice's address is P.Q.R.S, then she can authorize another node to + act on her behalf by publishing records at: + </p> +</font><pre> +S.R.Q.P.in-addr.arpa + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> +<p> + +</p> +<p> + The contents of the resource record are expected to be a string that + uses the following syntax, as suggested in <a href="#RFC1464">[15]</a>. + (Note that the reply to query may include other TXT resource + records used by other applications.) + + <br><hr size="1" shade="0"> +<a name="txtformat"></a> +</p> +</font><pre> +X-IPsec-Server(P)=A.B.C.D KEY + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> +<p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" align="center"><tr><td align="center"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" size="1"><b> Format of reverse delegation record </b></font><br></td></tr></table><hr size="1" shade="0"> + +</p> +<blockquote class="text"><dl> +<dt>P:</dt> +<dd> Specifies a precedence for this record. This is + similar to MX record preferences. Lower numbers have stronger + preference. + +</dd> +<dt>A.B.C.D:</dt> +<dd> Specifies the IP address of the Security Gateway + for this client machine. + +</dd> +<dt>KEY:</dt> +<dd> Is the encoded RSA Public key of the Security + Gateway. The key is provided here to avoid a second DNS lookup. If this + field is absent, then a KEY resource record should be looked up in the + reverse-map of A.B.C.D. The key is transmitted in base64 format. + +</dd> +</dl></blockquote><p> +<p> + The pieces of the record are separated by any whitespace + (space, tab, newline, carriage return). An ASCII space SHOULD + be used. + +</p> +<p> + In the case where Alice is located at a public address behind a + security gateway that has no fixed address (or no control over its + reverse-map), then Alice may delegate to a public key by domain name. + + <br><hr size="1" shade="0"> +<a name="txtfqdnformat"></a> +</p> +</font><pre> +X-IPsec-Server(P)=@FQDN KEY + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> +<p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" align="center"><tr><td align="center"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" size="1"><b> Format of reverse delegation record (FQDN version) </b></font><br></td></tr></table><hr size="1" shade="0"> + +</p> +<blockquote class="text"><dl> +<dt>P:</dt> +<dd> Is as above. + +</dd> +<dt>FQDN:</dt> +<dd> Specifies the FQDN that the Security Gateway + will identify itself with. + +</dd> +<dt>KEY:</dt> +<dd> Is the encoded RSA Public key of the Security + Gateway. +</dd> +</dl></blockquote><p> +<p> + If there is more than one such TXT record with strongest (lowest + numbered) precedence, one Security Gateway is picked arbitrarily from + those specified in the strongest-preference records. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.5.2.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor39">5.2.1</a> Long TXT records</h4> + +<p> + When packed into transport format, TXT records which are longer than 255 + characters are divided into smaller <character-strings>. + (See <a href="#RFC1035">[13]</a> section 3.3 and 3.3.14.) These MUST + be reassembled into a single string for processing. + Whitespace characters in the base64 encoding are to be ignored. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.5.2.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor40">5.2.2</a> Choice of TXT record</h4> + +<p> + It has been suggested to use the KEY, OPT, CERT, or KX records + instead of a TXT record. None is satisfactory. + +</p> +<p> The KEY RR has a protocol field which could be used to indicate a new protocol, +and an algorithm field which could be used to + indicate different contents in the key data. However, the KEY record + is clearly not intended for storing what are really authorizations, + it is just for identities. Other uses have been discouraged. + +</p> +<p> OPT resource records, as defined in <a href="#RFC2671">[14]</a> are not + intended to be used for storage of information. They are not to be loaded, + cached or forwarded. They are, therefore, inappropriate for use here. + +</p> +<p> + CERT records <a href="#RFC2538">[18]</a> can encode almost any set of + information. A custom type code could be used permitting any suitable + encoding to be stored, not just X.509. According to + the RFC, the certificate RRs are to be signed internally which may add undesirable +and unnecessary bulk. Larger DNS records may require TCP instead of UDP transfers. + +</p> +<p> + At the time of protocol design, the CERT RR was not widely deployed and + could not be counted upon. Use of CERT records will be investigated, + and may be proposed in a future revision of this document. + +</p> +<p> + KX records are ideally suited for use instead of TXT records, but had not been deployed at + the time of implementation. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.5.3"></a><h4><a name="fqdn">5.3</a> Use of FQDN IDs</h4> + +<p> + Unfortunately, not every administrator has control over the contents + of the reverse-map. Where the initiator (SG-A) has no suitable reverse-map, the + authorization record present in the reverse-map of Alice may refer to a + FQDN instead of an IP address. + +</p> +<p> + In this case, the client's TXT record gives the fully qualified domain + name (FQDN) in place of its security gateway's IP address. + The initiator should use the ID_FQDN ID-payload in phase 1. + A forward lookup for a KEY record on the FQDN must yield the + initiator's public key. + +</p> +<p> + This method can also be used when the external address of SG-A is + dynamic. + +</p> +<p> + If SG-A is acting on behalf of Alice, then Alice must still delegate + authority for SG-A to do so in her reverse-map. When Alice and SG-A + are one and the same (i.e. Alice is acting as an end-node) then there + is no need for this when initiating only. +</p> +<p>However, Alice must still delegate to herself if she wishes others to + initiate OE to her. See <a href="#txtfqdnformat">Format of reverse delegation record (FQDN version)</a>. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.5.4"></a><h4><a name="anchor41">5.4</a> Key roll-over</h4> + +<p> +Good cryptographic hygiene says that one should replace public/private key pairs +periodically. Some administrators may wish to do this as often as daily. Typical DNS +propagation delays are determined by the SOA Resource Record MINIMUM +parameter, which controls how long DNS replies may be cached. For reasonable +operation of DNS servers, administrators usually want this value to be at least several +hours, sometimes as a long as a day. This presents a problem - a new key MUST +not be used prior to it propagating through DNS. + +</p> +<p> +This problem is dealt with by having the Security Gateway generate a new +public/private key pair at least MINIMUM seconds in advance of using it. It +then adds this key to the DNS (both as a second KEY record and in additional TXT +delegation records) at key generation time. Note: only one key is allowed in +each TXT record. + +</p> +<p> +When authenticating, all gateways MUST have available all public keys +that are found in DNS for this entity. This permits the authenticating end +to check both the key for "today" and the key for "tomorrow". Note that it is +the end which is creating the signature (possesses the private key) that +determines which key is to be used. + +</p> +<a name="anchor42"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.6"></a><h3>6. Network address translation interaction</h3> + +<p> + There are no fundamentally new issues for implementing opportunistic encryption + in the presence of network address translation. Rather there are + only the regular IPsec issues with NAT traversal. + +</p> +<p> + There are several situations to consider for NAT. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.6.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor43">6.1</a> Co-located NAT/NAPT</h4> + +<p> + If SG-A is also performing network address translation on + behalf of Alice, then the packet should be translated prior to + being subjected to opportunistic encryption. This is in contrast to + typically configured tunnels which often exist to bridge islands of + private network address space. SG-A will use the translated source + address for phase 2, and so SG-B will look up that address to + confirm SG-A's authorization. + +</p> +<p> In the case of NAT (1:1), the address space into which the + translation is done MUST be globally unique, and control over the + reverse-map is assumed. + Placing of TXT records is possible. + +</p> +<p> In the case of NAPT (m:1), the address will be SG-A. The ability to get + KEY and TXT records in place will again depend upon whether or not + there is administrative control over the reverse-map. This is + identical to situations involving a single host acting on behalf of + itself. + + FQDN style can be used to get around a lack of a reverse-map for + initiators only. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.6.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor44">6.2</a> SG-A behind NAT/NAPT</h4> + +<p> + If there is a NAT or NAPT between SG-A and SG-B, then normal IPsec + NAT traversal rules apply. In addition to the transport problem + which may be solved by other mechanisms, there + is the issue of what phase 1 and phase 2 IDs to use. While FQDN could + be used during phase 1 for SG-A, there is no appropriate ID for phase 2 + that permits SG-B to determine that SG-A is in fact authorized to speak for Alice. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.6.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor45">6.3</a> Bob is behind a NAT/NAPT</h4> + +<p> + If Bob is behind a NAT (perhaps SG-B), then there is, in fact, no way for + Alice to address a packet to Bob. Not only is opportunistic encryption + impossible, but it is also impossible for Alice to initiate any + communication to Bob. It may be possible for Bob to initiate in such + a situation. This creates an asymmetry, but this is common for + NAPT. + +</p> +<a name="anchor46"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.7"></a><h3>7. Host implementations</h3> + +<p> + When Alice and SG-A are components of the same system, they are + considered to be a host implementation. The packet sequence scenario remains unchanged. + +</p> +<p> + Components marked Alice are the upper layers (TCP, UDP, the + application), and SG-A is the IP layer. + +</p> +<p> + Note that tunnel mode is still required. + +</p> +<p> + As Alice and SG-A are acting on behalf of themselves, no TXT based delegation + record is necessary for Alice to initiate. She can rely on FQDN in a + forward map. This is particularly attractive to mobile nodes such as + notebook computers at conferences. + To respond, Alice/SG-A will still need an entry in Alice's reverse-map. + +</p> +<a name="anchor47"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.8"></a><h3>8. Multi-homing</h3> + +<p> +If there are multiple paths between Alice and Bob (as illustrated in +the diagram with SG-D), then additional DNS records are required to establish +authorization. + +</p> +<p> +In <a href="#networkdiagram">Reference Network Diagram</a>, Alice has two ways to +exit her network: SG-A and SG-D. Previously SG-D has been ignored. Postulate +that there are routers between Alice and her set of security gateways +(denoted by the + signs and the marking of