[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03

Network Working Group                                          L. Yong
Internet-Draft                                               Huawei USA
Intended status: Standard Track                              T. Herbert
                                                               Facebook


Expires: November 2015                                   May 20, 2015


           Generic UDP Encapsulation (GUE) for Secure Transport
                    draft-hy-gue-4-secure-transport-02

Abstract

   This document specifies the ability of Generic UDP Encapsulation
   (GUE) [GUE] to provide secure transport over IP networks and the
   Internet, including GUE header integrity protection and origin
   authentication and GUE payload encryption. These are optional
   features of GUE.

Status of This Document

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 20, 2015.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
   respect to this document.  Code Components extracted from this



Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

   document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
   Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
   warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents


   1. Introduction...................................................3
   2. Terminology....................................................3
      2.1. Requirements Language.....................................3
   3. GUE Security...................................................3
   4. GUE Payload Encryption.........................................5
   5. Encapsulation/Decapsulation Operations.........................7
   6. Considerations of Using Other Security Tunnel Mechanisms.......8
   7. Security Considerations........................................9
      7.1. GUE Security Field Usage..................................9
         7.1.1. Cookies..............................................9
         7.1.2. Secure hash..........................................9
   8. IANA Considerations...........................................10
   9. References....................................................10
      9.1. Normative References.....................................10
      9.2. Informative References...................................11
   10. Authors' Addresses...........................................11

























Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015


1. Introduction

   Generic UDP Encapsulation [GUE] is the protocol that specifies
   tunneling a network protocol over an IP network or Internet and a
   UDP tunnel. The tunneled network protocol is encapsulated in GUE
   header [GUE] at a tunnel encapsulator, transported as a regular IP
   packet, and decapsulated at the tunnel decapsulator.

   This draft specifies the security capabilities for GUE. One security
   capability is to provide origin authentication and integrity
   protection of the GUE header at tunnel end points to guarantee
   isolation between tunnels and mitigate Denial of Service attacks.
   Another capability is payload encryption that prevents the payload
   from eavesdropping, tampering, or message forgery. These security
   capabilities are specified as optional features of GUE.

   In theory, uses of GUE could leverage other existing tunnel
   mechanisms that provides secure transport over Internet such as DTLS
   [RFC6347] and IPsec[RFC4301]. Section 6 discusses the weakness to
   rely on another tunnel mechanism for GUE secure transport.


2. Terminology

   The terms defined in GUE [GUE] are used in this document.


  2.1. Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].


3. GUE Security

   This document proposes to allocate two flag bits from GUE optional
   flag field as the Security flag for GUE integrity protection and
   authentication validation. GUE header format with Security Flag is
   shown in Figure 1. The second and third bits in GUE optional flag
   field are allocated for Security mechanism.







Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Source port            |      Destination port         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Length              |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Ver|C|  Hlen   |  Proto/Ctype  |V|SEC|  Undefined Flags      |E|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                Virtual Network ID (Optional)                  |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      ~                   Security Field                              ~
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

              Figure 1 GUE Header Format with Security Flag

   o  'V' Virtualization flag: This flag is designated for network
      virtualization overlay (NVO)[GUE4NVO].

   o  'SEC' Security flags: Indicates presence of security field. To
      provide security capability, the flags MUST be set. Different
      sizes are allowed to allow different methods and extensibility.
      The use of the security field is expected to be negotiated out of
      band between two tunnel end points. Potential uses of the
      security field are discussed in Section of Security
      Considerations.

           o 00 - No security field

           o 01 - 64 bit security field

           o 10 - 128 bit security field

           o 11 - 256 bit security field

   The usage of the key fields in the GUE header [GUE] for the security
   mechanism is described as below:

   o  Ver: Set to 0x0. Security option is designed for GUE version 0.

   o  'C' Control flag: When it set, control message presents and
      control processing MUST occur after security validation.

   o  Hlen: length of optional fields (byte)/4. Note that Payload
      Transform function does not require a private field.



Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

   o  Proto/ctype: Contain the protocol of the encapsulated payload
      packet, i.e. next header when the C bit is not set. Contains a
      control message type when the C bit is set. The next header
      begins at the offset provided by Hlen.

   'E' Extension flag. It is the last bit in the GUE header. For usage
   of Extension field see [GUE]. The security transport does not
   require use of any extension field.

   UDP header field must be set per [GUE]. The checksum and length
   implementation MUST be compliant with GUE implementation [GUE].


4. GUE Payload Encryption

   The payload of a GUE packet can be secured using Datagram Transport
   Layer Security [RFC6347]. An encapsulator would apply DTLS to the
   GUE payload so that the payload packets are encrypted and the GUE
   header remains in plaintext.

   To differ encrypted payload from plaintext payload, the document
   proposes allocating one flag from GUE optional flag field for
   payload transformation indication and adding a 32 bit field when
   Payload Transform flag is set. Following format shows GUE header
   with Payload Transform flag, i.e. 'T' is set.

