Network Working Group J. Pezeshki
Internet-Draft E. Ertekin
Expires: February 16, 2009 R. Jasani
C. Christou
Booz Allen Hamilton
August 15, 2008
IKEv2 Extensions to Support Robust Header Compression over IPsec
(RoHCoIPsec)
draft-ietf-rohc-ikev2-extensions-hcoipsec-06
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 16, 2009.
Abstract
In order to integrate RoHC with IPsec [ROHCOIPSEC], a mechanism is
needed to negotiate RoHC configuration parameters between end-points.
Internet Key Exchange (IKE) is a mechanism which can be leveraged to
handle these negotiations. This document specifies extensions to
IKEv2 [IKEV2] that will allow RoHC and its associated configuration
parameters to be negotiated for IPsec security associations (SAs).
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. RoHC Channel Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Negotiation of RoHC Channel Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 9
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
1. Introduction
Increased packet header overhead due to IPsec [IPSEC] can result in
the inefficient utilization of bandwidth. Coupling RoHC [ROHC] with
IPsec offers an efficient way to transfer protected IP traffic.
The operation of RoHCoIPsec [ROHCOIPSEC] requires configuration
parameters to be negotiated between the compressor and decompressor.
Current specifications for hop-by-hop RoHC negotiate these parameters
through a link-layer protocol such as Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP)
(i.e. RoHC over PPP [ROHCPPP]). Since key exchange protocols (e.g.
IKEv2) can be used to negotiate parameters between IPsec peers, this
document defines extensions to IKEv2 to negotiate RoHC parameters for
RoHCoIPsec.
2. RoHC Channel Negotiation
The initialization of a RoHC session requires the negotiation of a
set of configuration parameters (e.g. MAX_CID, etc.). The following
subsections define extensions to IKEv2 which enables an initiator to
propose a set of RoHC parameters; the responder selects the
appropriate parameters from this list, and responds with the accepted
parameters for the RoHC channel.
2.1. Negotiation of RoHC Channel Parameters
RoHC configuration parameters will be negotiated at either the
establishment or rekeying of a Child SA. Specifically, a new Notify
payload is used during the IKE_AUTH and CREATE_CHILD_SA exchanges to
negotiate these parameters.
The Notify payload sent by the initiator contains the configuration
parameters for the RoHC implementation. Upon receipt of the
initiator's request, the responder will either ignore the payload (if
it doesn't support RoHC or the proposed parameters) or respond with a
Notify payload that contains the accepted RoHC channel parameters.
The accepted parameters are an intersection between the parameters
proposed by the initiator and the parameters supported by the
responder (e.g. if the initiator proposes a MAX_CID value of 15, but
the responder only supports a MAX_CID value of 13, the responder will
respond with a value of 13, which is supported by both parties).
Note that only one Notify payload is used to convey RoHC parameters
per exchange. If multiple Notify payloads relaying RoHC parameters
are received by the responder, all but the first such Notify payload
must be dropped. If the initiator does not receive a Notify Payload
with the responder's accepted RoHC channel parameters, RoHC must not
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
be enabled on the Child SA.
A new Notify Message Type value, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED, will be
added to indicate that the Notify payload is conveying RoHC channel
parameters. Additionally, several fields of the Notify payload (as
defined in [IKEV2]) are set as follows:
Critical (1 bit)
This value is set to zero to indicate that the recipient must skip
this payload if it does not understand the payload type code in
the Next Payload field of the previous payload.
RESERVED (7 bits)
Must be sent as zero, and must be ignored on receipt.
Protocol ID (1 octet)
If the RoHC parameters are set at SA creation, this field must be
set to zero. If this notification concerns an existing SA, this
value may be set to (2) AH [AH], or (3) ESP [ESP].
SPI Size (1 octet)
This value must be set to zero, since no SPI is applicable (RoHC
parameters are set at SA creation, thus the SPI has not been
defined).
Notify Message Type (2 octets)
This field must be set to ROHC_SUPPORTED.
RoHC configuration parameters will be communicated via a new Notify
message type, denoted ROHC_SUPPORTED. The RoHC configuration
parameters will be listed within the Notification Data field of the
Notify payload in the following format (default values for the
configuration parameters are consistent with [ROHCPPP]):
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! MAX_CID ! MRRU !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! MAX_HEADER ! PROFILE LENGTH !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ PROFILES... ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
! !
~ INTEGRITY ALGORITHMS... ~
! !
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1. Notification Data field for the ROHC_SUPPORTED Notify
message type.
MAX_CID (2 octets)
The MAX_CID field indicates the maximum value of a context
identifier. This value must be at least 0 and at most 16383 (The
value 0 implies having one context).
Suggested value: 15
Note: The value of LARGE_CIDS will be implicitly determined by
this value (i.e. if MAX_CID is <= 15, LARGE_CIDS will be assumed
to be 0).
MRRU (2 octets)
The MRRU field indicates the maximum reconstructed reception unit
(see [ROHC], section 5.1.1).