an autonomous system number for +Alice's network). Datagrams may, therefore, travel to either SG-A or SG-D en +route to Bob. + +</p> +<p> +As long as all network connections are in good order, it does not matter how +datagrams exit Alice's network. When they reach either security gateway, the +security gateway will find the TXT delegation record in Bob's reverse-map, +and establish an SA with SG-B. + +</p> +<p> +SG-B has no problem establishing that either of SG-A or SG-D may speak for +Alice, because Alice has published two equally weighted TXT delegation records: + <br><hr size="1" shade="0"> +<a name="txtmultiexample"></a> +</p> +</font><pre> +X-IPsec-Server(10)=192.1.1.5 AQMM...3s1Q== +X-IPsec-Server(10)=192.1.1.6 AAJN...j8r9== + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> +<p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" align="center"><tr><td align="center"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" size="1"><b> Multiple gateway delegation example for Alice </b></font><br></td></tr></table><hr size="1" shade="0"> + +</p> +<p> +Alice's routers can now do any kind of load sharing needed. Both SG-A and SG-D send datagrams addressed to Bob through +their tunnel to SG-B. + +</p> +<p> +Alice's use of non-equal weight delegation records to show preference of one gateway over another, has relevance only when SG-B +is initiating to Alice. + +</p> +<p> +If the precedences are the same, then SG-B has a more difficult time. It +must decide which of the two tunnels to use. SG-B has no information about +which link is less loaded, nor which security gateway has more cryptographic +resources available. SG-B, in fact, has no knowledge of whether both gateways +are even reachable. + +</p> +<p> +The Public Internet's default-free zone may well know a good route to Alice, +but the datagrams that SG-B creates must be addressed to either SG-A or SG-D; +they can not be addressed to Alice directly. + +</p> +<p> +SG-B may make a number of choices: + +<ol class="text"> +<li>It can ignore the problem and round robin among the tunnels. This + causes losses during times when one or the other security gateway is + unreachable. If this worries Alice, she can change the weights in her + TXT delegation records. +</li> +<li>It can send to the gateway from which it most recently received datagrams. + This assumes that routing and reachability are symmetrical. +</li> +<li>It can listen to BGP information from the Internet to decide which + system is currently up. This is clearly much more complicated, but if SG-B is already participating + in the BGP peering system to announce Bob, the results data may already + be available to it. +</li> +<li>It can refuse to negotiate the second tunnel. (It is unclear whether or +not this is even an option.) +</li> +<li>It can silently replace the outgoing portion of the first tunnel with the +second one while still retaining the incoming portions of both. SG-B can, +thus, accept datagrams from either SG-A or SG-D, but +send only to the gateway that most recently re-keyed with it. +</li> +</ol><p> +</p> +<p> +Local policy determines which choice SG-B makes. Note that even if SG-B has perfect +knowledge about the reachability of SG-A and SG-D, Alice may not be reachable +from either of these security gateways because of internal reachability +issues. + +</p> +<p> +FreeS/WAN implements option 5. Implementing a different option is +being considered. The multi-homing aspects of OE are not well developed and may +be the subject of a future document. + +</p> +<a name="anchor48"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.9"></a><h3>9. Failure modes</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.9.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor49">9.1</a> DNS failures</h4> + +<p> + If a DNS server fails to respond, local policy decides + whether or not to permit communication in the clear as embodied in + the connection classes in <a href="#initclasses">Keying state machine - initiator</a>. + It is easy to mount a denial of service attack on the DNS server + responsible for a particular network's reverse-map. + Such an attack may cause all communication with that network to go in + the clear if the policy is permissive, or fail completely + if the policy is paranoid. Please note that this is an active attack. + +</p> +<p> + There are still many networks + that do not have properly configured reverse-maps. Further, if the policy is not to communicate, + the above denial of service attack isolates the target network. Therefore, the decision of whether +or not to permit communication in the clear MUST be a matter of local policy. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.9.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor50">9.2</a> DNS configured, IKE failures</h4> + +<p> + DNS records claim that opportunistic encryption should + occur, but the target gateway either does not respond on port 500, or + refuses the proposal. This may be because of a crash or reboot, a + faulty configuration, or a firewall filtering port 500. + +</p> +<p> + The receipt of ICMP port, host or network unreachable + messages indicates a potential problem, but MUST NOT cause communication + to fail + immediately. ICMP messages are easily forged by attackers. If such a + forgery caused immediate failure, then an active attacker could easily + prevent any + encryption from ever occurring, possibly preventing all communication. + +</p> +<p> + In these situations a clear log should be produced + and local policy should dictate if communication is then + permitted in the clear. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.9.