       0                   1                   2                   3
       0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |        Source port            |      Destination port         |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |           Length              |          Checksum             |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |Ver|C|  Hlen   |  Proto/Ctype  |V|SEC|K|F|S|T|     Flags     |E|
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                                                               |
      |     VNID, security, GUE checksum, fragmentation,              ~
      ~                Session (optional)                             |
      |                                                               |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |                     Payload Transform Field                   |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             Figure 2 GUE Header with Payload Transform Flag

   A 32 bits field in GUE header is for the payload transform function
   and MUST be presented when Payload Transform flag T is set and MUST




Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

   NOT be presented when clear. The format of Payload Transform Field
   is in Figure 3.

      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
      |    Type       | Payload Type  |            Reserved           |
      +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                 Figure 3 Payload Encryption Field Format

   Type: Payload Transform Type or Code point. Each payload transform
   mechanism must have one code point registered in IANA.  This
   document specifies:

      0x01: for DTLS [RFC6347]

      0x80~0xFF: for private payload transform types

   A private payload transform type can be used for experimental
   purpose or vendor proprietary mechanism.

   Payload Type: used to indicate the encrypted payload type. When
   encryption flag is set, next protocol in the base header should set
   to 59 ("No next header") for a data message and zero for a control
   message. The payload type (IP protocol or control message type) of
   the unencrypted paytload must be encoded in this field.

   The benefit of this rule is to prevent a middle box from inspecting
   the encrypted payload according to GUE next protocol. Assumption
   here is that a middle box may understand GUE base header but does
   not understand GUE option flag definitions.

   Reserved field for DTLS type MUST set to Zero. For other
   transformation type, the reserved field may be specified for a
   purpose.

   The usage of the key fields in the GUE header [GUE] for the payload
   encryption mechanism is described as below:

   o  Ver: Set to 0x0. Payload transform option applies to version 0x0.

   o  Control flag: When it set, control message presents SHOULD be
      encrypted except GUE base header.

   o  Hlen: length of optional fields (byte)/4

   o  Proto/CType: Set to 59. The payload type is encoded in the
      payload encryption option field.




Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

   o  'E' Extension flag. It is the last bit in the GUE header. For
      usage of Extension field see [GUE]. The payload encryption does
      not require use of any extension field.

   UDP header usage for payload encryption mechanism: UDP dst port
   SHOULD be filled with GUE port [GUE]; UDP src port MAY be filled
   with entropy or a random value. The checksum and length
   implementation MUST be compliant with GUE implementation [GUE].

5. Encapsulation/Decapsulation Operations

   GUE secure transport mechanism applies to both IPv4 and IPv6
   underlay networks. The outer IP address MUST be tunnel egress IP
   address (dst) and tunnel ingress IP address (src). GUE security
   option provides origin authentication and integrity to GUE based
   tunnel; GUE payload encryption provides payload privacy over an IP
   delivery network or Internet. Two functions are processed separately
   at tunnel end points. A GUE tunnel can use both functions or use one
   of them.

   When both encryption and security are required, an encapsulator must
   perform payload encryption first and then encapsulate the encrypted
   packet with security flag and encryption flag set in GUE header; the
   security field must be filled according Section 3 above; the
   encryption field must be filled according to Section 4 above; the
   decapsulator must decapsulate the packet first, then perform the
   authentication validation; if the validation is successful, it
   performs the payload decryption according the encryption information
   in the payload encryption field in the header; if the validation
   fails, the decapsulator must discard the packet and may generate an
   alert to the management system. These processing rules also apply
   when only one function, either encryption or security, is enabled,
   except another function is not performed as stated above.

   If GUE fragmentation is used in concert with the GUE security option
   and/or payload transform option, the security and playload
   transformation are performed after fragmentation at the encapsulator
   and before reassembly at the decapsulator.

   In order to get flow entropy from the payload, the encapsulator
   needs to get the flow entropy first before performing the payload
   encryption; then the flow entropy is inserted into UDP src port in
   the GUE header.

   DTLS [RFC6347] provides packet fragmentation capability. To avoid
   packet fragmentation performed multiple times at GUE encapsulator,
   GUE encapsulator SHOULD only perform the packet fragmentation at



Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

   packet encapsulation process, i.e., not in payload encryption
   process. The encryption process should apply to GUE control packets.

   DTLS usage [RFC6347] is limited to a single DTLS session for any
   specific tunnel encapsulator/decapsulator pair (identified by source
   and destination IP addresses). Both IP addresses MUST be unicast
   addresses - multicast traffic is not supported when DTLS is used. A
   GUE tunnel decapsulator implementation that supports DTLS can
   establish DTLS session(s) with one or multiple tunnel encapsulators,
   and likewise a GUE tunnel encapsulator implementation can establish
   DTLS session(s) with one or multiple decapsulators.

6. Considerations of Using Other Security Tunnel Mechanisms

   GUE may rely on other secure tunnel mechanisms such as DTLS [RFC6347]
   for securing the whole GUE packet or IPsec [RFC4301] to achieve the
   secure transport over an IP network or Internet.