Suggested value: 0
The MRRU value is used in conjunction with the segmentation
protocol defined in RoHC. Since RoHC is implemented over an IPsec
SA, RoHC segmentation is not possible. Therefore, the MRRU value
must be set to zero, indicating that no segment headers are
allowed on the channel.
MAX_HEADER (2 octets)
The largest header size in octets that may be compressed.
Suggested value: 168 octets
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
Note: The MAX_HEADER parameter is not used for all RoHC profiles.
If none of the RoHC profiles require this field, this value is
ignored.
PROFILE LENGTH (2 octets)
The total number of profiles contained within the PROFILES field
(note that each RoHC profile is 2-octets in length).
PROFILES
The set of profiles to be enabled for the RoHC process. Profiles
are further detailed in [ROHC]. In addition, several common
profiles are defined in [ROHCPROF]. These 16-bit profile
identifiers are to be sent in network byte order.
INTEGRITY ALGORITHMS
The set of Integrity Algorithms that may be use to ensure the
integrity of the decompressed packets (i.e. ensure that the packet
headers are properly decompressed). Each Integrity Algorithm is
represented by a 2-octet value that corresponds to the value
listed in [IKEV2-PARA] "For Transform Type 3 (Integrity
Algorithm)" section.
It is noted that:
1. The length of this field is inferred from the Notify Payload's
"Payload Length" field ([IKEV2], Section 3.10).
2. The key for this Integrity Algorithm is computed using the
same method as is used to compute IPsec's Integrity Algorithm
key ([IKEV2], Section 2.17).
When a pair of SAs are created (one in each direction), the RoHC
channel parameter FEEDBACK_FOR is set implicitly to the other SA of
the pair (i.e. the SA pointing in the reverse direction).
3. Security Considerations
The RoHC parameters negotiated via IKEv2 do not add any new
vulnerabilities beyond those associated with the normal operation of
IKEv2.
4. IANA Considerations
This document defines a new Notify Message (Status Type). Therefore,
IANA is requested to allocate one value from the IKEv2 Notify Message
registry to indicate ROHC_SUPPORTED. Note that, since this Notify
Message is a Status Type, values ranging from 0 to 16383 must not be
allocated for ROHC_SUPPORTED.
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
5. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Sean O'Keeffe, Mr. James Kohler,
and Ms. Linda Noone of the Department of Defense, as well as Mr. Rich
Espy of OPnet for their contributions and support in the development
of this document. The authors would also like to thank Mr. Tero
Kivinen for providing his technical expertise for this document. In
addition, the authors would like to thank the following for their
numerous reviews and comments to this document:
o Dr. Stephen Kent
o Dr. Carsten Bormann
o Mr. Lars-Erik Jonnson
o Mr. Pasi Eronen
o Dr. Joseph Touch
Finally, the authors would also like to thank Mr. Tom Conkle, Ms.
Michele Casey, and Mr. Etzel Brower.
6. Normative References
[ROHC] Bormann, C., Burmeister, C., Degermark, M., Fukushima, H.,
Hannu, H., Jonsson, L., Hakenberg, R., Koren, T., Le, K.,
Liu, Z., Martensson, A., Miyazaki, A., Svanbro, K.,
Wiebke, T., Yoshimura, T., and H. Zheng, "RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and four profiles: RTP, UDP,
ESP, and uncompressed", RFC 3095, July 2001.
[IPSEC] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the
Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, December 2005.
[ROHCOIPSEC]
Ertekin, E., Christou, C., and R. Jasani, "Integration of
Robust Header Compression over IPsec Security
Associations", work in progress , June 2006.
[IKEV2] Kaufman, C., "Internet Key Exchange (IKEv2) Protocol",
RFC 4306, December 2005.
[ROHCPPP] Bormann, C., "Robust Header Compression (ROHC) over PPP",
RFC 3241, April 2002.
[AH] Kent, S., "IP Authentication Header", RFC 4302,
December 2005.
[ESP] Kent, S., "IP Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP)",
RFC 4303, December 2005.
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
[ROHCPROF]
Pelletier, G. and K. Sandlund, "RObust Header Compression
Version 2 (RoHCv2): Profiles for RTP, UDP, IP, ESP and UDP
Lite", www.iana.org/assignments/ROHC-pro-ids , May 2007.
[IKEV2-PARA]
IANA, "IKEv2 Parameters,
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters",
January 2008.
Authors' Addresses
Jonah Pezeshki
Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: pezeshki_jonah@bah.com
Emre Ertekin
Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: ertekin_emre@bah.com
Rohan Jasani
Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: jasani_rohan@bah.com
Chris Christou
Booz Allen Hamilton
13200 Woodland Park Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171
US
Email: christou_chris@bah.com
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft IKEv2 Extensions to Support RoHCoIPsec August 2008
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Pezeshki, et al. Expires February 16, 2009 [Page 9]