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor51">9.3</a> System reboots</h4> + +<p> +Tunnels sometimes go down because the remote end crashes, +disconnects, or has a network link break. In general there is no +notification of this. Even in the event of a crash and successful reboot, +other SGs don't hear about it unless the rebooted SG has specific +reason to talk to them immediately. Over-quick response to temporary +network outages is undesirable. Note that a tunnel can be torn +down and then re-established without any effect visible to the user +except a pause in traffic. On the other hand, if one end reboots, +the other end can't get datagrams to it at all (except via +IKE) until the situation is noticed. So a bias toward quick +response is appropriate even at the cost of occasional +false alarms. + +</p> +<p> +A mechanism for recovery after reboot is a topic of current research and is not specified in this +document. + +</p> +<p> +A deliberate shutdown should include an attempt, using deletes, to notify all other SGs +currently connected by phase 1 SAs that communication is +about to fail. Again, a remote SG will assume this is a teardown. Attempts by the +remote SGs to negotiate new tunnels as replacements should be ignored. When possible, +SGs should attempt to preserve information about currently-connected SGs in non-volatile storage, so +that after a crash, an Initial-Contact can be sent to previous partners to +indicate loss of all previously established connections. + +</p> +<a name="anchor52"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.10"></a><h3>10. Unresolved issues</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.10.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor53">10.1</a> Control of reverse DNS</h4> + +<p> + The method of obtaining information by reverse DNS lookup causes + problems for people who cannot control their reverse DNS + bindings. This is an unresolved problem in this version, and is out + of scope. + +</p> +<a name="anchor54"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.11"></a><h3>11. Examples</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.11.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor55">11.1</a> Clear-text usage (permit policy)</h4> + +<p> +Two example scenarios follow. In the first example GW-A +(Gateway A) and GW-B (Gateway B) have always-clear-text policies, and in the second example they have an OE +policy. + +</p><br><hr size="1" shade="0"> +<a name="regulartiming"></a> +</font><pre> + Alice SG-A DNS SG-B Bob + (1) + ------(2)--------------> + <-----(3)--------------- + (4)----(5)-----> + ----------(6)------> + ------(7)-----> + <------(8)------ + <----------(9)------ + <----(10)----- + (11)-----------> + ----------(12)-----> + --------------> + <--------------- + <------------------- + <------------- + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" align="center"><tr><td align="center"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" size="1"><b> Timing of regular transaction </b></font><br></td></tr></table><hr size="1" shade="0"> + +<p> +Alice wants to communicate with Bob. Perhaps she wants to retrieve a +web page from Bob's web server. In the absence of opportunistic +encryptors, the following events occur: + +<blockquote class="text"><dl> +<dt>(1)</dt> +<dd>Human or application 'clicks' with a name. +</dd> +<dt>(2)</dt> +<dd>Application looks up name in DNS to get IP address. +</dd> +<dt>(3)</dt> +<dd>Resolver returns A record to application. +</dd> +<dt>(4)</dt> +<dd>Application starts a TCP session or UDP session and OS sends datagram. +</dd> +<dt>(5)</dt> +<dd>Datagram is seen at first gateway from Alice (SG-A). (SG-A +makes a transition through Empty connection to always-clear connection and +instantiates a pass-through policy at the forwarding plane.) +</dd> +<dt>(6)</dt> +<dd>Datagram is seen at last gateway before Bob (SG-B). +</dd> +<dt>(7)</dt> +<dd>First datagram from Alice is seen by Bob. +</dd> +<dt>(8)</dt> +<dd>First return datagram is sent by Bob. +</dd> +<dt>(9)</dt> +<dd>Datagram is seen at Bob's gateway. (SG-B makes a transition through +Empty connection to always-clear connection and instantiates a pass-through +policy at the forwarding plane.) +</dd> +<dt>(10)</dt> +<dd>Datagram is seen at Alice's gateway. +</dd> +<dt>(11)</dt> +<dd>OS hands datagram to application. Alice sends another datagram. +</dd> +<dt>(12)</dt> +<dd>A second datagram traverses the Internet. +</dd> +</dl></blockquote><p> +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor56">11.2</a> Opportunistic encryption</h4> + +<p> +In the presence of properly configured opportunistic encryptors, the +event list is extended. + +<br><hr size="1" shade="0"> +<a name="opportunistictiming"></a> +</p> +</font><pre> + Alice SG-A DNS SG-B Bob + (1) + ------(2)--------------> + <-----(3)--------------- + (4)----(5)----->+ + ----(5B)-> + <---(5C)-- + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5D)~~~> + <~~~~~~~~~~~~(5E1)~~~ + ~~~~~~~~~~~~~(5E2)~~> + <~~~~~~~~~~~~(5E3)~~~ + #############(5E4)##> + <############(5E5)### + <----(5F1)-- + -----(5F2)-> + #############(5G1)##> + <----(5H1)-- + -----(5H2)-> + <############(5G2)### + #############(5G3)##> + ============(6)====> + ------(7)-----> + <------(8)------ + <==========(9)====== + <-----(10)---- + (11)-----------> + ==========(12)=====> + --------------> + <--------------- + <=================== + <------------- + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> +<p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" align="center"><tr><td align="center"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" size="1"><b> Timing of opportunistic encryption transaction </b></font><br></td></tr></table><hr size="1" shade="0"> + +<blockquote