   IPsec [RFC4301] was designed as a network security mechanism, and
   therefore it resides at the network layer.  As such, if the tunnel
   is secured with IPsec, the UDP header would not be visible to
   intermediate routers anymore in either IPsec tunnel or transport
   mode. The big drawback here prohibits intermediate routers to
   perform load balance based on the flow entropy in UDP header. In
   addition, this method prohibits any middle box function on the path.

   By comparison, DTLS [RFC6347] was designed with application security
   and can better preserve network and transport layer protocol
   information than IPsec [RFC4301]. Using DTLS to secure the GUE
   tunnel, both GUE header and payload will be encrypted. In order to
   differentiate plaintext GUE header from encrypted GUE header, the
   destination port of the UDP header between two must be different,
   which essentially requires another standard UDP port for GUE with
   DTLS. The drawback on this method is to prevent a middle box
   operation to GUE tunnel on the path.

   Use of two independent tunnel mechanisms such as GUE and DTLS to
   carry a network protocol over an IP network adds some overlap and
   process complex. For example, fragmentation will be done twice.

   As the result, a GUE tunnel SHOULD use the security mechanisms
   specified in this document to provide secure transport over an IP
   network or Internet when it is needed. GUE tunnel can be used as
   secure transport mechanism over an IP network and Internet.






Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

7. Security Considerations

   Encapsulation of network protocol in GUE should not increase
   security risk, nor provide additional security in itself. GUE
   requires that the source port for UDP packets should be randomly
   seeded to mitigate some possible denial service attacks.

   If the integrity and privacy of data packets being transported
   through GUE is a concern, GUE security and payload encryption SHOULD
   be used to remove the concern. If the integrity is the only concern,
   the tunnel may consider use of GUE security only for optimization.
   Likewise, if the privacy is the only concern, the tunnel may use GUE
   encryption function only.

   If GUE payload already provides secure mechanism, e.g., the payload
   is IPsec packets, it is still valuable to consider use of GUE secure
   mechanisms for the payload header privacy and the tunnel integrity.

  7.1. GUE Security Field Usage

   The GUE security field should be used to provide integrity and
   authentication of the GUE header. Security negotiation
   (interpretation of security field, key management, etc.) is expected
   to be negotiated out of band between two communicating hosts. Two
   possible uses for this field are outlined below, a more precise
   specification is deferred to other documents.

   7.1.1. Cookies

   The security field may be used as a cookie. This would be similar to
   cookie mechanism described in L2TP [RFC3931], and the general
   properties should be the same. The cookie may be used to validate
   the encapsulation. The cookie is a shared value between an
   encapsulator and decapsulator which should be chosen randomly and
   may be changed periodically. Different cookies may used for logical
   flows between the encapsulator and decapsulator, for instance
   packets sent with different VNIs in network virtualization [GUE4NVO]
   might have different cookies.

   7.1.2. Secure hash

   Strong authentication of the GUE header can be provided using a
   secure hash. This may follow the model of the TCP authentication
   option [RFC5925]. In this case the security field holds a message
   digest for the GUE header (e.g. 16 bytes from MD5). The digest might
   be done over static fields in IP and UDP headers per negotiation
   (addresses, ports, and protocols). In order to provide enough



Yong & Herbert                                                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

   entropy, a random salt value in each packet might be added, for
   instance the security field could be a 256 bit value which contains
   128 bits of salt value, and a 128 bit digest value. The use of
   secure hashes requires shared keys which are presumably negotiated
   and rotated as needed out of band.

8. IANA Considerations

   This document requires IANA to allocate:

      Two bits in GUE option flag field for GUE Security.
      One bit in GUE option flag field for GUE Payload Transform.

   This document requires IANA to have a new registry for Encryption
   Type and require two code points for:

      0x01: for DTLS [RFC6347]

      0x80~0xFF: for private payload transform


9. References

  9.1. Normative References

   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3931] Lau, J., Townsley, W., et al, "Layer Tow Tunneling
             Protocol - Version 3 (L2TPv3)", RFC3931, 1999

   [RFC4301] Kent, S., Seo, K., "Security Architecture for the Internet
             Protocol", RFC4301, December 2005

   [RFC5925] Touch, J., et al, "The TCP Authentication Option", RFC5925,
             June 2010

   [RFC6347] Rescoria, E., Modadugu, N., "Datagram Transport Layer
             Security Version 1.2", RFC6347, 2012.

   [GUE] Herbert, T., Yong, L., et al "Generic UNP Encapsulation",
             draft-ietf-nvo3-gue-00, work in progress.






Yong & Herbert                                                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        GUE for Secure Transport                 May 2015

  9.2.  Informative References

   [GUE4NVO] Yong, L., and Herbert T., "Generic UNP Encapsulation for
             NVO", draft-hy-nvo3-gue-4-nvo, work in progress.


10. Authors' Addresses

   Lucy Yong
   Huawei USA

   Email: lucy.yong@huawei.com


   Tom Herbert
   Facebook
   1 Hacker Way
   Menlo Park, CA 94052
   US

   Email: tom@herbertland.com





























Yong & Herbert                                                [Page 11]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129c, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/