class="text"><dl> +<dt>(1)</dt> +<dd>Human or application clicks with a name. +</dd> +<dt>(2)</dt> +<dd>Application initiates DNS mapping. +</dd> +<dt>(3)</dt> +<dd>Resolver returns A record to application. +</dd> +<dt>(4)</dt> +<dd>Application starts a TCP session or UDP. +</dd> +<dt>(5)</dt> +<dd>SG-A (host or SG) sees datagram to target, and buffers it. +</dd> +<dt>(5B)</dt> +<dd>SG-A asks DNS for TXT record. +</dd> +<dt>(5C)</dt> +<dd>DNS returns TXT record(s). +</dd> +<dt>(5D)</dt> +<dd>Initial IKE Main Mode Packet goes out. +</dd> +<dt>(5E)</dt> +<dd>IKE ISAKMP phase 1 succeeds. +</dd> +<dt>(5F)</dt> +<dd>SG-B asks DNS for TXT record to prove SG-A is an agent for Alice. +</dd> +<dt>(5G)</dt> +<dd>IKE phase 2 negotiation. +</dd> +<dt>(5H)</dt> +<dd>DNS lookup by responder (SG-B). +</dd> +<dt>(6)</dt> +<dd>Buffered datagram is sent by SG-A. +</dd> +<dt>(7)</dt> +<dd>Datagram is received by SG-B, decrypted, and sent to Bob. +</dd> +<dt>(8)</dt> +<dd>Bob replies, and datagram is seen by SG-B. +</dd> +<dt>(9)</dt> +<dd>SG-B already has tunnel up with SG-A, and uses it. +</dd> +<dt>(10)</dt> +<dd>SG-A decrypts datagram and gives it to Alice. +</dd> +<dt>(11)</dt> +<dd>Alice receives datagram. Sends new packet to Bob. +</dd> +<dt>(12)</dt> +<dd>SG-A gets second datagram, sees that tunnel is up, and uses it. +</dd> +</dl></blockquote><p> +</p> +<p> + For the purposes of this section, we will describe only the changes that + occur between <a href="#regulartiming">Timing of regular transaction</a> and + <a href="#opportunistictiming">Timing of opportunistic encryption transaction</a>. This corresponds to time points 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 on the list above. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor57">11.2.1</a> (5) IPsec datagram interception</h4> + +<p> + At point (5), SG-A intercepts the datagram because this source/destination pair lacks a policy +(the non-existent policy state). SG-A creates a hold policy, and buffers the datagram. SG-A requests keys from the keying daemon. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor58">11.2.2</a> (5B) DNS lookup for TXT record</h4> + +<p> + SG-A's IKE daemon, having looked up the source/destination pair in the connection + class list, creates a new Potential OE connection instance. SG-A starts DNS + queries. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor59">11.2.3</a> (5C) DNS returns TXT record(s)</h4> + +<p> + DNS returns properly formed TXT delegation records, and SG-A's IKE daemon + causes this instance to make a transition from Potential OE connection to Pending OE + connection. + +</p> +<p> + Using the example above, the returned record might contain: + + <br><hr size="1" shade="0"> +<a name="txtexample"></a> +</p> +</font><pre> +X-IPsec-Server(10)=192.1.1.5 AQMM...3s1Q== + </pre><font face="verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif" size="2"> +<p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" align="center"><tr><td align="center"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" size="1"><b> Example of reverse delegation record for Bob </b></font><br></td></tr></table><hr size="1" shade="0"> + + with SG-B's IP address and public key listed. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.4"></a><h4><a name="anchor60">11.2.4</a> (5D) Initial IKE main mode packet goes out</h4> + +<p>Upon entering Pending OE connection, SG-A sends the initial ISAKMP + message with proposals. See <a href="#phase1id">Phase 1 parameters</a>. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.5"></a><h4><a name="anchor61">11.2.5</a> (5E1) Message 2 of phase 1 exchange</h4> + +<p> + SG-B receives the message. A new connection instance is created in the + unauthenticated OE peer state. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.6"></a><h4><a name="anchor62">11.2.6</a> (5E2) Message 3 of phase 1 exchange</h4> + +<p> + SG-A sends a Diffie-Hellman exponent. This is an internal state of the + keying daemon. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.7"></a><h4><a name="anchor63">11.2.7</a> (5E3) Message 4 of phase 1 exchange</h4> + +<p> + SG-B responds with a Diffie-Hellman exponent. This is an internal state of the + keying protocol. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.8"></a><h4><a name="anchor64">11.2.8</a> (5E4) Message 5 of phase 1 exchange</h4> + +<p> + SG-A uses the phase 1 SA to send its identity under encryption. + The choice of identity is discussed in <a href="#phase1id">Phase 1 parameters</a>. + This is an internal state of the keying protocol. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.9"></a><h4><a name="anchor65">11.2.9</a> (5F1) Responder lookup of initiator key</h4> + +<p> + SG-B asks DNS for the public key of the initiator. + DNS looks for a KEY record by IP address in the reverse-map. + That is, a KEY resource record is queried for 4.1.1.192.in-addr.arpa + (recall that SG-A's external address is 192.1.1.4). + SG-B uses the resulting public key to authenticate the initiator. See <a href="#KEY">Use of KEY record</a> for further details. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.10"></a><h4><a name="anchor66">11.2.10</a> (5F2) DNS replies with public key of initiator</h4> + +<p> +Upon successfully authenticating the peer, the connection instance makes a +transition to authenticated OE peer on SG-B. + +</p> +<p> +The format of the TXT record returned is described in +<a href="#TXT">Use of TXT delegation record</a>. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.11"></a><h4><a name="anchor67">11.2.11</a> (5E5) Responder replies with ID and authentication</h4> + +<p> + SG-B sends its ID along with authentication material. This is an internal + state for the keying protocol. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.12"></a><h4><a name="anchor68">11.2.12</a> (5G) IKE phase 2</h4> + +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.12.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor69">11.2.12.1</a> (5G1) Initiator proposes tunnel</h4> + +<p> + Having established mutually agreeable authentications (via KEY) and + authorizations (via TXT), SG-A proposes to create an IPsec tunnel for + datagrams transiting from Alice to Bob. This tunnel is established only for + the Alice/Bob combination, not for any subnets that may be behind SG-A and SG-B. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.12.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor70">11.2.12.2</a> (5H1) Responder determines initiator's authority</h4> + +<p> + While the identity of SG-A has been established, its authority to + speak for Alice has not yet been confirmed. SG-B does a reverse + lookup on Alice's address for a TXT record. + +</p> +<p>Upon receiving this specific proposal, SG-B's connection instance + makes a transition into the potential OE connection state. SG-B may already have an + instance, and the check is made as described above. +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.12.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor71">11.2.12.3</a> (5H2) DNS replies with TXT record(s)</h4> + +<p> + The returned key and IP address should match that of SG-A. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.12.4"></a><h4><a name="anchor72">11.2.12.4</a> (5G2) Responder agrees to proposal</h4> + +<p> + Should additional communication occur between, for instance, Dave and Bob using + SG-A and SG-B, a new tunnel (phase 2 SA) would be established. The phase 1 SA + may be reusable. + +</p> +<p>SG-A, having successfully keyed the tunnel, now makes a transition from + Pending OE connection to Keyed OE connection. + +</p> +<p>The responder MUST setup the inbound IPsec SAs before sending its reply. +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.12.5"></a><h4><a name="anchor73">11.2.12.5</a> (5G3) Final acknowledgment from initiator</h4> + +<p> + The initiator agrees with the responder's choice and sets up the tunnel. + The initiator sets up the inbound and outbound IPsec SAs. + +</p> +<p> + The proper authorization returned with keys prompts SG-B to make a transition + to the keyed OE connection state. + +</p> +<p>Upon receipt of this message, the responder may now setup the outbound + IPsec SAs. +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.13"></a><h4><a name="anchor74">11.2.13</a> (6) IPsec succeeds, and sets up tunnel for communication between Alice and Bob</h4> + +<p> + SG-A sends the datagram saved at step (5) through the newly created + tunnel to SG-B, where it gets decrypted and forwarded. + Bob receives it at (7) and replies at (8). + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.11.2.14"></a><h4><a name="anchor75">11.2.14</a> (9) SG-B already has tunnel up with G1 and uses it</h4> + +<p> + At (9), SG-B has already established an SPD entry mapping Bob->Alice via a + tunnel, so this tunnel is simply applied. The datagram is encrypted to SG-A, + decrypted by SG-A and passed to Alice at (10). + +</p> +<a name="securityconsiderations"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.12"></a><h3>12. Security considerations</h3> + +<a name="rfc.section.12.1"></a><h4><a name="anchor76">12.1</a> Configured vs opportunistic tunnels</h4> + +<p> + Configured tunnels are those which are setup using bilateral mechanisms: exchanging +public keys (raw RSA, DSA, PKIX), pre-shared secrets, or by referencing keys that +are in known places (distinguished name from LDAP, DNS). These keys are then used to +configure a specific tunnel. + +</p> +<p> +A pre-configured tunnel may be on all the time, or may be keyed only when needed. +The end points of the tunnel are not necessarily static: many mobile +applications (road warrior) are considered to be configured tunnels. + +</p> +<p> +The primary characteristic is that configured tunnels are assigned specific +security properties. They may be trusted in different ways relating to exceptions to +firewall rules, exceptions to NAT processing, and to bandwidth or other quality of service restrictions. + +</p> +<p> +Opportunistic tunnels are not inherently trusted in any strong way. They are +created without prior arrangement. As the two parties are strangers, there +MUST be no confusion of datagrams that arrive from opportunistic peers and +those that arrive from configured tunnels. A security gateway MUST take care +that an opportunistic peer can not impersonate a configured peer. + +</p> +<p> +Ingress filtering MUST be used to make sure that only datagrams authorized by +negotiation (and the concomitant authentication and authorization) are +accepted from a tunnel. This is to prevent one peer from impersonating another. + +</p> +<p> +An implementation suggestion is to treat opportunistic tunnel +datagrams as if they arrive on a logical interface distinct from other +configured tunnels. As the number of opportunistic tunnels that may be +created automatically on a system is potentially very high, careful attention +to scaling should be taken into account. + +</p> +<p> +As with any IKE negotiation, opportunistic encryption cannot be secure +without authentication. Opportunistic encryption relies on DNS for its +authentication information and, therefore, cannot be fully secure without +a secure DNS. Without secure DNS, opportunistic encryption can protect against passive +eavesdropping but not against active man-in-the-middle attacks. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.12.2"></a><h4><a name="anchor77">12.2</a> Firewalls versus Opportunistic Tunnels</h4> + +<p> + Typical usage of per datagram access control lists is to implement various +kinds of security gateways. These are typically called "firewalls". + +</p> +<p> + Typical usage of a virtual private network (VPN) within a firewall is to +bypass all or part of the access controls between two networks. Additional +trust (as outlined in the previous section) is given to datagrams that arrive +in the VPN. + +</p> +<p> + Datagrams that arrive via opportunistically configured tunnels MUST not be +trusted. Any security policy that would apply to a datagram arriving in the +clear SHOULD also be applied to datagrams arriving opportunistically. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.section.12.3"></a><h4><a name="anchor78">12.3</a> Denial of service</h4> + +<p> + There are several different forms of denial of service that an implementor + should concern themselves with. Most of these problems are shared with + security gateways that have large numbers of mobile peers (road warriors). + +</p> +<p> + The design of ISAKMP/IKE, and its use of cookies, defend against many kinds + of denial of service. Opportunism changes the assumption that if the phase 1 (ISAKMP) + SA is authenticated, that it was worthwhile creating. Because the gateway will communicate with any machine, it is + possible to form phase 1 SAs with any machine on the Internet. + +</p> +<a name="anchor79"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.13"></a><h3>13. IANA Considerations</h3> + +<p> + There are no known numbers which IANA will need to manage. + +</p> +<a name="anchor80"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<a name="rfc.section.14"></a><h3>14. Acknowledgments</h3> + +<p> + Substantive portions of this document are based upon previous work by + Henry Spencer. + +</p> +<p> + Thanks to Tero Kivinen, Sandy Harris, Wes Hardarker, Robert Moskowitz, + Jakob Schlyter, Bill Sommerfeld, John Gilmore and John Denker for their + comments and constructive criticism. + +</p> +<p> + Sandra Hoffman and Bill Dickie did the detailed proof reading and editing. + +</p> +<a name="rfc.references1"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<h3>Normative references</h3> +<table width="99%" border="0"> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="OEspec">[1]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:hugh@mimosa.com">Redelmeier, D.</a> and <a href="mailto:henry@spsystems.net">H. Spencer</a>, "Opportunistic Encryption", paper http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-1.91/doc/opportunism.spec, May 2001.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC0791">[2]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text">Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Information Processing Techniques Office and University of Southern California (USC)/Information Sciences Institute, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc791.txt">Internet Protocol</a>", STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC1009">[3]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:">Braden, R.</a> and <a href="mailto:">J. Postel</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1009.txt">Requirements for Internet gateways</a>", RFC 1009, June 1987.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC1984">[4]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text">IAB, IESG, <a href="mailto:brian@dxcoms.cern.ch">Carpenter, B.</a> and <a href="mailto:fred@cisco.com">F. Baker</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1984.txt">IAB and IESG Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet</a>", RFC 1984, August 1996.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2119">[5]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:-">Bradner, S.</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119.txt">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</a>", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2367">[6]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:danmcd@eng.sun.com">McDonald, D.</a>, <a href="mailto:cmetz@inner.net">Metz, C.</a> and <a href="mailto:phan@itd.nrl.navy.mil">B. Phan</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2367.txt">PF_KEY Key Management API, Version 2</a>", RFC 2367, July 1998.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2401">[7]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:kent@bbn.com">Kent, S.</a> and <a href="mailto:rja@corp.home.net">R. Atkinson</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2401.txt">Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol</a>", RFC 2401, November 1998.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2407">[8]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:ddp@network-alchemy.com">Piper, D.</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2407.txt">The Internet IP Security Domain of Interpretation for ISAKMP</a>", RFC 2407, November 1998.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2408">[9]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:wdm@tycho.ncsc.mil">Maughan, D.</a>, <a href="mailto:mss@tycho.ncsc.mil">Schneider, M.</a> and <a href="er@raba.com">M. Schertler</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2408.txt">Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP)</a>", RFC 2408, November 1998.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2409">[10]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:dharkins@cisco.com">Harkins, D.</a> and <a href="mailto:carrel@ipsec.org">D. Carrel</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2409.txt">The Internet Key Exchange (IKE)</a>", RFC 2409, November 1998.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC3526">[11]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:kivinen@ssh.fi">Kivinen, T.</a> and <a href="mailto:mrskojo@cc.helsinki.fi">M. Kojo</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3526.txt">More MODP Diffie-Hellman groups for IKE</a>", RFC 3526, March 2003.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC1034">[12]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text">Mockapetris, P., "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1034.txt">Domain names - concepts and facilities</a>", STD 13, RFC 1034, November 1987.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC1035">[13]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:">Mockapetris, P.</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1035.txt">Domain names - implementation and specification</a>", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2671">[14]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:vixie@isc.org">Vixie, P.</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2671.txt">Extension Mechanisms for DNS (EDNS0)</a>", RFC 2671, August 1999.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC1464">[15]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:rosenbaum@lkg.dec.com">Rosenbaum, R.</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1464.txt">Using the Domain Name System To Store Arbitrary String Attributes</a>", RFC 1464, May 1993.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2535">[16]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:dee3@us.ibm.com">Eastlake, D.</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2535.txt">Domain Name System Security Extensions</a>", RFC 2535, March 1999.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC3110">[17]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text">Eastlake, D., "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3110.txt">RSA/SHA-1 SIGs and RSA KEYs in the Domain Name System (DNS)</a>", RFC 3110, May 2001.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2538">[18]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:dee3@us.ibm.com">Eastlake, D.</a> and <a href="mailto:ogud@tislabs.com">O. Gudmundsson</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2538.txt">Storing Certificates in the Domain Name System (DNS)</a>", RFC 2538, March 1999.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2748">[19]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:David.Durham@intel.com">Durham, D.</a>, <a href="mailto:jboyle@Level3.net">Boyle, J.</a>, <a href="mailto:ronc@cisco.com">Cohen, R.</a>, <a href="mailto:herzog@iphighway.com">Herzog, S.</a>, <a href="mailto:rajan@research.att.com">Rajan, R.</a> and <a href="mailto:asastry@cisco.com">A. Sastry</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2748.txt">The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol</a>", RFC 2748, January 2000.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text" valign="top"><b><a name="RFC2663">[20]</a></b></td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:srisuresh@lucent.com">Srisuresh, P.</a> and <a href="mailto:holdrege@lucent.com">M. Holdrege</a>, "<a href="ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2663.txt">IP Network Address Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations</a>", RFC 2663, August 1999.</td></tr> +</table> + +<a name="rfc.authors"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<h3>Authors' Addresses</h3> +<table width="99%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">Michael C. Richardson</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">Sandelman Software Works</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">470 Dawson Avenue</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">Ottawa, ON K1Z 5V7</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">CA</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author" align="right">EMail: </td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca">mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca</a></td></tr> +<tr><td class="author" align="right">URI: </td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/">http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/</a></td></tr> +<tr cellpadding="3"><td> </td><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">D. Hugh Redelmeier</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">Mimosa</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">Toronto, ON</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author-text"> </td> +<td class="author-text">CA</td></tr> +<tr><td class="author" align="right">EMail: </td> +<td class="author-text"><a href="mailto:hugh@mimosa.com">hugh@mimosa.com</a></td></tr> +</table> +<a name="rfc.copyright"><br><hr size="1" shade="0"></a> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="2" width="30" height="15" align="right"><tr><td bgcolor="#990000" align="center" width="30" height="15"><a href="#toc" CLASS="link2"><font face="monaco, MS Sans Serif" color="#ffffff" size="1"><b> TOC </b></font></a><br></td></tr></table> +<h3>Full Copyright Statement</h3> +<p class='copyright'> +Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.</p> +<p class='copyright'> +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.</p> +<p class='copyright'> +The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be +revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.</p> +<p class='copyright'> +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 +HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF +MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.</p> +<h3>Acknowledgement</h3> +<p class='copyright'> +Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the +Internet Society.</p> +</font></body></html> |